Musings On... Should Playtesters Rate Games? (#21)
Larry Levy: The question is, should someone who has playtested a game at some time during its development process then review or rate the game, at a site like the Geek? Or should the individual recluse themselves because of this participation?The question arises because of a recent squabble over a playtester rating the new game Caylus a 10. This produced charges of "shilling" at both the Gamewire and the Geek and the issue was argued back and forth in some rather long threads.
My feeling is *anyone* should be allowed to rate a game--even the designer! To be responsible, I think someone who has any connection to the designer, the developer, the publisher, or who was a part of the creative process should mention this, and this almost always happens. But far from forbidding this sort of thing, I think it should be encouraged. This kind of perspective is very valuable, particularly when a game is first released. Many playtesters have no personal connection with any of the creative personnel, but even if they do, a simple "the designer is a friend of mine" is all I need to
know. I can then filter the comments or rating in any way that seems appropriate.
The real problem, to me, is the charge of shilling that is sometimes made in these circumstances. It's gotten to the point where it's better to be charged with being a pedophile than a shill in gaming circles. There's no question that some designers and publishers have engaged in questionable practices in an effort to promote their games. But frankly, I find the backlash to be far more odious. Too many honest people are being branded as shills and that's a stain on their character that may be hard to remove.
In the thread on the Geek, Mike Siggins made a very good point about some of the dangers of a playtester rating a game, but I'll let him speak about that himself.
Nick Danger: I think it's fine, with a couple of caveats. The rating should be a "true" rating of how the play tester feels about the game and not just a rating to help the designer out. Also, the play tester should either have played the released game or be sure the game is in the same state as it was when they last play tested it.
Other than that I'm in the box with the "one person, one vote" lobby and don't see anything wrong with it. If it's a true feeling and comment about the game, how can it be worth any less than anyone else's feeling towards the game. If anything, it might carry a bit more weight as you should be able to count on the rating coming from a source with a knowledgeable understanding of the game. Something which can't always be said after a player posts a rating from a single, or worse yet a partial playing of the game
Greg Schloesser: I have no problems with this, provided the caveats mentioned by Nick are followed.
Ian Mackey: I would cast my vote in the "let them vote" camp with the caveats previously mentioned. In quite a few cases, these players ratings and especially their commentary can be quite valuable. This group of people have quite likely played the game multiple times, even to the point of saturation. There is a significant number of ratings that come from people who have played a given game only once, sometimes (oh the horror), not even at all. You can generally trust a solid playtester to have run the game in a significant number or scenarios to justify an overall sense of the game.
On the downside, this group of people (not the blind playtesters) may have a hard time giving an objective sense of how well the rules are written since their knowledge of the play mechanics evolves over time and usually the unquestioned rules arbiter (aka the designer) is on hand to clarify the unknowns.
Unfortunately there is no magic general-use filter to discard unwanted votes. Perhaps the best way is already in place on the geek. Use the geekbuddy analysis on a well-trusted group you maintain on whose opinion matters to you.
Frank Branham: Actually, what if there were a weighting/threshold for how many ratings a person has to have made before their vote is averaged into the overall score for the game? The bulk of serious complaints about shilling are about people clearly outside the BGG community who pop in with their friends, rate their game a 10, along with their playtesters, and do not contribute to the community in any other way.
But...because this is such a small community of people who are producing so many titles, the odds of being a playtester are huge. And valid playtesters are avid game players who have played a lot of games. (That other sort tends to make for very bad playtesters.) So they should definitely be allowed to rate games.
Just ignore the obvious shillers. A threshold mechanism might help.
Morgan Dontanville: As a playtester and someone that works for a game company, I never feel comfortable putting in a rating until either the game comes out or there are so many ratings that mine will not drastically affect it.
I have no problems with putting my comments up though.
Certain games have caused me some troubling ethical questions balancing between being a gamer and working in the industry. I love Tempus and know that when it comes out I will give it a 10. I've played it about 20 times which is pretty outstanding for me. But, as someone that works for the company putting it out, I don't feel comfortable rating it.
I waited on other games of ours that I didn't like as much, as well. But, you could say that was because of my desire to not affect sales. Regardless, all of my comments were there.
Rating games poorly, when you know the designer, sometimes feels like airing dirty laundry, but I feel it is essential to be honest even if it means that some people get pissed at you. (I've gotten my share of emails).
War of the Rings is still a tough dilemma for me. I was an unofficial playtester, as I played this with a friend who was a playtester. I hated it. I mean really, really detested the game.
When hype started rolling in, I felt I had to keep my mouth shut as I didn't play the finished version of the game. I wouldn't want the game held back by the beta flaws.
I have since seen the finished product and everything I abhorred about the beta version was still in the game. Yet, I don't feel justified in rating the game, as I haven't actually played the complete product.
There was an ugly backlash toward one of my fellow playtesters of the game, because of his comments on the geek. For some reason it was fine to post how great it was, but not how irritating it is. This becomes an ethical gray area.
There is a level of trust that a company puts into their playtesters. They want them to hype the game of course, but they don't want it panned before errors can be corrected. I think this will always be a tough judgment call, and ultimately few are happy with the results.
Shannon Appelcline: Two possibilities.
In scenario one these folks rate the game, it's wildly successful, and hundreds of other people rate it. Their ratings are thus just noise, and it doesn't matter if they (consciously or unconsciously) were unfairly biased toward it.
In scenario two these folks rate the game, it's not successful, and few other people rate it. Their ratings can then bias the final rating notably, but who cares? The Geek keeps them out of the rankings at these low interest numbers, and clearly the (potentially but not absolutely unfair) ratings aren't making any difference.
(Beyond that, a review that's biased, as opposed to just a rating number, is usually obviously so because it's long on hyperbole and short on discussion.)
So, yeah, designers and playtesters alike should definitely rate their games.
Now the question of whether designers should be able to grab a purposefully misleading domain name as an immoral attempt to pump their own marketing, that's a totally different issue.
Jason Little: YES!!! A playtester -- in fact, anyone involved in the development of a game -- should be allowed to post a review, rate or otherwise comment on a game. In fact, it should be encouraged and welcomed by the boardgaming community.
I strongly agree, in the interests of providing the best information and context possible, that the reviewer be responsible and state his affiliation with a game. By simply stating their involvement, a reader can then determine whether the reviewer's comments are biased, or can (preferably) look into them for interesting insights into the game that a playtester/designer may have that the general public might not.
In fact, here is an excellent example of why I think this should be encouraged. Despite our disagreements about War of the Ring, knowing that Andy Daglish was involved in the playtesting of the game does change how I view his comments and content. With subjective comments on WotR, I could decide whether or not I felt the need to filter the comments based on his involvement... but for his objective comments and feedback regarding the balance and energy invested in playtesting the game for structure, balance and playability, this content had more weight and credibility due to Andy's involvement.
The more information we get into the hands of the end consumer (here, the person interested in X game), the greater service we're providing to the industry. Having playtesters post comments and announcing one's affiliation with a game both provide more information to a consumer, allowing them to make better informed decisions and learn more about this great hobby. And that can only be a good thing!
Mike Siggins: I can only echo much that Morgan said, and said very well. I find myself in much the same role, as I playtest and develop for a second income. And I design for a third, but not currently in our field. In time, because of my interest in exotic sportsgames, I may also publish. And who knows, eventually I may return to print. That is a lot of hats. There are, as a result, times that I feel I have to keep my mouth shut, on which I expand below.
My concern generally (and this is based on long experience) is that playtesters are involved at many stages of development. I cannot regard a playtester's view as accurate unless, by some lucky chance, they play the final prototype version, and preferably a post production version as well. This is because things can change in a big way, even in the space of a week. A game the tester played and enjoyed may now be distinctly different. In one case recently, playtesters were lagging so far behind the actual design state that they were playing a different game. Even a change in the thickness of the tiles can move a game from a pleasure to a fiddly pain. The longer the time from test to release, with a modifier based on game complexity, length and components, the greater potential for error.
I think we all know about last minute tweaks, and production glitches that have transformed a game well after the last playtester, and even the designer, have signed it off. Last week, we had a single mistranslated word in a ruleset, picked up 11th hour, that changed the game substantially. So, more testing ensued, and less chance that testers used earlier in the process would know what they were about when rating the prototype game.
For this reason I personally would only rate a playtested game that I know went to press in exactly that format, or I would ideally wait until I have played the production version (e.g. Tempus). I also felt that, in the case of War of the Ring, I couldn't participate in the recent Musings On, though I have rated and commented on BGG in a restricted, detached, 'gamer hat on' way! Seriously, I am okay with that. I am an honest person, and have no axe to grind or money to be made. I just happen to really love a game I had been involved with. Some may argue with even that level of opinion being made public, and being someone who sees the other side, there may be a case. But a small one.
Taking it wider, Morgan raised the issue of 'grey' areas. I regard greyness as actual, or borderline, conflict of interest; it would be interesting to hear if Morgan agrees. I can usually spot when this is happening, and proceed carefully. I was talking to Reiner Knizia last year who came up with a very interesting rule that he works by. He said that in this hobby you are either a designer, publisher or reviewer - and we might take reviewer, in a general sense, to be anyone rating a game. Any combination of these three, for him, results in a conflict of interest. I think he is broadly right. Not because he is Reiner, but because I have actually felt such pressures in the last year. Of course he didn't categorise playtesters, or developers, and I wish I had asked him....
To illustrate, if one reviews and publishes, can one ever be unbiased? It is easy to look as if one is putting down a rival's game. A designer who is reviewing is certainly in a difficult position. There are other awkward combinations. I always look slightly askance when I see a famous German designer rating another's game as a 3. On one hand, he is just a gamer expressing his tastes and is unlikely to be influencing much. On the other, he is a professional commenting negatively on another's work. Is it better to keep stumm? Who knows? For fifteen years I refused to put a numerical rating on anything (with one or two notable exceptions), forcing myself to explain and justify my opinion. Now, we rate the inside box art and the designer's dress sense and some use ratings as a blunt weapon (in fact, a shillelagh!).
This gives rise to question whether a designer should rate his own games. I always feel slightly queasy when I see a self anointed 10, but I also understand that the designer feels he gave it his very best, and is keen to play his baby, so why would he vote less than 10? I also feel edified when I see they have given themselves a 6, because this conveys honesty and a realistic self assessment of their output. It also might mean, for whatever reason, they have not produced the best game they might have. If in their heart they know that this was lack of effort, or corner cutting, then I am NOT happy! If it reflects the best effort they could have made, but components failed them, or the publisher cocked up (e.g. Clippers), then fine.
As Morgan said, lots of grey areas.
Pierce Ostrander: I feel that playtesters, designers and folks connected with a game in any significant way should NOT rate it or review it. Certainly, they should feel free to comment, answer questions and share information (while clearly disclosing their relationship to the game, company or designer) but should refrain from giving opinions that amount to a rating or review.
I recently got an opportunity to play a pre-production version of a game and found that I really didn't like it. I am not a playtester. However, I had a relationship with the designer: we exchanged friendly emails before and after my one play and he taught me the game during the "demo". Afterward, I decided to be honest with him about my impressions and gave him about six (fairly extensive) suggestions for improvement. My suggestions spawned an email exchange among his playtesters (to which he made me a party). It was fun! I enjoyed participating in the creative process of making the game better (some of the suggestions were embraced and will be incorporated into the final version of the game). However… I still can't imagine myself really liking this game! Some of the things I thought needed changing involved re-design and repurposing – the designer wasn't willing to go that far.
I like the designer. He is a really nice guy. I don't want to do anything to harm his potential for success. This is based on meeting him once and exchanging a few notes! Imagine if he were a closer friend with whom my collaboration had been much more extensive. In such a situation I cannot imagine anyone staying truly objective.
Based on my own (very brief and limited) experience I could see the tendency for playtesters who are positive about a game to rate, comment, and generally hype a game while playtesters who have qualified opinions to just "go silent". Hence, we can seldom count on a balanced opinion from this source. Everything we hear from this group will be good.
On another level… It's just bad form. I kinda see it as saying: "gee… aren't I good!".
If you have a relationship to the people involved in the design and production, you should keep your official opinions to yourself… particularly in the very early stages of a game's release.
Frank Branham: This seems to promote the idea of proper self-censoring. Like Mike S, I'm a gamer who somehow ended up playtesting, writing rules, and designing games. But I'm still at heart a gamer, who would like to express his opinions. It isn't like you actually make any real money from any of these games (even as a publisher, the profits are pretty slim), and the end result might be bragging rights and seeing your name in print somewhere.
There are a lot of cases, where I am just too close to a game to really work out how I feel about the game. I've yet to rate it, although I think it is a superb game. But Ty's a friend, I campaigned to get it produced, figured out how to retheme it, and did all of the image research and scanning.
On the other hand, I rated my own Dia die Los Muertos a 10. I didn't actually do so until the game had been out for two years, and found that I was still avidly playing it. So it is a valid rating, and I am finally certain in my heart that it would be a 10 if someone else had
made it.
The above musings are leading me to think that we should invoke a waiting period before rating games you are involved in. The only problem I see with this is that we do not require that for everyone.
I have had games that I rated after a single play, and would have rated them far differently after several more plays. (St. Petersburg comes to mind. The initial shine wore that one. Twilight also comes to mind. My first game left me baffled and frustrated, but half a dozen games later, and it was obviously one of my favorite trick taking games. )
Nick Danger: The problem with this discussion is that it's basically taking place in a vacuum. In a perfect rating world anyone associated with the game refrains from rating it. Eurogamers refrain from rating war games, people who dislike abstracts don't rate abstracts, gamers who prefer battling the wits don't rate light games, etc.
Then the ratings would be mostly highly accurate reflections of the actual game and not diluted so much. Once again I'm steering off topic but wouldn't it be nice if only people who like abstracts rated abstracts. I don't care for blind bidding in games in general. If a game features that mechanic and I rated it, I would undoubtedly rate it low. What good does that do a fan of blind bidding in games? None. It's a disservice to the gamer and the game.
Best would be a written review by myself stating the reasons I didn't care for the game, from that a fan of that style of game might be able to use my "bad" review in a positive way. Whereas my rating of 4 can do nothing positive.
Don't ask me where I'm going with this. I thought I had a point when I started but now I'm just looking around at all the trees and wondering where the path out of here is.
Morgan Dontanville: Man, Mike, the issues of conflict of interest are difficult. This is a long rant so bear with me.
As much as I would say that I agree with Reiner Knizia about the roles of the designer, publisher or reviewer I think that, not surprisingly, that that is a calculated response that misses the point entirely.
At the end of the day we are all gamers. Anyone that is either a designer, publisher or reviewer who doesn't seriously love games, seriously needs to reconsider why they are waisting their time. Now this is where the conflicts should end but ultimately begin.
I think it would be downright impossible for any self proclaimed gamer to play a game and not have some opinion about it. Every publisher I know has their own opinions about their games and others. Just as every designer knows what they like or don't like in a game. So what does that make a reviewer? I'd say it is any gamer that publicly expresses their opinion.
When I first started buying Designer Games, I looked to what little information was out there and made some random stabs in the dark. Some things were incredible and blew my mind and some things, well they just blew. I only started writing my opinions down because my experiences with many of these games seemed to be quite different from what was considered cannon.
Soon my love grew, and like most of us I thought I could make one of these things. Certainly, in playing some of these I thought I could make something better than that. Whether we are storytellers, mathematicians, social interplayers, artists or whatnot there is something about these games that appeals to a number of different kinds of people. And many of us feel we can bring our brand to these games, and do it just as well. Call it fan fic or whatever, but many gamers as well as being reviewers, by nature, would also like to be designers. Even those who admit that they aren't creative determine that they should in fact be developers, and to keep this topical, playtesters.
I played a metric butt-load of games to see how these bad boys worked. Along the way I wrote down notes to myself, and talked about them when I could (which was often). Eventually, in my need to be around games I started working in the industry.
So, ultimately, the only reason I'm working in the industry is because I'm just an obsessive gamer. Frankly, I don't feel that my opinion about games is any more or less valid than Gamer X. What people forget when we discuss games as "professionals" is that the only reason we even know about these things is because we love them.
When I go onto the geek I go on as a gamer. I made sure that the badge is there so people don't think I have some kooky ulterior motive. Just because I now work in the industry doesn't mean that I should have to renounce myself publicly as a gamer. That seems false to me. That said I have more of a responsibility to maintain my integrity.
Next year, I have some games coming out that I've designed. Now, I will be breaking all three of Reiner Knizia's boundaries. What does this mean? Certainly Herr Knizia knows what it takes to be successful, but when he says these things, sometimes they come off as trite. I respect the designers that are gamers first. The very fact that Knizia said that he doesn't play other designer's games makes me think that he works his PR too much. I've played Knizia's games and some of them are masterpieces and some aren't. By making a statement like this does this cross any lines?
I think it is just fine not to like games. There will be others to love. Designers should just be happy enough to get their games out to the people that do enjoy them. Designers and publishers need to understand that once these puppies are born they are no longer in their womb. Not liking a game does not mean it is a personal attack. Authors don't have to like each other's work - why should designers?
As for a designer rating their own game, this becomes questionable. A designer has a contractual obligation to their publisher. The publisher is taking a risk on the designer, so the designer should let the publisher handle this kind of work for them and stay clear of
PR.
Answering FAQs fine, but my feeling is that a designer's opinion of their own game can do nothing but hurt the sales of that or other games. So, the gray line here is the obligation to the publisher.
As someone who works for the company that is putting out Clippers here in the states, I can certainly say that the components were indeed a shame.
Frank Branham: : Pierce's statement about playtesters not having a balanced opinion is of course true. But it isn't necessarily bad. By keeping playtesters from commenting on games, we go from a state where we have skewed ratings to a state where we have no information at all.
But a lot of other things skew ratings:
Certain people who buy games will tend to rate them higher because it helps in their eyes justify their purchase. Some see it the other way--as a personal affront. Some don't like the designer's other games, and so will tend to rate games by that designer lower. (I *STILL* cast a jaundiced eye towards anything by Gunther Burkhardt, even though he has actually had some rather nice games published since those first few horrors.) Someone may hate the designer. Check out the ratings on Crossword Pyramids. It isn't a bad game and is really nicely produced.
Also, a lot of the old Gathering of Friends core, and the people they've dragged into the hobby kinda know everybody. So if I create a game, my fellow Gulf Gamers and Gathering folks, as well as the core of the players in the Atlanta Board Games lists should not be allowed to rate my games. If Arcana Arcanissima ever sees the light of day, pretty much all of them have been forced to playtest it at one point or another--and pretty much all of them I'd count among my friends.
Where do you draw THAT line. Or just stop worrying about it and get on with life.
Mike Siggins:: That is all good to hear, and I hope I wasn't suggesting that because we are sitting in this silicon ivory tower, that somehow our views carry more weight. I reported on Reiner's comment partly because he is known for such sweeping statements, and partly because I felt it gave us some sort of 'ideal' to bounce off in the current discussion. While he may live his life that way, I considered it and found it at least flexible... Yes, there may be occasions now and in the future where I have to stand back, but almost all of the time I am happy to comment as a gamer without feeling the slightest tinge of grey.
I don't rate my own games, but that is personal choice. I take Frank's excellent guideline on whether it would rate a 10 from anyone else - as I said, realistic and honest self appraisal. I also think Frank's point on 'income derived' is an issue. Reiner may well look at this in a different way given his livelihood depends on it. Perhaps he can simply afford to take this stance?
Rick Young: Are we talking strictly about BGG ratings here? Singling out playtesters in the anarchy that is the Geek initially struck me as a bit harsh. Maybe I'm missing something here - there would appear to be a subtext of experience that I'm not aware of in this respect. I expect the fact that I don't travel in the same circles as most of you would explain that.
The Geek meter has always appeared to me to need an enormous grain of salt to be ingested along with anything else that appears there. While BGG is an enormous repository of information regarding every game imaginable and an irreplaceable resource, it has no way to filter out individual capriciousness when it comes to ratings, opinion pieces, reviews etc. It is not a peer-reviewed "publication" to use a professional journal as a contrast.
Assuming it is the Geek we are referring to here, I see a difference between the aggregate ratings that put a game wherever it ends up on the overall list and the individual ratings/descriptions that appear in a member's profile. When you dig down into the aggregate ratings and study the bar charts for where the majority of the ratings fall, you tend to get a more balanced sense of the merit of a game (but even there, there can be a band-wagon effect that particularly shows up early in a well hyped game's life).
Personally, I discount any "tens" that I see, along with "ones" and "twos". I find eye-balling the median to be somewhat instructive and even then only when hundreds of ratings have been accumulated (and having a look at the standard deviation may be instructive as well). At that level, ratings are anonymous and individual excursions are diluted and mathematically discounted.
And I'll try, as has been mentioned here already, to focus on ratings issued by individuals whose opinion I've learned to trust and maybe that is where we begin to close in on a potential problem. Folks with deservedly high reputations in the hobby are often also employed as playtesters, and the opinion-leaders that we soon come to recognize can possibly influence wider opinion among those that have come to trust what they say. Certainly, for those that take such ethical considerations seriously, it would be appropriate for a playtester to make it clear anytime he steps out of the shadows to discuss a game he has been involved with, particularly if the discussion includes a review of the game. At least the reader can then try to decide what level of objectivity to assign to what follows.
So, depending on what aspect of game rating one is focusing on, I guess the considerations change. If we were discussing films, plays or book publication would we be musing on the appropriateness of people engaged in the production of these things speaking out critically? Such discussions as you do see from these people are usually along the lines of "the making of..." and will often include why they were personally drawn to the project and their belief in it, but seldom are intended to be taken as an objective account.
Is the relatively small population of gamers from players to producers, and the relative obscurity we enjoy, make ethical questions, that would be no-brainers in other related fields, different for us? I haven't prejudged the answer to that yet (I hope) but now realize that the original premise for this discussion is deeper than I first appreciated.
Larry Levy: Mike's points are all good ones, but I tend to agree to the counter-arguments Frank has made. Very few ratings (particularly for new games) are made on a rock-solid basis. I include myself in that criticism. Following every Gathering, I give snap reviews of the new games I played, along with numerical ratings. Each of these comes after only one or two plays, clearly not enough to discover all of a game's features and problems. But the process is fun and, I believe, has some value. And these ratings are still better informed than many of the ones I see commented on at the Geek (which are sometimes based on partial games with admitted rules misunderstandings). My point is, with so many questionable reviews floating around, what's the harm in something that MIGHT have a small conflict of interest? Gaming is a tiny community and many of us wear many hats. When I see a designer rate one of his games, or one by another designer, it goes into the same mental filter that I use for every other rating I see. There is a small chance for abuse, either deliberate or unconscious, but I believe the likelihood of benefit outweighs it. Think of the loss to gaming if designer Alan Moon had chosen to withhold his many enthusiastic and colorful comments on games in the early and mid- nineties. In all but the most extreme cases, I think the desire for information outweighs the concern over conflict of interest.
Mike Siggins:: I am not sure how I have ended up on the other side of the discussion as I am trying to be as open minded as possible and seem to be agreeing with most comments. The only thing I am standing firm on is that a rating/judgment based on a playtest game is based on a moving and changing target, compared to one made on a production version, which isn't. Depending on the timing of this, the rating could be almost useless. Is this in dispute?
Paul Sauberer: I'll approach this question from a selfish perspective. What would be of the most use for me as a potential player/purchaser of the game? I do pay some attention to the aggregate ratings of games and then to the individual ratings, particularly those with comments. Reviews and other posts on the Geek also factor in.
For my personal usefulness, ratings from playtesters, as long as they are rating the actual game I can buy and not one of the prototype versions, are fine with me and valuable. The playtesters probably have a lot of experience with the game and their opinions are a decent initial take on the game. By virtue of being playtesters, they are generally looking at the game as a game first and not as their "baby" or a potential source of income.
A BGG rating from a designer I find far less useful. I would expect a high rating from the person who designed it. It tells me little. Plus there is the somewhat shady impression given by such a rating. (Note: The amount of shadiness apparent is inversely proportional to what is put with the rating; a simple numerical rating looks strongly like a shill, a comment fully disclosing the identity of the rater as well as some comment on the game itself looks like a lot of enthusiasm.) What would be more helpful is something along the lines of a "Designer's Notes" article that tells why certain aspects were chosen. If a designer can write about the game in more depth than just assigning a numerical rating, then it gives more of an impression of thoughtfulness and care put into the design.
Morgan Dontanville: I would say that there is no dispute here that rating a prototype is not the same as rating a finished product.
I see nothing wrong with ratings for a prototype if it is explicit (or abundantly obvious) that the reviewer played the prerelease version.
Jason Little: While I would agree that such a rating may not be ideal, I would certainly not say the rating is almost useless -- as long as it's known the review/comment is from a playtester. It's all about context.
Such a comment is not any less accurate than a reviewer who has only played a game under one set of game circumstances: only playing Torres as a 2-player game with the introductory rules... only playing Citadels with 7 players and the optional characters... only ever playing Santiago with 3 players... only ever playing War of the Ring with the basic/introductory rules... etc.
While basing a review or comment on a playtest version may not be ideal, if it's clearly stated so there's some context, it has utility and offers food for thought to the reader... As with any sort of comment, the more context, the better. And the more comments, overall, the better, too.
Mike Siggins:: Yes, actually, you're right. Let's have lots of comments based on something that may not be the same game that the public are buying. That seems to be the best way ahead. That way we could comment favourably on the elegant turn bidding sequence that is no longer there, or perhaps we could convince people it is playable in 90 minutes when everyone on the planet is taking two hours, and then there are those lovely cards with the innovative icon system that we can't now use because some graphic designer used letters, not icons, and five shades of orange. And that is before the publisher and his mates made their last minute improvements to the rules, did something radical with the board, and saved some money by using tiddlywinks instead of money chits.
Apologies for the irony.
Jason Little: Irony aside, I see little difference between this and someone who offers a rating (without the necessary context) and:
1) Plays a game with a pre-FAQ/errata version of the rules (ie, Betrayal at House on the Hill)
2) Plays without taking the time to download the latest ruleset from the publisher's site (ie, many of Columbia's block games)
3) Plays only an introductory version of the rules rather than the "full" version (ie, War of the Ring, ASL)
4) Plays within a discrete range (ie, 2 player Citadels only)
5) Plays an older version of a game when a new edition is out, but not listed as a separate entity (ie, Cosmic Encounter Mayfair vs. AH versions)
Yes, there can be some pretty significant differences between a playtest prototype and a finished product, but there can be an even larger difference between the initially released product and the "most current" version of an existing product. Again, it's all about the context.
Larry Levy: Your point is well taken, Jay, but we're talking about *responsible* rating here. (At least I think we are; I assume no one is suggesting that folks who rate a game after half a session be barred from the Geek or be forced to share a taxicab with Derk.) The question isn't whether these playtester ratings are allowed to be just as ill-informed as other ratings which already exist. It's more like if, say, you or I playtest a game: under what circumstances should we feel it is appropriate to post a review, rating, or comments about the game? I completely agree with Mike--unless you are certain that the game you played is awfully close to the finished product, you should refrain from posting. At the very least, give some strong provisos in your comments. For example, if I think the game may have changed following my playtest, I might post an article to the game's entry on the Geek, explaining what I thought, but wouldn't post a rating. This way, I can give some details, explain why they may not be accurate anymore, and not worry about unduly influencing things with what might be a bogus numerical rating.
By the way, I'm less concerned about the physical changes that may take place than Mike is, but I do understand his concerns here. I'd probably have no compunction about rating a game if I was certain the design was set, but the components were not. Again, this seems to be a case where the potential value of an early review outweighs the potential risk. Naturally, I'd state that I didn't have the opportunity to see the finished product and would refrain from saying anything about the prototype's physical design.
Pierce Ostrander: Setting aside the question of whether the design is the final version (which is really a separate topic with an obvious answer in my mind)....
Several of you have said that if playtesters, designers, publishers etc. did not rate or provide early opinions "we wouldn't have any information". This is a straw man argument. I don't think anyone is saying that they shouldn't talk -at all- before a game is
released.
It's easy to provide facts and information without coloring it with opinions. They can answer rules questions. They can tell us the nature of the game: "it involves trading" or "it's a blind bidding game with a twist". They can expand on the blurb that will appear on the back of the box. Just go to the Fantasy Flight or Columbia Games websites (for example) and read about games that have not been or are recently released. Scads of information… most of it untainted by hyperbole.
It is possible for people to provide information without giving opinions and/or ratings - just read the first 95% of the typical Tom Vasel Game Review (tm)...
Larry Levy: Pierce said that it's easy for playtesters to provide facts and information without coloring it with opinions. Sure it is. But for many games, rules are already posted online, so I don't need those facts; what I need is some idea of how, and how well the game plays. Even if the rules aren't available, opinions are much more valuable and interesting. My main point is why shouldn't playtesters feel free to give those opinions, particularly if the game they played is the same one that will soon be available for sale?
Mark Jackson: No offense intended, but this topic feels like a tempest in a teapot. There are two reasons it's even an issue:
1. The gamer geek community is small enough that many of the key playtesters are also the more "vocal" posters to gaming forums. (For example, I'm currently an ongoing playtester for two game systems + picking up odd playtests, as I did this last week while in the Bay Area.)
2. The gamer geek community has a difficult time not living & dying by Board Game Geek. Come on, people, it's a great website - but the numbers are just that - NUMBERS! Anybody remember the catchphrase, "Lies, damned lies & statistics..."? Sheesh.
As long as people clearly post their relationship to the game, let em' rate & review. We're not a big enough community to start muzzling people because they skew the average of Geek game #16708.
Pierce Ostrander: Mark, yes it probably is a tempest in a teapot... They're GAMES for crying out loud! It's a micro-niche hobby; at least in the English-speaking world.
However, someone started the discussion and the purpose of this forum is to provide opinion... hopefully on both sides. So we chime in. Welcome to "Musings On..."
Stand back everyone... he's getting ready to muse.
Thomas Cabalzero: I don't really understand the controversy here--why shouldn't playtesters rate? It's not like doing so is a DIRECT conflict of interest, as it would be if the DESIGNER were to rate the game in question. If anything, the playtesters should have a broad base of knowledge about the game, and this is certainly a more desirable circumstance than rating from ignorance (which DOES occur, unfortunately)! Additionally, if the playtesters opinions are skewed in one direction or another as a result of their experiences, this is still unlikely to sway the game's rating in the long term. I'd say the pros far outweigh the cons here: I'm happy to read comments rife with insider info, especially now that we no longer have Gamewire to rely on. Come back, Rick--we miss you already!
And Rick indeed is coming back - tomorrow! Stay tuned for the news of when and where! Anyway, that's it for this time folks, stay tuned for our next Musings On… Citadels!}
Musings On...
Edited by Tom and Laura Vasel
November 27, 2005
www.thedicetower.com
| Back to the
main page! |