Subjective or Darth?: Obvious Beta

I'm not sure if Obvious Beta is useful as a trope. On the one hand, it could mean "software that was buggy when first released"; on the other hand, since pretty much all software has some amount of bugs, it becomes Complaining About Software You Don't Like. It's pretty arbitrary how many bugs a game or app needs to become "obviously" beta, and in that it already overlaps with Christmas Rushed, Game Breaking Bugs, and Unwinnable by Mistake. Oddly, some games are considered "beta" because they had features cut before the release date.

I think that at least this needs to be moved to subjective, or to Darth Wiki, and get several of the incorrect examples cut; perhaps another solution is to merge it with one of the overlapping tropes. Thoughts please?

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

A really buggy game due to it being rushed it not YMMV. Just clean the page.

Almost anything has some subjective elements. It's true that every game has some bugs and there are games with borderline numbers of bugs. It's also true that if you try to find examples of Encyclopaedic Knowledge, every character has some knowledge and there will be characters who have borderline levels of knowledge.

"Subjective trope" doesn't mean "any trope with elements someone could argue over".

edited 21st Apr '11 12:42:41 PM by arromdee

Spark9,

Judging based off of the examples I skimmed through, I think that complaining issue seems to be a problem with this trope. I suppose we could just try to cut out some of the complaining examples and clean the trope up, but I agree that we should probably have clearer distinctions between the similar tropes you mentioned as well.

I do think the stuff about the different kinds of development stages of software is useful, especially for a wiki that includes video games.

The usage counts make me wonder if our options are kind of limited here though. Then again, I am not really an expert on this so I welcome any other thoughts people might have on this trope.

edited 21st Apr '11 12:54:48 PM by LouieW

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

Well, we should probably break it down to brass tacks, as it were.

First off, regarding the inbounds... it's a commonly accepted term amongst those who deal with programs in general, so it's not a surprise that it brings in the inbounds. Of course, that just means we have the right name for whatever is done with the page.

For actually defining the trope... thing is, we all know that some software is actually pushed out the door too soon. The problem is, of course, when is it actually a case of being an Obvious Beta and when is it just that the programmers in question aren't that good?

You could break it down to what has the basics of being able to run as it's supposed to, but it's hard to come up with objective standards to that beyond the absolute basics (i.e. is it even capable of running, does it crash when you try to do basic functions like move, does it allow you to at least theoretically perform actions required to complete it?).

Taken like that, there are some clear examples - Big Rigs Over The Road Racing and Ultima IX being two of the examples. We probably should also include any where Word of God (if available) confirms that it was one.

A few, though, are just supposition. The Evil Genius example on the page is a good example. The description hints that it might be a case of an Obvious Beta... but that also could be just incompetent beta testers missing something (which happens all the time). It's admittedly examples like this that merit a possible subjective tag.

Given this, we may want to actually consider a split - perhaps use Obvious Beta for the definite examples and create a page called Likely Beta (or something) for ones where it's suspected that they released a beta candidate instead of the final. That way, the former could be a regular trope and the latter could be subjective.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

32 Footsteps,

I like that idea and if at least other person thinks that is a possible solution, I will make a crowner for it (and I would be willing to help move examples too).

I wonder whether it would be worth doing something with the description though. I think it might be a bit too lengthy, but I am not totally sure about that. I am not particularly familiar with software development after all.

edited 22nd Apr '11 3:36:48 PM by LouieW

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

That's a good point. I like the idea of having some sort of inclusion standard, e.g. applications widely derided in the media for being "beta", or with Word of God proclaiming it so. That would still include such games as Dai Katana and Ultima IX, and would let us cut the examples that complain about games having a bug, or lacking a promised feature.

(or the latter could go on Likely Beta, but I'm not sure if that's substantially different from Complaining About Shows You Dont Like)

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

Well, let's chew on this for a bit, particularly for defining the objective standard.

The first tier is obvious - does it run correctly, beginning to end? No freezes, no crashes, no random reboots, things like that where the program obviously doesn't run. I think that is an easily agreed-upon standard. One game I can point to that hits this metric is Phantasy Star Collection for the Game Boy Advance - it literally would lock up about every three minutes (if you wanted to make progress, you literally had to save every 30 seconds).

Beyond that, we have the Word of God that the beta was pushed out too early - Daikatana is one example, as is Battlecruiser 3000 AD (though that latter one also has marks of Executive Meddling, Development Hell, and Internet Backdraft all over it).

The problem we get to, though, is when there are features missing from the final product that were promised in earlier builds. The GBA remake of River City Ransom is an example - originally, the devs promised multiplayer link cable play from the game, but the final version was a single player-only game. Is this because a beta got pushed out too early? Possibly, but pretty much everything else in the game was finished, so I'm more likely to say that it was just dropped because it was proving too problematic to handle.

I think, in the case of dropped features, you'd have to come up with a large list (no less than three significant features) to be able to justify calling it an Obvious Beta. But I have to admit not being totally satisfied with that. Anyone else have refinements?

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

Maybe missing features needed to beat the game without cheating? Not just dropped content. That often happens for technical reasons that have nothing to do with the game being a beta or not.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Features or content being dropped or Dummied Out has nothing to do with Beta status. It may be an example of Christmas Rushed or Executive Meddling, of course, but alpha/beta/gold status is about the quality of the product, not about whether the programmers changed their minds about what the game should contain.

If a game cannot actually be completed (e.g. Impossible Mission on the Atari), that would indeed qualify for Obvious Beta, but that's a matter of bugs, not of missing features. For example, a level with no exit is not a missing feature.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

No, but a flying power that they dropped at the last moment that you need to get out of the level is. The door is still there. The level works. But the feature you need to beat it is missing.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Sure, but is that a hypothetical example or did that actually happen somewhere?

Because what I'm saying isn't hypothetical: the page has several instances of "a promised feature is missing therefore it is a permanent beta", which is simply not what "beta" means. There is a wide difference between a game that doesn't do what you expect of it, and a game that cannot be completed.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

It's shown up in a couple of freeware games I played when I was younger. I'm just saying that when we're making standards we should have a way to differentiate between the two.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Okay. Draft text, a game or app qualifies as Obvious Beta if

• it is widely panned by the media for being buggy
• Word of God says so
• it cannot feasibly be completed without cheating

But not merely if

• it has Game Breaking Bugs, Unwinnable by Mistake, or Artificial Stupidity
• certain optional content was promised but not delivered
• you don't like it

How's that?

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

Even if this page could be made objective, it's really not a trope.

I think it should go under Triva.

Those are good criteria, as long as you don't need all 3 qualify.

edited 25th Apr '11 4:03:58 PM by DrStarky

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

No, this is gameplay. Gameplay falls under trope, not trivia.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

I think the "buggy" line should be clarified. Just how "buggy" is enough for an Obvious Beta? I mean, the original American release of Pokemon Red And Blue was incredibly buggy, but it wasn't a beta by any account (in that case, the bugs were in large part due to pretty much using every byte they had available at the time). That said, it was also quite playable beginning to end.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

But it's completley unintentional.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

There's nothing that says tropes need to be intentional.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Footsteps => I think I just did that in my previous post; please tell me what you think of those criteria.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!

Red and Blue wasn't panned in the media for being buggy. It was about the same degree of buggy as most other games at the time and you could play all the way through without hitting any. Most almost had to be hit deliberately.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

I don't like the "it cannot feasibly be completed without cheating" criteria, it would even exclude Big Rigs Over The Road Racing, because you can complete the levels, even though your opponents fail to start going, that should make it an Obvious Beta without that element.

We aren't saying that it needs to meet every criteria. Just that it's one of the things that can make it an obvious beta.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

Pokemon Red And Blue may not have been panned for being buggy, and it certainly is playable beginning to end without triggering major bugs (some, though, like the Focus Power bug, are almost certainly going to be run into, even if it doesn't break the game), but it's quite reasonable to hit at least a couple of the bugs without hunting them down. Also, compared to many classic Game Boy role-playing games, it's much more bug-filled than most (for example, compare to the Final Fantasy Legend/Saga games - which are older and significantly less bug-filled).

I'm not saying that Red and Blue would count as an Obvious Beta... it's just that the definition as currently proposed would potentially justify it. I think it should probably say something along the lines of "Bugs extensive enough that it heavily interferes with gameplay as presented by the developers (either in promotional material or the manual)."

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

I disagree with Game Breaking Bugs not being a criteria. If there is a glaringly obvious bug that breaks the game within normal gameplay areas and while doing normal gameplay things, then beta testing would almost certainly have found it. So, IMO, if there's a Game-Breaking Bug somewhere where it would render the game unplayable without some sort of workaround, then I would say it qualifies the game as an Obvious Beta.