Is it fair to judge a game by its beta?

MWEB GameZone writes: " It seems like more and more gamers are starting to think that a game’s beta is the same thing as a demo of a finished product.

That is not what a beta is so should gamers really judge a game still in beta?"

[ZombieDreddZA]

I think the beta for The Division helped sell the game. Some may even say the beta was a better product than the full game (not me by the way).
On the other hand, I've been a huge Gears fan since forever, but the Gears 4 beta left me just a little sad. LAG in SA and a feeling that the game needs a lot of polish.
Agreed, both were betas and issues can be expected but The Division's beta was much closer to release and possibly a better representation of the final product. In the end, maybe the timing of a beta is the critical thing?

[Sillicur]

Timing is an important aspect I completely agree. Also, as noted in the article, the state of the game during a "beta test" should be made extremely clear by the developers and also what their intention with a beta test is.

[HanCilliers]

Not all betas are equal - depends on what the dev indicated beforehand - testing tech stuff, etc. Also, how long before release date? If very close, then I'd say the dev has a problem if the beta is a mess.

[Sillicur]

Time before release is crucial I agree. Thing is, I've seen so many people complain about for example the Division Beta servers going down for maintenance (and then saying they wont but they game anymore) when the open beta was clearly aimed to stress-test servers before release.

[OoglyBoogly]

Depends on the time frame.

Are we talking a alpha or beta months before release? Then, no, that wouldn't be fair to use as a judgment for the final game.

If we're talking a beta that's mainly being used to test server load/netcode for a game that's weeks away...yeah...nearly nothing will change unless they delay it.

So in the case of something like DOOM or The Division I don't find it wrong to judge them based on their respective betas. Now stuff can change as it has with The Division. Whether that's for better or worse is to remain unknown at this time...

[Number-Nine]

More often than not the beta is essentially the same game

[warriors_13]

the "betas" which are coming out these days (some literally within a couple weeks of release) are not designed to gather feedback from gamers.

as for the criticism on doom, people are complaining about the game mechanics and design choices, not technical issues such as bugs or server problems. the complaints are fully justifiable.

[Kleptic]

Agreed, 'betas' became 'demos' sometime last generation...their purpose is more about selling the game and increasing launch hype than actually collecting and utilizing feedback...

Doom had several different private and public tests...they used terms like 'pre-alpha', 'closed alpha', etc...none of which have anything to do with what those mean in terms of software development and product marketing (alpha's are by definition internal)...and, from my understanding, not one of these tests resulted in changes that players were asking for...

the only light in this tunnel is the potential of snapmap, which conceptually allows anyone to simply change the game modes around enough to compensate for the lack of dev changes. But, who knows. The game is definitely trying to blur the lines between arena and 'modern' shooters, and so far that doesn't seem like the best thing to attempt, as its only really promoted the weaker aspects of each. That, and whatever comes of the single player, which personally...was always more interesting, anyway.

[MilkMan]

Yup. If you don't want early criticism then don't beta or alpha. Keep it under wraps and reveal your surprise later.

[ManAnimalX]

Well said. exactly.

[game4funz]

Depends on the game. If the game is multi-player only then the beta can give a pretty good feel of what the game will play like.

Judging gears by the beta is a mistake as the game is also a single-player and Co Op campaign.

Judging doom is also silly considering it also has a single-player campaign...I didn't play the old dooms for their multi-player either

It depends on the game

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

The whole point of a beta is so people judge a sample of a game from a design standpoint. If the developer(s) are dedicated they look at the beta feed back and make adjustments to their game's design. Unfortunately we live in a time where demos are being advertised as betas, since devs release their 'beta' one week to a month from launch.

[Inzo]

Not only is it fair it is a necessity. If we all went around saying everything is OK then how would the devs know what needs fixing?

[wutang4ever]

The Beta does give you an Idea of the final product, and you can somewhat judge a game by the Beta. Usually games don't change much after a Beta, just tweaks here and there.

[PS4PC]

yes , we get to know about gameplay from betas.
Graphics,animation can be fixed later

[FITgamer]

Yes as far a MP part of a game is concerned. Most betas are pretty much the final product, with some minor tweaks.

[ShellB]

I judge games by concept art
/s

[ManAnimalX]

yes its fair.