Your browser lacks required capabilities. Please upgrade it or switch to another to continue.
Loading…
<<set $goodcombo to "It's a good combo, having someone with clear similarities and differences. ">>
<<set $parknow to 0>>
<<set $parnot to 0>>
<<set $twinot to 0>>
<<set $twiknow to 0>><<widget "the_menu">>
<<if $parknow + $parnot + $twinot + $twiknow is 4>>
Well, you got lots of good help. [[Do what you can]] to clean things up.
<<else>>
How 'bout that? Someone <<if $parknow + $parnot + $twinot + $twiknow > 0>>else <</if>>responded to your request for testers! A...
<ul>
<<if $parknow is 0>><li>[[parser author you know|py]]</li><</if>>
<<if $parnot is 0>><li>[[parser author you don't know|pn]]</li><</if>>
<<if $twiknow is 0>><li>[[twine author you know|ty]]</li><</if>>
<<if $twinot is 0>><li>[[twine author you don't know|tn]]</li><</if>>
</ul>
<</if>>
<</widget>>Asking's a pain. Not asking? Worse: negative reviews of your lightly-tested game.
Like Groucho Marx and private clubs, you feel bad forcing the buggy betas of your oddball games on someone kind enough to hack through them.
Still, you put out feelers. Later than you should. Ugh.
<<the_menu>><<set $parknow to 1>>They know you, your "preferred" coding and design oversights, and your (rough) vision. Having someone familiar with your work is nice, but you worry the sameness, or "THAT type of bug again?" wears on them.
<<the_menu>><<set $parnot to 1>>$goodcombo They try a bunch of technical stuff you didn't think of. You can't believe what you let slip. You thought you checked it. But then, when you test you think of what you'd overlook, and you find a lot.
<<the_menu>><<set $twiknow to 1>>$goodcombo They give a lot of input on ease of play, which you value in theory, but it often fails to shine through. And story holes/inconsistencies.
You realize a few more ways parsers are unforgiving. As a kid, you didn't care. Any game was awesome! You're no a game-design theory buff, but some advances are too meaningful to ignore.
<<the_menu>><<set $twinot to 1>>Yeah, parser testing's weird for Twine authors. So many conventions to learn. Too much "this may be tricky" could insult their intelligence. But there are pitfalls, and you're grateful they break their comfort zone.
And their ease-of-play suggestions that seem almost too greedy at first. But wait. They're stuff you'd want in someone else's game, maybe even stuff you thought parsers couldn't do. Fighting the parser's no fun for programmers or players.
<<the_menu>>You waste time feeling kind of bad about obvious bugs your testers saw (could've checked off and prevented them) and non-obvious ones (all their hard work! Ouch!)
The big bugs get fixed. The small ones (and possibilities of regressions) irk you. You figure one elegant solution out an hour past the deadline. You vow to make a quick post-comp release. this time for real!
You feel selfish, even though you offered to test back. Nothing in their betas was painful.
But you are glad you wrote what you could. You just wish you had more time. Next time you'll ask earlier, so your testers feel less pressure. Really. You swear.<font size=+3><center>FIND THOSE TESTERS!!!</center></font>