Mods in Cyberpunk 2077?

+

Yes or no to mod-support?


  • Total voters
    219
  • Poll closed .
It's not that important, actually.

1. CDPR games aren't heavily into modding. It's not a big feature.

2. Being friendly is more important than being accurate around here. Yep.

3. Arguing about Bethesda mod and legalities is very much not the topic. A post or two is of course topical, but let's not go a-wandering off into an area that actual lawyers can debate about, if they like.
1) Yet. If we're lucky, we could see that change with CP2077, hence this entire discussion.
2) I am being friendly.
3) I'm not trying to create a tangent - I actually loathe discussing the legalities of modding. I'm just correcting a particularly frustrating bit of misinformation about mods before it has a chance to continue to spread here. That's all. Hopefully that's been achieved and nothing more has to be said about it.
 
No reasonable person demands modding support, but I wonder how many people realize how much clean up modders do with AAA games these days. Look at the immediate response to the initial Dark Souls PC port, or TW2s and TW3 bug fixes and camera/UI/horse controls. These aren't encroachments on artistic vision; they're objective improvements. Given the recent response, my fears they will ban mods are unfounded, so good news there. I hope at least we get a compiler like TW3 has.

Also keep in mind: TW1 and TW2 had modkits released.
 
That's incorrect. Modding will work on any game with the proper tools, whether the tools come from the developer or open source.

Technically speaking, every game is designed for modding. Otherwise you wouldn't get DLCs through a small download. Because that is what DLC is, a mod to a game. If a dev couldn't mod the game, they'd have to recompile the entire game just to add an asset, like a weapon or a piece of armor, then you'd have to re-download the entire game.

Your argument is missing my entire point.

It's precisely developing those tools to ensure modding is "fast, easy, and fun" that will directly detract from the design focus of the game. This is simple cause and effect. If I am spending time, money, and talent developing modding tools, then I am not:

1.) Polishing and honing game mechanics. (I'm building modding tools.)
2.) Attempting to specialize my engine to do exactly what I want it to do for the game I'm building. (I'm ensuring it works with the modding tools.)
3.) Focusing and refining the pacing of the experience I'm building. (I'm working on the modding tools.)
4.) Ensuring that all audio files are compressed effectively for maximum performance. (I need to be sure they work with the modding tools.)
5.) Hard-coding various parts of my graphical system to create exactly the experience I'm going for. (I'm ensuring the various parts remain modular for the tools.)

I cannot be in two places at once. If I'm working on the tools...then I'm not working on the game itself.

-- UNLESS --

I'm specifically building a game that will be focused on modding and community inclusions. Because that's the game I want to build. That's my vision.

If that's not my vision, intentionally deflecting the focus simply to give a certain group what they want...is the equivalent of setting fire to my orchard because there's a market for charcoal, too.
 
Your argument is missing my entire point.

It's precisely developing those tools to ensure modding is "fast, easy, and fun" that will directly detract from the design focus of the game. This is simple cause and effect. If I am spending time, money, and talent developing modding tools, then I am not:
I am not missing your point. You are simply incorrect. Modding tools are not some special tools the devs have to create from the ground up separate from the game.
 
I am not missing your point. You are simply incorrect. Modding tools are not some special tools the devs have to create from the ground up separate from the game.

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you suggesting that modding tools spring out of thin air? Or are carried to various modders by African swallows?

No... "modding kits" (even robust and powerful ones like Bethesda's CK) are not the same tools that are actually used by teams of professionals to create a game. They're invariably stripped down (a lot) to protect the source code.

Modding tools are specifically created by professionals to streamline processes that the original developers wrote by hand. If you're not going to write in code from scratch, using a programming language, then you're going to spend thousands of man-hours building what is (essentially) a front-end GUI to create a tool that people without a professional degree and training in programming will be able to understand.

Also, don't underestimate the amateurs that have helped by building their own, community-made modding tools (like many of those that were made for Minecraft, ArmA, Gary's Mod, etc...) Very often, the only difference between "professional" and "amateur" is that one person receives a pay check and the other one doesn't. These "free, community tools" are often far more involved and developed than the officially released kits. That's the point. Community venture. Hundreds of minds with no limitations on a labor of love. That will always accomplish far more in the end than a small army of professionals with limited resources on a deadline.

But, regardless, any mod kit you've ever used is the equivalent of an advanced paint-by-numbers book. If you want to experience what professional development is like, you need to start here:

 
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you suggesting that modding tools spring out of thin air? Or are carried to various modders by African swallows?

No... "modding kits" (even robust and powerful ones like Bethesda's CK) are not the same tools that are actually used by teams of professionals to create a game. They're invariably stripped down (a lot) to protect the source code.

Modding tools are specifically created by professionals to streamline processes that the original developers wrote by hand. If you're not going to write in code from scratch, using a programming language, then you're going to spend thousands of man-hours building what is (essentially) a front-end GUI to create a tool that people without a professional degree and training in programming will be able to understand.

Also, don't underestimate the amateurs that have helped by building their own, community-made modding tools (like many of those that were made for Minecraft, ArmA, Gary's Mod, etc...) Very often, the only difference between "professional" and "amateur" is that one person receives a pay check and the other one doesn't. These "free, community tools" are often far more involved and developed than the officially released kits. That's the point. Community venture. Hundreds of minds with no limitations on a labor of love. That will always accomplish far more in the end than a small army of professionals with limited resources on a deadline.

But, regardless, any mod kit you've ever used is the equivalent of an advanced paint-by-numbers book. If you want to experience what professional development is like, you need to start here:

Actually, dev kits like the construction kit or Redkit are indeed front end GUIs for a game's engine, and for devs to create a game. And I use "devs" here just in the general sense. The people who put the worlds together are not programmers. The people who create the textures are not programmers. The people who create the meshes are not programmers. No one sits in front of their computer and drops and NPC on a particular location and gives them audio/scripted dialogue, or creates a mountain on the command line. It would take AGES to snap pieces of buildings, or pipes, or caves, on the command line. Dev or modder, you need a visual element to snap those pieces together in any sort of effective fashion. You did know those come in pieces, right?

And these dev kits are not exactly easy to use. Some are rather complicated, like the one for DA:O which I personally found more complicated than Construction Kit, GECK, or REDEngine. But they are HARDLY paint by the numbers. And even with those kits, you still may need other tools, like file compressors, 3D renderers, image manipulators, various plug ins for said 3D renderers and image manipulators, etc. which normally are not provided by the game dev (although I remember CDPR offering compression tools for TW2).

You can make entire new games with these kits too. Look at Nehrim or Enderal. I don't know if you ever saw the creations of the people who participated in TW3's beta (which I was supposed to participate in, got invite, but life got in the way) and I'd have to look it up, perhaps I am confusing it with Oblivion, but even someone who participated in that beta was hired by CDPR.

Here is a video of Massive devs working on The Division 2. Notice their monitors. None of them are using command line. There is even a few comments made by one of the people who program the Snow Drop engine's GUI, which BTW it is insane how advanced that engine is.

 
Last edited:
Bethesda has a reputation for releasing buggy games. Some of the bugs can be corrected via mods, but many can't. Skyrim on consoles may have a metacritic score of whatever, but Skyrim on consoles also came with bugs and (IMO) a lame story. You are trying to make a correlation that isn't there.

The question is, why are they singled out so much for making buggy games then? It is not like there are not plenty of buggy games by other developers, and I can confirm that vanilla TES and Fallout are very much playable, having spent hundreds of hours on them. Not to mention the common accusation that the company deliberately releases buggy games, anticipating that the community will fix them - to appreciate how little sense that alleged business strategy makes, consider that Skyrim was said to be played with mods by only 7-8% of the players. Edit: another thing to consider is that people who use a large number of mods may encounter bugs related to those mods without knowing, and then blame the original game for the issues.

As for metacritic itself, I don't put too much stock on what is says. Although, if we are going to use metacritic as any sort of measuring stick (which we shouldn't), the 96 score is from 89 "critics"; the user score is 8.5. The PC version is 94/8.2.

User scores are often subject to review bombing for reasons not related to the actual game content, so I am not sure why they should be considered more representative than those written by professional critics. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the PC version has a lower score, I wonder why it is that console users are on average more satisfied with the game, having no mod support at all? It is almost as if just enjoying the vanilla content for what it is can be a better experience than when excessive focus on modding essentially becomes the "game" itself.

And the difference is not related to modding, but usually PC players are more demanding than console players, because all of the options that are possible on the PC platform consoles can't deliver. The best example is inventory management. I guess now gamers are more used to it than in the past, but back then PC gamers didn't appreciate that inventory management became a scrolling mess, clearly developed for consoles, and adapted to PC.

This is an example of the damaging effect of mods. PC gamers became used to heavily modded UI and inventory cheats (e.g. infinite carry weight), so when the next game comes out without those, the reception is predictably poor. But those who just play the game as originally intended complain much less. As far as I can see, the inventory in TES/Fallout is not really worse than in most other similar games, which are also designed to be played with a controller.

What modding-related controversies are you talking about?

Just check the negative reviews of Skyrim and Fallout 4 on Steam, there are plenty related to "paid mods", Creation Club, script extenders broken by patches, and so on. Some more searching on social media will reveal accusations of plagiarism (ideas or content stolen from mods), mod projects being "shut down" because of copyright issues, paranoia related to free mods being phased out in favor of paid ones, this would all be pretty bad for a company that values its public image.

Mods or no mods, if gamers think there is something that should be in a game but isn't, or that is in the game but shouldn't be there, they'll be up in arms about it. And probably demand modding tools so they could "fix" it, which BTW I heard a lot of when Skyrim first came out from console players.

This is another problem with releasing full mod tools, once gamers are used to having them, they feel entitled to getting at least the same level of support in future releases, or else there is massive backlash. This limits what the developers can do with their engine and tools. Can you imagine the level of outrage and review bombing if The Elder Scrolls 6 was released on a new engine with only the same level of mod support as The Witcher 3?

Are you calling Bethesda losers? Just with the ES and FO IP's, they have a license to print money.

That might have been the case some years ago, but their success peaked with Skyrim and early sales of Fallout 4. As you can see just below, The Witcher 3 is already outselling Fallout 4 by now, and Fallout 76 sold only a couple million copies. Not exactly money printing. As I already mentioned, I very confidently predict that Cyberpunk 2077 will outsell Starfield by a huge margin (and by that, I mean a possibly TW3 vs. Mass Effect Andromeda type of difference). It is easy to see how much more hype there is for the former, and it has every possible advantage. So, given that there is no viable AAA competition to CP2077 with full mod support, why take risks and spend resources unnecessarily on something that does not make the game itself better? What is there to be gained by the company?

It may be that Witcher 3 maintains a higher level of interest than Fallout 4, and I don't know that is a fact as you state

See here and here. Keep in mind that The Witcher 3 is also successful on GOG, so the difference in its favor is actually even greater. Maybe Fallout 4 is super popular on consoles, I do not know but I doubt it, however, the data is available on PC.

but I posit the reason for it is that, mods or no mods, Witcher 3 is a much better game than Fallout 4.

The original claim I responded to was that modding is important to extending the life of a game. If you compare the "Players every day" graphs here and here, you can see that Fallout 4 was actually more popular initially, but dropped off a lot faster. The Witcher 3's player population on the other hand even slowly increases since 2016. What that tells to me is that heavy mod support is not essential to a game maintaining a high level of interest for years, and that it is more important for a game to have a reputation for being better, and to offer large amounts of content/replayability on its own, than to be highly moddable. If The Witcher 3 with minimal mod support continues to be "much better" than the sum of Fallout 4 and all of its mods, then maybe mods are not of that high value after all?

Anyway, this argument seems to be going around in circles. I think I made it clear enough already that my preference is a "ModKit", although I had to vote no because of the limited options given. Not that I have anything specifically against mods, but I am not particularly interested in using them either, so in the end it is resources that could be spent on the game instead, and without all the modding related "politics" I saw around those other games, the community can arguably be less toxic as well.

I do understand the point though that modding has been a great way for the hobbyist developer to get started, maybe even find employment in the industry later. But there are a number of very good engines and tools nowadays that can be used for free in non-commercial projects, some are even open source, and free assets of reasonable quality are also available, so I do not think the ability to modify new AAA games (which also become increasingly complex and more difficult to mod) is still that important.
 
Last edited:
The question is, why are they singled out so much for making buggy games then? It is not like there are not plenty of buggy games by other developers
I am going to guess, it is because they sell a heck of a lot of games, and gamers are very vocal about bugs, even though they don't understand what they are talking about, and many times bugs are self-inflicted.

and I can confirm that vanilla TES and Fallout are very much playable, having spent hundreds of hours on them.
I didn't experience any game breaking bugs either.

Not to mention the common accusation that the company deliberately releases buggy games, anticipating that the community will fix them - to appreciate how little sense that alleged business strategy makes, consider that Skyrim was said to be played with mods by only 7-8% of the players.
Perhaps all platforms combined.

User scores are often subject to review bombing for reasons not related to the actual game content, so I am not sure why they should be considered more representative than those written by professional critics.
Because "professional" critics have agendas too.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the PC version has a lower score, I wonder why it is that console users are on average more satisfied with the game, having no mod support at all? It is almost as if just enjoying the vanilla content for what it is can be a better experience than when excessive focus on modding essentially becomes the "game" itself.
I told you why. You actually quoted it after making this statement.

This is an example of the damaging effect of mods. PC gamers became used to heavily modded UI and inventory cheats (e.g. infinite carry weight), so when the next game comes out without those, the reception is predictably poor. But those who just play the game as originally intended complain much less. As far as I can see, the inventory in TES/Fallout is not really worse than in most other similar games, which are also designed to be played with a controller.
Absolutely not.
PC gamers were used to get PC UIs until cross-platform development really kicked off, and PC games started to get basically downgraded because the focus shifted top console development, which is a limited platform compared to PC's. The first noticeable aspect was UI's, and it had nothing to do with modding. Again, you don't need to go that far to see this: go back and look at TW2's conversations about UI and inventory management. BTW, you don't need mod support to up your carry weight capacity.

That, of course, it is only one example.

Just check the negative reviews of Skyrim and Fallout 4 on Steam, there are plenty related to "paid mods", Creation Club, script extenders broken by patches, and so on. Some more searching on social media will reveal accusations of plagiarism (ideas or content stolen from mods), mod projects being "shut down" because of copyright issues, paranoia related to free mods being phased out in favor of paid ones, this would all be pretty bad for a company that values its public image.
A lot of people are opposed to paid mods and the Creation Club on principle. But that's just bad marketing. And paranoia on social media among gamers, who'd have thought...

This is another problem with releasing full mod tools, once gamers are used to having them, they feel entitled to getting at least the same level of support in future releases, or else there is massive backlash.
Perhaps.

This limits what the developers can do with their engine and tools.
Absolutely not.

Can you imagine the level of outrage and review bombing if The Elder Scrolls 6 was released on a new engine with only the same level of mod support as The Witcher 3?
There wouldn't be any. You can do the same things in REDkit you can do in the Creation Kit.

That might have been the case some years ago, but their success peaked with Skyrim and early sales of Fallout 4. As you can see just below, The Witcher 3 is already outselling Fallout 4 by now, and Fallout 76 sold only a couple million copies. Not exactly money printing. As I already mentioned, I very confidently predict that Cyberpunk 2077 will outsell Starfield by a huge margin (and by that, I mean a possibly TW3 vs. Mass Effect Andromeda type of difference). It is easy to see how much more hype there is for the former, and it has every possible advantage. So, given that there is no viable AAA competition to CP2077 with full mod support, why take risks and spend resources unnecessarily on something that does not make the game itself better? What is there to be gained by the company? See here and here. Keep in mind that The Witcher 3 is also successful on GOG, so the difference in its favor is actually even greater. Maybe Fallout 4 is super popular on consoles, I do not know but I doubt it, however, the data is available on PC.
I am going to ignore all of that because Steam charts are not the end all be all of game sales/activity.

The original claim I responded to was that modding is important to extending the life of a game.
Which it is. I already pointed out Morrowind, a single player game, released 17 years ago, with no new content from the developer in 15 years, still being played, mostly (if not exclusively) because of mods, which are still being created and downloaded - 2 new ones today March 1st 2019, already downloaded 11 times as of 1:00PM ET.

If you compare the "Players every day" graphs here and here, you can see that Fallout 4 was actually more popular initially, but dropped off a lot faster. The Witcher 3's player population on the other hand even slowly increases since 2016. What that tells to me is that heavy mod support is not essential to a game maintaining a high level of interest for years, and that it is more important for a game to have a reputation for being better, and to offer large amounts of content/replayability on its own, than to be highly moddable. If The Witcher 3 with minimal mod support continues to be "much better" than the sum of Fallout 4 and all of its mods, then maybe mods are not of that high value after all?
Again, Steam charts are not the end all be all of gaming, especially when a game is sold by multiple resellers and the dev company themeselves, launcher and all. You are also going back to games that aren't that old. I am going back 17 years.

Anyway, this argument seems to be going around in circles. I think I made it clear enough already that my preference is a "ModKit", although I had to vote no because of the limited options given. Not that I have anything specifically against mods, but I am not particularly interested in using them either, so in the end it is resources that could be spent on the game instead, and without all the modding related "politics" I saw around those other games, the community can arguably be less toxic as well.
The problem is, based on your posting, you really don't know what a mod kit is, or what modding entails. So you continuously make assumptions without the proper information or knowledge of the subject matter.

I do understand the point though that modding has been a great way for the hobbyist developer to get started, maybe even find employment in the industry later. But there are a number of very good engines and tools nowadays that can be used for free in non-commercial projects, some are even open source, and free assets of reasonable quality are also available,
This is not the reason why I mentioned a modder being hired. It was just to illustrate the power of the tool and the skill of some modders.

so I do not think the ability to modify new AAA games (which also become increasingly complex and more difficult to mod) is still that important.
Not to you because you don't use them. Ironically, the increasing complexity of games is what drives gamers' demands for more world detail. And developers obviously can't please everyone. Yet again, you don't have to go that far. Just look at the posts on this very forum, of things players want but are not going to get. Personally, I am not buying CP2077 until a REDkit is available so I can move the camera to 3rd person.
 
Last edited:
Actually, dev kits like the construction kit or Redkit are indeed front end GUIs for a game's engine, and for devs to create a game. And I use "devs" here just in the general sense. The people who put the worlds together are not programmers. The people who create the textures are not programmers. The people who create the meshes are not programmers. No one sits in front of their computer and drops and NPC on a particular location and gives them audio/scripted dialogue, or creates a mountain on the command line. It would take AGES to snap pieces of buildings, or pipes, or caves, on the command line. Dev or modder, you need a visual element to snap those pieces together in any sort of effective fashion. You did know those come in pieces, right?

And where do you think these tools come from? A good-natured development fairy that drops them off for free overnight? We're still on the initial point here.

In order for a studio to offer these tools, they need to be built from scratch or they need to be purchased then customized for that game and any modding tools that will be released to players. Both of these endeavors will detract from development time and resources in other areas. The consideration is a large one.


And these dev kits are not exactly easy to use. Some are rather complicated, like the one for DA:O which I personally found more complicated than Construction Kit, GECK, or REDEngine. But they are HARDLY paint by the numbers. And even with those kits, you still may need other tools, like file compressors, 3D renderers, image manipulators, various plug ins for said 3D renderers and image manipulators, etc. which normally are not provided by the game dev (although I remember CDPR offering compression tools for TW2).

You can make entire new games with these kits too. Look at Nehrim or Enderal. I don't know if you ever saw the creations of the people who participated in TW3's beta (which I was supposed to participate in, got invite, but life got in the way) and I'd have to look it up, perhaps I am confusing it with Oblivion, but even someone who participated in that beta was hired by CDPR.

Here is a video of Massive devs working on The Division 2. Notice their monitors. None of them are using command line. There is even a few comments made by one of the people who program the Snow Drop engine's GUI, which BTW it is insane how advanced that engine is.

Yes, I'm well aware of what development tools are and how they work. (I first modded for Warcraft 2. Built a number of mods for Morrowind back when it was first released and have fiddled with other Beth titles here and there. Dabbled in other titles like Theif 1/2, Crysis, and Mount and Blade over the years. Not too into modding, actually, but I've watched it grow over the years.) I've also had the opportunity to work with a few game studios over time, and I can assure you that the process of building a game and building a mod are night and day. It's the difference between knowing how to change the oil and filters in your car, and being able to dissemble the engine block and build it again from scratch, machining your own parts. The tools are different (even if they may "look" the same).

Now, none of that is to say that there are not extremely talented modders out there, nor that there's nothing to be learned from doing it. I think it's a great introduction into some of the challenges involved in actually making a game work the way you want it to. It allows people to dabble in all the different areas of game design, too -- art, 3D modeling, texture work, sound design, level design, building quests, writing dialogue, dealing with game mechanics and balance...it's great stuff!

But it doesn't need to be a part of every game. Nor will every game design benefit from mods.
 
If that's not my vision, intentionally deflecting the focus simply to give a certain group what they want...is the equivalent of setting fire to my orchard because there's a market for charcoal, too.

They are people, like me, like you that want to play and enjoy the game. People that buy their games, people that spread the news of how fun it is, and how they were able to change that one thing that annoyed them about it (for me it was that fugly Griffin belly armor, because.. Style.. It's important, and subjective, yes).

A devkit, similar to the one released for The Witcher 3 does not hinder in any way the developers vision.

But it doesn't need to be a part of every game. Nor will every game design benefit from mods.

It does benefit potential players/buyers though so the game/company does benefit from it albeit indirectly.

I am fully in support of any creative decisions they made so far even though maybe I would prefer some be done differently but a tool in support of modding is something I feel would be a good decision overall, preference not withstanding because, mods are not a part of the game and will not be a part of the game unless the player wants them to be. And no one that would want to mod in say.. Idk.. lightsabers would believe that they are "correcting" the game.

- it does not restrict or alter their vision for the game. If anything it would make that vision more.. Digestible for people that were put off by some of them.

- it doesn't really come at a cost of other features or improvements, if the way in which they handled it in The Witcher 3 is any indication or 2 or 1.

They already more or less confirmed there won't be a modkit at release. So unless people want no Modkit whatsoever (I frankly have no idea why that would even be seen as a positive), I believe the arguments here have reached an impass. Maybe they'll release it even faster than they did for Wild Hunt, maybe not
 
Last edited:
And where do you think these tools come from? A good-natured development fairy that drops them off for free overnight? We're still on the initial point here.
In order for a studio to offer these tools, they need to be built from scratch or they need to be purchased then customized for that game and any modding tools that will be released to players. Both of these endeavors will detract from development time and resources in other areas. The consideration is a large one.
The only initial point we are at is that you do not have the knowledge of the subject matter you are dealing with. I have told you repeatedly what the mod tools are and where they come from, and you continue to ignore it.

Yes, I'm well aware of what development tools are and how they work
Could've fooled me.

Built a number of mods for Morrowind back when it was first released and have fiddled with other Beth titles here and there.
I don't believe you. If you did work with the Morrowind construction kit "and other titles", you would not be saying the things you are saying. And everyone who is or was part of the modding community knows.

I am not going to go back and forth with you, just because you want to be right about something you demonstrably don't know about.

But, I'll leave with this general partying shot for all of you who think mods will bring about bad PR or a bad reputation to CDPR. I'll venture to say:
We all agree TW3 was an acclaimed title and anyone here will rate it from "very good" to "masterpiece".
CDPR has a good to great reputation as a developer.

Nexusmods is probably the largest modding repo, with mods for 600+ different games. In nexusmods:
TW3 has the 7th most mod downloads with 47,800,000+ to date, behind 6 Bethesda games only, and
TW3 has the 10th most number ofmods with 2,700+, behind 7 Bethesda titles, DA:O, and Starview Valley.
And that's only in nexusmods.

Where, I ask you, is the reputation damage for CDPR because of mods? Where is the bad PR for CDPR because of mods?
Where is the downgrade of quality because of mods?
 
They are people, like me, like you that want to play and enjoy the game. People that buy their games, people that spread the news of how fun it is, and how they were able to change that one thing that annoyed them about it (for me it was that fugly Griffin belly armor, because.. Style.. It's important, and subjective, yes).

A devkit, similar to the one released for The Witcher 3 does not hinder in any way the developers vision.



It does benefit potential players/buyers though so the game/company does benefit from it albeit indirectly.

I am fully in support of any creative decisions they made so far even though maybe I would prefer some be done differently but a tool in support of modding is something I feel would be a good decision overall, preference not withstanding because, mods are not a part of the game and will not be a part of the game unless the player wants them to be. And no one that would want to mod in say.. Idk.. lightsabers would believe that they are "correcting" the game.

- it does not restrict or alter their vision for the game. If anything it would make that vision more.. Digestible for people that were put off by some of them.

- it doesn't really come at a cost of other features or improvements, if the way in which they handled it in The Witcher 3 is any indication.

They already more or less confirmed there won't be a modkit at release. So unless people want no Modkit whatsoever (I frankly have no idea why that would even be seen as a positive), I believe the arguments here have reached an impass. Maybe they'll release it even faster than they did for Wild Hunt, maybe not

I know this may be how it seems, but it's not actually the case. Building a game to be modular affects the way the actual game works. Building a game to specialize in something severely impacts its ability to be modded.

Let's take the most obvious example: Bethesda (specifically focusing on Skyrim here, because it's been modded to the moon and back.) The way Skyrim works is pretty dang clunky. The technique may have been ground-breaking when Morrowind was first released, but it started to show its age even back in Oblivion and Fallout 3.
  • NPCs and enemies behave like single-minded robots on tracks.
  • The combat system has always been very simplistic, floaty, and lacking in impact.
  • The lighting system is inaccurate at best...and don't even get me started on the shadows.
  • Environments (even if they paint a lovely picture) are extremely static and non-interactive.
  • The physics are exaggerated or downright weird at times.
  • Quests are very much limited to go there, pick up / drop off / kill a thing.
  • Conversations and dialogue are mechanical if not directly expository.
  • Animations are largely limited and stilted.
  • Events tend to occur at extremely inopportune moments.
  • Bugs abound, even after everything Bethesda has fixed and the monumental effort of the UOP team over the last 17+ years (considering Morrowind through FO4 -- same engine).
The reason that all Gamebryo games have these issues is because the engine was specifically designed to be as modular as humanly possible. Let me just address NPCs as an example; that will be plenty long enough:

To create any and all NPCs in the game, I use exactly the same variables. I must drop the actor (core NPC file) into the game. I must choose a race, body and head type, a voice package, an idle animation package, a faction, a default stance towards the player, assign clothing / armor to the slots I want, same for weapons, again for inventory (or I can create leveled lists for this and let the game auto-assign elements from each list randomly when it spawns the NPC in the game). There are options to have them move via the navmesh around a certain area or to a particular location, and I can dictate how they will respond in combat. I can write dialogue options and quest flags for them. I can even tie them into other quests in the game so they'll react differently based on past events in the gameworld.

This is a robust tool! But it's also, as stated above, really, really clunky. See...ALL NPCs are built this way. Every single one. And enemies. And critical plot characters. And wildlife. All so it's easy to modify what everything does. However, in the end, do I wind up with detailed, carefully crafted interactions? No. I wind up with what are essentially robotic mannequins, driving along on their tracks, and playing back dialogue every time the player "pushes the right button". This is a gross limitation toward creating organic, believable interactions between characters in the game.

It highlights what making something "modular" does. It creates lots of mix and match, sure! But it does not allow for the creation of finely honed and polished NPCs. No matter what I whip up for an NPC, it will still be a robot on a track.

The same is true for all other aspects of the game: terrain and environment, sound design, quests, special effects, lighting, etc.

Now, this is a totally different approach to a game than the way CDPR created their NPCs.

Most were finely crafted and unique experiences that left a distinct impression. The engine used uniquely performed and motion-captured sequences to create distinctive scenes that were one-off events -- never to be repeated for the entire game. Many battles involved enemies that were, again, uniquely crafted within specifically created environments, creating unique challenges that would not repeat themselves. NPCs around cities were arranged in set-piece locations that were never again encountered -- they were unique to that area only.

The amount of time and effort put into creating these specific, situational events is not "modular". It's crafted. Making things modular would have prevented this as there's no way (not yet, at least) that any game engine is able to create the number of potential variables necessary to result in that level of diversity...and still be easily interchangeable. This is not conducive to "modding". This is a finely honed, "hard-coded" system. And I, personally, would not want to trade that away simply so that people had the option of changing stuff.

Now, let me be 100% fair. Was CDPR's approach perfect? No. Of course not. There were also readily apparent flaws:
  • Repetition of "set-piece" NPCs was very distracting within a few hours of play. (Walk by the same NPC for the 20th time...and hear the same dialogue for the 20th time.)
  • Not all moments were of the same quality as other moments. Certain sequences could occasionally be jarring, breaking the suspension of disbelief.
  • Things like re-used assets or voice actors could be distracting. It would conflict with the otherwise unique event and stand out sharply.
  • A few sequences could feel a bit contrived or "on-rails".
  • Replay value is arguably limited, as these carefully scripted events will play out the same way every time.
  • It's totally not conducive to modding. :p
In the end, however, TW3 fulfilled its vision. Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of people that worked on it that are just grinding their teeth over things that didn't come off the way they really wanted, but it's plain the game will go down in history as being one of the all-time classics.

Same with Skyrim.

See? It's not about modding being a bad approach. It's simply that you can't sacrifice your vision simply because there will always be people that want something else.
 
The only initial point we are at is that you do not have the knowledge of the subject matter you are dealing with. I have told you repeatedly what the mod tools are and where they come from, and you continue to ignore it.


Could've fooled me.


I don't believe you. If you did work with the Morrowind construction kit "and other titles", you would not be saying the things you are saying. And everyone who is or was part of the modding community knows.

I am not going to go back and forth with you, just because you want to be right about something you demonstrably don't know about.

But, I'll leave with this general partying shot for all of you who think mods will bring about bad PR or a bad reputation to CDPR. I'll venture to say:
We all agree TW3 was an acclaimed title and anyone here will rate it from "very good" to "masterpiece".
CDPR has a good to great reputation as a developer.

Nexusmods is probably the largest modding repo, with mods for 600+ different games. In nexusmods:
TW3 has the 7th most mod downloads with 47,800,000+ to date, behind 6 Bethesda games only, and
TW3 has the 10th most number ofmods with 2,700+, behind 7 Bethesda titles, DA:O, and Starview Valley.
And that's only in nexusmods.

And I could say these exact same things to you, but that accomplishes nothing. Regardless of what you say or I say, it's not going to change the way things are.

You're welcome to your beliefs. I'll hold onto mine. What will be will be.

And...that's life on Earth.


Where, I ask you, is the reputation damage for CDPR because of mods? Where is the bad PR for CDPR because of mods?
Where is the downgrade of quality because of mods?

EDIT: One thing I will respond to, actually, is this. When did I ever say that CDPR would suffer negative PR because of mods? I'm all for modding.

That's a totally different consideration than whether or not a title will benefit from modding. Not sure CDPR's approach is really in line with modding. I happen to believe that the development and execution of their style would suffer if they focused on it. At least with CP2077, I don't see it being terribly mod-friendly. But...who knows...?
 
Last edited:
And I could say these exact same things to you, but that accomplishes nothing. Regardless of what you say or I say, it's not going to change the way things are.
The difference is, you continue to show a complete lack of knowledge of the subject of discussion, yet you continue to double and triple down on your comments. Your response to Sild continues to further cement the point. All your bullet points have absolutely nothing to do with how "modular" a game is.

I'd give a bullet by bullet explanation of why you see those effect in ES games, and then a high level on how modern games work, but obviously I'd be wasting my time.

I happen to believe that the development and execution of their style would suffer if they focused on it.
And yet gain, they don't need to focus on anything.

But hey, you hold on to your beliefs... I'll hold on to my knowledge.

Enough...
 

Guest 4323944

Guest
Yes , without a doubt . The only thing I would ask for is better modding support . In the Witcher 3 , you could only have 28 ( or 29 ) mods before the game would stop working / launching . So increasing the limit to 50 would be a start . I like modding my games , it's the reason why I still play games that were made in 2008 . It creates another community within the community that share ideas and so on . Although the Witcher 3 was a great game , thanks to mods it became one of the best games I own . Small tweaks made such a big impact , new textures helped the game look better as it got older , lighting mods created a whole new experience and so on . From what I've heard they have no plans for modding just yet but I would guess it's because they're putting the finishing touch on Cyberpunk and would rather focus on that first . Fingers crossed modding is supported at a latter date .. I hope .
 
As much as I would like to see CP2077 be modded like Skyrim, I thought the issue is already settled from CDPR that CP2077 mod support will be limited due to how the game is designed to be played?
 
Ok let's try this again, how is CP2077 designed to be played???? from demo we see it have shooter combat like Skyrim when you use bow, crossbow and magic, how that have any effect on modding?

Plenty of combat mods for Skyrim even TW3 have combat mods, not just combat mods many different mods.
Mods would not be bad for CP2077 they are not bad for any game, yes you can fuck up your save, but that can happen even in vanilla version of game with out mods.
 
Ok let's try this again, how is CP2077 designed to be played???? from demo we see it have shooter combat like Skyrim when you use bow, crossbow and magic, how that have any effect on modding?

Plenty of combat mods for Skyrim even TW3 have combat mods, not just combat mods many different mods.
Mods would not be bad for CP2077 they are not bad for any game, yes you can fuck up your save, but that can happen even in vanilla version of game with out mods.

Alright, let me try to explain it this way:

"Not conducive" to modding does not mean "impossible to mod". Anything can be modded. Will it always be possible to build expansive tools that allow the player to modify virtually every aspect of the game from top to bottom directly and easily? No. That depends on the design of the game.

What I'm seeing when I look at the gameplay is a game that utilizes both random, easily-moddable elements (like the crowds on the street, the clutter in different environments, etc.) and extremely crafted elements (like the scripted dialogue and animations that play virtually every time V interacts with someone).

For example, is it possible, for things like the Trauma Team scene, with the aerodyne arriving and landing at the balcony, the TT squad exiting the vehicle and forming a perimeter, the animation of V placing the body on the stretcher only to be kicked back by one of the TT members, the defribrillation animation, TT loading back into the dyne and taking off whlie V asks if they can get a lift out...

...to be modular?

No. I might be able to cut and paste that entire scene to another area, but I cannot edit individual animations or sequence of events within that comprehensive scene using a simple modding tool. That would require a much more specialized type of tool. We're getting away from modding and into full-blown production here.

Let's take the entire demo into account. How many of the scenes were there? A LOT. (The woman at the door when V gets off the elevator, the guy working over the tub, Jackie bull-rushing the guy with the heavy weapon, V waking up in the apartment, V meeting Jackie on the street, meeting Dexter and the entire chat in the car, the ripperdock scene, the scavver checking out Jackie's car...it goes on). The game is apparently heavily invested in such scenes and interactions. These things can't really be "modded" without a motion-capture studio, sound equipment, and likely, access to the source code.

What could be modded are things like the appearence of weapons and armor, weather, how aggressive enemies are, the number of people on the street, the clutter in various locations...nothing but surface things. Therefore, modding would likely be very limited and leave people disappointed again, as it's not possible to delve into the "meat and potatoes" of the gameplay.

That's my take on it.
 
Ok let's try this again, how is CP2077 designed to be played???? from demo we see it have shooter combat like Skyrim when you use bow, crossbow and magic, how that have any effect on modding?

Plenty of combat mods for Skyrim even TW3 have combat mods, not just combat mods many different mods.
Mods would not be bad for CP2077 they are not bad for any game, yes you can fuck up your save, but that can happen even in vanilla version of game with out mods.

It doesn't matter how the game was designed to be played. As far as applications/tools (since time and skill matter as well), what matters is that the applications that you have at hand can a) talk to the engine and b) create/manipulate assets. "a" is the big one. That's the one you'll get from the engine's developer, that allows you to create maps, add dialogue, script events, etc.

The asset creation/manipulation applications, those vary. Those are the file compressors, image editor, 3D renderers, etc. Many are opensource, some proprietary, it depends.

The key with them is, that the engine and the middleware it uses know of the format in which you create/manipulate assets. A simple example is textures. .dds is pretty much the standard. If you save a texture as, say, .jpg, or even if you don't save the .dds with specific settings, it wouldn't show up in game, the engine would think it is missing, and you'll see things like pink areas and/or some sort of warning icon.

If you have those tools, as long as you have the time and the skill, you can introduce guns in medieval games, or bows and arrows in modern day games (and sheaths, very important :) ); move from 1st to 3rd person and vise versa, make your toons strike sexy poses, script new missions, etc etc etc.

And I highlighted skill, because mod repos are filled with good intentions, but the technique to bring them about is poor: for example, modders trying to replace spears with guns instead of creating new assets and properly animating them. Personally, I suck at animations :)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom