Frank question: Do you, the producers, study mods?

[StormWolf]

I think if they want to study mods for Generals 2 then they should look at Shockwave and Mental Omega. They had some great ideas and they made their respective games a lot more fun to play.

[RedShocktrooper]

Yeah, definately. I'd also say study the mods we haven't been so kind to, and see where they went wrong. Mods - having no money on the line - have less at risk than a company, so the Developers could probably save a lot of money by looking at what the Mod Teams did right, and what they did wrong, and adapting what they did right, and fixing the wrong.

I actually think C&C4 might even have been better if they had just enabled mod support, so that EA could study up on what the mod teams could do with the mechanics.

[Harrrr]

Yeah, definately. I'd also say study the mods we haven't been so kind to, and see where they went wrong. Mods - having no money on the line - have less at risk than a company, so the Developers could probably save a lot of money by looking at what the Mod Teams did right, and what they did wrong, and adapting what they did right, and fixing the wrong.

I actually think C&C4 might even have been better if they had just enabled mod support, so that EA could study up on what the mod teams could do with the mechanics.

As I have mentioned before. It simply doesn't apply

What a mod team sets out to accomplish is completely different than what an AAA game sets out to accomplish (though, total conversion mods certainly can approach indie game levels). For one, it can certainly be argued that even though mods have no money on the line (ignoring the opportunity cost of possibly doing something else), they have half if not more of the work already done for them, but often take much longer than any game development process with "less" amount of work.

As I have mentioned earlier, we also gauge the mods on a completely different metric. I can almost irrevocably say that if CnC 4 was a mod by an amateur or semi-pro team, we have an entirely different opinion about it; I would almost guarantee that there would be very few people that criticize it. At times, it even becomes sacrilegious to criticize mods in many people's eyes because it's mostly amateur developers who are still getting a grasp of the tools.

However, I want to ask you, specifically, how you quantify what a mod does "right" and what a mod does "wrong"? Examples, please. Now, I will ask you if it's the same when, say, the purpose was simply an exploration into learning, teaching and sharing (certainly among the founding principles of any modding community); is it? Further more, is it the same if I force a $50 price-tag on it (we're just talking about the changes of the mod and not base game + mod)? Who determines what's "right" or "wrong" on any of the given metrics?

When you're making a BLT sandwhich, you don't look at people who are making PB&J.

I also disagree that it's "money saving" because ideas are a dime a dozen. Ideas aren't expensive; implementing them is, and given there's such a technological gap (in both art and code) with a possible design gap you would be saving zero time and money.

[generals_addict]

If they're looking for community input in what the most passionate fans want out of the game, it would be dumb not to look at the mods fans have made. Zero Hour just bleeds of being on the right track with some great developments, but lacking significant time to make a "full" expansion pack. Also, you can see it with the glitches and kinks that weren't ironed out in either the release or the patches. In my humble opinion, almost everything about Shockwave is the epitome of what Zero Hour should have been, in that it provides a fuller range of diversity, both in units and gameplay. Yes, there are some units that don't have much added function compared to ones that already existed. However, we are also given units that do the same kind of job in very different ways (first comes to mind is GLA AA, such as pairing up a quad cannon with the mobile SAM unit Gadfly). Same function, very different methods of attack. They made improvements to gameplay balance with existing generals, and in some instances replaced less realistic/feasible technologies with ones more appropriate for their time. Some examples are getting rid of overly-effective laser defenses on airplanes (Air Force general), as well as the creative "Earth Shaker" superweapon that is like a giant bunker buster bomb--compared to the quasi-Star Wars era particle cannon. Shockwave isn't perfect (what is?), but it is a vast improvement from Zero Hour, especially when considering that a few guys modded it to that level, with no pay and to that extent of professional quality. If I was EA, I'd be hiring Shockwave developers as part of my think tank at least.

[Harrrr]

If they're looking for community input in what the most passionate fans want out of the game, it would be dumb not to look at the mods fans have made. Zero Hour just bleeds of being on the right track with some great developments, but lacking significant time to make a "full" expansion pack. Also, you can see it with the glitches and kinks that weren't ironed out in either the release or the patches. In my humble opinion, almost everything about Shockwave is the epitome of what Zero Hour should have been, in that it provides a fuller range of diversity, both in units and gameplay. Yes, there are some units that don't have much added function compared to ones that already existed. However, we are also given units that do the same kind of job in very different ways (first comes to mind is GLA AA, such as pairing up a quad cannon with the mobile SAM unit Gadfly). Same function, very different methods of attack. They made improvements to gameplay balance with existing generals, and in some instances replaced less realistic/feasible technologies with ones more appropriate for their time. Some examples are getting rid of overly-effective laser defenses on airplanes (Air Force general), as well as the creative "Earth Shaker" superweapon that is like a giant bunker buster bomb--compared to the quasi-Star Wars era particle cannon. Shockwave isn't perfect (what is?), but it is a vast improvement from Zero Hour, especially when considering that a few guys modded it to that level, with no pay and to that extent of professional quality. If I was EA, I'd be hiring Shockwave developers as part of my think tank at least.

The issue here is that they're making a NEW Generals game from the ground-up and not building a Zero Hour add-on, which is why most of the work that the Shockwave modders did simply doesn't apply, hence it would be pointless. You're trying to compare a "have some cake and eat it too" add-on mod versus the ground work for a complete but expandable main game, and it simply does not work. You don't hire a handy-man to be a consultant on a totally new house, you hire an architect and a building planner.

An exception to that is if they were looking on input for modability. At that point, it would make sense, and would be similiar to how EA hired former-modder Mastermind to work on the CnC3 modding SDK (among other things). Another exemption to that is when looking at how to construct the DLC for Gen 2.

[Commander32]

An exception to that is if they were looking on input for modability. At that point, it would make sense, and would be similiar to how EA hired former-modder Mastermind to work on the CnC3 modding SDK (among other things). Another exemption to that is when looking at how to construct the DLC for Gen 2.

Indeed, what they need to do is to get a couple expert modders from the community to help with the Gens2 Modding capabilities, it would mean less work for the devs so they can focus on the game itself.

[generals_addict]

The issue here is that they're making a NEW Generals game from the ground-up and not building a Zero Hour add-on, which is why most of the work that the Shockwave modders did simply doesn't apply, hence it would be pointless. You're trying to compare a "have some cake and eat it too" add-on mod versus the ground work for a complete but expandable main game, and it simply does not work. You don't hire a handy-man to be a consultant on a totally new house, you hire an architect and a building planner.

Sure, I can agree with that. I don't want a Zero Hour version 2, and I don't mean to imply that a new Generals 2 is chained to following the lead of a community developed mod. All I meant to say is that one can see the mod team completed what I believe was an unfinished job, in that they made a professional quality game (really an add-on). And despite it being an add-on, it had the quality and robustness of a fully-fledged expansion pack. So, EA should look at the successes of this and other mods in that the mods (Shockwave in particular) cleaned up a lot of the loose ends and "made it right" to the best of their ability where Zero Hour lacked. The mod informs the devs about the areas they didn't do so well in (regardless of it being an add-on to an expansion or a new title), so they should be drawing from that information. So in that sense I believe their work is not "mostly useless" for making way for a better "ground-up" encore to Generals.

[Harrrr]

No, it's just more evidence that no matter what a mod does, it's always looked upon positively because it's a mod. Shockwave essentially rips unit designs from CnC 3, Tiberian Dawn, and even a few from Act of War and it's an awesome homage, BUT when EA tosses is an Orca-inspired EU VTOL it makes blood shoot out of the eyes of many of the Generals faithful. People that suggest that devs need to learn from modders and suggest SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM IS APPLICABLE TO THE TASK AT HAND about essentially a 10-year old game simply aren't aware of their pro-mod biases (I am, I love mods but I don't ever pretend that they are in the least bit more valuable than the games themselves). Plese, tell me specifically how removing the "overpowered" laser deflection system for some of the US generals has ANY relation to Generals 2? What specific "defency" or gap in critical thinking does that impact, and what can be specifically learned from it to even remotely apply to Generals 2 in the broadest sense? Is it like, don't make things "overpowered"? Why must it be learned from Shockwave in particular?

So, EA should look at the successes of this and other mods in that the mods (Shockwave in particular) cleaned up a lot of the loose ends and "made it right" to the best of their ability where Zero Hour lacked. The mod informs the devs about the areas they didn't do so well in (regardless of it being an add-on to an expansion or a new title), so they should be drawing from that information.

But each mod has a different way of "making it right" to the point where it's not about "making it right", but about what "I want to chuck in there for no real reason other than it's cool and different". And that's why it's not applicable in any regards of what the devs should learn from their apparent mistakes. Never mind the fact that there's probably less than 5 people still at Bioware Victory from Generals development at EA Pacific/EALA.

When you start to break down what each mod tries to accomplish and how it attempts to answer the questions they pose, you start to see how different every single mod is. That doesn't make them "right" or "wrong", or even better or worse than the games themselves. That's why what you're asking the devs to do is frankly impossible as the gap is simply to great. It doesn't relate, as this is an entirely new situation with new and individualized challenges that need individualized and completely costomized answers. What I learn from Shockwave and Contra is that people love a whole bunch of new units...until it comes time to study them for player readability for MP. With Zero Hour, the developers explicitly CHOSE to keep the Generals mostly similar for some pretty key core reasons. Just because you and the Shockwave developers didn't necessarily agree with those core reasons makes Zero Hour and "incomplete" game. It's simply a different philishophical approach to the formulaic game-design. In fact, Shockwave's weaknesses is that the Generals each play so astromically differently that they are completely different factions and not essentially a slight twist on the same faction. Personally, while I find shockwave and Contra fun, I feel that there's just too much of everything. It looks and mostly fits within the Generals style, sure, but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Shockwave works because it's a mod, and dangit, I'll have a CnC 3 mammoth tank in there if I darn well want to.

Since only the broadest aspect of critical thinking or problem solution applies from "learning" from mods, you can just as as easily say the same about how someone goes about making a Peanutbutter and jelly sandwhich without jelly, or, in fact, just about any decision that requires an application of problem solving and critical thinking.And that, generals_addict, is why a mod that aims to do something specific in a specific context have no real value to the developers. It doesn't save them time, money, or effort. It doesn't better prepare them to tackle any deficiencies that crop up in Gen 2 or balance issues because all of those are specific and in complete context to what Generals 2 provides. Ideas are plentiful, and there is no idea from any mod that's so revolutionary in the least; it's all just a different interpretation. It's about executuion, and in that sense there is absolutely zero need to look at mods, just execute the Gen 2 design doc to the appropriate state.

You can certainly use mods as an example of a targeted and generic enough suggestion to make it worth-while for the devs, but then the mod isn't the focus. The OP loves that the AI is tougher in Contra. So, instead of saying, "Look at Contra and make it like Contra, devs!"; say, "I would want to see a tough, agressive AI implemented. *proceed to share examples of tough AIs and certainly include Contra*".