It's that time of year again; the applications reviewed, the e-mails opened, the anger spewed, it's beta time! One can just feel the energy flowing about the community, it's similar to that of 17th century witch trial. Whose on the chopping block this time around? It isn't the 'n00bs,' or the 'flamerz,' or even the vile and repugnant 'exposers.' Once again, the flames of hate are directed towards the parent company, in this case EA Pacific and their handling of the Generals multiplayer test, or beta if you will. Even worse are the attitudes some people are taking towards the handling and playing of the multiplayer test.
             All of this ranting and raving started days, if not hours after the multiplayer test e-mails were sent out. As it became apparent that a lot of people had not been chosen, tempers flared. Some people were calling it an unfair test and how everyone should be involved in it. It is hard to believe that people truly care about everyone else when they suggest something like a large, public beta. The main reasoning behind an argument like that is so that the person who made the comment would also be in the test himself. Statistically a closed-form beta is just as effective as an open beta; one can see this by looking at recent games that have used one or the other. Warcraft III, the epitome of a modern well-executed RTS, had a very large beta. The initial beta was cracked and was distributed to the masses. Only the most diehard of Westwood fanboys would argue that Warcraft III was an unpolished, horrible, piece of crap. Whether you are into fantasy realms or not, Warcraft III was a phenomenally executed game. On the other side of the same coin is the closed-beta format; the one that Medieval: Total War used. Medieval is one of the few games I have bought recently that upon shipment has had little to no major bugs. Both of these RTS successes show that either form of testing is acceptable and saying that a 'larger test guara...