Talk:Game tester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together Expand: New CVG Articles, List of Nintendo trademarks, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, Platform game, Yoshi, PlayStation 3, Mega Man Zero 4, Luigi, Xbox 360 Cleanup: Shiny Entertainment, Age of Mythology, Serious Sam II, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Ted Price, Betrayal at Krondor Merge: Current Events (Update needed!) / Deletions / Essential articles / Workshop / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

Contents 1 Requested move 1.1 Article name 1.2 Requested move 1.3 Discussion 2 Is it really that bad? 3 QA vs QC 4 History!

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. From Game tester to Game testing: 2 vs. 2, no consensus. –Hajor 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Does anyone else feel that this article should be titled "Computer and video game tester" or just "video game tester"? Computer game just seems awkward when we have articles on game programmer, game producer, etc. That said, perhaps it should just be "Game tester"? Of course, then it'd have to have a section on non-video and computer-game testers as well. Anyone else? — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:35, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards "Game tester". I agree with your feeling that it's awkward to have Computer game tester as the title name. More commonly aren't they considered "Beta game tester"(s)? K1Bond007 05:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

No. Beta testers are usually "regular people" who are among the target audience for the game and are given pre-release versions of the game to try. This article is about people who are professional game testers ("professional" here meaning they actually get paid to do QA on games). Also beta testers generally don't get paid, but may get other bonuses such as free copies of the final, shipping game. If no one else objects within a few days, I'll move it to Game tester. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:14, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Those days turned to months :) I took care of it. K1Bond007 July 2, 2005 05:28 (UTC)

Beta testers are not usually "regular people" privileged to play a pre-final build. That's playtesting. "Beta testing" is a misnomer when the software development cycle for video games is considered (e.g., alpha to beta to final to post-production support); however, some studios/publishers do have closed beta and open beta testing of their titles. Closed/open beta testing is typically reserved for massively multiplayer titles when there are not enough on-site paid testers either to playtest or analyze test scenarios requiring a massive number of testers. This testing is usually done late in the beta stage and is also useful for stress/load testing. Beta testing, in general, is simply the testing of a title that satisfies the criteria for Beta status, and is more commonly done by on-site paid testers rather than gamers who simply want to try the game first. Adraeus 23:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Game testing can encompass game tester and game testing processes more effectively than game tester is capable.

• Support. Game testing is proper encyclopedic form for an article concerning software quality assurance processes in computer and video games production. Adraeus 23:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. --Monkbel 01:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. This same thing came up in regards to game programmer vs. game programming. I suggested that they were two different things (and still do). One is a job (or "position"), the other is an activity. Unless the topics are too narrow in focus to develop into full articles, keep them seperate. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. See my discussion) - agree with Frecklefoot. K1Bond007 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support. We don't have separate articles for hunter and hunting, even though there's surely a thousand times more that could be written about "hunters" than about "game testers". Wikipedia does not include separate articles on the activity and the activator unless they're (1) clearly both distinct and extremely noteworthy topics, and (2) clearly both lengthy enough to justify (or, better yet, necessitate) a split. Considering that game testing (which, of the two topics, is clearly the more noteworthy by far) is currently a substub, the latter clearly doesn't apply here, and I'd strongly dispute the former as well. -Silence 10:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Well I don't think we need two different articles on this. What a game tester does (i.e. game testing) can easily be added to the article. This is totally different than say, game programming which is far more intricate. Since this article seems to be more centered around the position than the actual activity, I'm leaning towards oppose for now. Just add the process of game testing here for now and make game testing a redirect. If in the future this page calls to be seperated then we can do that. If in the future it makes more sense to be at game testing then we can do that. K1Bond007 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Game testing is not intricate? Game testing is a significant component of the production system that programming would be lost without. There are many topics that cannot be covered in this article because what a mere game tester does is limited, but the entire practice of game testing is far more extensive than those who haven't worked in the industry believe. In addition, xxgamers.com provides two good editorials about what it's like to work at a publishing house's test farms.

---

Game testing

Types of testing

Black box testing

Playtesting

White box testing

Methodology

Identification

Defect typing

Analysis

Debugging tools

Recording tools

Reporting

Standard practices

Tracking

Defect tracking systems

Verification

Regression testing

Test group organization

Producer

Test Manager

Test Lead(s)

Test Engineers(s)

Test Analyst(s)

Testers

Playtesters ("Beta Testers")

Test tools team organization

Technical Lead

Technical Engineer

Game testing early in the production cycle

Conception

High concept

Proposal

Concept document

Preproduction

Game design document

Art production plan

Technical design document

Project plan

Prototype

Game testing during development

Pre-Alpha

Alpha

Beta

Pre-Final

Gold

Game testing during testing cycle

Pre-Alpha

Beta

Compatibility testing

Localization

Open playtesting

Pre-Final

Code freeze

Gold

Post-production support

Patches

Upgrades

Software quality assurance

Determining game quality

Reviews

Inspections

---

I'll stop right there since the list continues for some time. Just look at the table of contents for the book Game Testing All In One. The book provides a good overview of the whole practice, but like many other SQA books, it doesn't go into much detail. The great thing about Game Testing All In One is that its content is practical knowledge rather than purely useless Cem Kanerish summaries. Adraeus 01:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Then we should probably go with two seperate articles. One of the positions the other on what they do. K1Bond007 17:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is it really that bad?

This article makes it sound like a video game tester is the worst job is the world. Is that really true? This article, Tom Sloper's advice "Working as a Tester", under "External links" does not make it seem that bad. Anyone want to comment on this? -Hyad 20:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I liked it for a while, but after playing the game about 20 times in one day, it got downright tedious. If you're brought on near the end, when the game is nearly done--and it's a fun game--it's not that bad. It can be good or bad, depending on your disposition. I really wanted to be a game programmer, not a tester, so it was just a step on the road to glory, not the final destination. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QA vs QC

I worked in the testing departement of Gameloft for 2 years. One thing that people keep saying is that it's QA ... for quality assurance ... I believe the more exact term is quality control.

Quality assurance refers to a much wider job which accounts for the whole compagny workflow.

Anyone has thoughts on this ?

At every game company I've worked for, we always referred to it as "QA"; no one ever refered to it as QC or "quality control." While your observations are accurate in some contexts, in the video game industry, testing is QA. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I guess people just don't really care that there is a spelling mistake in the department name. The thing is that quality assurance is a software engineering concept that goes a long way.

We could even argue, that quality control would imply that the found bugs must be fixed but the QC department. I wonder if there would be some kind of official statement to all this. What terms do gouvernements use for example. Might give us a hint.

[edit] History!

You need more history! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.203.141.2 (talk • contribs).

I have plenty of history. Or did you mean the article? The problem is a lack of credible resources to cite. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)