No Modding Tools, Please!

[TC01]

No, these aren't modding. These are a very few things, and I don't suppose this is modding Civ4.

No, it is modding. Modding by definition is adding new content to something. A scenario is new content. Maybe it's not a new civ, new unit, or new graphic, but it is new content.

That's like saying NifSkope and Paint.NET aren't modding tools because they can only make new graphics, not new units or civilizations. Or Notepad++ isn't a modding tool because it can't make new graphics or compile new DLLs.

 

[phungus420]

By that rationale just basic, every day save games are modding tools, as they allow you to upload new content for the game. And that's just preposterous.

WB is more of a pseudo modding tool, especially with how horribly it is implemented, it's about next to useless.

 

[Afforess]

I find it particularly funny how everyone a few hours ago was dumping on the WorldBuilder as the worst tool imaginable, is now raising it on a pedestal as a great tool that can add new content to the game.

You may now commence backpedaling.

 

[TC01]

I find it particularly funny how everyone a few hours ago was dumping on the WorldBuilder as the worst tool imaginable, is now raising it on a pedestal as a great tool that can add new content to the game.

You may now commence backpedaling.

It is a terrible tool. However, it is still a modding tool.

I'm not arguing over how bad it is (it is pretty bad). No matter how bad it is it is still a modding tool released with the game by Firaxis.

 

[Dale]

I find it particularly funny how everyone a few hours ago was dumping on the WorldBuilder as the worst tool imaginable, is now raising it on a pedestal as a great tool that can add new content to the game.

You may now commence backpedaling.

Actually if you care to read what's been said, it's more like "it's a crap modding tool, but still a modding tool nonetheless". Regardless of the quality of WB as a modding tool, it's still a modding tool.

You could also point to the Maya and Max nif exporters for Civ4 that Firaxis kindly supplied. They're artist's modding tools. So there's three modding tools that I know of. Did you want to retract your statement from post #194 and show people how real back-peddling works?

 

[Afforess]

Actually if you care to read what's been said, it's more like "it's a crap modding tool, but still a modding tool nonetheless". Regardless of the quality of WB as a modding tool, it's still a modding tool.

Apparently, Phungus and Nitram don't exist in your world; but I do. I feel honored.

 

[Dale]

Apparently, Phungus and Nitram don't exist in your world; but I do. I feel honored.

Regardless of what is said by either, there is no denying the fact that WB is a modding tool. Unless they are saying that every map maker, scenario maker etc who only use WB to create their files, is not a modder. Phungus's claim that a save file is a mod is just crazy talk. A save file does not introduce anything new to the game. It's a snap of the state of a game in progress at a certain time. The only thing that could possibly come close is the WB-save of the map before the first turn is played.

I'm also surprised you are now trying to align with me, since in post #194 you claim Civ4 has no modding tools. Are you now retracting that claim since I am firmly in the camp that modding tools do exist for Civ4?

 

[Afforess]

Really, what we have here is a disagreement of definition. We disagree on what, fundamentally, modding is. In my opinion, using the world builder is not modding; if it IS modding, then settling a city is modding, because you just added new content.

 

[phungus420]

Regardless of WB's state as a modding tool, which is debatable, it doesn't help contradict Afforess's point that Civ4: Civ4 has a vibrant modding community and the game has a lack of easy to use modding tools. WB is a PoS, and can't even be used to create scenarios, and doesn't improve the modding potential of Civ4 one iota. None of the scenario makers even use it, they all use user made tools. So, sure you can be pedantic and make it look like you're refuting the point, when you aren't at all because you're sticking on the strict definition of None, but it in no way refutes the point Afforess was making.

 

[Dale]

Afforess's point was that Civ4 has no modding tools. That is the point which is being refuted. WB is in fact a modding tool. It IS possible to make a new scenario with the WB, something I have in fact done myself. The "mod" part comes in when you save out the WBS file to re-use. The WBS file is in fact a mod, so the WB has created a mod. Regardless of how crap the tool is, it is still a tool which can create a successful WBS file which can be used as a mod.

I do not see how settling a city in a game can be related to modding, it is not new content. What you've done is changed the state of a unit to convert it into a city using the existing game's rules. It is an action performed whilst playing the game. You must be confused.

 

[Afforess]

Afforess's point was that Civ4 has no modding tools.

No it wasn't; it was a piece of evidence for my point.

The point I was making, if you scroll back one page, was that modding tools have a negative correlation with the general quality of a mod for a game. In layman's terms, the more modding tools we are presented with, the worse quality mods we have.

If it makes you happy, I'll revise my statement from NO to extremely limited and generally useless. But the correlation still stands, and you have not refuted me in any way.

 

[NBAfan]

I honestly don't care if the WB is a modding tool or not.

I don't mod that much but I would have the SDK then an editer. Then you get to play the cool mods like Better AI, Rise and Fall, A New Dawn, FfH RevDCM ect.

 

[Dale]

No it wasn't; it was a piece of evidence for my point.

The point I was making, if you scroll back one page, was that modding tools have a negative correlation with the general quality of a mod for a game. In layman's terms, the more modding tools we are presented with, the worse quality mods we have.

You have no proof of this, and as yet have not presented proof of this claimed correlation. It is possible to have poor quality mods regardless of whether tools are available or not. It is also possible to have high quality mods regardless of whether tools are available or not as well. So there is no provable correlation between the presence of modding tools and poor quality mods.

There will be a lot more mods (or 'NOISE' as you called it many pages ago) and this is what a few people believe you are meaning. That with better user-friendly modding tools your mod will be lost in the 'NOISE' and you won't receive the player gratification that it appeared you wanted. Quite simply, if your mod is good it won't be lost in this 'NOISE'. I thought that was simple enough, but seems we're still going back and forth on this.

 

[Afforess]

You have no proof of this, and as yet have not presented proof of this claimed correlation.

I have, but you have rejected it. Since you have rejected my evidence of Spore and Civ3, the burden for proof is now on you.

 

[Dale]

I have, but you have rejected it. Since you have rejected my evidence of Spore and Civ3, the burden for proof is now on you.

You're kidding right?

Here's a small selection of Mods made from games with modding tools: http://store.steampowered.com/freestuff/mods/

Seems modding tools doesn't limit the ability to make good mods.

Oh look, there's even an entire website which highlights mods from games with modding tools. It only lists 6394 mods compared to your what........ 2? http://www.moddb.com/mods

 

[bjbrains]

You're kidding right?

Here's a small selection of Mods made from games with modding tools: http://store.steampowered.com/freestuff/mods/

Seems modding tools doesn't limit the ability to make good mods.

Oh look, there's even an entire website which highlights mods from games with modding tools. It only lists 6394 mods compared to your what........ 2? http://www.moddb.com/mods

Are you smoking something? Showing all the HL 1/2 mods and a mod database (which in no way implies "games with modding tools" FYI) isn't an argument.

 

[EdCase]

By that rationale just basic, every day save games are modding tools, as they allow you to upload new content for the game. And that's just preposterous.

WB is more of a pseudo modding tool, especially with how horribly it is implemented, it's about next to useless.

Umm, save games simply load a game state back into the engine. They in no way add to or modify the game.
Maps if altered (modified) or created from a blank canvas add something to the game that was not there before, a new map.
The argument for having no editors is becoming thinner all the time. The developers wasting their precious time point has been dismissed, the "crap" mods point was never valid to begin with. Which leaves us with :

"Oh no! I won't be revered if anyone can change variables/graphics/add a tech."

Because the truly innovative always have (and will again) find a way to achieve their ends. They tend not to worry about what others may do, but rather about what they will find a way to do.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I'd prefer having both: tools for the advanced modders, and tools for the layman.

My argument: Huge-scale mods like Fall From Heaven 2 and so many others have been brilliant. I would definitely want similar massive mods to play in Civ5. However, I also like to dabble in a bit of tinkering myself, but don't find enjoyment in having to learn programming languages to be able to do it.

Case in point: With Civ3 I used to make maps all the time, and enjoyed fiddling around with units/governments/etc in the limited but easy-to-use editor. With Civ4 I haven't done any of that because the WorldBuilder was too slow for making maps, and I never got comfortable with the 3rd party programs that tried to make it easier. And I could never get my head around editing units/civics/etc.

So from my perspective, a limited basic editor for the layman would certainly be appreciated.

 

[Dale]

Are you smoking something? Showing all the HL 1/2 mods and a mod database (which in no way implies "games with modding tools" FYI) isn't an argument.

You would pay to catch up to the discussion to understand what we're talking about and why a list of mods which Valve consider worthy to distribute via Steam (IE: HIGH QUALITY MODS) and a database of Mods whose purpose is to help users find high quality mods is pwnage on Afforess's argument. Of the high quality mods on those sites I can guarantee some of those games having modding tools. Which defeats the argument that there is a strong negative correlation on the ability to create high quality mods when modding tools are available.

Here's a good example of a high quality mod made for a game with modding tools: http://www.moddb.com/mods/third-age-total-war

 

[mamba]

Umm, save games simply load a game state back into the engine. They in no way add to or modify the game.
Maps if altered (modified) or created from a blank canvas add something to the game that was not there before, a new map.

A new map is not all that different from a new gamestate. I grant you that a savegame usually is a randomly generated map rather than one designed, but that is a relatively minor difference when it comes to modding.

The argument for having no editors is becoming thinner all the time. The developers wasting their precious time point has been dismissed, the "crap" mods point was never valid to begin with. Which leaves us with :

Actually they both are valid, I do not see where this is becoming thinner.