Mike Scholl
Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
This thread seems to be aimed more at insulting Forum Participants than at
improving WITP. As such, it really shouldn't be here at all. But since it seems
to be being taken by the potential "insultees" as more of a joke and a badge of
honor than an insult (TJ..., I told you no-one was taking you seriously anymore)
there doesn't seem any harm in adding to it.
The only real qualification for a "play-tester" that I can see as valid is that
they be willing to put in the time to "wring out the game". The designers who
evaluate their input need to be aware (through interaction with them) what the
strengths and weaknesses of are that each bring to the table. Along with the
"historical nit-pickers" who will work hard to get the basic facts right, you need
some "fans" and "Gamers" that will push the "loophole boundries" and bring to
light any "unexpected consequenses" of the rules and design. How many games
have we all purchased over the years only to find out within a few trys that
the system was "broken" because a rule put in to meet a specific case or
occurance (usually at the insistance of an "Historical nit-picker") could be used
in totally unintended ways to warp the game?
If the Testors give honest apprasials (from their own viewpoints) and spend
the large amounts of time necessary to "push, pummel, and stretch" the design
in search of weakness, they have done their job. It is then up to the designer
to evaluate the reports in light of what they know of the testers "pet passions"
and see what if any changes are needed. If a "Gamer" reports that he is having
problems supporting his old US Battleships when he sends them "commerce
raiding", the designers might want to change the victory conditions or the
political restrictions to discourage such activities (can you imagine the War
Department or the US Government trying to explain to 2000 berieved families
that their loved ones were lost while the Pennsylvania was being used to shoot
up sampans in 1942?). It's not the kind of thing an Historian would even bring
up, because he would never use an asset in such an a-historical manner. But
a "gamer" or a "fan" might---he's trying to "win" the game and doesn't care if
a tactic or usage is correct---only "does it work in the rules as written". To be
successful, a design needs testing for more than just "is the umpteenth Regt.
available at the "right" place and time, and with the "right" equipment in the
"right" amounts? It also needs to be tested in terms of "does the system as
it exist "allow or encourage players" do do impossible or ludicrous things with it?
And between these two extremes are a host of other viewpoints/styles of play
which can make important contributions if correctly evaluated. Saying that a
"testor" should not be allowed to participate on the basis that you find his forum
postings "silly" or "uninformed" is narrow-minded. He represents part of the
public to whom the product will be sold. The worry is that the DESIGNER's
don't know the TESTOR's proclivities well enough to "weight" their reports
according to "what they bring to the table". An "historian" might push for the
inclusion of "surface raiders" because they "actually existed and served" in
the theatre. The "designer" has to look at this not only from the perspective
of "how much importance were they over-all, and how much difficulty would it
be to put in the appropriate units and rules"---but also "How much could those
units and rules be abused or twisted in practice.., especially by players who are
only interested in 'winning' and don't care if the abuse 'makes any sense' or not"?
The more "viewpoints" represented in testing the better---as long as the folks
evaluating them know what "use" to make of each.
|
Printable Version
THIS THREAD..... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread