Tester Needed for Short Game
Jim Aikin
really it's just one large puzzle). I'd like to enlist one or possibly
two testers to bang on it.
It shouldn't take a LOT of time, but there's quite a bit of conversation
and quite a bit of scenery, all of which needs to be probed. Testing
will be more a matter of digging in and thinking, "Have I tried X yet?"
than of simply strolling through the game ... although there's enough in
the scenario that you can do a bit of strolling as well.
Experienced testers only, please. Let me know what games you've tested.
Email contact on this message (midig...@gmail.com) should work fine
... with the caveat that my modem has been extremely flaky this weekend,
so I may not respond immediately.
Thanks!
--Jim Aikin
S. John Ross
> Experienced testers only, please. Let me know what games you've tested.
What a terrifying prospect: the idea that someone could discover they
don't _qualify_ to touch the hem of your IF garment :)
Katzy
>Experienced testers only, please. Let me know what games you've tested.
What nonsense. Don't you think that beginners will play your game then? And
what's the use of telling what games people have tested? Testing is NOT a case
of one person, be it experienced or not.
So I think...
Bye, Katzy.
Jim Aikin
Oh, dear. I accidentally said what I was thinking. My bad.
I'm really sorry if that came off as elitist. The point is, (a) it's a
really short game, so I don't need a lot of testers, and (b) I have had
experience in the past (more than once) with people who volunteered to
test and then never actually sent me any bug reports. I have also had
test reports from people who just went through the game as if they were
players and sent me a transcript -- which is sometimes extremely useful,
but it's sort of random. You can win this game in 15 moves, so a
transcript of a play session might (probably would) miss a number of
subtle issues that need tidying up.
Would it have been better for me to just say, "Hey, testers needed! Come
one, come all!" and then ignore most of the emails, or tell people who
respond, "Nah, you're not good enough," after they email me? I mean,
what are my options here, other than simply stating what I need?
--JA
Jeff Nyman
> Would it have been better for me to just say, "Hey, testers needed! Come
> one, come all!" and then ignore most of the emails, or tell people who
> respond, "Nah, you're not good enough," after they email me? I mean,
> what are my options here, other than simply stating what I need?
I think what you said is basically fine, for what it's worth. (I
probably wouldn't limit myself to just experienced testers, but I get
the point of why you asked for them.)
When I'm not getting shot at and when I'm not pretending to be a
teacher, I work professionally as a tester and quality assurance
practitioner and I can tell you that there is a big difference between
having users just plug away at something and having someone who is
actually "testing" plug away at that same something. Certain people
with experience will look for corner or edge cases that others simply
wouldn't think of. That ability, to apply focused tests to something,
is a skill. This also applies to writing, which is why we have editors
and writers with often very differing skill sets in terms of attention
to detail. That attention to detail -- and that ability to "test" --
comes from experience. So asking for that experience is, to me, not a
bad thing.
Maybe instead of requesting the names of games that have been tested
(which may tell you nothing, unless you play those games and see if
they were any good with the testing that was done), you can ask people
their approach to testing games. As in testing software, you probably
want a little bit of scripted testing combined with exploratory
testing.
- Jeff
George Oliver
Jacek Pudlo
> I'm really sorry if that came off as elitist.
You could never come off as elitist, Jim. Even if you tried very hard, you'd
only come off as conceited.
Katzy
>Katzy wrote:
>> Jim Aikin wrote in message ...
>but it's sort of random. You can win this game in 15 moves, so a
>transcript of a play session might (probably would) miss a number of
>subtle issues that need tidying up.
So, experienced testers don't play... What are they expected to do then,
co-write the game ? Just curious.
Bye, Katzy.
Jim Aikin
> Jim Aikin wrote in message ...
>> Katzy wrote:
>>> Jim Aikin wrote in message ...
>
>> but it's sort of random. You can win this game in 15 moves, so a
>> transcript of a play session might (probably would) miss a number of
>> subtle issues that need tidying up.
>
> So, experienced testers don't play... What are they expected to do then,
> co-write the game ? Just curious.
This is a fair question. Of course, experienced testers DO play the
game, but as Jeff said, they also look actively for "edge cases," places
where the author has forgotten to write a couple of lines of code.
Maybe I'm spoiled because Radical Al is testing the game -- he
specializes in that sort of thing. He tries doing all sorts of unlikely
things, anything he can think of, and tells me when they don't work.
For example, the PC in this game can fly. So I've implemented a silly
"you can't do that message" if the PC tries to fly over a person. Seems
sensible enough ... but the message makes very little sense if the
player tries 'fly over me'. Al thought of trying that command, so now I
have a different error message if the player tries to fly over herself.
That's the kind of tricky stuff that still (I'm sure) needs wringing
out. Al catches a lot of things, and I catch many of them myself, but
one more tester who really has the knack of banging on the game in
perverse ways would be very helpful.
--JA
S. John Ross
> bad thing.
Not at all a bad thing, but there is an established mathematical
formula describing the relationship (long known to science) between B
(Beggars) and C (Choosers), which ought to be acknowledged, even if
one feels entitled to be an exception to it ;)
Jim Aikin
How did you ever manage to conclude that I "feel entitled" to anything?
Or, for that matter, that I'm begging for anything?
Asking for volunteer assistance is not at all the same thing as begging.
Please go back and recheck your premises. For some reason (which I can't
quite fathom) you seem to have felt personally put off by my saying,
"Experienced testers only, please." You seem to be implying that, if I'm
going to say that, I ought in the same breath to acknowledge that I have
no right to say it. Is that really what you think, or have I misunderstood?
As I went on to explain in a later post, there are reasons why I felt
that this preference would be appropriate for this particular game. Are
you suggesting that it's okay for me to have such a preference, but that
I should have kept it a secret? Or are you suggesting (as seems more
likely) that this is a preference that embodies some moral or ethical
failing that you have, with your keen sense of probity, detected?
Surely I'm entitled to enroll testers according to whatever criteria I
happen to feel are appropriate for a particular game. If I only want
testers who are familiar with Native American mythology, or testers who
are over 50 years of age and own handguns, or testers who delight in
sexual innuendo, should I be entitled to announce this preference when
asking for testers? I mean, theoretically, would that be okay with you,
John? Would you feel it necessary to make sarcastic comments about that
too, or are you reserving your sarcastic comments for people who will
admit in public that they prefer and have a current need for a modicum
of expertise?
It might help a little if I understood where you're coming from. I don't
want to get on your case, John -- I just don't understand why you're
reacting so negatively to what seemed to me (and still seems) to be such
an innocuous request.
I wouldn't like to conclude that any of my fellow authors feels
expertise is irrelevant to the production of interactive fiction.
--JA
Katzy
>Katzy wrote:
>> Jim Aikin wrote in message ...
>>> Katzy wrote:
>>>> Jim Aikin wrote in message ...
>Maybe I'm spoiled because Radical Al is testing the game -- he
>specializes in that sort of thing. He tries doing all sorts of unlikely
>things, anything he can think of, and tells me when they don't work.
Ah, did you tell him? I think I'll have to ask for references now when having
tested a game, because I have no idea how authors feel about my testing.
Except one reaction: when I found errors in the game, the author told me that
I should have followed the walkthrough...;)
Bye, Katzy.
Taleslinger
FWIW, I would give you nothing but praise, Katzy.
S. John Ross
You are incorrect, and this error renders the rest of your post moot.
Bert Byfield
>>> tested.
> Would it have been better for me to just say, "Hey, testers
> needed! Come one, come all!"
Yes.
> and then ignore most of the emails,
> or tell people who respond, "Nah, you're not good enough," after
> they email me?
That would be rude and pointless. How much work is it to just look at
all the results you get without prejudice?
> I mean, what are my options here, other than simply
> stating what I need? --JA
Being grateful for all the free volunteer work that you receive, and
treating the volunteers with respect. All of them.
On the other hand, you might charge a $10 fee for the privilege of
being your tester, and thus eliminate those who are not sufficiently
dedicated. Or perhaps make the volunteers take an IF test and only
accept those scoring 98% or better.
Conrad
>
> Would it have been better for me to just say, "Hey, testers needed! Come
> one, come all!" and then ignore most of the emails, or tell people who
> respond, "Nah, you're not good enough," after they email me? I mean,
> what are my options here, other than simply stating what I need?
Well, you could say,
"Hey guys,
"I need someone to try to break my game. If you think you can do it,
shoot me an email."
Seems like it might get you better responses from this group.
Conrad.
ps - I was going to volunteer to playtest your game, Jim, but then you
put me in doubt as to whether I'd be able to beta-test your game!
Which might be what you're looking for, I suppose.
Plus, I don't keep track of what I've betaed, although I was surprised
to find out there's an entry on IFwiki for this purpose.
C.
Peter Pears
terms. The first replies he got were sensible enough, but now he's
just being repeatedly whacked for knowing what he wanted and asking
for it.
This and the fact that the Textfyre thread was permanently derailed
for a linguistic discussion (a Hispanic linguistic discussion, no
less) makes me wonder if we shouldn't be playing/making games instead
of coming here for a while. We obviously have more time in our hands
that is healhy.
Credit is credit is due, this is one of the few public places on the
net where pretty much every post makes for interesting reading. All
the same... poor Jim Aikin.
Sarah
sympathy and the "oh, to deal with THIS GROUP you've got to phrase
your prerequisites like delicate little poppies!" Beta testers are
volunteers. If someone isn't a "good beta tester," the net loss to you
is zero. Even if somebody only catches one little bug, that's one more
than you caught yourself, and the transcript can reveal further things
that the tester didn't comment on.
-Sarah
Jeff Nyman
> Even if somebody only catches one little bug, that's one more
> than you caught yourself, and the transcript can reveal further things
> that the tester didn't comment on.
True enough. And beyond the small issue that this thread has focused
on, I suppose, there is a wider issue lurking here that I think is
important but that often isn't discussed.
The level of testing on any piece of software does matter. That's
fact.
It's not just "how much" it's been tested, but how well. But how do
you determine "effective testers" from "ineffective testers"? Well,
that's trickier sometimes -- but it usually has to do with the
techniques they bring to bear. So in the software industry that would
be things like orthogonal casing, equivalence classing, boundary value
analysis, etc, etc. The good news is that within the (relatively
limited) sphere of a work of textual IF, these techniques can be
fairly easily applied. Which is why, as I mentioned in my previous
post, that the dichotomy may split a bit along the lines of scripted
testing vs. exploratory testing, where you probably can use testers of
varying skill levels.
What this thread really speaks to is that -- much like in the software
industry -- user acceptance at the end is the worst place to be doing
your testing. (And user acceptance is most certainly what a beta
tester is doing.) An effective testing strategy early on is often more
effective. Clearly a large part of this falls on the author and I
think there's room for a lot of discussion about effective ways to
test games. (Having tested in the professional game industry for many
years -- and having seen great successes and horrible failures -- I
can say the challenges are there, but they are also part of the fun.)
There's also room for discussion around when "beta" users should be
brought in. The notion of tying all testing to "beta testing" is
somewhat limited. You can have testers that stick with you for the
duration of the project, for example, that are willing to go through
iterations of your development and design. There's also the question
of whether those testers are just testing your (game) mechanics or are
also helping craft your story or, at the very least, making
suggestions on elements of it, such as pacing, dialogue, etc. The
former -- the mechanics -- are things that authors can utilize tools
for (some provided as part of I7 or T3) in order to carry out a vast
amount of scripted and even exploratory testing.
(I talked about some of this -- albeit briefly and without much
substance -- in a previous thread called "Story-Driven Development
with Inform 7". But I think there is room for further discussion on
testing of textual IF. I also think a newsgroup is about the worst
place for it, though.)
- Jeff
Vivienne Dunstan
> Plus, I don't keep track of what I've betaed, although I was surprised
> to find out there's an entry on IFwiki for this purpose.
Me too. I've betatested a lot of games, but have forgotten most of them
:) IFwiki's entry isn't complete, but it sure remembers more than I do!
Viv
Victor Gijsbers
Hash: SHA1
Sarah wrote:
> Oh, for the love of [redacted due to escaped worms]. Enough with the
> sympathy and the "oh, to deal with THIS GROUP you've got to phrase
> your prerequisites like delicate little poppies!" Beta testers are
> volunteers. If someone isn't a "good beta tester," the net loss to you
> is zero. Even if somebody only catches one little bug, that's one more
> than you caught yourself, and the transcript can reveal further things
> that the tester didn't comment on.
No, this doesn't work. First, it is of course a serious question whether
or not the loss to the author if a tester turns out to be a bad tester
is zero. It's not just that going through the transcripts and emailing
back and forth costs time, it's also and more importantly the case that
you'll stop searching once you've found enough testers. If these testers
then turn out to be bad, you have to start a new testing cycle, which
will delay the release of the game.
Now, personally, I don't think this is a big deal. I've never asked for
experienced testers, and I'm not planning to. But Jim presumably sees
this differently--maybe because he wants to finish the game as soon as
possible, maybe because he has less time on hand, who knows. We can
argue over whether his judgement here is right, and that would be a
topic for serious discussion; but I don't think there is any cause for
the kind of moral indignation that we've been seeing in this thread. You
disagree with Jim? All right. Give your arguments. Convince us. But why
would Jim be a morally bad and insulting person for believing that bad
testers will delay his work?
Then, secondly, there has been a "discussion" centring on the proverb
"beggars can't be choosers".
It seems to me that the normal meaning of this proverb is that beggars
can't be choosers because otherwise, they'll starve. They cannot choose
because that would be very bad for themselves.
But if Jim doesn't get any testers, he's not going to starve. All that
is going to happen is that _we_ don't get his game--which is our loss.
Maybe his as well, but certainly also ours. So he is hardly a "beggar"
in the general sense of the term; and it would be best for the community
as a whole if Jim gets the kind of tester he can most successfully work
with. Rather than tell him that he cannot be a chooser, then, we should
applaud him being a chooser--as long as he makes the right choice. Maybe
he does, maybe he doesn't; I don't feel in a position to judge, and
anyway, that would take us back to the previous point.
Now it seemed that in this thread, "beggars can't be choosers" was
supposed to be a moral precept. But how could it be? Only those among
the rich who feel entitled to gratitude no matter what junk they give to
a beggar would claim that beggars who decline an offer are doing
something morally bad. But such a person would be a caricature worthy of
Dickens--let's not suppose that anyone here actually thinks like that.
Last, if you still feel insulted by Jim... simply don't volunteer to
test his game. The wise remain silent.
Kind regards,
Victor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAksMDeEACgkQoiOrMwvIZLxkOgCfYhGbfeob6hU1w5RX5VEl9Huo
mnIAnRB1/uQrBSwp91VH3WRMNnqBje2b
=XYPF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sarah
forth, at least in my experience, then it wasn't a waste. The only
"bad tester" is one who offers bad suggestions, deliberately or not.
Where your analogy falls apart is when you bring junk into it. Beta
testing is not junk. They are volunteers. They provide service. They
are taking THEIR time to help people with absolutely nothing in it for
them. When you are soliciting volunteers, you are in effect asking a
large group of people to advance your interest and not theirs.
Fortunately, the IF community has been very amenable to such requests
(except when people call beta testers purveyors of junk, but that's
another matter.)
If there are specific aspects of a game you want testers to focus on,
by all means put that in the initial e-mail -- in fact, this is
exactly the sort of thing you should be putting there. But don't make
it into an "Are you competent enough to do me a favor?" application.
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Victor Gijsbers
Hash: SHA1
Sarah wrote:
> Where your analogy falls apart is when you bring junk into it. Beta
> testing is not junk. They are volunteers. They provide service. They
> are taking THEIR time to help people with absolutely nothing in it for
> them. When you are soliciting volunteers, you are in effect asking a
> large group of people to advance your interest and not theirs.
I would argue that beta-testing a free game is advancing the interest of
everyone in the community (including your own), not just that of the
author. It is a volunteer service, certainly, but so is writing the game!
But we obviously agree about beta-testing itself. I have found all
beta-testers I ever had useful and more than "worth my trouble". My
point is that (a) Jim might not agree with us because of valid reasons
(perhaps because he has less time, or bad past experiences), and that
even if he disagrees with us for invalid reasons (b) this is not a
reason to claim that he has done something _morally_ bad.
Kind regards,
Victor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAksMHqgACgkQoiOrMwvIZLxCLACcDhXLQ7qkAv1lxDcI49dUXqB5
t+MAn3fo6KeeWyUxEWlE+TzGRojFK/g0
=hY4b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
S. John Ross
> But why
> would Jim be a morally bad and insulting person for believing that bad
> testers will delay his work?
No one has suggested that Jim is "morallly bad and insulting" for
"believing that bad testers will delay his work."
> But if Jim doesn't get any testers, he's not going to starve.
The word is "metaphor." Find a dictionary and start from there.
> with. Rather than tell him that he cannot be a chooser, then, we should
> applaud him being a chooser--as long as he makes the right choice.
Agreed, 100%.
> Now it seemed that in this thread, "beggars can't be choosers" was
> supposed to be a moral precept.
That's just a very bizarre thing to say :/
S. John Ross
> If there are specific aspects of a game you want testers to focus on,
> by all means put that in the initial e-mail -- in fact, this is
> exactly the sort of thing you should be putting there. But don't make
> it into an "Are you competent enough to do me a favor?" application.
Exactly. Alpha to Omega.
Victor Gijsbers
Hash: SHA1
S. John Ross wrote:
>> But if Jim doesn't get any testers, he's not going to starve.
>
> The word is "metaphor." Find a dictionary and start from there.
You'll never guess, John, but... my remark was a metaphor too! (A
metaphor for "harm his own interests", to be precise.)
>> Now it seemed that in this thread, "beggars can't be choosers" was
>> supposed to be a moral precept.
>
> That's just a very bizarre thing to say :/
I'm happy if I misinterpreted that. :) To me it seemed as if there was a
lot of indignation here, and people don't feel indignation when someone
has a strange opinion; they feel it when someone does something morally
dubious. But, again, I'd just be glad to hear that there was no
indignation, and that I have been reading this thread the wrong way.
Kind regards,
Victor
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAksMINEACgkQoiOrMwvIZLwZ3ACaA+86lvJNUw731vFcshkWdAin
wEAAn0/s1I7hXNGq9byh8oNyqvnCmn7J
=cUcd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
S. John Ross
> But, again, I'd just be glad to hear that there was no
> indignation, and that I have been reading this thread the wrong way.
Well, I can only speak for my part, but your comments relating the
discussion to morality have struck me as tangential and inexplicable
and slightly creepy :)
Benjamin Caplan
>> for the thing it was originally about.
>
> Yes, but listen to this argument for one side of the debate with
> which it was derailed.
Just sayin'.
Peter Pears
> Oh, for the love of [redacted due to escaped worms]. Enough with the
> sympathy and the "oh, to deal with THIS GROUP you've got to phrase
> your prerequisites like delicate little poppies!"
I presume that was directed at my sympahty. Your "THIS GROUP" sentence
is your own words, not mine, and I'd just like to make that clear. I
like this group. I particularly like how people nitpick at things, and
often just for fun, or to improve, or for any reason that is not
malicious. Jim has not been the target of malicious nitpicking. I just
feel the guy got a lot more thrown at him than the original situation
deserved.
>Beta testers are
> volunteers. If someone isn't a "good beta tester," the net loss to you
> is zero. Even if somebody only catches one little bug, that's one more
> than you caught yourself, and the transcript can reveal further things
> that the tester didn't comment on.
Sure. And the author has the prerogative to pick and choose his beta-
testers. Isn't that what any experienced author does? Doesn't he call,
first and foremost, the people who beta-tested his previous games, and
whose testing he liked? If I wanted my prose proof-read, I would be
entitled to say "This is an American piece, so please, I'd like only
native Americans to read it through - no Briticisms allowed". Just
like a director has the right to refuse an actor if he's simply too
tall to play the part of the midget (and the budget doesn't allow for
special effects that'll shrink him).
Methinks some of us may be getting too proud of ourselves, and of the
freedom IF gives - everyone can write, and whatnot. But we're still
entitled to request standards of polish and care. That also means
careful choosing of beta-testing. Beta-testing isn't an idle passtime.
It's bleedin' intensive. That's why I tried it once, and never again.
S. John Ross
> Your "THIS GROUP" sentence is your own words, not mine, and I'd just like to make that clear.
Hm. I took the "this group" line as a characterization of Jim's own
pearls-before-swine stuff upthread, and not a characterization of your
post at all. But I could be misreading.
> And the author has the prerogative to pick and choose his beta-testers.
Indeed, but that's a bit tangential, isn't it? I don't think anyone
here is commenting on Jim's prerogative to have standards (Jim seems
to think so, but the view from up on that crucifix has to be a little
distorted).
> Beta-testing isn't an idle passtime. It's bleedin' intensive.
Exactly so.
corw...@gmail.com
Jim Aiken is on a VERY short list of people who, for reasons only they
know, consistently produce free interactive fiction games for a
largely unappreciative community. I'm not suggesting that people
should turn off their critical faculties and automatically laud
anything that Jim, or Eric Eve, or Aaron Reed, etc. produce, but it
would be nice if there was a little more positivity around here, and
fewer arguments about semantics, not to mention outright trolling
(hello Jacek).
Jim can set whatever criteria for testing he wants for his proposed
free game, and if you're offended by those criteria, feel free not to
play it when and if it's released. Only in the hyper-sensitive,
entitled world we live in would "experienced testers wanted" be
considered rude.
Snacky Pete
Wholehearted agreement here.
Pete
Conrad
> Look out, sympathy police, cause here it comes.
>
> Jim Aiken is on a VERY short list of people who, for reasons only they
> know, consistently produce free interactive fiction games for a
> largely unappreciative community. I'm not suggesting that people
> should turn off their critical faculties and automatically laud
> anything that Jim, or Eric Eve, or Aaron Reed, etc. produce, but it
> would be nice if there was a little more positivity around here, and
> fewer arguments about semantics, not to mention outright trolling
> (hello Jacek).
I agree that there should be more positivity; also, I have a great
deal of respect for Jim as a writer, although he often irritates me.
But my read on him is that he's *fine* with being irritating. And
also I do consider him a friend.
Personally, I think Jim's able to take care of himself, and pity
directed toward him for the unspeakable cruelty of questioning his
manners is mis-directed.
I mean, the man is a professional writer. I'm sure if he really
wanted to get along with people online, that would be within his
power. Conversely, I don't think he set out to insult those people
who he didn't want to beta-test his game (like me). I just don't
think it's a high priority for him not to get people's goats.
--Meanwhile, did someone say this thread is stupid, and we should all
stop coming to r.a.if for awhile? You first.
I mean, c'mon.
Conrad.
Jacek Pudlo
> Jim Aiken is on a VERY short list of people who, for reasons only they
> know, consistently produce free interactive fiction games for a
> largely unappreciative community.
Jim Aiken is on a VERY long list of people who, for reasons not even they
could explain, stubbornly and prolifically produce sub-mediocre fiction for
a largely undiscerning and uncaring crowd. This community is indeed facing a
crisis, but it is a crisis of overproduction, not dearth of material.
Looking at the Archive, do you honestly get the impression there are too few
games? Do you honestly get the impression that authors should up their
annual production quotas?
> it would be nice if there was a little more positivity around here
It would be even nicer if there was a little more self-discipline and higher
aesthetic standards around here.
> Jim can set whatever criteria for testing he wants for his proposed
> free game
Jim citing Radical Al as the paradigm of the Ideal Tester is the only
amusing aspect of this dreary discussion. Here's an excerpt from Radical
Al's _Kingdom of Amphibia_.
In Your Cabin (on the bunk)
You are lieing in your bunk inside your cabin on the swaying heaving ship.
In fact you are so tired from your watch that you didn't even shuck your
uniform or your backpack. Time to hop to it sailor.
>shuck uniform
That's not a verb I recognize.
>x me
That's you Sailor, in this what will eventually be the largest commercial IF
game ever written (in terms of visitable areas).
>i
You are carrying:
a naval uniform (being worn)
a sailor's backpack (being worn and closed)
>x uniform
This is the standard issue uniform which includes
1. A fancy shirt
2. Kerchief
3. The ever-present bell-bottom pants
4. Sailor-type shoes
>x kerchief
There is NO kerchief here to do that to or with.
>x shirt
There is NO shirt here to do that to or with.
>x pants
There is NO pants here to do that to or with.
>x shoes
There is NO shoes here to do that to or with.
S. John Ross
> Only in the hyper-sensitive,
> entitled world we live in would "experienced testers wanted" be
> considered rude.
Agreed. Had he said "experienced testers wanted," I doubt anyone would
have blinked at that.
Jim Aikin
>
> Jim citing Radical Al as the paradigm of the Ideal Tester is the only
> amusing aspect of this dreary discussion.
Ordinarily I ignore you, Mr. P -- but I think I need to defend my friend
Al. Al is a really good tester of IF, and he has made significant
contributions to this community in that role.
The assumption under which you seem to be laboring is that one can only
be a great tester if one is also a great author.
That assumption is no more valid than the assumption that one can only
be a great movie reviewer if one not only has experience as a filmmaker
but has succeeded in making high-quality films. On the contrary: Most
great movie reviewers are NOT filmmakers. Their lack of experience as
filmmakers doesn't invalidate in any way their material contributions to
the art.
Of course, I also understand that it's a mis-characterization to say
that you're laboring under any assumptions whatever. You seem to delight
purely in finding ways to belittle others; intellectual consistency does
not appear, from what I've seen, to be among your desiderata.
That's why arguing with you is pointless. But here I am, doing it again.
Damn, I should know better by now! You're like a mangy puppy that just
barks and barks until people can't resist kicking it. Interesting psyche
you must have.
--JA
Conrad
> Al is a really good tester of IF, and he has made significant
> contributions to this community in that role.
>
> [..]
>
> Of course, I also understand that it's a mis-characterization to say
> that you're laboring under any assumptions whatever. You seem to delight
> purely in finding ways to belittle others; intellectual consistency does
> not appear, from what I've seen, to be among your desiderata.
When Pudlo starts attacking someone, it sends a clear message to the
IF community that they're doing something right. I think most people
understand that.
C.
Jacek Pudlo
> The assumption under which you seem to be laboring is that one can only be
> a great tester if one is also a great author.
My assumption is that one is highly unlikely to be a great tester if one has
proven oneself to be a scandalously inept author. This makes your portrayal
of my argument inaccurate and your analogy flawed.
Returning to your initial request, here's a list of excellent testers, all
of whom have the distinction of having tested _Gamlet_.
Graham Holden, Adam Thornton, Steve Evans, Dan Shiovitz, Paul Johnson and my
dear sweet friend Michael Lonc.
There you have your list of experienced testers with good credentials. You
are, presumably, hopping with joy now. Only you're not. The reason why
you're not is because you never wanted good testers in the first place. Good
testers are discerning players and discerning players are the last people on
earth you'd want to be tinkering with your game. You'd much rather have
someone like Radical Al, one of the few IF authors who's proven himself to
be your inferior. The likelihood of the author of _Kingdom of Amphibia_
pointing out the fundamental flaws in you game design is non-existent. What
you're looking for are not experienced testers but non-threatening ones.
This is why you phrased your request in such a flippant manner -- only an
idiot with no self-regard would hearken to your call.
> Of course, I also understand that it's a mis-characterization to say that
> you're laboring under any assumptions whatever. You seem to delight purely
> in finding ways to belittle others; intellectual consistency does not
> appear, from what I've seen, to be among your desiderata.
>
> That's why arguing with you is pointless. But here I am, doing it again.
> Damn, I should know better by now! You're like a mangy puppy that just
> barks and barks until people can't resist kicking it. Interesting psyche
> you must have.
Mangy puppy? Hate me because I'm a Jew; hate me because I'm European; hate
me because I'm sophisticated, but do NOT hate me because I'm beautiful. That
is the only gift I cannot stand being hated for.
Jacek Pudlo
> The assumption under which you seem to be laboring is that one can only be
> a great tester if one is also a great author.
My assumption is that one is highly unlikely to be a great tester if one has
proven oneself to be a scandalously inept author. This makes your portrayal
of my argument inaccurate and your analogy flawed.
Returning to your initial request, here's a list of excellent testers, all
of whom have the distinction of having tested _Gamlet_.
Graham Holden, Adam Thornton, Steve Evans, Dan Shiovitz, Paul Johnson and my
dear sweet friend Michael Lonc.
There you have your list of experienced testers with good credentials. You
are, presumably, hopping with joy now. Only you're not. The reason why
you're not is because you never wanted good testers in the first place. Good
testers are discerning players and discerning players are the last people on
earth you'd want to be tinkering with your game. You'd much rather have
someone like Radical Al, one of the few IF authors who's proven himself to
be your inferior. The likelihood of the author of _Kingdom of Amphibia_
pointing out the fundamental flaws in you game design is non-existent. What
you're looking for are not experienced testers but non-threatening ones.
This is why you phrased your request in such a flippant manner -- only an
idiot with no self-regard would hearken to your call.
> Of course, I also understand that it's a mis-characterization to say that
> you're laboring under any assumptions whatever. You seem to delight purely
> in finding ways to belittle others; intellectual consistency does not
> appear, from what I've seen, to be among your desiderata.
>
> That's why arguing with you is pointless. But here I am, doing it again.
> Damn, I should know better by now! You're like a mangy puppy that just
> barks and barks until people can't resist kicking it. Interesting psyche
> you must have.
Mangy puppy? Hate me because I'm a Jew; hate me because I'm European; hate
Jeff Nyman
> My assumption is that one is highly unlikely to be a great tester if one has
> proven oneself to be a scandalously inept author.
This may seem like I'm missing your point entirely, so please bear
with me for a bit. The only area of disagreement I have when I first
read this is that you can have great editors -- a form of "tester" --
who are lousy authors (and will admit as much). I've worked with many
such people. In another venue, speaking as a quality assurance
professional, and as one who has worked in the game testing industry,
I can say that many of the best testers (that I've worked with,
anyway) are those that are not so great (although perhaps not
"scandalously inept") programmers or designers.
The ability to test works of textual IF may have more to do with how
many such works you have played rather than authored. After all, you
know what you've seen not work in the past and you may know enough to
know about what goes wrong, at least in terms of mechanics of games.
Now, granted, if you want to test certain 'edge cases', it may help to
know the limitations and/or compromises of the technology that a given
author has used and then try to exploit those. The extent to which you
have run into those same issues -- as an author -- can certainly
better inform your testing. (On the other hand, they can also make you
fall into the trap of accepting certain issues because you share the
same assumptions of the underlying technology as the author. So you
might get: "Wow, look at that bug! Oh, wait -- this is becuase of that
whole menu-driven-conversation issue that all IF systems have. Yeah,
no point worrying about that.")
With all that being said, I get your point perhaps in that if you have
shown yourself to be a very bad author (of textual IF), it may be
because you simply didn't test your own work well enough; you didn't
make enough considerations of how your own work would be viewed and/or
interacted with. That, I think once again, speaks mainly to the
mechanics (such as the puzzles and the implementation details) and
speaks little at all to the actual story. So I think you bring up an
interesting point: when we talk about an "author" of textual IF, we
can speak in two senses: the author of the actual story itself and the
"author" (read: designer) of the game (it's mechanics, etc). I would
imagine you could be good at the one and not the other.
Side note: I realize most people here are talking solely about the
pure mechanics and not necessarily about how the story takes place in
the context of those mechanics. Yet it's the recognition of the
latter, to me, that would make a really effective tester. (It's
largely the same in the software industry as well; there are stories
are the "user stories" or the business acceptance criteria, which form
a "narrative" of how our proposed solutions -- our "game," if you will
-- are to work.)
- Jeff
Al
> Jim citing Radical Al as the paradigm of the Ideal Tester is the only
> amusing aspect of this dreary discussion. Here's an excerpt from Radical
> Al's _Kingdom of Amphibia_.
> i
> You are carrying:
> a naval uniform (being worn)
> a sailor's backpack (being worn and closed)
>
> >x uniform
>
> This is the standard issue uniform which includes
> 1. A fancy shirt
> 2. Kerchief
> 3. The ever-present bell-bottom pants
> 4. Sailor-type shoes
>
> >x kerchief
>
> There is NO kerchief here to do that to or with.
>
> >x shirt
>
> There is NO shirt here to do that to or with.
>
> >x pants
>
> There is NO pants here to do that to or with.
>
> >x shoes
>
> There is NO shoes here to do that to or with.
I've made corrections to the game and uploaded it to incoming.
BTW what the hell have you ever written?
James Jolley
Quite. Give Al a break because he's always been fine with me and has a
good deal more wherewithall than Pudlo.
Autymn D. C.
> Corwi...@gmail.com
>
> > Jim Aiken is on a VERY short list of people who, for reasons only they
> > know, consistently produce free interactive fiction games for a
> > largely unappreciative community.
>
> Jim Aiken is on a VERY long list of people who, for reasons not even they
who again?
> could explain, stubbornly and prolifically produce sub-mediocre fiction for
> a largely undiscerning and uncaring crowd. This community is indeed facing a
> crisis, but it is a crisis of overproduction, not dearth of material.
> Looking at the Archive, do you honestly get the impression there are too few
> games? Do you honestly get the impression that authors should up their
> annual production quotas?
There are too few college and geek games.
> > it would be nice if there was a little more positivity around here
>
> It would be even nicer if there was a little more self-discipline and higher
> aesthetic standards around here.
If ye want nice, post in nesci.arts.int-fiction instead.