Slashdot Mirror
QA as a Bridge to a Game Career?
An anonymous reader writes "Over at educational site Game Career Guide, there's a new article asking whether game testing is a good way to get into the game industry. Veteran game tester Zachary Slater comments of the conundrum: 'QA could be a worthwhile career path for console and computer games if only it were treated and respected as such ... It isn't and probably won't be. Game developers and publishers seem to regard QA as an unfortunate expense required in the development process. It is a problem for anyone who wants to actually focus on it that they won't be respected for doing so.'"
The best way to get into the game industry (not that I understand why anybody would want to given the horrid working conditions) is as something that has a part in the creation of the game. Development, artists, that sort of thing.
Testers are the people who annoy everybody by coming back with a build and saying "it doesn't meet xbox certification criteria 347-15a", thereby causing the developers to have to work another 12 hour day to fix it.
If you actually want to be a tester, then its fine. If your goal is to move into something like development, testing isn't a good place to start.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
You'll read stories about "Ye Olde Thymes" when testers were often able to pursue opportunities and become designers or "higher" positions in a video gaming organization. Given the larger requirements for positions, the necessity of degrees, and other factors it is not the best way to make your big break.
If you really want to design video games, the best thing you can do is make them yourself. You won't be able to make a super AAA title that way, but you'll have full creative control over your work and something to show for it in a portfolio.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
I work for a large game development studio.
If you didn't go to school, but you are energetic, disciplined and passionate, apply for QA roles and then commit to understanding the mechanics you see when you are testing. I know an Executive Producer of an extremely successful 2006 game that started in QA years before and absorbed the processes he saw around himself. He moved into design years later and applied this knowledge while absorbing process from the new disciplines around him. Then he was a respected Producer for years, mainly because he understood what it took to get things done in each area. Most recently he applied all of this with a talented team and made a great game.
Even young punks who think they know it all can grow up in QA. It is quite an eye-opener for these know-it-alls to be around disciplined, confident CompSci and other graduates who really do know their stuff. They often mature during this process can move onto roles with more responsibility. The ones that don't are easy to spot. If you have the education, the only thing that you need if you are missing experience in the games industry is modesty and passion. Modesty to work on the boring systems, and passion to make those seem exciting.
The industry really needs more candidates. If you see business news about the growing game industry, remember that 85%+ of that growth is people. We routinely hire talent from other countries because we don't get enough local resumes.
There is a myth that you have to "break into" the game industry. The truth is if you have a clue what you are doing they will find you. Put a tech demo or game demo togother, put it on a website, and put the URL on your resume. If you don't have a demo, you probably aren't fit for the industry since most successful people there enjoy writing games/demos. Just because you like playing games doesn't mean you like making games. Also, keep in mind they nobody is going to hire you to make YOUR game, they are hiring you to make THEIR game, so your creative ideas are meaningless to potential employers.
word.
An acquaintance of mine was a tester for Electronic Arts for several years, although he was certainly qualified as a computer programmer. He always got laid off from QA when the work was slow and then because he made a point of remaining available, he was rehired again whenever they needed more testers.
Eventually (only recently, in fact), they finally took him on in a permanent capacity as a full-time developer. But this whole process took YEARS.. and in that whole time, there was never any real indication of hope that he was ever going to be anything more than a tester for them.
So I'm inclined to believe that it can work, but one may have to stick it through a lot of periods of unstable employment. Bear in mind also that the fact that the fellow I know got hired on as a developer may have only been fortuitous for him, I can offer no guarantee that this tactic would always work.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You'll find that the industry places varying degrees of importance on QA. Some places give it minimal importance, hiring contractors and disposable employees to do just enough QA to get by. Those places will have horrible hours, low pay, and be miserable experiences, taking advantage of the fact that a lot of people want to do gaming. Other places will give it proper importance, making it a clear part of the lifecycle. They'll pay decently, actually listen to input, and give the requisite resources and time to make sure that quality is taken care of.
The key is to get in at one of the latter places, though to be fair, it'll also be harder to get in there because more people will be interested, and they'll have tougher requirements when doing the hiring. They're also the places that you'll do things worth putting on a resume and can lead you to becoming even more involved in the industry, should to want to leave QA.
And never forget about positions on the edge of the industry, as those can be some of the best ways in, since there's not the same demand as getting in to an actual game developer, but you'll still make the contacts and learn relevant things. I gave up on getting into the gaming industry years ago. But 5 years ago, I decided to move to Seattle, and got a position at Microsoft (yeah, I know what people here think, but I haven't regretted it for a moment) - and realized I had an opportunity to get into gaming here, and now I've got a position on the Xbox team (UI test). I've been learning a lot, making contacts, and I've found that quite a few people have gone on from this team to take up positions at game developers.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I've known some people who have "broken in" to development after spending a lot of (grueling, low-pay, poor security) time in QA. Which is to say... it is possible to get into dev through QA.
That said, I've known many a game developer, and the general consensus is that, while it is possible, the possibility is also remote enough that it's a pretty crappy idea. A lot of game development, from the code side anyway (I'm assuming since this is Slashdot that this is the case), require extensive understanding of computer science fundamentals, so unless you are some genius self-trained uber-coder, it's probably best if you go to school and learn the nuts and bolts necessary in this industry.
In the above statement, your "best" certainly doesn't mean "easiest." Breaking in as an artist, designer, or programmer is substantially harder than breaking in on other tracks. These positions have huge pools of outside applicants, and there is a sufficient amount of domain-specific knowledge required that companies almost always hire people who are already inside the industry. This is not to say that it's impossible to break into one of these positions, but it creates an extra hurdle, in addition to the already high one you're facing just to break in.
The real best way to get into the industry is through an internship, but obviously, that isn't available to just anyone.
QA is certainly not an ideal way to get in, but it's better than banging your head against a wall you can't get over. Here is my advice for those who take this path:
1.) Do your QA job well. It may not be the one you wanted, but if you don't do it well, the only place you're going is the unemployment office. The company's perception of your competence will be important if you want to get into another department.
2.) Network, network, network. Get to know the people in the department you want to be in. Make friends. You might even find a mentor.
3.) Work on your skills in your chosen field in your free time. If you want to be an artist, beef up your portfolio. If you want to be a programmer, work on a demo. If you're a designer, work on some design docs, make a board game, or find a wannabe programmer to team up with for a demo.
The important thing to remember is: There's no game dev fairy who is going to flutter down and wave her magic wand and get you out of QA. Sitting on your butt and doing the minimal work isn't going to cut it. You've got to put in the effort, or you're just wasting your time.
More bugs is not a good measure of QA ability. What you're looking for is *better* bugs. One tester may find 20 trivial typos, while another may find a bug that will cause the game to crash. The last bugs is a far better one to find, although typos do affect the user experience. I would also disagree with your suggestion that programmers (necessarily) make better testers. While the knowledge can't hurt, Dev has a totally different mindset than QA does. Dev tends to test to make sure things work. A good QA engineer tests to try and break stuff in interesting ways. The best combination (in my professional opinion) is a good group of Devs and QA that regularly work together, and are able to communicate effectively.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
The real trick here is to find a small company or a group of developers. The #1 mistake most people make starting out is they think like 50 year olds and go for a big company with way too many people. This results in less risk and a nicer resume', but it also leads to just being another cog in the works and a total lack of real opportunities.
The simple fact is that quality control and customer support gets worse as the company is bigger. That is, unless you go in as one of the original 10-20 employees at the very beginning.
As for how to make it in software, it's not impossible to make a good game by yourself or with a couple of people.
Kingdom of Loathing and many other online games are perfect examples of this. And honestly, if I was running a company, I'd be hiring these people who made their own smaller games first.
As for commercial games, Defcon is a perfect example of what a small group can do on a shoestring budget. I can guarantee that every one of the people involved in it already has multiple offers for real work if they want it.
It all gets back to the basic rule of science, and by extension, computing: There is no free lunch. You want to make games, you have to MAKE games and do the coding. QC/QA is most often a dead-end career path unless they pay for your masters degree or something similar while doing it.
QA is in no way a path into "real" work in the games industry. If you want to be a games programmer, you're going to need to impress with your portfolio of programming. If you want to do graphics, you're going to need to impress with your portfolio of graphics. If you want to do sound and music, you're going to need to impress with your portfolio of sound and music. The only advantage your QA job gives you is that you don't need an envelope and a stamp to send in your job application if you're already working in the same building. To be totally honest, the studios I've worked, QA were regarded with such withering contempt that working there would probably be a handicap. You'd get a better response if you were some random guy off the street.