What to expect on an "alpha state" game?

Zori

"alpha test" has turned into a cliche cause a lot of us have experienced games that didn't make it but that is exactly what is expected of ANY projects, not just games in it's alpha state, just cause your past experience of a game isn't good doesn't necessarily mean that the next one would be bad, but of course if you use the exact same parameters to base your decisions on over and over again, i'm sure you'll end up to the exact same conclusion.

What you need to understand if you're joining a game on its alpha state is that there is always a risk/chance that it will not continue, or it will not be what you expect it to be as there are many factors that could change the progression of a project.

I mean who would have thought that global pandemic would happen and cancel so many events? Tokyo 2020 Olympics, anyone?

To players who comes in thinking that "im going to pay $$ so I can "play now" and join an alpha test game cause it'd be cool and all". Stop and re-evaluate what you're paying for.

(also lmao@ people thinking that an alpha test server runs 24/7, even disregard a giant note that states 'no test is running right now', hell they cant even download the game cause the DL links are off)

You're paying NOT to work for the game and become their 'tester'.

You're paying to join a community who get to see the game as it develops.
You're paying for cosmetics.
You're paying for "I got to be here before it got released on public"

any other altruistic bull crap you can think of such as "~I'm here cause i love the idea of the game~ and i totes looooveee to support what they're doing~" oh shut up, we all know that once something goes wrong in the game or it's development, you're going to be one of the first to turn your back on the game cause you based all of your decisions on your emotions.

You're risking your money for a game that may or may not see release. If you're going to back a project with the idea of ~cause feelings~ then prepare to be heartbroken cause everything changes, not just this game but many other games that you'll plan to 'back and support' in the future.

Razvan

Another reason to join the alpha is that since the community is still quite small and a lot of stuff are yet to be implemented, your feedback has more weight than on an already released game. Plus, of course, if the game reaches release you'll have a considerable edge over the newer players: you already know what to do, what works and hopefully you're part of a group with similar goals and experience.

PeachMcD

Yep, @Razvan! I am doing my darndest to make all my worst mistakes NOW. There are SO MANY I want to make before the 'real build' happens, and I don't even know what they ARE yet!

I'll say it again here, for those who missed it other places I said this: I bought in w $$ I probably should not have spent during a night of much bourbon. I did it bc I was SO tickled about the idea of a game with a whole world of PvE and no P2W.

I have, since, gotten more than my $$'s worth of fun out of Fractured - both in playing the game and in the online community gathered to 'test it'. So, everything from here on out is gravy for me. #FTW

FibS

Game development has become very superficial and sensational post-2000. Many developers use words like alpha / beta / early access as marketing blurbs instead of terms that coherently mean things. The playerbase doesn't seem interested in smartening up to not fall for these shams anymore.

Because of this, many people don't understand when a game says "alpha" and actually means alpha. An alpha is not feature-complete. An alpha isn't even fully playable. Alphas are prone to crashing or losing data for no clear reason. Alphas are generally not very enjoyable to play and they are not expected to be!

Most people will be happier if they play the game during beta, when the game is more stable and most experiments and changes are for specific features or optimum interfaces.

Despite this, it seems that most of the community is happy with Fractured's alpha so far, and from what little I played, it's surprisingly complete as a simple online game. Nowhere near everything on the roadmap, of course, but what's currently there is serviceable.

Gibbx

I have to echo @PeachMcD's sentiments (not the too much bourbon part, though). I have already gotten more than my money's worth of fun out of Fractured. If the game crashed and burned tomorrow (which i do not believe it will) i would still feel that way. I do look forward to continuing to watch (and be part of i guess) the games progress.

Ostaff

@Gibbx

(Hands the polar bear a bottle of Coca-Cola)

Here! Here! I'll toast to that!

Kralith

@Zori said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

"~I'm here cause i love the idea of the game~ and i totes looooveee to support what they're doing~"

Well, i think you can love the idea and want to support them for the reason, without being someone who just have flowers in mind.
For me i can say, i am supporting, because the idea behind the game is, what i want to have.
But at same time, i know the risk, that we maybe don't get an result at the end.
Just to say, even then, i had already much fun with the game and being thankful about the people i got known.

Another point. I would not say, i payed for joining a community.
I just invested in a games future, not more not less.
For sure in hope, that we will get a cool game into a well running Release Candidate.
To get a community beside that, is just an extra benefit.

d3Sync

I think the phrasing alpha, beta, early access are essentially meaningless. It's very difficult to slam people for their expectations being too high or low because every project is different. Some alpha projects don't have many bugs, but are missing content. Some alpha's are completely full of bugs. Some are playable, and some will leave you so frustrated that you have to get up and go do somethings else out of frustration. Everyone has a different opinion of what each stage should mean. Part of that is a developer not being transparent enough about what to expect out of their product. Some of that is because the consumer expects too much. But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test. Sometimes developers don't deliver on that final point. I haven't tested Fractured yet, but based on a lack of NDA and what I've seen. It seems the game falls closer into the category of beta. Requires more content, but isn't riddled with bugs and easily playable for hours on end. Usually, from my experience, the people who defend very poor products are just mad because they feel that their favorite toy is being stolen. They get emotional and lash out at criticism. Often times it's well deserved.

Jetah

@d3Sync said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

I think the phrasing alpha, beta, early access are essentially meaningless. It's very difficult to slam people for their expectations being too high or low because every project is different. Some alpha projects don't have many bugs, but are missing content. Some alpha's are completely full of bugs. Some are playable, and some will leave you so frustrated that you have to get up and go do somethings else out of frustration. Everyone has a different opinion of what each stage should mean. Part of that is a developer not being transparent enough about what to expect out of their product. Some of that is because the consumer expects too much. But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test. Sometimes developers don't deliver on that final point. I haven't tested Fractured yet, but based on a lack of NDA and what I've seen. It seems the game falls closer into the category of beta. Requires more content, but isn't riddled with bugs and easily playable for hours on end. Usually, from my experience, the people who defend very poor products are just mad because they feel that their favorite toy is being stolen. They get emotional and lash out at criticism. Often times it's well deserved.

only reason a consumer would expect too much is because the development phase has been labeled wrong.

d3Sync

@Jetah said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

@d3Sync said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

I think the phrasing alpha, beta, early access are essentially meaningless. It's very difficult to slam people for their expectations being too high or low because every project is different. Some alpha projects don't have many bugs, but are missing content. Some alpha's are completely full of bugs. Some are playable, and some will leave you so frustrated that you have to get up and go do somethings else out of frustration. Everyone has a different opinion of what each stage should mean. Part of that is a developer not being transparent enough about what to expect out of their product. Some of that is because the consumer expects too much. But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test. Sometimes developers don't deliver on that final point. I haven't tested Fractured yet, but based on a lack of NDA and what I've seen. It seems the game falls closer into the category of beta. Requires more content, but isn't riddled with bugs and easily playable for hours on end. Usually, from my experience, the people who defend very poor products are just mad because they feel that their favorite toy is being stolen. They get emotional and lash out at criticism. Often times it's well deserved.

only reason a consumer would expect too much is because the development phase has been labeled wrong.

I think your response is a perfect example of my point. The label is irrelevant. The reason they are irrelevant is because today, alpha's are anywhere between unplayable scams, to nearly bug free games, just lacking a little content. Blaming the consumer at this stage is almost impossible because those development stages no longer have any real meaning.

FibS

@d3Sync said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

I think the phrasing alpha, beta, early access are essentially meaningless [...] Everyone has a different opinion of what each stage should mean.

That's because people don't look up what words mean. Here is what the terms actually objectively mean:

alpha: Extremely early development. Testing to make sure technology and developer ability supports game vision. No guarantee game actually runs without crashing, losing data, or obviously horribly glitching.
beta: Mid-to-late development. Game is stable and playable. Most or all major game mechanics are in, but not necessarily every minor feature. Game is not yet optimized.
early access: 99% done, mostly optimized, and ready to ship. Some lucky few get to play it early. A few bugs or other issues may come up that may be patched before the official release date.

As long as developers are being honest and using these terms correctly (which they're admittedly often not), they're being as transparent as they should.

I would consider Fractured to remain in alpha until the following are all implemented and working on some basic level:

All three planets
Asteroids
Alignment and Syndesia's justice system
At least one Beastman+Abomination and one Demon+Angel (to test the Alignment system)
Eclipses
Towns

... and maybe a few other major mechanics I'm overlooking

Zori

@d3Sync said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

I think the phrasing alpha, beta, early access are essentially meaningless. It's very difficult to slam people for their expectations being too high or low because every project is different. Some alpha projects don't have many bugs, but are missing content. Some alpha's are completely full of bugs. Some are playable, and some will leave you so frustrated that you have to get up and go do somethings else out of frustration. Everyone has a different opinion of what each stage should mean. Part of that is a developer not being transparent enough about what to expect out of their product. Some of that is because the consumer expects too much. But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test. Sometimes developers don't deliver on that final point. I haven't tested Fractured yet, but based on a lack of NDA and what I've seen. It seems the game falls closer into the category of beta. Requires more content, but isn't riddled with bugs and easily playable for hours on end. Usually, from my experience, the people who defend very poor products are just mad because they feel that their favorite toy is being stolen. They get emotional and lash out at criticism. Often times it's well deserved.

"But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test."

You are what we call "a poorly researched consumer".
The mere fact that you don't understand what stages mean says more than enough already but if you think that "I spent money, therefore I should have a "proper state" to test it". is indeed an indicator that you have never researched or tried to understand what happens during test phases.

As for the other pointers that supports my case that you don't do any research before jumping in to an Alpha test game.

You haven't played Fractured yet you think it should be in beta already. -- I mean do you even know how much content is missing to call it a beta? On second thought, do you even know what "BETA TEST" means?
You insist that people who spent money on an alpha game are guaranteed a game at the end of the project tells me that you have not researched the fail rate of games on its alpha state, let alone how it can potentially deviate from its 'original plans'.
You compare games with another game that was obviously 'mislabelled' on its state.
Have you even bothered reading the alpha test section of the forum and how much bugs we've experienced? or what delayed the last test by about a week because a game breaking bug was found hours before an open alpha test was about to launch?
Do you even know the average play time of people who joined the alpha test last time to claim that it's "easily playable for hours on end".

You honestly need to research what you're saying and i'm not talking about going down the rabbit hole of Youtubers who have the same level of research skills as you.

and the reason why you guys fall for 'scammy' games on its so called "alpha" is because of your inability to conduct research so you're easily goaded into forking out your money.

You may be aware of the risks but you fail to understand the minute nuances behind development stages so you rely on your gut feelings to make a decision instead of dissecting and assessing what is being presented to you objectively.

You are legit what scammers want; poorly researched, gullible people.

the mere fact that you sounded so confident about your opinions without having tested the game is just ridiculous. "~in my opinion, the game should be in its... early beta." -re-adjusts monocle-

edit:

You may be wondering why my tone is so heavy and thats because people like you are legit one of the biggest reasons why games fail.

Poorly researched people ready to complain about things that they don't understand, because they dont understand development process they expect, push and demand for developers to reach certain milestones and rush production cause if theres 2 thousand other poorly researched consumers like you pitch in their poorly researched opinions, chances are other not so bright individuals like you will feel encouraged to start moaning about how much they dont understand in developmental stages.

Do you see where im getting at? idiotic statements needs to be corrected asap otherwise it'll propagate into a larger idiotic statement that will eventually cause problems for the development of the project.

Zori

@FibS said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

@d3Sync said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

I think the phrasing alpha, beta, early access are essentially meaningless [...] Everyone has a different opinion of what each stage should mean.

That's because people don't look up what words mean. Here is what the terms actually objectively mean:

alpha: Extremely early development. Testing to make sure technology and developer ability supports game vision. No guarantee game actually runs without crashing, losing data, or obviously horribly glitching.

beta: Mid-to-late development. Game is stable and playable. Most or all major game mechanics are in, but not necessarily every minor feature. Game is not yet optimized.

early access: 99% done, mostly optimized, and ready to ship. Some lucky few get to play it early. A few bugs or other issues may come up that may be patched before the official release date.

As long as developers are being honest and using these terms correctly (which they're admittedly often not), they're being as transparent as they should.

I would consider Fractured to remain in alpha until the following are all implemented and working on some basic level:

All three planets

Asteroids

Alignment and Syndesia's justice system

At least one Beastman+Abomination and one Demon+Angel (to test the Alignment system)

Eclipses

Towns

... and maybe a few other major mechanics I'm overlooking

the guy hasn't even done any of his research so he doesn't see that the game is missing over 90% of its content. He thinks it should be in "early beta" now lmao
he hasnt played any of the tests either. he's just seen a compilation of YT clips for the promotionals.

d3Sync

@Zori said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

@d3Sync said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

I think the phrasing alpha, beta, early access are essentially meaningless. It's very difficult to slam people for their expectations being too high or low because every project is different. Some alpha projects don't have many bugs, but are missing content. Some alpha's are completely full of bugs. Some are playable, and some will leave you so frustrated that you have to get up and go do somethings else out of frustration. Everyone has a different opinion of what each stage should mean. Part of that is a developer not being transparent enough about what to expect out of their product. Some of that is because the consumer expects too much. But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test. Sometimes developers don't deliver on that final point. I haven't tested Fractured yet, but based on a lack of NDA and what I've seen. It seems the game falls closer into the category of beta. Requires more content, but isn't riddled with bugs and easily playable for hours on end. Usually, from my experience, the people who defend very poor products are just mad because they feel that their favorite toy is being stolen. They get emotional and lash out at criticism. Often times it's well deserved.

"But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test."

You are what we call "a poorly researched consumer".
The mere fact that you don't understand what stages mean says more than enough already but if you think that "I spent money, therefore I should have a "proper state" to test it". is indeed an indicator that you have never researched or tried to understand what happens during test phases.

As for the other pointers that supports my case that you don't do any research before jumping in to an Alpha test game.

You haven't played Fractured yet you think it should be in beta already. -- I mean do you even know how much content is missing to call it a beta? On second thought, do you even know what "BETA TEST" means?

You insist that people who spent money on an alpha game are guaranteed a game at the end of the project tells me that you have not researched the fail rate of games on its alpha state, let alone how it can potentially deviate from its 'original plans'.

You compare games with another game that was obviously 'mislabelled' on its state.

Have you even bothered reading the alpha test section of the forum and how much bugs we've experienced? or what delayed the last test by about a week because a game breaking bug was found hours before an open alpha test was about to launch?

Do you even know the average play time of people who joined the alpha test last time to claim that it's "easily playable for hours on end".

You honestly need to research what you're saying and i'm not talking about going down the rabbit hole of Youtubers who have the same level of research skills as you.

and the reason why you guys fall for 'scammy' games on its so called "alpha" is because of your inability to conduct research so you're easily goaded into forking out your money.

You may be aware of the risks but you fail to understand the minute nuances behind development stages so you rely on your gut feelings to make a decision instead of dissecting and assessing what is being presented to you objectively.

You are legit what scammers want; poorly researched, gullible people.

the mere fact that you sounded so confident about your opinions without having tested the game is just ridiculous. "~in my opinion, the game should be in its... early beta." -re-adjusts monocle-

edit:

You may be wondering why my tone is so heavy and thats because people like you are legit one of the biggest reasons why games fail.

Poorly researched people ready to complain about things that they don't understand, because they dont understand development process they expect, push and demand for developers to reach certain milestones and rush production cause if theres 2 thousand other poorly researched consumers like you pitch in their poorly researched opinions, chances are other not so bright individuals like you will feel encouraged to start moaning about how much they dont understand in developmental stages.

Do you see where im getting at? idiotic statements needs to be corrected asap otherwise it'll propagate into a larger idiotic statement that will eventually cause problems for the development of the project.

I was speaking in generalities. I'm not sure why you feel that attacking me is the right course of action. I know exactly what these stages mean, as I've been playing and testing games since the mid 90's. I've done more than my share of research, and I've been around long enough to see development practices change over time. That doesn't change the fact that new consumers will not understand what to expect simply due to there now being thousands of games in a stage of early access, and all thousand of them are unique and in various stages of development. Not talking about what label is slapped on it. I'm talking about an alpha game, being in near beta development. Then the next alpha game is more of a pre-alpha game, as it's nearly unplayable. The relatively new practice of pay to play alpha's has muddied the waters of what you should expect.

This has nothing to do with Fractured and has nothing to do with whether I've played the game or not. It has to do with my decades worth of experience in testing.

I did not say, anywhere in my response, that an alpha is a promise to a fully finished game. I would challenge you to quote me. You are just upset, and you are making things up to try and support your argument. But here, I'm not going to let you lie. I simply said that in an alpha, if you are a developer, you should provide a build of the game that is playable and testable. Nowhere did I say finished, complete, or full release.

I'm aware of some of the slight delays of Fractured, and I don't consider that to be an issue. I've also watched about every single Youtube video that I could find. Which is probably over 50 hours of unedited gameplay. Based on my experience, there seems to be very few actual gamebreaking bugs. However, it does seem to be missing some content. Which is exactly how I described Fractured. I did not try and hide my lack of actual gameplay experience, but I believe there are many things that my eyes alone can glean from all of that gameplay that would lead me to a reasonable expectation of what Fractured will provide. You appear to be too upset to recognize that fact though. From many streamers and content creators, they have said that they played for hours. And if you just look at the time stamps, you'd see that many of these people played for multiple hours. Sometimes up to 3-4 hours or more.

I feel that this is a perfect example of unreasonable fans of a game. Nothing I said was an attack on the game. But you viewed my generality as one. You then became so distraught by your incorrect perception of what I actually said, that you started filling in the gaps with things you've made up to make me seem worse than I actually am. You need to step back and re-read people's comments before you go and attack them for things they didn't actually do or say.

Not only does it make you look bad, but it makes the entire community look bad.

Zori

@d3Sync said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

@Zori said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

@d3Sync said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

I think the phrasing alpha, beta, early access are essentially meaningless. It's very difficult to slam people for their expectations being too high or low because every project is different. Some alpha projects don't have many bugs, but are missing content. Some alpha's are completely full of bugs. Some are playable, and some will leave you so frustrated that you have to get up and go do somethings else out of frustration. Everyone has a different opinion of what each stage should mean. Part of that is a developer not being transparent enough about what to expect out of their product. Some of that is because the consumer expects too much. But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test. Sometimes developers don't deliver on that final point. I haven't tested Fractured yet, but based on a lack of NDA and what I've seen. It seems the game falls closer into the category of beta. Requires more content, but isn't riddled with bugs and easily playable for hours on end. Usually, from my experience, the people who defend very poor products are just mad because they feel that their favorite toy is being stolen. They get emotional and lash out at criticism. Often times it's well deserved.

"But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test."

You are what we call "a poorly researched consumer".
The mere fact that you don't understand what stages mean says more than enough already but if you think that "I spent money, therefore I should have a "proper state" to test it". is indeed an indicator that you have never researched or tried to understand what happens during test phases.

As for the other pointers that supports my case that you don't do any research before jumping in to an Alpha test game.

You haven't played Fractured yet you think it should be in beta already. -- I mean do you even know how much content is missing to call it a beta? On second thought, do you even know what "BETA TEST" means?

You insist that people who spent money on an alpha game are guaranteed a game at the end of the project tells me that you have not researched the fail rate of games on its alpha state, let alone how it can potentially deviate from its 'original plans'.

You compare games with another game that was obviously 'mislabelled' on its state.

Have you even bothered reading the alpha test section of the forum and how much bugs we've experienced? or what delayed the last test by about a week because a game breaking bug was found hours before an open alpha test was about to launch?

Do you even know the average play time of people who joined the alpha test last time to claim that it's "easily playable for hours on end".

You honestly need to research what you're saying and i'm not talking about going down the rabbit hole of Youtubers who have the same level of research skills as you.

and the reason why you guys fall for 'scammy' games on its so called "alpha" is because of your inability to conduct research so you're easily goaded into forking out your money.

You may be aware of the risks but you fail to understand the minute nuances behind development stages so you rely on your gut feelings to make a decision instead of dissecting and assessing what is being presented to you objectively.

You are legit what scammers want; poorly researched, gullible people.

the mere fact that you sounded so confident about your opinions without having tested the game is just ridiculous. "~in my opinion, the game should be in its... early beta." -re-adjusts monocle-

edit:

You may be wondering why my tone is so heavy and thats because people like you are legit one of the biggest reasons why games fail.

Poorly researched people ready to complain about things that they don't understand, because they dont understand development process they expect, push and demand for developers to reach certain milestones and rush production cause if theres 2 thousand other poorly researched consumers like you pitch in their poorly researched opinions, chances are other not so bright individuals like you will feel encouraged to start moaning about how much they dont understand in developmental stages.

Do you see where im getting at? idiotic statements needs to be corrected asap otherwise it'll propagate into a larger idiotic statement that will eventually cause problems for the development of the project.

I was speaking in generalities. I'm not sure why you feel that attacking me is the right course of action. I know exactly what these stages mean, as I've been playing and testing games since the mid 90's. I've done more than my share of research, and I've been around long enough to see development practices change over time. That doesn't change the fact that new consumers will not understand what to expect simply due to there now being thousands of games in a stage of early access, and all thousand of them are unique and in various stages of development. Not talking about what label is slapped on it. I'm talking about an alpha game, being in near beta development. Then the next alpha game is more of a pre-alpha game, as it's nearly unplayable. The relatively new practice of pay to play alpha's has muddied the waters of what you should expect.

This has nothing to do with Fractured and has nothing to do with whether I've played the game or not. It has to do with my decades worth of experience in testing.

I did not say, anywhere in my response, that an alpha is a promise to a fully finished game. I would challenge you to quote me. You are just upset, and you are making things up to try and support your argument. But here, I'm not going to let you lie. I simply said that in an alpha, if you are a developer, you should provide a build of the game that is playable and testable. Nowhere did I say finished, complete, or full release.

I'm aware of some of the slight delays of Fractured, and I don't consider that to be an issue. I've also watched about every single Youtube video that I could find. Which is probably over 50 hours of unedited gameplay. Based on my experience, there seems to be very few actual gamebreaking bugs. However, it does seem to be missing some content. Which is exactly how I described Fractured. I did not try and hide my lack of actual gameplay experience, but I believe there are many things that my eyes alone can glean from all of that gameplay that would lead me to a reasonable expectation of what Fractured will provide. You appear to be too upset to recognize that fact though. From many streamers and content creators, they have said that they played for hours. And if you just look at the time stamps, you'd see that many of these people played for multiple hours. Sometimes up to 3-4 hours or more.

I feel that this is a perfect example of unreasonable fans of a game. Nothing I said was an attack on the game. But you viewed my generality as one. You then became so distraught by your incorrect perception of what I actually said, that you started filling in the gaps with things you've made up to make me seem worse than I actually am. You need to step back and re-read people's comments before you go and attack them for things they didn't actually do or say.

Not only does it make you look bad, but it makes the entire community look bad.

Are you capable of reading and responding to what anyone has said to you at all or are you just going to keep adding on whatever you felt like?

I've addressed your points on your main response in a logical and thoughtful manner yet you did not respond to anything that i've stated at all but merely deflected them.

"I was speaking of generalities" when we're talking about a specific situation?

again let's go back to these points.

You haven't played Fractured yet you think it should be in beta already. -- I mean do you even know how much content is missing to call it a beta? On second thought, do you even know what "BETA TEST" means?

I haven't tested Fractured yet ....It seems the game falls closer into the category of beta.

You insist that people who spent money on an alpha game are guaranteed a game at the end of the project tells me that you have not researched the fail rate of games on its alpha state, let alone how it can potentially deviate from its 'original plans'.

But ultimately, if you spend money and you are given access to a game, it should be in a proper state to test. (test* but doesnt even know what Alpha or Beta is in terms of testing.)

You compare games with another game that was obviously 'mislabelled' on its state.

Some alpha projects... Some are playable...

Have you even bothered reading the alpha test section of the forum and how much bugs we've experienced? or what delayed the last test by about a week because a game breaking bug was found hours before an open alpha test was about to launch?

Do you even know the average play time of people who joined the alpha test last time to claim that it's "easily playable for hours on end".re fact that you think 'research' is just "watching hours of gameplay" and looking at their timestamps brings me back to my point; "You honestly need to research what you're saying and i'm not talking about going down the rabbit hole of Youtubers who have the same level of research skills as you."

Seeing as you've "tested games since the 90's" then I wonder why you seem to struggle to understand some of the very basic concepts of development stages, and even claim that "speaking in general" this game is "early beta" when it's nowhere near beta?

now you feel attacked when someone points out your flaws? toughen up, not everyone is going to sugar coat the hard pills to swallow for you.

Know what's actually bad for the community?

People who spouts out their opinion without any actual experience that encourages other half wits like them to spout out more stupid things.

"I feel that this is a perfect example of unreasonable fans of a game"
Your feelings have very little weight when people are dealing with facts and logic.

But thanks for your "feelings". Tell me again who's being an "unreasonable" fan.
The one that logically and rationally elaborated their thought process, or the one that jumped into conclusion?

"You then became so distraught by your incorrect perception of what I actually said..."
The only one distraught here is the person making assumptions about something they have very little knowledge of and are know being called out for it.

Address what i've said to you, not how you feel cause clearly your feelings mean very little to me.

edit:

"This has nothing to do with Fractured and has nothing to do with whether I've played the game or not. It has to do with my decades worth of experience in testing."

". You are just upset, and you are making things up to try and support your argument."

lmfao

what else did i say, not say and made up?
since you're the expert on feelings here, why dont you got ahead and tell me more about how i feel, particularly about the situation.

dont play that bs where you try and deflect or try to talk without specificities in fear of being called out. Remember, everything that you've said is written, we can always just scroll back up.

anyway, this brings me back to my previous point of why im so heavy handed on people like you.

You spout out things you dont understand and fail to be objective, but rely on their emotions to make a decision for them "you are upset waaah waaaah waaaaahhhh"

and if you think that ..."I've also watched about every single Youtube video that I could find." is research, i've got some bad news for you pal.

Stacy555

Great to see @Zori back on his high horse again....... ahh I've missed his condescending attitude.

Zori

@Stacy555 said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

Great to see @Zori back on his high horse again....... ahh I've missed his condescending attitude.

and as always you have nothing to contribute.

Stacy555

@Zori As always I care very little if at all what you think or feel or ... in fact anything.

Zori

@Stacy555 said in What to expect on an "alpha state" game?:

@Zori As always I care very little if at all what you think or feel or ... in fact anything.

thanks for letting me know, stace.
great input as always.

Stacy555

Yeah that's me full of joy ... just sad I'm in the same Guild as a God sized gobshite like you to be honest.