Or unsophisticated agents. A strategy I've used for testing highly visual code: run the test procedure; take a snapshot of graphic output; generate a hash signa

Or unsophisticated agents. A strategy I've used for testing highly visual code: run the test procedure; take a snapshot of graphic output; generate a hash signature of the output (e.g. CRC32); if the signature has not changed, the test passes; if the signature has changed, queue the test to a human for verification; if the human accepts the output, save the new hash signature for the next automated test. The TL/DR: if the output hasn't changed the test passes; if it has, get a human to approve the change. Developers can (and probably should) perform most of the manual verification. It wouldn't completely eliminate test teams for AAA games; but it could substantially reduce the load placed on test teams, allowing them to focus on what test teams do best.