View Full Version : Who's the better beta tester...the loyalist or the cynic?
whatdoiknw
11-02-2009, 07:21 AM
just thought this might be an interesting topic to discuss since I've recently seen some people who have been complaining about not getting into beta and deserve to be because they've "been promoting, following, spreading the gospel for xx years of star trek online" lol.
So who's more useful to a productive beta...
1. the loyalist: who is potentially blinded by their fervor and sees cryptic as doing no wrong or "oh, they'll fix it eventually" or "it's not that bad". Or too scared to voice an opinion because they'd rather bow down and kiss cryptics feet
2. the cynic: brings constant doubt and apathy towards cryptics chosen direction. More concerned about making the game "they want".
ChicksDigHarleys
11-02-2009, 07:25 AM
Easy...cynic. Look at the fanbois on forums of busted @ss MMOs insisting everything is great, just a few small tweaks needed here and there.
Not that it matters...publishers are going to push MMOs out the door regardless of how much negative feedback they get from testers and even devs themselves.
Is apathy ever useful?
I'm not sure either group would necessarily make ideal candidates; but on the other hand, so long as they have good observation skills, a lot of patience, and a reasonable understanding of what they are there to actually do (and not be thinking of it as a free trial), they can still rise above their respective, arbitrarily applied, stereotypes.
Suricata
11-02-2009, 07:35 AM
Your logic is slighty flawed, you're assuming anyone thats not been following the game is a cynic, when infact they could of only just found the game, which could mean they are more overwealmed by the idea of STO over someone thats been around a bit and is more level headed now. Just food for thought :-)
You want neither.
The best beta tester is somebody who gives constructive critizism with stuff he sees a problem with. Cynics give destructive critizism.
If i make something and i ask to people, "how can i improve this?", Neither "It's great" or "it sucks" helps. I didn't ask how it was, i asked how can i improve it. And there's always room for improvement. So you want somebody who tells you what's wrong with it, and possible solutions to the problem.
Then you take that into consideration and refine whatever it is your working on. So don't worry about "seeding doubt" either. It's still their game and they'll do whatever they feel like doing with it, wether that goes against or with any advice we can give.
mufti09
11-02-2009, 07:46 AM
I would say neither.
The Cynic will find fault with everything, causing the Dev's to hunt down and *fix* things that actually work, and the Fanfoy will find nothing wrong and just be glad to be in Closed Beta.
NyQuil
11-02-2009, 07:53 AM
Cynic. Better to be a critical douche bag than to be a lemming of the devs. Be constructive but don't EVER act like they're doing you a favor. Remember devs, without us you won't be driving a new porsche any time soon.
I would say neither.
The Cynic will find fault with everything, causing the Dev's to hunt down and *fix* things that actually work, and the Fanfoy will find nothing wrong and just be glad to be in Closed Beta.
This. QFT.
Griefhook
11-02-2009, 08:02 AM
Whoever knows that you are there to beta test and not play. You are there to find the errors. Both the cynic and the fanboy in theroy would do the same task. The fanboy probably the best as it is Star Trek, and any herotic that has blemished the name of Star Trek with imperfect game play will be burnt at the stake!
Though beta is just to test the game for the developers. You are there to have some fun, but provide a service that they don't have to pay for.
wrussandrews
11-02-2009, 08:14 AM
Neither. Both compromise your objectivity, which is a must for testing.
Mozcol
11-02-2009, 08:22 AM
Neither. Both compromise your objectivity, which is a must for testing.
True but then what happens to the "flavor" of STO. Not having Fans or Cynics testing leaves a game more than likely technically better at launch but what makes ST, well, ST is lost upon the gamer. You need a combination of Fan, Cynic and Gamer to fully encompass testing for STO.
Blademaven
11-02-2009, 08:27 AM
You want neither.
The best beta tester is somebody who gives constructive critizism with stuff he sees a problem with. Cynics give destructive critizism.
If i make something and i ask to people, "how can i improve this?", Neither "It's great" or "it sucks" helps. I didn't ask how it was, i asked how can i improve it. And there's always room for improvement. So you want somebody who tells you what's wrong with it, and possible solutions to the problem.
Then you take that into consideration and refine whatever it is your working on. So don't worry about "seeding doubt" either. It's still their game and they'll do whatever they feel like doing with it, wether that goes against or with any advice we can give.
This exactly. you are a wise man tss. Or woman. Or maybe trigender? Anyway I bow to your wisdom
Frostbourne
11-02-2009, 08:28 AM
Isn't Beta testing for finding bugs? Not rating the game.
jojobean
11-02-2009, 08:31 AM
just thought this might be an interesting topic to discuss since I've recently seen some people who have been complaining about not getting into beta and deserve to be because they've "been promoting, following, spreading the gospel for xx years of star trek online" lol.
So who's more useful to a productive beta...
1. the loyalist: who is potentially blinded by their fervor and sees cryptic as doing no wrong or "oh, they'll fix it eventually" or "it's not that bad". Or too scared to voice an opinion because they'd rather bow down and kiss cryptics feet
2. the cynic: brings constant doubt and apathy towards cryptics chosen direction. More concerned about making the game "they want".
The cynic, mainly cause they will find whatever is wrong and be thorough about broken parts of the game, and any other problems they see or potentially bad reactions to game mechanics. The loyalists (ass kissers) most of them sit in irc namely 3 of them go well with the description above think everything is going to be perfect about the game and so far Ive seen them do nothing but talk down or try to silence other people who have legitimate concerns or criticisms about the game. Id rather have someone give constructive criticism about my game than someone just being a yes man and rushing the game out unfinished or broken cause he didn't have the balls to tell me whats wrong.
Tribbler
11-02-2009, 08:36 AM
I believe the Loyalist have it here.
It has been the Loyal fans that have kept Star Trek alive for a generation now and they will continue to do so with this game, provided there are updates, upgrades, chapters, fixes, patches, and of course the ever popular expansion packs.
Now if you were a cynic, you would have never of been a Star Trek fan, because you have no hope for the future and Star Trek would have never appealed to you in the first place.
The very fact that Star Trek thrives today is a nose thumbing to the cynics. :)
bradley1701
11-02-2009, 08:39 AM
Cynics are not good in any job.......they create a toxic environment and I would never hire a person who is constantly negative about everything.
The better tester is one who is objective and constructive. That goes for any job.
Fischfaust
11-02-2009, 08:41 AM
You want neither.
The best beta tester is somebody who gives constructive critizism with stuff he sees a problem with. Cynics give destructive critizism.
If i make something and i ask to people, "how can i improve this?", Neither "It's great" or "it sucks" helps. I didn't ask how it was, i asked how can i improve it. And there's always room for improvement. So you want somebody who tells you what's wrong with it, and possible solutions to the problem.
Then you take that into consideration and refine whatever it is your working on. So don't worry about "seeding doubt" either. It's still their game and they'll do whatever they feel like doing with it, wether that goes against or with any advice we can give.
Agree. Someone with an open mind will be of more use IMHO.
graywolf2001
11-02-2009, 08:43 AM
They want neither.
What any company look for in a true beta is people who will find, report and try again in another way to repeat a problem or avoid it. They don't want to be told what you think of the game. They most probably don't care that much because no matter what they do they'll be nitpickers. I repeat: no matter what they do you (yes you) will complain.
At best if you give your opinion they will say: thank you for your input and they will move along. I'm not being a cynic here by the way, it's just the way it is, that's the way it was in other beta and that's the way it will be again.
Now some companies are better at public relations than other, meaning that yes they do listen and read what's on their forum boards and they will post a reply here and there and may even participate more actively in the forums' life. But in reality the person(s) who is in charge of the forums is not the person who will decide on changes made in the game. They of course are listened to but what's being listenned to is a distillation of all the opinions, suggestions that us may or may not bring to the forums.
Oh and to those who wonder why Cryptic isn't telling us much? Look at how people react to, not information given by a dev or someone from cryptic but someone's opinion about something that he saw on youtube about someone playing a demo of a game. That's a lot of seperation from actually playing the finished product and yet you start to hear about the doom and gloom of this game. I saw the same kind of thing happens in pre-release of all the mmo's i've been a part of. Talk about repeating history.
Frankly i have no idea how the game will turn out. I may have apprehensions and hopes knowing other games from this developper but that's the only thing they are apprehensions and hopes. They most definitely are not FACTUAL informations about the game. And even factual informations about the game can change from here to release date.
And for those who think cynism is the way to go in life ? listen to Henry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1SuMgOnaXk
mirkrim
11-02-2009, 08:44 AM
Regardless of loyalist or cynic, you want someone who cares (not just in beta to play the game), and who can give intelligent and detailed feedback.
knight1b
11-02-2009, 08:44 AM
just thought this might be an interesting topic to discuss since I've recently seen some people who have been complaining about not getting into beta and deserve to be because they've "been promoting, following, spreading the gospel for xx years of star trek online" lol.
So who's more useful to a productive beta...
1. the loyalist: who is potentially blinded by their fervor and sees cryptic as doing no wrong or "oh, they'll fix it eventually" or "it's not that bad". Or too scared to voice an opinion because they'd rather bow down and kiss cryptics feet
2. the cynic: brings constant doubt and apathy towards cryptics chosen direction. More concerned about making the game "they want".
Your statement is flawed at best. For one you make far to many assumptions. By your logic for example I would be a loyalist and anyone who complains would be a cynic. Neither of which tend to make good testers.
The loyalist might be inclined to go with anything thrown at them while the cynic will always find fault.
The ideal tester can be found somewhere in the middle. The ideal tester is someone who loves the game and wants to make it the best game possible has previous testing experience and an understanding of game systems and design. That person would not only be able to give feed back but do so in an easy to digest manner for the dev team. The sad truth however is that very few gamers actually have those quality's thus the random sampling that tend to happen for beta testing.
Durakken
11-02-2009, 08:57 AM
between your choices... probably the loyal person. cynic sucks.
Importance:
#1. Communication skills
#2. Explorer mentality
#3. Understanding design vs programming
#4. programming experience
#5. Familiarity with IP
#6. LACK OF BEING A FANBOY
Why...
#1... you need to be able to communicate.
#2... you need to be willing to do crazy stupid things that people wouldnt think of.
#3... this is important because a lot of people don't understand that some things are design based and some things are programming based. If you can't tell whether something is working how it should and is poorly designed or not working and not designed that way then you probably don't belong in a beta.
#4... This may sound a bit elitist, but if your in a beta and don't have programming experience then you better be really good with the other 3 above this. You should be able to come up with what caused the problem if it isn't a design flaw and explain not only what you what you are experiencing but also an idea of how it might be fixed. Plus you should do multiple tests around the same component which means you have to figure out how things are connected to really test like you should
#5... You should know a lot about the IP... this is because sometimes design choices are made that are not the best for games in general, but it's the best for the IP. For example Mortal Kombat's fighting system... horrendous on so many levels, but if i played it and it felt like Street Fighter I'd be like wtf? MK, though bad design in general, is good for MK.
#6... This works in conjunction with #5. There are times where the IP must suffer for good game play. Fanboys often don't get this and want everything just like it is in the source. For example... ship maneuverability. The defiant is highly maneuverable and can barrel roll and all that, as could all ships if they really wanted to, but it simply doesn't work. Another example would be that graphically the shields aren't the same, but that would look ugly. Another example... the size of ships... I want to see the ships that i'm fighting. i know it's more realistic that they are +s but I like to see them. when you get a fanboy in there they see these design changes as an aberation of their IP and they need to be removed at once! but really if they did that a lot of the game would suck.
elionbel
11-02-2009, 09:04 AM
The cynic, mainly cause they will find whatever is wrong and be thorough about broken parts of the game, and any other problems they see or potentially bad reactions to game mechanics. The loyalists (ass kissers) most of them sit in irc namely 3 of them go well with the description above think everything is going to be perfect about the game and so far Ive seen them do nothing but talk down or try to silence other people who have legitimate concerns or criticisms about the game. Id rather have someone give constructive criticism about my game than someone just being a yes man and rushing the game out unfinished or broken cause he didn't have the balls to tell me whats wrong.Loyalists aren't necessarily butt-kissers.
Loyalists of the IP would be more nit-picky about the game as it pertains to canon, finding faults with the storyline and game-flow. I would also say that loyalists would tend to be more dedicated to finding faults in gameplay as well, since they'd be the ones with more of a stake in the game.
You're more describing a fanboy or girl of the Company or the Game Idea itself, not a Loyalist. These kind of people would have the game come out immediately with bugs galore.
Cynics aren't necessarily any more thorough than anyone else. These are the doomsayers who tend to find faults in the aesthetics of the game with a one-track mind of nothing ever being good enough. A true cynic would never let a game release until it's 100% done in accordance with their overachieving standards, in which case, the game would never release.
[edit]
By the way, I love how you added that dig about the IRC channel just minutes after you stormed out of there with your haughty attitude. Hold a grudge much?