Talk:Game testing

Beta irrelevant
Pardon the poor formatting, I'm not a regular wiki editor: The bulletin mentioning Beta Testing under Methodology really seems irrelevant to me. All the other bulletins describe different areas of testing, whereas beta testing is not an area of the game you test, but rather, a phase the game goes through before release. Shouldn't that bulletin be removed? - Diablodoc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.37.255.176 (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear
Is that table of contents really necessary? — TheJames 13:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it wouldn't be so long if some of the more minor section headings were rewritten to be normal article text (especially those that overlap quite a bit with articles that already exist). Alternatively, if the empty section headers were removed, the table of contents would vanish, or nearly so.  I'm not necessarily sure that's the best idea, though the outline seems a bit too expansive given the large amount of overlap with existing articles (for example: game testing is a subset of software testing, yet this article sets out to be far more detailed about test group organization and test tools team organization than the generic software testing articles are...   a better thing to do would be to flesh this sort of detail out in a general software testing article rather than here, especially since software testing is very frequently done on software that is not a game).  --Interiot 17:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Board
Could Board Game testing be added to or included in this article as well? Or is it to seperate and deserving of an article all on it's own? Knuckles sonic8 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that testing of non-video games is so different, that it needs an article of its own. Just MHO. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I took the contents of the article and rewrote it. Sorry, but it was just horrible. Some sections were empty, some sections didn't need to be sections and it was a mish-mash of testing a game development, which already has it's own article. It still needs work, particularly the "Methodology" section, but it's a start. &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article could probably use fewer lists and more prose, though I can't put my finger on which section. Limited use of lists is appropriate, but the entire article shouldn't be one long list.  --Interiot 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's still horrible. Take a look at the playtesting section for example. Bilge [ TC] 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Plainly, I think it is unnecessary to have Game test(er/ing) be separate articles. But more specifically, the material in Game testing is actually just a special case of the more general concept of Software testing, though game testing does have its own specific set of requirements (namely, first-party licensing checklists for consoles). I think most of the general stuff about black-box and white-box testing should be delegated to the Software QA article. This is what I'd like to do, exactly:


 * Delete most of the existing technical content from Game testing and use main article template to Software testing.
 * Paste in content from Game tester.
 * Set Game tester to redirect to Game testing.

I know some people are saying that Game testing is about other types of games, not just video games. However, I think this needs to be spun off into its own article. It doesn't really make sense to discuss both topics in the same frame of reference, for the same reason that board games and video games are different projects here in WP. Now if there is contention over article names, that's an easy compromise. In the worst case, we can create the article Video game testing along with any other deserving topics and use Game testing as a disambig page. Ham Pastrami 05:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I made game tester and game testing different articles for the same reason I made game programmer and game programming different articles. One article describes the position, the other describes the work.  Granted, there are many more specialties in game programming than in game testing, so they don't deserve exactly equal treatment. So merging one into the other may make sense.  Where general software testing and video game testing methodologies overlap, they should be merged into the general software testing article.


 * I do think game testing should be moved to video game testing since it is specific to video games. There is probably a lot that can be said about board game testing, wargame testing and card game testing, but they just don't have articles yet.  Game testing would make a good disambiguation page as Ham Pastrami notes. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * game testing and game tester are two different thing as such i think they should be kept  separate Animalbrad 05:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC) october 18 2007

I have now merged Game tester into Game testing. See this disc and this old disc and this old disc.


 * After copyediting essay material and removing questionable content, the game tester article contained only 1) useful Roles section and 2) partially useful and unsourced Employment section. (see old revision)


 * Content overlapped and sections of game tester article discussed topics concerning the field as a whole and not the particulars of tester as a profession. These were moved to game testing article instead.


 * Both articles have been insignificantly improved in content during the past few years.

I hate to see top/high importance video game topics procrastinate in start class. And I'm afraid discussions and talks no longer serve to benefit the main purpose - to improve the topic presentation in the article. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 15:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Game development which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary is too short.
I removed a host of citation needed notes as they were over used to the extreme to the point where my ability to consider their placement to be made in good faith was tested. Listing one or two things here, if there's an aspect of my edit you're unsure about, feel free to ask.

was removed because it states game testing is less technical than other software testing. By the placement I would guess that it belongs to a note since removed, but I don't have the time to work my way through the history.

was removed because localization is a part of testing. Just as people test AI in the game, they also check to see that the text in each languages is appropriate and makes sense. Like any other aspect of a game, it is something which can be done badly and thus needs review. A F K When Needed 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Technical Requirement Checklist
TRC, a disambiguation page, states a Technical Requirement Checklist tool exists in game testing. Is this something specific which can be covered in greater detail? Is it worth pointing out in this article that certain testing criteria are likely to appear on that list? Is this just a common phrase in the field with obvious meaning and usage that isn't likely to have detailed information about it and how it's used which isn't obvious? ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where that phrase comes from or why DAB page implies it as standard, but it's not a "standard" industry term. There are hundreds of approaches and tools dealing with software development organization. This sounds just like another one of those sub-tasks, not even specific to games. Sure, "technical" and "requirement", and "checklist" kind of make sense together, but that's probably simply because they are common buzz words. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
The topic of Compensation had information added about low-level testers not receiving medical insurance.--Squidwardnick (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The website does not appear to be a reliable source, such as as listed here. It only says "might not pay" without citing any sources, which essentially makes it author's opinion. Not to mention that in the scope of the world, this is just for US. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 01:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Article name too general
Game testing refers to all kinds of games, not just software games. Should this article be renamed to Video Game Testing? Contributor tom (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't have "video game testing" because there is no content on testing for other types of games besides video games and this is the name the article got in the beginning. That said, there were move requests before for the same question. Feel free to start one. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Game testing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208195000/http://www.igda.org/qa/ to http://www.igda.org/qa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Player-experience modeling into Game testing
This article has two sentences and relies on one source; it does not even use the one reference it has to elaborate on the model. The article is rarely updated, and I do not think it is particularly notable enough to warrant its own article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm proceeding with the merge. Caelum123 (talk) 04:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)