So, have you guys noticed the amount of stupid, time wasting mods on the nexus? Ever sighed and wished there was an easier way to find out how good a mod really was? Here it is. I introduce you to the Fallout Community Reviewers, or FCR. Simply put, a reviewer will download the mod (or review a mod he already has running), play it for the amount of time he/she decides is necessary and use the template to review the mod. Then, they either post it in the comments section of the mod (or in the thread if it is on the Beth forums) or have the author put it in the description. This will allow people an easier way to sort between the good, quality mods and the duds.

I also have a lot of experience with this type of thing. I was one of the co-leaders of a group on a Halo website which reviewed custom made maps, and I helped lead the group and did around 200 or so reviews, so I definitely know the area. The only thing needed is you. I can't do this by myself or with a tiny amount of people so you need to sign up. And trust me when I say reviewing can be very entertaining and satisfying. Plus, your helping to better the modding community by giving the authors criticism and the downloaders reliable information.

The one other difficult thing is that I understand mods vary in nature. A review for a weapon mod isn't going to be the same as a review for a quest mod is it? So some initiative is required.

The Template:

========================
Fallout Community Reviewers
Mod Review by:
========================

Description: /10

Pictures: /10

Quality: /10

Effort: /10

Usefulness: /10

Overall: /100

- - -

Criticism/Comments:



========================
This was a Fallout Community Review. For more information go to: http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=998985
========================



I will post a example soon. I reviewed FOOK, have a look to see what this is all about. http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=982744&st=160&gopid=14448399&#entry14448399

Joining:

To join, all you have to do is fill out this:

========================
Fallout Community Reviewers Request to Join
From:
Who recruited you:
========================

Why do you want to become a reviewer?:



Example review link:

========================

For the example review link, take the template, find a small, not so important mod and review it. Remember to mention that you are not an official reviewer yet. Good luck if you wish to join, which I hope you do.

For now, thats it. If you think I'm crazy, tell me. If you like the idea, tell me. If you think I should change something, tell me. If you hate the Jonas Brothers, tell me.

I don't meant to be negative, as I like the idea, but when this was tried for Oblivion it didn't go down so well.

Really? Well, I wasn't around during Oblivion modding, so could you tell me what happened so I can avoid that happening?

Its still worth a try though.

I really don't see why having a 'team' of people who go around downloading mods is any different to, well, people just downloading mods.

While I haven't put out but 1 tiny mod for Fallout 3, I have been mapping for the Quake 3 engine for years and that right there was a big turnoff for me. That sort of statement shows a lack of objectivity.

I completely agree. Everyone has different taste, and so what seems like a waste of time to you may be another user's favourite mod.
If these reviews are going to be completely objective, then technical performance is the only thing you can actually review properly, all the other things are a matter of personal taste.

Let me put it this way. Mappers/Modders don't want to hear "stupid, time wasting mods". We want constructive criticism. Don't tell us "It's a waste of time", tell us what issues you have and how you think it could be better and do so in a constructive manner. As a mapper, I ignore people who just say "this map svcks". I do consider the opinions of those who say something like, "It's a good map but it has some issues. Here's what I think and here's how you might be able to improve it."

So your saying that every single mod on the nexus is valued and has at least one person who likes it? I disagree, there is a ton of mods on the nexus which are just sitting there, being ignored and taking up space. Like mods which add an assault rifle to the megaton home or something, but then there are those golden mods hidden beneath them that don't get attention because of others hiding them.

Forgive me if I'm lacking in objectivity at the moment, but its midnight and I've just come out of a particularly stressful exam week.

And Graywolf, I'm a modder too so I know what your talking about and expecting.

I used to run a map/level review site on the pre-corporatized planetquake for quake1. I have to say that the map/mod reviewing for an FPS game with a strong multiplayer component is completely different than potential mod reviewing for an RPG. The culture for critiquing Fallout/Oblivion/Morrowind mods is far more subjective, and any attempts to numerically rate mods tends to fail miserably. Look at the voting system on Nexus. Voting anything other than a 9 or 10 (maybe an 8) is grounds for a harsh/inflammatory response from the author/admins/or other users. Unless the mod objectively does not work as intended, is undisputedly unpolished, or causes serious mod conflicts when it shouldn't there really isn't a need to "rate" the mod. And I doubt anyone is going to be enthusiastic about tracking down or doing a review/write-up on that type of mod =)

Now, that's not to say that there isn't a niche for a team of potential reviewers. A couple of options come to mind:

- Reviews of mods could ditch the numerical system and just speak about the merits of the mod, why people would want to use it, and whether it was fun or not (to you). In essence, reviewing a mod becomes a mechanism for "showcasing" particular mods. It would also be worth documenting in the review what the potential conflicts would be (i.e. examine the mod in FO3Edit)

- It could be helpful to look at simultaneously reviewing different mods that appear to do the same thing (i.e. the comparrison). For instance, there are about 6 mods that all try to remove/adjust auto-aim. You could review all of them, and explain how each works, what the gameplay result of each was, and provide some guidance on what options people might consider. The aim is not to rank or say "this one is the best," but rather, this one works this way, that one works that way, here's what you might consider when deciding which one to use.

- Pursue reviewing mods that may be less well known / popular. Most everyone is familiar with FOOK, XFO, MMM, etc. . . do they need to be reviewed? How about lesser known mods like "Book Perks" or "Triage" (just throwing those out at random =) that can make a HUGE impact on gameplay by changing only a relatively minor part of the game mechanics. A lot of people may not know what or why they would want to use many lesser known mods. A community reviewing group could be a great mechanism for raising the visibility of some great lesser known mods.

Anyway, I think there are great possibilities for "reviewing" mods, but I guess I'm challenging you to be more creative/innovative in what you hope to achieve =)

Best of luck!

There are no useless mods per se, but instead of going into that, look at it this way. Instead of outright calling a modders work pointless, don't review that particular mod. If someone else likes then that person might review it.

Also, I suggest that the reviews are subjective to each reviewer, as keeping them objective can't apply to actual content, but only technical performance.

The mod downloaders would like this idea, but the mod makers are not going to be very happy with their mods being rated. Why? Because they spent their free time to make something that they wanted in the game. They thought that maybe someone else wanted the same thing as well, so they shared their work. If just one person downloads their mod, 9 times out of 10, they are happy that just 1 other person wanted the same thing that they wanted. Most mod makers don't want their mod criticized cause that is their baby. It is like someone rating their own child against all other children. No one wants to hear that their mod/child is not as good as another mod/child.

A little side note, I downloaded a mod from a trustworthy site thinking that the mod would be in perfect shape cause the site checks the mods out before they are listed. When I looked at the file, I found some dirty references and lost some respect for the site because of that. This may happen to you as well.

This is also not a good idea cause you are going to have to figure out if the mod is going to work with the 1.5 fallout patch, or with the fake patch. You are also going to have to make sure you and everyone else has all of the DLC's as well.

Exactly the plan. Not to go out and find the not-so-good mods and put down the user by giving them 0/100, but to find the good mods and help the author improve their description, pictures etc.

This isn't about putting people down, its about giving recognition to good mods.

I read the FOOK review, and I'm sorry, but it didn't do it for me. Ne numbers seem pointless, as FOOK basically got a perfect score, a score that should be reserved for mods that are actually truly perfect, which is basicaly never going to happen. FOOK is a great mod, don't get me wrong I love using it, but it's not perfect. 2.0 will make it better, I'm sure, but I doubt it'll still be perfect.

So that's my views on the first review I've seen.

Exactly, nothings perfect, so whats the point of having 100 if its impossible to reach? FOOK is one of the best mods out there, and as far as Fallout mods go it is one of the closest to perfect you can get.

Anyhow, I don't think its going to work out, since people already seem kind of opposed to it. I'll request a mod to lock it. Whatever.

Closed as requested.