How unfinished does a game have to be to be called ObviousBeta?

So I\'m wondering if an example cleanup might be in order for the Obvious Beta trope, but I want to see others\' opinions on this. When I hear the term \"obvious beta\" I think \"unfinished to the point of unplayable\" with missing textures, Game Breaking Bugs, frequent crashes and the like. However, I\'ve seen it used a handful of times for games that just happen to be missing a few features (Burnout Paradise, Cook Serve Delicious, The Sims 4) and other examples of games that *do* happen to have a few bugs but are really worth a raised eyebrow at most (Evil Genius, My Summer Car, The Elder Scrolls II Daggerfall, The Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion). But maybe I\'m just really lenient on my definition.

Maybe it's sufficiently unfinished as to have no ending?

Sufficiently unfinished that the fans can't help but point it out (especially if it didn't have a feature that they expected)

"Not having all promised features" and "nigh unplayable" are pretty far apart on the spectrum of launch problems. Releasing a game with the intent to add content later is quite standard, if a bit dickish from the perspective of players who rush to complete it. Releasing a game and then putting out a zero-day patch to fix critical issues is unfortunate, but it's not always the developers' fault.

Obvious Beta should be reserved for those games that go through a long post-release cycle of patches and design changes, making it obvious that they were sent out in an unfinished state. In particular, the implication of the "beta" part of the trope title is that early players are being used as a QA department that the developer doesn't have to pay for. If the devs are aware of launch issues and just didn't have time to fix them before release, that's not an example. It's also not an example if the game is constantly growing and developing, like Minecraft, such that there is not any intent for the product to ever be "finished". These days, "early access" games sidestep the issue, as you're explicitly purchasing an unfinished product.

It's also important to remember that flawed releases aren't always (or even often) the devs' fault, considering the pressure from publishers to meet launch schedules and/or a lack of funding. The trope should not be employed to level unfounded accusations or issue personal attacks.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 15th 2018 at 9:29:39 AM

What about games that didn't receive post-launch updates, like Sonic '06? The PS3 version of that game was delayed two months and actually performed worse than the 360 version, which was already infamously broken. Neither version is unplayable, though.

I think a good baseline is that if the game has at least one major feature that has been implemented, but just straight-up does not work, to the point of breaking the game (either in the bad way or good way).

Keywords being "major feature" here, so a strange graphical glitch like the "Crazy Legs" glitch in Team Fortress 2, or something like how you can warp to the final boss from the first stage in Super Mario 64 wouldn't count, since the former does not affect gameplay, and the latter requires a lot of work and is borderline impossible to come across in a casual playthrough. To go back to the Sonic '06 example, think how the Mana Meter for Sonic doesn't actually do anything, allowing you to completely abuse Sonic's upgrades. Something like that.

We can look at the definition of a "beta" version of a piece of software, which is somewhat fuzzy, for our clues:

• Is missing features that are intended to be in the final product.
• Has significant bugs or technical issues that may make the product unusable or, in the case of games, unable to be completed.
• Has not gone through final QA.
• Is not optimized for all, or even most systems.
• Relies on users to test and reveal issues with the product.

So, applying this to games, we can say that it lacks promised features that are patched in later, is unplayable in at least some aspects due to bugs, lacks anything resembling the polish of a finished product, is grotesquely unoptimized, and/or relies on players to find issues for the developers to fix. Word of God that a game was shipped before being ready is helpful but is not always available.

Regardless, there is always going to be some subjectivity to what is an "obvious" beta versus a product with launch problems.

Edited by Fighteer on Aug 17th 2018 at 3:22:32 PM

So, turn it into YMMV?

- Possibly, if we've covered every objective qualifier in tropes...

• Unwinnable by Mistake would cover when it can't be completed...
• Game-Breaking Bug covers a lot...

Something being laggy, on a console, would be tropable, given that there are standard specs, so there's a clear expectation that there should be no lag, given the specs.

Raid Idiot Programming for lag examples, if such a thing is being made... I've got too many drafts in the air for my own comfort, so not gonna sponsor another one just yet?

...

Obvious Beta could be objective, if this is defined as being a fusion of multiple tropes and another quality, like Statuesque Stunner = Fanservice + Height of ~6ft.

Edited by Malady on Aug 17th 2018 at 6:23:39 AM