Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[Pinotage]

In the old end it doesn't really matter what the playtesters did and didn't say. What matters more to me is when Joe Average Gamer gets his hands on a copy and then says something that's useful based on a complete opinion of the entire product. These playtester reports are pretty useless in a way, because they give you snapshots and don't really tell you much as a whole. I waiting for release when everybody can say what needs to be said.

Pinotage

 

[Dragonblade]

Care to expound?

Sorry, I'm at work and don't always have the liberty to make long posts. I think my first post and those of many others explain why. Andy was open and honest. As someone who deals with a QA department for a living, I have to say that he is right.

If someone thinks that not allowing negative pre-release feedback for a game that isn't even finished yet is some sort of indictment about WotC's lack of "credibility", then I'm sorry, but they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Well, what if the opposite happens? Something the playtesters voicing their opinion liked needed to be changed because other playtesters hated or found a critical flaw in it.

Assuming the NDAs are followed that still won't come up. We know these playtesters liked 4e but we don't really know WHY they liked 4e. We have some vauge aspects but no specifics. Unless they come out after publication and say "I wish they had kept in X" we won't know that this is the case.

I guess the step of allowing some playtesters to voice their opinion was neither bad nor good, it was just, overall, meaningless.

Maybe, but hindsight and all that...

I can see why they allowed it though. I have seen multiple complaints that all we hear is that 4e is "cool" and this is all from WotC staffers. So, if we here that it is "cool" from people outside of WotC it would hopefully take care of that particular complaint. This sounds good and an easy one to take care of.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

AH, to abuse the power of "Postitive Deconstruction"
This Part was Great, much better than this part or this part

This part was Very clear and easy to read, where as this part and this part could be re-worded for clarity.

so on, and so forth

 

[zacharythefirst]

Sorry, I'm at work and don't always have the liberty to make long posts. I think my first post and those of many others explain why. Andy was open and honest. As someone who deals with a QA department for a living, I have to say that he is right.

If someone thinks that not allowing negative pre-release feedback for a game that isn't even finished yet is some sort of indictment about WotC's lack of "credibility", then I'm sorry, but they have no idea what they are talking about.

That's cool. I know what it's like, doing "guerilla posting" from work. I wasn't trying to be snarky or anything, just wanted to see if had more along the lines of post 1.

 

[kennew142]

I am not eager to hear a report from every single playtester. I was interested to hear Ari's opinion because I've seen his work and his tastes seem to be similar to mine. I also know Jon's work and was interested to see what he had to say. I don't know the third poster's work. It was interesting to hear, but less likely to have an effect on my opinion about the upcoming game.

I also don't that WotC did anything sinister in this matter. Everything seems to have been handled in the manner that NDAs are always handled.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't doubt the statements from WotC, so hearing them from other people doesn't effect me either.

This is maybe where you are different then some other people. Some people doubt WotC words, but they might believe an "outside" source.

But in the end, maybe the approach to simply not believe what WotC tells us is so unreasonable to begin with that any outside source doesn't have a fair chance to change opinions anyway.
But I think there is a middle ground - some might believe WotC believes what they say, but are still mistaken. In that case, an outside source increases the likelihood that WotC isn't mistaken...

But the statements we have gotten so far doesn't "help" those that have clear preferences for certain play styles that don't seem supported in 4E, at least if they don't know that the playtester voicing his opinion favours the same play style.

 

[Dragonblade]

That's cool. I know what it's like, doing "guerilla posting" from work. I wasn't trying to be snarky or anything, just wanted to see if had more along the lines of post 1.

No worries. I didn't think you were being snarky at all.

 

[WayneLigon]

I can't imagine how anyone can read Collin's comments and come away with anything other than a reasoned and legitimate explanation. There's no 'damage' or 'credability hit' or 'spin' or 'marketing' or anything else involved.

 

[AZRogue]

1. Some playtesters ASKED for permission to speak of their 4E experience without giving away the game mechanics. They were GRANTED permission, even though any other company would have denied the request.

2. Those playtesters that ASKED for and were GRANTED permission were allowed to relay their positive feelings, which is what they WANTED to do, and to not go into negatives since those should go to WotC. That's what playtesting is FOR.

3. Instead of being grateful that they allowed a few trusted individuals speak when they SHOULDN'T have, we have people using this as proof of some sort of spin. What, what? Next time you take the little pink pill, read the bottle. And don't mix with alcohol, geez.

This really is a storm in a teacup. I'm starting to think that a very small minority (very small) of posters will SPIN anything they hear to make it into a plot "against" them. Maybe we should go with it and just admit that, yes, 4E was designed specifically to upset three or four people. Is it working? Then it was all worthwhile, mwahahahahahahaha!