• Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Well, if you have access to an alpha version, you’re basically a tester. It matters no sense to do anything like a review on an alpha version.

    • Toes♀@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I disagree, people provide helpful reviews for closed beta games all the time. These help inform users on the trajectory of the development, core aspects of the story and main gameplay loop.

      If you’re exposing your game to the public, public opinion is expected and deserved.

      • Broken_Monitor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Thats like reviewing chicken dinner before its fucking cooked. “Gee Bill, this chicken is really rubbery and gave me salmonella, I really think it’s going in the wrong direction. 3/10” jesus fuck we gotta review everything these days??

        • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Exactly. I do believe the studio should have communicated that better, though. Or maybe they did and some people decided to gripe anyway

        • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I mean, that’s a fair criticism in a way. If Bill lets you taste the chicken at that point, it’s reasonable to comment on what he let you taste. If he didn’t think it was ready enough to get your opinion on, he shouldn’t have let you taste it at all.

      • limitedduck@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Alpha and beta aren’t really the same though. Alpha is meant to be unstable and feature incomplete while beta is supposed to be simply missing polish. For Alpha reviews to have real value they need to provide that context. Otherwise, it’s just an exercise for the reviewer

      • Betas are feature complete. Alphas are not. Reviewing a game that isn’t even functionally completed is peak dumb. Reviewing it in beta is less dumb, but also a bit dumb because that’s when a majority of major issues that could lower a review score are squashed.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Also it’s very common to have NDAs at that stage

      The last closed alpha I was in had watermarks appearing all over the screen constantly with an id to link back to you

    • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Lol Alpha tests are rarely for what they should be, which is testing core features of the game not yet finished. In reality, it’s used to excuse negative aspects they have no plans of fixing.

      Fuck em. Talk shit if you feel inclined to. Making you sign a contract otherwise is the peak of insecurities.

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sometimes Alpha has functions/features not being disclosed to public to keep some sort of advantage over another competitior release, and so an NDA is normal practise. I just had one in march for a software that has been around 40 years, i can’t discuss or disclose any of its features until june. personally I would think telling customers the new stuff coming is a great selling feature, but there is industrial espionage so everytging is hush hush till release day

        • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          An NDA is fine, a clause to restrict “disparaging remarks” is not. If you can’t say anything there’s no need for such a clause.