Hall of Shame

PaulNAdhe · March 16, 2003, 02:50

These are the exaulted Beta testers, the lucky ones who were given the rare chance to advise, first hand, the developers of the game we're trying to play.

Chris Green
Ryan Kristopher Huggins
Joe Millenbach
Eric Wertzler
Brian Taylor
Rick Francis
Rebecca Rose
Nate Timperley
Nicholas Lindeman
Deborah Durham
Jake Bernstein
Stona Jackson
Jeremy Swigart
Scott Lantz
Alan Sagan
John Surovy
Eric Wetzel
Jose Maccera
Matthew Claussen
Shane Shull
David Brown
Michael Gleeson
Nathanael Lewis
Chris Johnson
Shaun Mullahey

Are any of these people still visiting this forum? Or have they slunk off in shame?

This game is such an unredeemable mess that these beta testers should hang their head in shame.

To hell with this game. I've invested dozens of hours and there is no way that it will be made playable with the miniscule patch mentioned elsewhere.

I'm going back to SMAC and wait for GalCiv.

notyoueither · March 16, 2003, 04:44

Play testers have minimal influence on a design. They are there to find bugs. With a game of the complexity of Moo3, it will be a very long time before the last bug is found, and it is unkown how many bugs they found (with code like that, I would imagine quite a few).

Aside from that, personal attacks are not considered appropriate on Apolyton.

Ianpolaris · March 16, 2003, 05:12

notyoueither,

I fail to see how that was a personal attack. Those involved with the quality control (or lack thereof) should be named, counted and held accountable.

In fact that is what accountability means and IMHO there is far too little of that in the modern world.

-Polaris

statusperfect · March 16, 2003, 05:22

Ianpolaris. Defender of gamers and grand judge of betatesters.

CharlesBHoff · March 16, 2003, 08:32

By the time that the game of any tpye of program get to betra testing major desige change are not going be make as they are finding bugs plain and simple.

darcy · March 16, 2003, 08:34

Why target the beta testers? They have no power. We have no way of finding out if they really missed the glaring bugs, or if they reported them but were ignored.

At the end of the day, the only one to hold accountable for everything related to MoO3 is Quicksilver. Not Infogrames, not the beta testers, not the state of the industry and not the bad weather. From the tiniest bug to the largest black hole in design, every last thing is exclusively the work of Quicksilver.

Alex · March 16, 2003, 08:38

Yes, they were mainly hunting bugs in the beta versions, that's all. What could they have done besides that?
"Hey, there is a problem here with this design..."
"Really? Well, too late, the game is going gold next week".

Nirvana_CN · March 16, 2003, 08:48

I have Beta tested Several Games, Age Of Mythology, Empire Earth, Impossible Creatures and now Rise of Nations. (Cept the unrealsed RoN

)

Trust me, all we can do is report the bugs, and hope the devs fix them. In all the above games there were bugs in the retail version that we beta testers spotted months before release.

In effect we only advise the Dev's.

The only game where the Dev's listened was in AoM as i was part of a private Alpha Testing group, but even so they didnt fix everything we found.

Give the beta testers a break. Its a very frustrating job, especially when most are unpaid, you can suggest all the ideas under the sun, and 99.99% of them will never be adopted into the game, we have to live with knowing howmany bugs a game has.

Oh and yea all the games i tested i was under an NDA license to not release any game info, demeen the game, write reviews of it, put it in a bad light etc.

Chronus · March 16, 2003, 09:26

BOOOOOO!!!

Listing and bashing people who donated their time to help improve a game and then holding them accountable when all they could do is suggest?

Or was there something "different" about this particular beta group?

I've never seen such bad taste.

Boris Godunov · March 16, 2003, 11:04

Good lord, you'd think MOO3 was the Holocaust and this was Nuremberg...

moomin · March 16, 2003, 13:01

Good moderate comparison there, Boris. Nice.

Anyway, why the Moo3 mess isn't the fault of the beta testers some of them have much to answer for - those glowing AAR posted over at igmoo. Guess they just didn't notice stuff like nonexistant AI and broken PD.

Boris Godunov · March 16, 2003, 13:15

Moomin, when someone posts stuff like this about beta testers for a computer game:

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
Those involved with the quality control (or lack thereof) should be named, counted and held accountable.

In fact that is what accountability means and IMHO there is far too little of that in the modern world.

-Polaris

I don't think I should be the one accused of lacking moderation.

vmxa1 · March 16, 2003, 14:19

IIRC they had a very short time frame to beta test the game and I suspect they had many of the complaints that people here as voiced. I mean those that were not even saying the game sucks. People that had some fun, like me, but still listed many things they need correcting or improving. So I have no problem with the testers.

Ianpolaris · March 16, 2003, 16:38

Guys,

If you will recall, the betatesters gave glowing reports of Moo III to the rest of us. Thus they should be held accountable publically. What's so extreme about that? Last I checked that was simple common sense.

-Polaris

Nirvana_CN · March 16, 2003, 17:31

Sounds more like an archaic Witch hunt of volenteers to me..

You cant hold anyone accountable for their opinions, thats the great thing about the free world!

They thought it rocked..i agree..you dont..grow up and get over your obsession

Eric S · March 16, 2003, 19:43

Quote:

Originally posted by moomin
Good moderate comparison there, Boris. Nice.

Anyway, why the Moo3 mess isn't the fault of the beta testers some of them have much to answer for - those glowing AAR posted over at igmoo. Guess they just didn't notice stuff like nonexistant AI and broken PD.

Can't speak to the broken PD, but the AI was changed two weeks before MoO 3 went gold, and at least a month before that, the majority of known bugs remaining were in multiplayer, so unless the BTs were told that the AI had changed, I'd suspect that they were all focused on finding the remaining MP bugs.

Boris Godunov · March 16, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
Guys,

If you will recall, the betatesters gave glowing reports of Moo III to the rest of us. Thus they should be held accountable publically. What's so extreme about that? Last I checked that was simple common sense.

-Polaris

Maybe...they liked the game?

That's the beauty of different opinions...we're allowed to have them.

And as Eric pointed out, the AI may have been a totally different bag when the bts had it.

Really, this is a childish stunt. If you want to hold someone accountable for your dislike of the game, point to the game designers and no one else.

asleepathewheel · March 17, 2003, 00:11

Classy thread from a classy guy

Why not just put their phone numbers and addresses down so they could be harrassed that way. Jerk

PaulNAdhe · March 17, 2003, 02:17

http://moo3.quicksilver.com/beta.html

ZargonX · March 17, 2003, 02:23

Hey, I worked a while at a quality assurance out-contractor working on games for Hasbro ( and all of their many subsidiaries). Trust me, the further into the development cycle a game gets, the less they listen to the testers, even the ones they're paying a lot of money for. I saw many a game get shipped off to the stores with a list of known crash bugs pages long still sitting there. I liked some of those games, but I still knew they didn't work very well. Cut the testers some slack.

Ianpolaris · March 17, 2003, 02:32

Guys,

Paul merely repeated what IG and QS have already made public knowledge so I fail to understand the acrimony against him. I also note that the BTs were contest winners which means you are rather unlikely to get an unbaised review.

Cut the guy some slack. He was and is within his rights to post the names of the BTs since that is public info. He is also at least partially correct that they should be held accountable for the public and misleading statements they made prior to the game release.

The real people that should be hanging their heads...or better yet be handed there heads....are QS for making this travesty, but that is yet anothe topic.

-Polaris

moomaster · March 17, 2003, 02:37

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Classy thread from a classy guy

Why not just put their phone numbers and addresses down so they could be harrassed that way. Jerk

Good idea asleepathewheel, try to get their phone number and addresses. Hurry up PaulNAdhe. LOL

asleepathewheel · March 17, 2003, 02:55

Ian-

There is a difference between right and RIGHT.

To mix metaphors, I guess a common sense of decency isn't so common.

Aren't beta testers a good thing? Great incentive for me to be a beta if it gets guys like you to post my name around the net. As you should know, its quite easy to find out a lot about a person just by his name (even a nickname, try a google search with Ian polaris, for example and see what you find), and harrassing emails are a quite logical result, especially in light of the posts in this thread. Sure the names are online currently, but the only thing that reposting them is to harrass them. If thats what you're into, then bully for you.

Ianpolaris · March 17, 2003, 03:17

Asleepathewheel,

Public Knowledge is Public Knowledge. Either you are held accountable for what you do and what you say or you are not. Posting the names is perfectly decent and perfectly legal since that is public knowledge. If the BTs had nothing to be ashamed of, then there should be no problem.

Where am I being unclear?

-Polaris

asleepathewheel · March 17, 2003, 03:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
Asleepathewheel,

Public Knowledge is Public Knowledge. Either you are held accountable for what you do and what you say or you are not. Posting the names is perfectly decent and perfectly legal since that is public knowledge. If the BTs had nothing to be ashamed of, then there should be no problem.

Where am I being unclear?

-Polaris

Like I said before, we just have different standards of decency.

I am in favor of accountability, but I don't see how calling out people by name, when they haven't posted here under those names in weeks or months serves any purpose other than that of the threads title, to shame them. Post a generic letter to the betas or something. Naming the names invities children to take their trolling one step further. Complaining about QS is one thing, as its their job to put out the product. Betas are volunteers who only get a copy of the game, it doesn't pay the bills. That is an important difference to me.

If you view this as being perfectly decent, then great for you. I don't and will leave it at that.

CharlesBHoff · March 17, 2003, 04:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
Asleepathewheel,

Public Knowledge is Public Knowledge. Either you are held accountable for what you do and what you say or you are not. Posting the names is perfectly decent and perfectly legal since that is public knowledge. If the BTs had nothing to be ashamed of, then there should be no problem.

Where am I being unclear?

-Polaris

Beta tester donot write the code for than game, they donot have the power to make the software company change any lines of codes.
Have you ever writen than computer program of your own.

CharlesBHoff · March 17, 2003, 04:58

Many time I get than error message sayind Windows Explore cause the computer program to crash and I donot hear you say that MS must be held accountable also.

MarkG · March 17, 2003, 05:35

the "i'm not responsible for anything happening in my life so lets find someone to hang" virus strikes again.....