Support NeoGAF

[FrenchMovieTheme]

playing NCAA 2006 makes me wonder what kind of testing process is typically used in not only a sports game but any game in general. let me ask these simple questions:

1. Does "test" mean they test for specific bugs/defects, or do they actually test for those things AS WELL as gameplay exploits?

2. how long does the testing last? do the testers test the game while it is in progress, before it is pressed, or at random times throughout the development?

3. If a tester reports "hey this gameplay mechanic is broken", how does the designer/producer/whoever respond? or is it a time-sensative issue? wouldn't companies end testing soon enough so they could iron out any problems reported?

4. is it the developers fault when garbage slips through the cracks, or is it the fault of the parent company who is pushing to have the game out the door on X date?

5. is it possibly the testers faults? they just clock in for an 8 hour day and act like they are playing the game but infact dont? perhaps they have people uninterested in sports games playing sports games, therefore they dont see the problem areas?


i ask these questions because year after year, no matter what the company is in a sports game i find some ridiculous bug within an hour of playing the game. it seems to me that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to miss. so what are testers actually doing? how can they not find these things? do testers even exist? is anyone here a tester?

 

[Mr. Blonde]

because you touch yourself at night. 2-14.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

 

[Truelize]

I hear ya brother. I hear ya.

The garbage I've seen in the 9 games I've played so far should have deemed this game "not ready to ship".

True am cry. All I wanted was a little football action.

 

[Chittagong]

playing NCAA 2006 makes me wonder what kind of testing process is typically used in not only a sports game but any game in general. let me ask these simple questions:

1. Does "test" mean they test for specific bugs/defects, or do they actually test for those things AS WELL as gameplay exploits?

2. how long does the testing last? do the testers test the game while it is in progress, before it is pressed, or at random times throughout the development?

3. If a tester reports "hey this gameplay mechanic is broken", how does the designer/producer/whoever respond? or is it a time-sensative issue? wouldn't companies end testing soon enough so they could iron out any problems reported?

4. is it the developers fault when garbage slips through the cracks, or is it the fault of the parent company who is pushing to have the game out the door on X date?

5. is it possibly the testers faults? they just clock in for an 8 hour day and act like they are playing the game but infact dont? perhaps they have people uninterested in sports games playing sports games, therefore they dont see the problem areas?


i ask these questions because year after year, no matter what the company is in a sports game i find some ridiculous bug within an hour of playing the game. it seems to me that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to miss. so what are testers actually doing? how can they not find these things? do testers even exist? is anyone here a tester?

1. Builds of game are played over and over, bugs tracked and given a priority (class A bug etc.), put into a database. Eventuallly producer is in charge of getting the bug list nailed / recommending which bugs to waive (unless they prevent certification).

2. Depends on game, publisher and developer, but imo already early builds should enter testing adn be compared against game design doc and give feedback to dev on how game is progressing. Later on moving to more specific testing. Talking of thousands of hours.

3. This depends on the lead designer mainly. If you have a shitty lead designer who designs a broken mechanic and you have a team implement it, you are a sad producer. There are two options basically - live with it, or return to game design doc and restart. This is what happened with RE4, I believe.

4. It's always the fault of the publisher who have the business responsibility of getting the game out to the market in time. The producer should have a good understanding of existing bugs and the decision to recommend which bugs are waived.

5. You can blame testers if a serious bug (crash bug etc.) is not noticed in testing and reported to the database. But if the game just sucks because of bad design or bad implementation, you can't blame the testers really. The developer sucks, then - and most likely the publisher, too.

 

[Ranger X]

As for #5...

It's ALWAYS time VS budget. Bug testers may find all the bugs but maybe they won't be corrected by the production department. They will start by correcting the most important and frequent ones and continue up the until the most minor bugs if they have time left.
It's there's no time or money for overtime in the production budget, they have to cut somewhere.
Generally i would say i really doubt that the presence of bugs in your videogames can be attributed to bad testers.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

I actually worked QA for 3 years.


1. Bugs, balance issues, standards etc are all tested for.

2. Testing lasts through all of development. Alpha/beta to completion.

3. Response depends really. Seriousness of the broken mechanic, and time is a huge factor. Are the changes needed going to mess with other code etc? Very situational.

4. It's ALWAYS the publisher's fault. I was amazed at some of the shit that slipped through the cracks because a deadline was a deadline. We had a cutoff date near the end of development where they would only look at the most serious of new issues, while trying to clean up what already had priority in the bug database. Everything else would be waived off. Even some serious bugs ended up in the final product. Just pray Sony/MS/Nintendo didn't see it when they pushed it through their QA department for standards approval.

5. No, I wouldn't blame it on the testers. We worked insane hours testing multiple titles (3 or 4 skus per title) and logged obscene amounts of bugs. Once you have logged a bug, and repeatedly bitch about how serious a balance issue/bug/standard violation it may be... It is kind of out of your hands. Then you get to say, "I told you so" when you're ignored and it comes back to slap them in the face.


Anyway, NCAA issues blow my mind. These are easily noticed balance issues. I'm sure the testers bitched and complained, and the title was shipped as is just to get it out to avoid competition with their own product (Madden). Next year they'll fix the long bomb issue and fuck up something else that won't be fixed until the next year due to time restraints. I'm sure neither the Madden or NCAA shipping dates are negotiable. When EA says its going to ship is the day it ships.

 

[Kewk]

4. It's ALWAYS the publisher's fault.

Of course it is the publishers fault. If it were up to the developer the product would never sell through and/or the project would never finish. Pretty much Blizzard is the only developer in the industry that can do what they want and when they want. Yes they develop top tier games that make a shit load of money but they are an exception. Many developers would like to work the way Blizzard does but they cannot. It is not possible for them to work that way.