• 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.

    • 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

    • 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.

    • 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.