Hey All!

This week on Building Better Games we look into a blind spot I see across game dev:

Using QA to hit numbers, not impact players.

Too many studios define “good QA” through the lens of bugs found, features/systems covered, and time spent testing.

That’s the objective side of QA. It is necessary. It identifies (potential) problems and makes sure everything is functional. But it cannot tell you whether players will choose your game again tomorrow.

Games rise or fall on experience quality: clarity of intent, the texture of friction, pacing, commitment moments, and whether choices feel meaningful.

This experiential lens is the subjective side of QA. It is judgment about player experience. Not unfounded opinions. Expert judgment grounded in deep connection to and awareness of the player and goals of the game.

Think of it like this:

• Verification QA (Objective): “Does the game work?”
  Tools: test plans, pass/fail criteria, reproducible defects, etc.
  Outcome: fewer regressions, easier triage, predictable releases

• Experiential QA (Subjective): “Is this the experience we intended?”
  Tools: Clear vision, aligned development teams, player understanding, genre expertise
  Outcome: sharper identity, more compelling experience, features/assets/systems that reinforce the core reason a player plays
  
  

Most studios measure QA through the objective lens. But the highest value your QA analysts bring is in telling you whether the experience is working. All devs do this, but QA are almost always the best at it. In this, they represent the player better than anyone else on the team.

Why this matters now:

1. Production pressure rewards checklists and “progress.” Without a well-rounded view, you'll ship a stable but forgettable game.

2. Telemetry tells “what was done.” It does not explain “why players chose that.”

3. Design churn is expensive. Early input from experiential QA can prevent months of polishing the wrong thing.

If your QA calendars are wall-to-wall focused on bugs via endless and contextless testing, you’re optimizing for saying the game is stable and "functions," but you’ll have no idea if anyone would ever want to play it.

Avoid these traps

• Only interacting with QA via bug-tracking tools, losing the subjective view they can give you.

• Outsourcing QA without continuity. Judgment compounds with context. Let them spend time in the game.

• Assuming that something working “incorrectly” is always wrong - sometimes it makes the experience better, and a subjective QA lens will help spot those serendipitous moments.

• Treating QA's subjective feedback as just another opinion. Recognize what QA brings to the table. It’s not just bug detection, it’s genre, player, and game expertise, and context no one else has.

What to do to get more from and out of QA

• Bring QA into game and product direction conversations EARLY. If they don’t know what’s been happening, they won’t have the context to give you actionable feedback.

• Don’t make every QA metric about bugs and coverage. Create space and ask questions about the subjective experience you are trying to create, such as:

• “Where does onboarding collapse?”

• “What’s the first commitment moment in minute 1–20?”

• “Which friction teaches vs. merely blocks?”

• Embed QA within the dev teams. If that isn’t possible, have the same analysts work side by side with your dev teams to understand their specific problem space.

• Keep continuity for your analysts: don’t constantly cycle in new QA via hiring and firing. Their judgment is an asset, not a commodity, and it will be better the more time they’ve had understanding your unique environment.

• Bring your most senior and aware QA into ongoing leadership conversations. For me, sometimes this has been a new associate. Doesn’t matter. I want them in the room.

• Be aware: they will often be hesitant to speak up, especially if they’ve been treated poorly in the past. Create space for them speak up about what they see.
  
  

Objective QA helps keep things understandable and shippable. Subjective QA increases the chance that players will want what you ship.

We go deeper with tons of examples and better ways to let your QA help you more in the full episode with Nathan Tiras.
Listen here: https://urlgeni.us/youtube/_kFrgj

Respectfully,

Ben C.
Building Better Games

P.S.
If you’re a leader in game dev who feels stuck, know that you don’t have to be. Creating positive impact is within your reach. I’ve created a Game Dev Leadership Accelerator to help you transform your team, game, and career.
Sign up here to learn more: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfWzvP4Mp3511t8btuSBkaGJta3-rss0eNp7YuXYa6J7zwBkA/viewform