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

From: Weasel Fierce <septimus__at_...>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 08:31:42 -0000

>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.

6. Noone has the insight and understanding required to make rules for our
game
7. We are generally smarter and more clever than other people
8. Playtesters might actually employ incorrect models when playtesting which
means they play games without us getting the money for the models they play
with
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Received on Tue Apr 17 2001 - 08:31:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Oct 22 2019 - 10:59:20 UTC