Bottom of the Barrel

As clichés go, QA as a dream job is one of the most repeated in our industry. Joystiq and Kotaku both posted an article from the Seattle Weekly where one of the writers took a job at Volt, a local company contracted to test hardware for Microsoft and the 360. It's an interesting read, if not wildly extreme. While it does describe the conditions of a Quality Assurance department, this company looks like a Nazi concentration camp compared to my company. But the author brings up some interesting points and one quote in particular struck a chord with me:

"I think the [video game] industry in general, they want addicts," says Dr. Hilarie Cash, founder of Redmond's Internet/Computer Addiction Services. "It is to their economic benefit to have people really hooked on their games. That there happens to be a pool of addicts out there who will work for peanuts, like methadone treatment, is to their advantage," she says.

Quality Assurance always appears to be an after thought, an unfortunate cost that must be begrudgingly provided before a game can ship. It is a vicious cycle between the other departments loathing for us and their inability to provide an environment for us to succeed and prove our worth. We are constantly belittled for holding up projects by doing our job and then accept the full brunt of the blame when things don't go well. And yet, there is no active catalyst for change, there is no open discussion for how to improve what we do. So we stick with the status quo.

Reviling our ability to perform and then posting a job that only pays just above the state minimum wage only encourages more of the same. We will continue to draw from the same pool of mindless addicts instead of analytically thinking, intelligent people who could probably be enticed by a moderate increase in the starting wage. At the very least, we could be more discerning about who we choose to hire and hopefully weed out the bad apples that give us a bad name.

Unfortunately, we practically set up those that do make it through the loose screening process for failure with a training system that is antiquated and ill focused. Which brings me back to the quote; we don't want mindless addicts, we don't want drones. This defeats the purpose of QA. If one fails to see the details and becomes comfortable with the mundane, things begin to seep through the cracks. We need to stop pulling from the bottom of the barrel.

Quality Assurance can arguably be one of the most important aspects of game development. After all, there is no such thing as a B-Game.

One week recap...

I dropped the ball this a bit last week, posting a whopping O times. Here's a run-down of some of the things that have happened that I wanted to talk about but didn't get the chance or make the time to post about:

Wii Price and release date: November 19th for $250. I can deal with that, I was really hoping for the $200 price point, but that was probably wishful thinking. I have really been looking forward to this system. There are so many possibilities available with the Wii Remote. I know that there are very talented and creative developers out there who will really blow us away with gameplay that is truly revolutionary. That being said, I have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with the Wii and its controller over the last week being a Nintendo First Party Specialist and all, and I have one gripe: My wrists hurt! Granted, I am probably experiencing the Wii to an extreme, 8+ hours a day and five days a week, but it does worry me a bit for the future. I can only hope that the right people realize that there are times when just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should.

Tokyo Game Show: If my memory serves me correctly, didn't this show seem to be more exciting in the past? I guess the big three already showed their hands and it was just up to everyone else to show off software. Nintendo and Microsoft continue to impress me with their upcoming lineups, although some new footage of Twilight Princess would have been nice. Sony continues to disappoint. Nothing really catches my eye, except maybe MGS4, but I believe we have yet to see what actual "in-game" footage is like. On the business side, those in charge at Sony seem to be surrounded by people who only tell them what they want to hear because they are clearly not on the same page as their potential consumers. Yes, the system will sell, but to claim the price point was "very well accepted" is laughable. Personally, I have no need for blu-ray or HDMI, so at this point they have nothing to offer me. Maybe down the road, but not now.

"Xbox Killers": I, for the most part, hate what I will call "traditional news". This is the news that runs promos like, "There's a product in your house that will kill your child, tune in at 11 and we'll tell you what it is." Or anything reported on Fox (sorry, a bit of bias there). This is news that still relies on making money instead of just reporting for reporting sake because news is important. So when I read headlines like, 2 Sentenced to Death in Florida Xbox Killings, I am especially disturbed. I really bothers me when a news organization will latch onto even the most remote detail that links a story to video games and the perceived damage they do to society. There is clearly more to the story here and, more importantly, more to the reasons behind the senseless acts of violence besides reacquiring an Xbox. I would just really like it if news went back to reporting and stopped trying to please some puritanical politician or make a buck.

The Mythical 40-Hour Gamer: This article on Wired News today by Clive Thompson was very interesting. He proposes that games are too long for the "soft-core" gamer, meaning someone who really likes to play hard-core games but for whatever reason, can not afford to put in the time needed to complete these games. Now if he had been talking about World of Warcraft or Oblivion (he does mention Kingdom Hearts but not as his main example), I could understand. I know people who have put almost two solid years into WOW and looking forward to Burning Crusade. I personally put in nearly 200 hours for Oblivion but that was over six months. However, his example is Tomb Raider: Legend. Tomb Raider: Legend??? I don't want to assume anything about your skills as a gamer Clive, but come on. I personally put a good twelve hours in to the game and received all of the achievements, 100% complete. If one attempts to get all of the achievements in this game, he or she must do the time trials. When completed, that brings gameplay for the entire game in under an hour and a half. This is a far cry shorter than 40+ hours. I'm not exactly sure what's taking so long over there, but I do see your point. Do developers need to take this into consideration when developing a game? Well of course they do. And that's why, in my opinion Xbox Live will continue to thrive. Developers can give achievements for completing a game fast or getting 100% percent of everything, or both. It also gives an outlet for episodic content which will definitely make up a sizable chunk of the industry in the not too distant future. As well as independent, niche, and pick-up and play games in Arcade, especially now that Microsoft is basically opening that up to the public. Similar structures will probably be achieved on the PS3, and the Wii to some extent, but I can only see it flourishing on Live.

Saint's Row = US Foreign Policy

I will try not to let my political position impose upon my posts but I just loved this article when I read it earlier today on Wired News.

Hey, my fellow knuckle-dragging gamers: Ever want to understand American foreign policy? Want to grasp why the U.S. invaded Iraq when it had no connection to 9/11 and no WMDs? Want to comprehend the Bush administration world picture? Then don't bother reading Foreign Affairs or The Wall Street Journal.

Just pick up a copy of Saints Row.

Give Me Honor, or Give me Death