Rule Against Hell Mods?

What is says on the tin.

We have at least 5 of them now, I think there should be a rule against them, because it's not productive to do the same thing over more then once twice.

1# Sanctuary Time Attack

2#practice-mod

3# The Endless Sanctuary Customizer

4#Mini-mod: No Booster Hell

5# I can't find it but it's just another dupe

 

Mods with Hell as a separate level rather than on its own is acceptable, however, if anyone desires to make a difficult gauntlet for a final level.

 

When was the last time we even had a bad hell mod seriously

 

If it's done well, it's a lot of fun. If it's done poorly, you can tell.

 

Perhaps if there was a clear list of mods/descriptions/screenshots organized by types of mods, people would see what they want is already made, and wouldn't make another.

But, there's nothing wrong with making another one if they want to...

 

#Nofunallowed

 

fuck this, let's have a rule against all mods instead

 

Yes, of horse, why does this forum even need mods?
..not, really. But if the mod is productive, it's good. If it's bad, it shall be deleted from existence.

I'm basically saying what others said.

 

my opinion as i said on the other thread is that we should either ban all mods or not ban any
Prohibiting a certain type of mod is silly and i don't understand the gain of doing that
It's not like we don't have more "<forum member name> story" mods anyway

 

This is not a good idea and I think some people may need to work on identifying when someone is being facetious. Yes having 10000 hell mods is not great but to put an outright ban on them is ridiculous.

 

To think, some people probably have not even gotten to Hell/Sacred Grounds in the main game of CS.

 

I disagree with this. If a quality mod is made and it just happens to revolve around the Sacred Grounds, why remove it?

 

Like Doors said in the other thread that sparked the idea: if you don't care for a particular mod, or even new CS mods in general, no one makes you play them/read their thread.

New members making already-done / simplistic-mods for beginner practice is guaranteed, but there is the small percentage that stay and perfect their craft... When the great modding scene has already died and no one cares anymore...

 

Yeah, It was/is a bad idea.

(I need to stop making threads without thinking about it first.)

I'm trying to stop bad quality mods from being made.... not gonna happen.

 

I find it slightly odd that the main "rebel" against the swearing anticensor would ask for the straight censoring of creative works instead.

It's already been generally agreed that this is a bad idea, so I'm going to try not to beat on a dead horse, but yeah.

Besides the slightly mean observation above, I noticed something else...

I'm trying to stop bad quality mods from being
made.... not gonna happen.

Hell mods do not necessarily equal bad quality mods. Even if for some stupid reason we actually did start banning these mods, there would still be a plethora of bad mods out there, and more coming in. The number of bad quality mods that are unrelated to Sacred Grounds far exceed the number of Hell mods, and in fact I'd bet that a lot of the latter are pretty good.

So I'm not sure if you were going for no more repetitiveness, or no more bad quality, because they're not in the same group. I guess it doesn't matter now, though.

Sorry if my post was unnecessary or rude...

 

I find it slightly odd that the main "rebel" against the swearing anticensor would ask for the straight censoring of creative works instead.

thoughtpolice.j2k

 

1984.jpeg

 

I find it slightly odd that the main "rebel" against the swearing anticensor would ask for the straight censoring of creative works instead.

I think bombchu is the sort of person who would be in support for the opposite of the anticensor, i.e. the swearing censor. As he's expressed before in his views about marriage of same-sex couples, I'd say he's not all that much for freedom of thought so much as he is for living by the rules, whatever he deems those rules to be.

 

I'd say this discussion is complete.