Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
But, I'll risk feeding you...
Steam (and the developers) were NOT up front about the state of the game when it was released. So NO, people did NOT have "all the relevant information that should have indicated to you that the game was still being worked on."
Get over yourself.
To be honest, it's really hard to take you seriously when you broadly paint everyone that has issues with the game as being "silly".
To add to that point, I actually looked around quite a bit and right after the release of the game and there really weren't many videos of the most recent build (v8a I think it was at the time) of the game. I believe I found maybe 2 channels total with videos of that build at that time and those videos didn't even come close to showing everything.
I always find it hillarious when someone makes the argument that "the information was out there" when trying to defend the game. It's neither refuting the stated issues nor actually presenting any positives. It's also factually incorrect for being able to determine the exact state of the game.
Actually, it was beta.
Can't really blame you there. They're not terribly productive.
That one is actually pretty tricky as I understand it. I wasn't there during the pre-release but from what i've been told it is true that there was a beta stage. The problem with it is that (again, from what i've heard) it was very short lived, changed almost nothing and involved a smaller select portion of the consumer base they had prior to launch. As such, for the majority of their customers (and in terms of what was publicly visible) it effectively went straight from alpha to release. It was even rumored that the "beta" was nothing more than a quick check to make sure the game functioned properly through Steam.
It has been a while since I looked into the details of that issue so I could certainly be missing something in there. I just remember that that whole issue never really looked very good for SMP.
None of that really matters though. There are far bigger problems to pick on in relation to Towns than that but at least they're still working on it.
Do you have proof that it was an alpha? No?
It(v9) wasn't even close to alpha anyway.
A game in "alpha" state will have a great majority of its intended, planned and confirmed features and mechanics unimplemented, buggy or broken; most of its textures, models and/or UI incomplete, unrefined, missing or non-existant(with the possibility of placeholders); be unreleased(assuming they don't follow the minecraft purchase model); be closed to the vast majority of its community if not the entirety and so on.
Sounds to me you're getting a bit passive aggressive there.
I'm going to ask you to not attempt to start an argument over a single, miniscule detail and to discuss the topic at hand in a pragmatic and objective manner.
See:
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/alpha-test
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/alpha_version.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,1237,t=alpha+test&i=37674,00.asp
That is largely irrelevant to the block of text you quoted, my friend.
See above.
Also, it seems illogical for a game to jump from the alpha state to released in such a small timeframe. Think about that for a moment.
Note that every one of the games you listed is indie and don't have much funding nor a very large team. They essentially have to release some version to their community if they ever want to assure quality.
As to be expected of a newly-released game. Did you seriously think any game released to the public for purchase would not receive any more updates?
See above.
With the average game, it is. If the developers actually have a qualified studio and aren't greenhorns in the business, they'll usually do much of the testing and refinement privately before releasing it to a selection of players for further review and QA.
Forgive me for not being as single-minded as you, but I don't care to provide any "statement from the devs" which denotes whatever the state of the game was prior to the release.
It was a simple observation that the game "right before it was on steam" was in no way qualified to be considered an alpha.
See above.
That still does not mean it was an alpha. It may have been labeled one, but it wasn't in a state which could be considered an alpha by any part of the gaming community outside of a few minorities whom seem to think that there is no difference between an alpha and a beta.
That would be you.
First point, it was v8a not v9 that was available at release. Secondly, i've seen alpha stage games that were more functional than towns so it really doesn't mean much to say whether it was "even close to alpha anyway."
A product can easily still be in alpha with only a single feature missing. An alpha is very rarely a fully functioning product but this honestly just sounds like you trying to make alpha sound worse than it really is just to make a point. This argument just falls flat, especially when you bring up a game like Minecraft in your argument which itself wasn't nearly as bad as your description would imply during its alpha.
No duh it seems illogical. That's the reason anyone brings it up to begin with. It's actually a verified fact that what beta did exist was very short lived. Illogical does not mean untrue.
As I have stated before, that is a label.
The alpha state is what I've been trying to convey which is generally understood as a very rough, preliminary release or preview of a game.
I don't see how.
Any alpha I've ever experienced or witnessed may hold multiple criteria of which I listed in my post.
I never said minecraft's alpha was bad nor that it fit my description of an alpha.
Again, as I tried to explain, alpha can be a label or a state.
When I read "alpha" in the software context I think of the alpha state.
I don't go by what the game is labeled by unless necessary.
The reason I mentioned minecraft is because it had a specific purchase model that I don't know the formal name of. The purchase model was semi-related to my original point and so you have reasoning for my mention of it(which was actually its marketing strategy rather than the game itself).
Tell that to Nalidus, not me.
I never correlated the two nor did I imply or state that the two are synonymous or closely tied.
Because they are small companies that actually, get this, aren't backed by millions of dollars and dozens of staff members and have a dedicated QA dep't -- they can't really privately test, polish and fix their alphas on their own without help from the community.
Or I simply don't want to re-iterate upon something that has been defined, developed and enumerated upon by countless other individuals and studios.
While I have refutations backed by sources which are the logical descendants of those mentioned in my previous statement, all you have supplied is an anecdote and simplistic statements that provide no new ground on your previous retort(s).
I never correlated the two, implied they were the same nor explicitly stated that they are closely related.
Re-read my statement.
In a nutshell, I stated that it is more conservative on resources and time as a small company or team to release your project as a demo or semi-closed alpha or beta to your community for bug-finding and further refinement rather than privately polishing the product and attempting to root out all problems by oneself.
Hon, if you'll re-read my posts -- you'll see that I only ever explicitly labeled Towns as a beta once.
That is what started all of this misunderstanding.
As I stated so very many times before, it may be labeled as an alpha... but it isn't necessarily in an alpha state.
I like how you provided reasoning for this profound declaration. [/sarcasm]
I was about to say the same about yours. Thanks for saving my time.
But lets say this, first there was no official statement from devs on their forum that the game went to beta. But devs made a testing beta group with few people back in october, so they went to beta, but did not announce it. The only info people can find about it being beta on the forum is from one of the beta testers.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/227220/
Towns dev's, either through ignorance or malice, just didn't bother trying.