Re: [NetEpic ML] Implications of "epic" proportions

From: Peter Ramos <primarch_at_...>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 17:48:26 -0400

Hi!

HAHAHA!! Thats rich. They actually call all the gamers who play their
game 1000 times more than they could ever hope to play it, have more
insight in the game than they with their paultry "in-studio" gaming and
they call THEM amateurs? Thats just too funny. How about we dont employ
playtesters because:

1. We'd never be able to print a game more than once a decade becasue
are core mechanics are so bad, we'd never hear the end of the negative
feedback
2. The GW studio is a perfect game enviornment and what doesn't happen
in one of our games either doesn't exsist or is cheating.
3. We don't want playtesters leaking our new games mechanics to the
competittion, because...you know... our mechanics are so cutting edge.
4. We're so greedy we rather release a shoddy game than give our
playtesters a free copy of the book
5. If it were proven playtesters made are games better, we'd all lose
our jobs for being such lazy bastards.

I bet list members can come up with more.

Peter

>
> -->Really? Anyone I know who has inquired about this, myself included,
> is that "GW does not use 'amateurs,' or those outside of the GW family to
> play test their games." Where did you find out about this?
>
Received on Tue Apr 10 2001 - 21:48:26 UTC