toroca: When I acquire a new (to me) game, one of the first things I do is check to see if it has a modding community, and if it does, I look to see if there are bugfixes for it. I usually browse the gameplay mods as well just to get a sense of what's available, but those bugfixes are my first priority.
One thing I've encountered, when it comes to bugfix mods, is that:
* Sometimes, they make changes that I consider undesirable. (Some arguably are bugfixes, but sometimes I don't want certain bugs to be fixed, while others make changes that don't really belong in a bufix mod.)
* At the same time, the mod isn't modular, so you can't pick and choose which fixes to apply.
Examples of bad cases are:
* I believe Baldur's Gate 2's fixpack may make changes like not allowing certain effects to stack with themselves, when they do stack in (Classic Edition) vanilla. To me, this is too much of a gameplay change for a bugfix mod that I might not want when just wanting gameplay fixes.
* Skyrim's unofficial patch does a lot of controversial changes. Examples include things like adding an extra room to a building (just so that a certain NPC has a place to sleep) or changing the materials found in a couple mines.
On the other hand:
* The Morrowind Code Patch is nice in that it's not affected by that second point; you can change some things bug not others. For example, I could enable more critical things, or perhaps something like Fortify Health affecting max health (not having it affect max health is an interesting mechanic that happens, perhaps unintentionally, to model drug withdrawal, but the in-game sources of the effect aren't balanced for that), while not enabling the blind fix (I find that this sort of bug, where blindness increases accuracy instead of lowering it, can give the game an interesting character).