Quote from: flyingmiceUnderstood! The Lulu preview is autogenerated, and I have no control over it. It always seemed stupid to me to use the first X pages as a preview, when everyone puts their credits and ToC in the front! They should grab a dozen pages from somewhere inside the book.

-clash

Yes, while there is an option to customize the Lulu preview, it doesn't work. Of course, you can eliminate the preview function altogether, but that would defeat the purpose in this instance.

Quote from: flyingmiceI've given up on Mr. Hite. He announced he was going to review Cold Space over a year ago, then never mentioned it. He also hasn't written a column in months.

-clash

You know, there's this other site: //www.xanga.com/RPGPundit who does reviews and reviews every single game that's sent his way.
Maybe we should see about giving that guy a review copy?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYou know, there's this other site: //www.xanga.com/RPGPundit who does reviews and reviews every single game that's sent his way.
Maybe we should see about giving that guy a review copy?

RPGPundit

He's getting his copies! He already has everything else I have in print, or will once Blood Games II gets there.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHe's getting his copies! He already has everything else I have in print, or will once Blood Games II gets there.

-clash

Oh ok. Watch out for him though, I've heard he hates Indie games.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOh ok. Watch out for him though, I've heard he hates Indie games.

RPGPundit

Mmph! Now you tell me! :O

-clash

Despite my departure, I felt it would be rude not to drop in and post a link here:

My capsule review.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenDespite my departure, I felt it would be rude not to drop in and post a link here:

My capsule review.

You are listed as a playtester in the credits, yet you claim you've never played it. Also Pundit mentions that there were three rounds of playtest, though credits for only two appear in the book (well, in the Lulu preview, anyhow). This does not fare well for honesty in advertising and, again, has me very leery of the playtest quality (especially after reading your remarks about the incongruent nature of the of rules).

Quote from: jdrakehYou are listed as a playtester in the credits, yet you claim you've never played it. Also Pundit mentions that there were three rounds of playtest, though credits for only two appear in the book (well, in the Lulu preview, anyhow). This does not fare well for honesty in advertising and, again, has me very leery of the playtest quality (especially after reading your remarks about the incongruent nature of the of rules).

James,
Come on man, you are talking about a guy who didn't even sign his name to his work. Honesty is not a factor.

Clash, congrats on getting the title out. Best of luck with it.

Bill

Quote from: Levi KornelsenDespite my departure, I felt it would be rude not to drop in and post a link here:

My capsule review.

Thanks, Levi! That's really appreciated!

-clash

Quote from: jdrakehYou are listed as a playtester in the credits, yet you claim you've never played it. Also Pundit mentions that there were three rounds of playtest, though credits for only two appear in the book (well, in the Lulu preview, anyhow). This does not fare well for honesty in advertising and, again, has me very leery of the playtest quality (especially after reading your remarks about the incongruent nature of the of rules).

Levi asked me if he could read through and comment even though he wouldn't have an opportunity to play or run it. I agreed, as I have always valued both in-play and read-through criticism, as both find different things.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThen why don't you write one, Zach? I'd be happy to comp!

-clash

I would love to, with the understanding that I'm currently finishing up 3 other reviews (yes, at the same time) I HAVE to get done first.  Much as I'd love to, I'm afraid it wouldn't be anything near immediate.

Quote from: flyingmiceLevi asked me if he could read through and comment even though he wouldn't have an opportunity to play or run it. I agreed, as I have always valued both in-play and read-through criticism, as both find different things.

-clash

That's great but that doesn't make him a playtester, Clash. That makes him a proofreader. There is a difference and, having worked in both capacities, it isn't one that's lost on me. Playtesting is just that -- testing by way of actual play. Proofreading is reading something and offering suggestions for improvement based on perceived flaws.

Why would one ever represent proofreaders as playtesters? I can think of only one reason. This game hasn't been thoroughly playtested, and you needed to make it appear otherwise. If there is another reason why you would represent proofreaders as designated playtesters, I'd love to hear it (I mean that very sincerely, not sarcastically).

As it stands, the remarks about three full playtest rounds when the product itself mentions only two was disconcerting. The fact that you're admitting to crediting proofreaders as full-on playtesters is doubly troubling. How many rounds of playtesting did this game actually undergo, and which of the credited playtesters actually played the game?

The word play in both respects does not make the product or the promoters look good in my eyes, so let's get down to brass tacks and fuck the spin. What's the reality here -- I need to know before I cough up money for the game.

Quote from: jdrakehThat's great but that doesn't make him a playtester, Clash. That makes him a proofreader. There is a difference and, having worked in both capacities, it isn't one that's lost on me. Playtesting is just that -- testing by way of actual play. Proofreading is reading something and offering suggestions for improvement based on perceived flaws.

Why would one ever represent proofreaders as playtesters? I can think of only one reason. This game hasn't been thoroughly playtested, and you needed to make it appear otherwise. If there is another reason why you would represent proofreaders as designated playtesters, I'd love to hear it (I mean that very sincerely, not sarcastically).

As it stands, the remarks about three full playtest rounds when the product itself mentions only two was disconcerting. The fact that you're admitting to crediting proofreaders as full-on playtesters is doubly troubling. How many rounds of playtesting did this game actually undergo, and which of the credited playtesters actually played the game?

The word play in both respects does not make the product or the promoters look good in my eyes, so let's get down to brass tacks and fuck the spin. What's the reality here -- I need to know before I cough up money for the game.

Apparently, you want to find fault, James. It doesn't matter what I say - I'm apparently either a liar, a trickster, or a con man. Fair enough. If it doesn't matter what I say, I won't bother typing. I don't like people impugning my integrity and this conversation is a waste of my time.

-clash.

Quote from: jdrakehWhy would one ever represent proofreaders as playtesters? I can think of only one reason. This game hasn't been thoroughly playtested, and you needed to make it appear otherwise. If there is another reason why you would represent proofreaders as designated playtesters, I'd love to hear it (I mean that very sincerely, not sarcastically).

The word play in both respects does not make the product or the promoters look good in my eyes, so let's get down to brass tacks and fuck the spin. What's the reality here -- I need to know before I cough up money for the game.

Sounds like a witch-hunt to me.

Quote from: pigames.netSounds like a witch-hunt to me.

Honestly, I'm interested in the game. . . the fact that what the people who are selling it say on the forum doesn't reflect what the product preview indicates is a problem for me. If any publisher told me that a given product was extensively playtested but only mentioned two rounds of playtest in the product and then revealed that people credited as playtesters had, in fact, never actually played the game, I'd be very skeptical of the quality control exercised prior to the product's release. Expecting a publisher to explain why promotional banter contradicts copy? Yeah. Total witch hunt.

[Edit: Remarkably, despite Clash's 'holier than thou' retiscence to answer questions concerning such glaring contradictions, I might still buy FtA as Pundit is doing a remarkable job of selling it, despite such inconsistencies. I shudder to think that I'm saying this but. . . I think that you and Clash need to pay more attention to Pundit. Enthusiasm, not exagerration, sells games.]