one better

Tim Roth could see right through this promotion.

While I was reading KOTAKU I came across this GEM of an idea from SONY San Diego.  They are offering the CHANCE – the OPPORTUNITY – to work on (SONY’s words) the most highly anticipated games in the industry. As a CONTRACT QA tester.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with game testing.  Here are the qualifications for this position.

1. You must be alive.

Simple right?

Typically these contract positions last from 3-6 months.  There are NO BENEFITS, at best $12/hr pay rate, & the pleasure of doing THANKLESS WORK.  In case you’re unfamiliar with what game QA involves…

You’re doing the SAME EFFING THING for 8-12 hrs a day.  And that thing is playing a game in some state of completion.  Usually it’s a game you don’t want to be playing.  And if it is something you’re interested in, you WILL NOT CARE about this game after you’re done testing it.

So that’s the PRIZE.

DAMN GIRL.  Give me some of that!

*I should point out I got into games as a QA tester.  That path works.  But to put a QA job on a pedestal is really giving a false sense of AWESOMENESS to it.

I just received a Stage 2 PASS from Sony on a game I’m working on.  And I was surprised by the amount of editorializing/snarkyness that was contained in their write-up.   For those of you who don’t know – here’s how it works.

Stage 1 – Submit GDD & if Sony likes the concept, you get approval.
Stage 2 – Submission of working game code…  This is when Sony gets to play your game.

So – for Stage 1 I submitted a lengthy GDD outlining how we’ll bring a game that hasn’t had a new release on a console for 11 years.  If you haven’t played video games since – say – 1998 – I would imagine the graphics on a game today would blow you away.  I would imagine…  Apparently, Sony wasn’t as blown away.   I’ll highlight what I thought was the most obvious – and unnecessary snark.

And I quote…

While the game’s maps obviously do look better than the original’s, there’s actually very little new or different about the basic appearance and more importantly the physics behaviour of units and unit actions.

Wait … Wait… So they know it’s a remake of a classic game – yet they think we’re going to change the behavior & actions of the units?  Wouldn’t that be like changing the entire f-ing game?  And finally…  Really – this game doesn’t look different – really – than it did 11 years ago?  Really – it’s in FULLY 3D – so really – it should look a little different.  GAWD!

We are not suggesting that the general appearance of the game is not good, it is acceptable, but nor is it outstanding as per your original intent stated in the Stage 1 documentation.

Wow.  I went back and looked – it didn’t mention it would be outstanding – maybe it was implied.  Even if it was – out of all the items they could have called out – it was the lack of ‘outstandingness’?  Really – it’s not great looking – really?  Wait for the screen shots – really – they’ll blow you away.  Remember – this game was last seen 11 YEARS AGO – so thanks to technology – we’ve improved it.

It goes one to tell me to add better physics to make the game more realistic.  Without talking about the game too much – it’s not supposed to be realistic.  If we wanted to do realistic – for this type of game – we probably would have had to change – let’s see – EVERYTHING.  It’s all made up – so realism doesn’t play into this argument.

Ultimately – we got a pass – but I was impressed or maybe surprised at the massive paragraph telling me that I fell short of what they assumed I was pitching in Stage 1.

I thought it was a great report.  Normally their so boring.  This one told me they were expecting more – more sparkles – more physics – more awesome!  I will do my best.