Nathaniel Chapman

Good ones.

I would love to make an X-com style game, but with a stronger story and more simulation-based gameplay. I would love to make a Deus Ex style FPS/RPG. I'd really dig making a strategy or tactical game for a portable. Or a Zelda-style Action/Adventure game. And, if somehow the heavens opened up and dropped flightsticks onto every gamer's desk and beamed the desire to play space sims into their hearts, I would so love to make a Privateer/Tie Fighter/Freespace 2 style space-sim. Maybe a little slimmed down from those old days (less power-management gameplay, maybe?) but with the same kind of intense space battles.

Ultimately I think this is a fruitless exercise. I think that everyone has their own definition which speaks more to their personal tastes and ideas than to some sort of Platonic ideal of "ROLEPLAYINGUE GAEMES". I don't think by bouncing our ideas back and forth we'll get closer to what RPGs "really are". However, I think my definition lines up pretty much with Josh's. RPGs should allow me to create an idea of a character as long as my idea makes sense within the context of the game world. They should let me express that character in clear, specific ways by making meaningful choices. They should then respond in a believable, internally consistent manner to those choices. Whether that expression is relatively dynamic and open-ended (like The Sims) or scripted (like KOTOR2 and the BIS games) is simply a matter of taste. They ultimately serve similar functions in my mind.

These are typically pretty rare, at least in the games I've worked on. It can also be the result of user error in a lot of cases - like trying to save the game with the hard drive full, etc.

As for the first point, QA Testing is typically a fairly even balance between ad-hoc testing (that is, trying to break the game in as many ways as possible without specific direction), checklists (specific lists of things to check), and sprinting (trying to beat the game as quickly as possible to see if there are any major progression breaks). And, as far as isolating bugs is concerned, you'd think it'd be that easy, but games are rarely that simple. The number of variables can be so huge that it can be pretty difficult to isolate them in a crash. Those variables can also be somewhat transparent to a tester, so it often falls to testers to try to isolate a series of steps without necissarily knowing the ins and outs of the code they are working with.

Ever, or on NWN2? I'm just going to assume you meant ever, because I'm not going to reveal stuff about NWN2 yet, obviously. :ph34r: You see all kinds of great stuff while in QA though. I've always wanted games I've worked for to have bloopers reels with the hilarious bugs that always pop-up in the course of development. Every game I've worked on has had at least one hilarious bug. A couple of the great ones I've seen: Jedi Academy - There are stationary gun placements throughout some of the levels of JA. At one point, one of the testers was being fired at from one of these guns by a Stormtrooper - the only thing was, the gun was firing Stormtroopers! X-Men Legends - For a couple of builds, the Sentinels in the game were engaging in the normal animation for firing their missles - that is, arms outstretched, in a semi-crouched position. The only problem was, the missles were firing from it's crotch. This was fixed pretty quickly, heh. And more. Both of these were fixed in the final versions, by the way. Bugs are inevitable throughout the course of development, and typically at least some of those are funny or particularly interesting. The most interesting bugs as a QA Tester are usually the ones that require the most thought and effort to track down - however, these aren't always the most interesting to talk about, because they tend to be pretty mundane stuff. What distinguishes a great tester from a good one, though, is that the great ones can narrow down an issue from "the game crashes sometimes" to "the game crashes when I equip Mr. Marvin's Magical Cap and run through the Gate to the Magical Fairy Kingdom backwards." Or something like that.

Believe it or not, before I worked at Obsidian I found and researched a bug pretty much exactly like the infamous Pools of Radiance installer bug on one of the games I worked on (it was promptly squashed). It is troubling, though, how easy it can be to hose a Windows install. Nothing even rometly like that on this project, though

I don't forsee any rigs being killed regardless.

Nah, it's cool. QA is like the "Level 1" of the Game industry. I only have 4 hit points and if I miss my saving throw on that sleep spell chances are I'll die

Ack. Some people get all the good jobs. Why isn't there a green with jealousy smilie? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think people have a pretty rosy picture of what QA is in their minds. Don't get me wrong - I love working on games, and I love working at Obisidian. I enjoy QA Testing. But it's a lot more than just playing a game and giving your opinion on it. A lot of the time you're doing very mundane, repetitive stuff. Stuff like running through the same level over and over again, completing a checklist of every ability of every unit in an RTS, Checking the damage of every weapon in an FPS (over, and, over, and over again), running up against all the exterior walls of levels to find map holes and stuck spots, etc. etc. etc. There are fun times, too, and every once in a while you really get to sit back, get into your gamer mentality, and playtest. But (excuse the cliche) it's not all fun and games. I still do feel lucky that I have this job, though. :D

Totally :cool:

I'm a QA Tester on Neverwinter Nights 2.

Why thank you. I've actually been an occasional reader/poster here before, though that was before I started working at the Obsidz. :ph34r:

There aren't really any specific QA skills that you can develop outside of a professional QA enviornment the way you can with Programming, Art or Design. Ultimately, most of the attributes that make a successful QA Tester are more general; some degree of technical proficiency is helpful in doing compatability testing, an eye for detail is hugely important, discipline and patience are crucial. Knowing how to be detail-oriented without spending too much time on any one task is key. Good communication skills are critical. This includes being able to describe problems and possible solutions clearly and concisely, being able to get along well with a team, etc. Tact and professionalism are huge; even though QA is often considered an entry level position, your feedback is going straight to producers/developers. A lack of professionalism is all too easy to detect in a QA tester. Self-motivation is key because you will stand out among other testers if you test parts of a game of your own volition, without a superior telling you to. In terms of specific skills, learning how to use Microsoft Word well is always a good thing. Some database experience is helpful. Beyond that, just love games and have a critical eye for them.