Unofficial patches: are they worth it?

[Ree]

Hello,

I'm thinking about playing through some older game series when I have the time such as Fallout, Age of Wonders, Gothic, Arcanum, Baldur's Gate series, all of which I've never played before. I know that most of these games have unofficial, community made patches and "fix packs" available, so before I start any of them, I'd like to hear your opinion about this kind of content.

A lot of people usually recommend these as "must have" patches as they claim to fix hundreds of bugs, however, I'm suspicious of them because of the following reasons:

1. I avoid ANY fan made addons/mods or whatever because I am only interested in original game content and mechanics and because community content is often of poor quality and doesn't integrate well. Unofficial patches ARE community content.
2. I play older games partly because they are patched to the best of their developers' ability and I can be sure that I'm playing the best official version that will ever exist (even if it's not bug-free). Some of the community patches are work in progress indefinitely and I hate that (e. g., Fallout 1). I like stability .
3. There are always discussions whether certain game behavior is a bug or an intended feature. The worst thing that could happen is people altering game mechanics just because they think they're fixing bugs when they're simply creating yet another mod (balancing changes ar especially tricky). I like my games working according to their manuals. In short, there's a potential problem of patches deteriorating into mods (I think Gothic 3 community patch is like this).

I'm quite tolerant of non-game-breaking bugs, balancing problems or small glitches and I've yet to play a game that was completely broken after being patched to the latest version (however, I'm not a 24/7 gamer so my experience is probably limited), so my initial thought would be that I don't need unofficial patches. Whatever I played, I was absolutely happy with official versions. However, a lot of people think unofficial fixes are essential, so I'm not completely sure anymore. There are people on both sides.

What is your opinion regarding this? Are officially patched games usually good enough? Have you played any of the mentioned games with and without unofficial patches? How much better were the unofficial versions and how visible the improvement? If the improvement is minimal, I won't waste my time with unofficial stuff.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Well, to my own part, I can at least understand your thoughts.
It basically imho boils down to "what is the purest form of the game, as intended by the developers ?"
I think part of the problem might lie within the fear that fan-made patches might "change" the game so as what the fans believe is right - which might not be the same as what the developers had intended.

Read this article http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PanderingToTheBase and you'll see what I mean with "it might not be identical with what the devs had intended".

Me, I'm still undecided over this issue. I also tend to play games without any fan-made patches at all. Restoration of content is a different thing to me, though.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

You seem pretty decided on the matter, so what will convince you otherwise? Personally I have made good experiences with e.g.:

- the unofficial patches for Morrowind and Oblivion, because both really did fix numerous minor bugs Bethesda never bothered with, and I never noticed them changing the game otherwise. Most of the fixes were small quest / script bugs and graphical glitches.

- The Gothic 3 community patch. I never played G3 vanilla, because everybody said how broken it is. I had a great time with the CP version, and the most game changing aspects of it (alternative balancing and AI) are optional (although I would recommend them).

 

[blatantninja]

I use the patches when there are glaring bugs left unfixed (IE Ultima IX) or I think it will lead to a more enjoyable experience for me (IE level cap remover in Baldur's Gate). The ones that go into depth in trying to 'fix' rules or whatever to either rebalance the game or make it the same as the pen and paper predecessor (if one exists), generally don't interest me as I care very little for those and play really for the story.

 

[JemyM]

I ran Arcanum with a community patch.

What can I say... it worked?

Basically it's the same game, but with tons of fixes. I remember playing Arcanum back in the days and it was extremely buggy. I finished everything in Arcanum now and I didn't see a single bug.

 

[Dez]

I always use these unofficial patches if such exist.. Developers don't usually bother or they lack funding to complete their work. You can do nine times out of ten just fine without community patches, but i don't see much sense in such attitude. After all the community patches i've seen are quite conservative. Sometimes they restore cut content and reblance some of the most glaring issues but overall they'll stay true to the orginal vision and only fix real bugs and glitches. Balance mods, total conversions, 3rd party additions ets are a whole different matter.

I advise downloading unofficial patches if you are going to play morrowind, oblivion, vampire bloodlines, fallout 2, baldurs gate 1, baldur's gate 2 or gothic 3. Atleast those game seriously benefit from unofficial fixes. I'm sure there are more, but those are really games that are much more fun to play when properly patched.

 

[Arhu]

I can only speak from experience in case of Baldur's Gate I (BGTutu, BG2Tweaks without rule changes, BG1NPC, BG1NPCMusic) and II (BG2_tweaks, BG2Fixpack), as well as VtM: Bloodlines (Wesp's latest patch) and would not play them without the unofficial or community patches. General bugfixes aside, which alone would make them worth it, both awarded me with much richer gaming experiences and were very well integrated in the core games.

I do understand and often share the concern that unofficial patches might undermine the vision of the original developers and could possibly be of low(er) quality, but at least in case of BG1+2 and Bloodlines that was not the case and IMHO they are totally worth it.

 

[Corwin]

In addition to all of the above, some games just NEED these patches. Wiz 8 needs the speed combat patch for example. I play fairly vanilla, but some games (Oblivion and Morrowind always come to mind) needed some of these patches to even be playable(as opposed to totally frustrating).

 

[Thrasher]

I try to only use fan made bug fixes. Sometime graphics enhancements that stay in the spirit of the original design. Or UI - playability annoyance fixes, if I am truly frustrated by a stupid design that has nothing to do with gaming challenge.

I stay away from mods that significantly change the nature of the gameplay or add new content until I have played through the original content.

 

[dteowner]

I'm generally anti-user-patch as I just don't trust someone I don't know mucking around with my games, but I have done a few. I've never been burned with any of the ones I've used.

Wiz8- Wizfast isn't mandatory, but it's close, particularly if you're into many many replays like me. I also played Dodd's content/difficulty mod, which was excellent for experienced Wiz8 players (Dodd has threads about it here at the Watch).

Arcanum- I hit the level cap around the 2/3 point of the game so I got a user mod that removed it. I also got a user mod that removed a couple tremendously annoying sound effects for buff spells that I used all the time.

X2- although a pack of user mods were eventually made "official", I grabbed a couple of them while they were still user mods.

Morrowind- the game was designed to be modded, so I didn't feel too bad about giving some a try. I ran several, although most were cosmetic (things like readable signs). Only a couple were content adders. With all that, the game still ranks as the second biggest disappointment ever. Maybe I should have gotten more user mods.

Wizards and Warriors- DW put out an "unofficial" patch after Activision pulled the plug. The game was a bugfest before it and was still a bugfest after it, but it did help. A patch from a developer that isn't blessed by the distributor is practically official in my book.

If I ever get around to yet another replay of MM7, I plan to get Flamestryke's patch so I can go evil and still get the soul jars.

I can't think of any other unofficial mods/patches I've used or plan to use any time soon.

 

[JDR13]

I ran Arcanum with a community patch.

What can I say… it worked?

Yeah, but did it fix the game balance as well?

My biggest issue with Arcanum wasn't the bugs, but how unbalanced magic vs tech was.

 

[Zaleukos]

I am with those who appreciate minor fixes of obvious bugs and minor, transparent changes to game mechanics and user friendliness. The level cap remover in BG1, stacking mods for the same game, extra inventory slots in Dragon Age, and fixes of broken doors in M&M VI (Moks fixpack?). I also like content restoration patches when well done (for BG2 and Kotor2). Most of those fixes are marketed as mods rather than as unofficial patches and I'd say there is no clear distinction between the two.

In general I prefer to hold back and see if vanilla gives an acceptable performance first. Even with the best intentions it isnt trivial to just fix one isolated mechanic or balance issue, since game mechanics tend to be so interdependent, and fixes outside the data files can be pretty hard to implement from a technical point of view. The bigger gripe with unofficial patches is that they often implement the patchers' ideas of what the game should have been, which may or may not make sense from my perspective. Radical changes of difficulty just for the sake of it, adding obnoxious food or sleep requirements and such are usually not interesting to me.

Yeah, but did it fix the game balance as well?

My biggest issue with Arcanum wasn't the bugs, but how unbalanced magic vs tech was.

The community patches I tried didnt, but they did nerf the molotov cocktail (lvl 1 schematic which in vanilla has the lovely properties of 0 time to use, area effect damage, no friendly fire, and knockback). Too bad as that was the great equaliser for low level techies

Arcanum could certainly use a lot of rebalancing, but I think it is one of those games where doing so would be difficult without wrecking other parts.

IIRC the fixpacks dont adress my main beefs (backtracking through already cleared dungeons, why just add a bloody one way exit?, no resting in cleared dungeons making you spend minutes real time just waiting for virgil to replenish mana) either, even though I imagine some of those would be easy to fix. They probably just arent part of the patchers vision of the game

 

[Maylander]

I tend to avoid user made patches unless it fixes serious issues. User made mods that I use:
- EasyTutu when playing BG1, as it removes the transition between BG1 and 2.
- The restored content mod for KotOR2, because so much of the content was cut.
- The unofficial patch for MM6, 7 and 8 that actually makes them playable on new computers in addition to adding functions like quicksave. Made by Greyface.

Beyond that, I only use fan made stuff occasionally.

 

[Ergonpandilus]

Bigger the issues, more likely I'll go for the unofficial patch. And usually when they make unofficial patches, the game is flawed.

For these games you MUST install unofficial patch to play:
- Gothic 3
- Vampire: Bloodlines
- Temple of Elemental Evil

But for games like Fallout 2, the unofficial patch is "nice-to-have", but not mandatory at all. Same goes for Arcanum, Oblivion and Morrowind. All of them are fully playable without the patch.

And now that I think, I guess I only ever installed unofficial patches to RPG games!

But for Drakensang, you must of course install the fixpack no matter what!

 

[JemyM]

For these games you MUST install unofficial patch to play:
- Gothic 3
- Vampire: Bloodlines
- Temple of Elemental Evil

I finished all three in vanilla mode actually. Fun thing that all three games Troika made have these though.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Sorry, but Gothic 3 wasn't by Troika.

 

[DeepO]

Sorry, but Gothic 3 wasn't by Troika.

No one claimed otherwise.

Anyway, playing the game for the first time I always want to experience in its official form on one hand and as bug free as possible on the other. So if there are any unofficial fixes I deem to be worth it after checking out readme and its related forum, I use them. If possible, I leave out restored content though.
Fixes for all Troika games, KotoR 2 and Gothic 3 are a must in my book.

I´m not purist when it comes to replays so restored content patches are mostly a given and if I find other mods that I think might enhance the experience I use them as well.
I wouldn´t play Baldur´s Gate games without Sword Coast Stratagems, Rogue Rebalancing, Ascension or selected BGTweaks, for example.
Special case was Oblivion which I´ve played with 100+ mods almost right away.

 

[JDR13]

I'm not sure why anyone would bother to remove the level cap in Baldur's Gate. You might be able to reach one more level with the available experience, but even that would be hard, and wouldn't impact the game much.

 

[dteowner]

I hit the level 6 cap quickly enough for it to be annoying. Adding TotSC for a whopping level 7 cap didn't really make me feel better about it, either. I think I had a shot at level 8 strictly with the base game. Regardless, it was more about the neon "end of the road, sucker" sign for people that like character development than the actual functionality. Pissed me off enough that I never played BG2, actually.

 

[JDR13]

Actually it depended what class you were. Iirc most classes could reach level 7 without the expansion, and some could go as high as level 9 with TotSC installed.

Not being able to reach uber levels is one of the things I liked about BG1 though. I think you should give BG2 a try when you have the time.