ATTN: experience QA peeps

[Kraig]

We've just put up 6 new QA opportunities -- 2 x full time and 4 x contract.

Each have unique requirements and we are looking for only EXPERIENCED peeps. Have a look via the URL below and follow the directions to apply if interested.

Blue Castle Games

you would probably know, but one good place to post qa positions would be at Welcome to T-Net

[dj_soo]

good call on the experienced guys - i'm glad that some companies are realizing that mass-hiring kids right out of high school in a desperate attempt to just have bodies on the games doesn't always produce the best quality results.

[Kraig]

Originally Posted by alla

you would probably know, but one good place to post qa positions would be at Welcome to T-Net

I guess you didn't have a look at BCTechnology.com before posting this reply! ;-)

They are already posted. :-p

Besides, we aren't desperate for candidates more so I posted here as well because I know a lot of FnK are gamers and/or have worked previously for gaming companies.

[Kraig]

Originally Posted by dj_soo

good call on the experienced guys - i'm glad that some companies are realizing that mass-hiring kids right out of high school in a desperate attempt to just have bodies on the games doesn't always produce the best quality results.

Absolutely. Also what we call QA vs. what say EA calls QA is VERY different.

Our QA peeps are a VERY important part of the process and as such, they are compensated appropriately.

[ppcock]

sent.. trying for Senior QA Online.

but if im suited for regular QA better. I'll take anything I can get.

Thanks Kraig.. you rock!

[dj_soo]

Originally Posted by Kraig

Absolutely. Also what we call QA vs. what say EA calls QA is VERY different.

Our QA peeps are a VERY important part of the process and as such, they are compensated appropriately.

Yea, we have the same philosophy at my company. I'll be sure to refer some good people to these openings.

[ppcock]

Originally Posted by Kraig

Our QA peeps are a VERY important part of the process and as such, they are compensated appropriately.

I agree with you 60%

EAC is huge for who cares about QA. There was a lot of shit we didnt agree with that dev team were doing. we tried talking but dev and QA relationships were like.. QA was the woman and Dev was the bastard guy, wearing a wife beater.. drunk on jd beating the shit out of the woman.

Then I went to fusion and I was so impressed with how they dealt with things. Constantly, i was working with dev team getting better ideas into the game.. for a good chunk of my time at fusion i was boarderline producer more than a tester.
My day started out with french toast from ibm then right off into working with dev, reproducing hard to find issue, gathering ideas and helping them out.

QA and Dev got a long really really well at fusion.

[omega_image]

lol that's because fusion was it's own business unit, same thing goes for eax (partially).

[ppcock]

it was a happier time.. except for frank.. i didnt like that guy.

[dj_soo]

^ size of the company has a huge impact on how qa gets treated often. In EAC, QA is more of a sweatshop/meatgrinder and treated with no respect from the dev team despite the necessity of the process. When I was there, it felt like the team seemed like more an annoyance to the dev team despite the fact that it's an integral part of any software process. This is kind of the attitude in most big game development companies honestly.

After working in smaller companies and working in non-videogame software companies, the treatment of the test team is like night and day.

[stringbeans]

ive worked in both qa and development and the issue is that no one is ever willing to take responsibility for anything and everyone's always trying to pass the buck from one department to another

EA's qa is notoriously known for its poor testing because they dont look at qualifications when hiring. sure you could be a pro at games and have played them all your life but you might not have the slightest clue as to what kind of logic goes on behind the scenes.

at the same time, i know a lot of developers that dont follow "proper" procedure when developing (ie. code reviews, unit testing, etc) which can dramatically reduce the number of issues found

[omega_image]

[EDIT] to terrence: ^definitely. working for bodog's qa team is a completely different experience.

as for john - yes and no. it doesn't take much to become a good tester @ ea, simply because you're working on a strictly gaming sense. qa for software is completely different, experience and knowledge is needed at any level.

as for the passing off, no one likes to take the blame first.

Originally Posted by Kraig

I guess you didn't have a look at BCTechnology.com before posting this reply! ;-)

They are already posted. :-p

Besides, we aren't desperate for candidates more so I posted here as well because I know a lot of FnK are gamers and/or have worked previously for gaming companies.

nope, and that is why i said you probably (or i should of said: "i am sure you..") already know...


:cheesy:

[dj_soo]

Originally Posted by omega_image

[EDIT] to terrence: ^definitely. working for bodog's qa team is a completely different experience.

as for john - yes and no. it doesn't take much to become a good tester @ ea, simply because you're working on a strictly gaming sense. qa for software is completely different, experience and knowledge is needed at any level.

as for the passing off, no one likes to take the blame first.

That's sort of the problem with game testing though - the mentality that "anyone can do it cause you're just working with games." I'd think we'd see a bit more of a quality jump if these multi-billion dollar companies would actually spend a bit more money on experienced guys rather than hiring any scrub who likes games as well as any random manager to lead the teams instead of people with actual games experience.

Then again, I guess it would be harder to force the experienced guys to work 80 hours a week for chump change tho... (this is actually the case across the board - not just QA mind you...)

[omega_image]

^exactly. one of the main problems at ea was it's management in qa. a lot of the PM's were hired externally with little to no QA experience, just managerial skills.

this causes a waterfall affect, that cleary can be seen in testing efforts. for the most part (as it is with any job), a happy employee is a good employee.

[Mr Ektion]

i think you're all right. in one aspect or another. There are so many people who work or have worked in QA with various levels of committment or pride for their projects. There are so many perspective to take. You could be a young guy becoming a video game tester for a summer job working with a group of guys who've all gone to school for game design mixed in with the people who just care about the product and are simply in love with the video game/office culture.

Being a good gamer doesn't always help because you take liberties in understanding playability. The video game industry makes its money on attracting new gamers to their titles so learnability for dumb-asses to pick up a new game is crucial. Good Gamers or Jaded testers don't care about new gamers and usually have the "if they can't figure it out they shouln't be playing our game" mentallity. Which is terrible Quality Assurance. That was just me though. And it was different from team to team even though it was all within the same company. And yes. it had a lot to do with management styles.

[Mr Ektion]

Here's a perfect metaphor of EA vs 2K.

Look at the size of the instruction manuals. There is NO EFFORT at all in the 8 paged EA manuals. Why? It cost money and the games are repetetive from the years before so there isn't too much to pick up since last year that you can't figure through time and practice.

Take any other company and you can see that they use the instruction manuals in detailed ways to build to the game experience by providing background info, screen shots, and game mode/feature details. As a kid my first impression of a game driving home from the video store was reading the ints. manual and I would fall in love with the game before even playing with it! Multi-Billion dollar companies lose sight of that to make slightly more money. PLUS, most people at companies like EA focus on their career or life style at work, rather than the quality of the game itself.

[omega_image]

^lol you said it yourself though, "the games are repetitive from the years before"

no sense in making some redundant manual

[Kraig]

Interesting thoughts here all round...

That said, we DEFINITELY value the QA team here... they are an integral part to doing what we do. Also - QA sits by/with development to facilitate communication.

[dj_soo]

^ I've referred some good colleagues to the job.

[Mr Ektion]

adam, not everyone will pick up a game every year. Some people might be trying the game for the first time. It's tough to assume people already know what to do in advance.

[dj_soo]

that's what in-game tutorials are for. Most people barely read the instructions.

[Kraig]

Originally Posted by dj_soo

^ I've referred some good colleagues to the job.

Thanks brutha!

[omega_image]

Originally Posted by dj_soo

that's what in-game tutorials are for. Most people barely read the instructions.

*ding* terrence hit it spot on. ea covers their ass by offering instructional videos and controller layout screens during load times.

BTW, if you're looking to compare an EA manual, you might want to look at say bond: everything or nothing, where there are actual weapons, vehicles, and enemies to describe.

Not quite sure what you're expecting from an NHL manual.