4 ms·
"The system works" does not follow from your anecdote. "It did not suck horribly for me" would be a more apt conclusion; personally I don't believe it's intende
by obviouslygreen 13y ago
"The system works" does not follow from your anecdote. "It did not suck horribly for me" would be a more apt conclusion; personally I don't believe it's intended to do what it did for you. Gaming QA is intended to QA games. Corporations are intended to serve their purpose and use their assets effectively, not to groom them to start their own companies.
Don't get me wrong -- good work! I'm glad good things came out of it for you. I just don't think this generalization is valid.
- socialist_coder 13y agoI don't disagree with your first statement. QA is not supposed to be a training ground, but it does kind of turn in to one since that is the only entry level job you can get in the gaming industry without a degree / experience. Most of QA is trying to get promoted up to an artist, designer, programmer, or producer. I've worked at multiple game companies now and every one was like that. Plus, you can make your argument for any job/company where you are learning new skills and getting better- which should be every job for a professional. Why would any company promote that? And yet, any company worth working at does.