Testing and Redesigning Games; More than meets the Eye of Sauron

Yet again, I've been slacking off the blogging. Sorry, kids, but life can get busy, especially since subjects are chucking at at you assignments and quiz notifications. I'll try and blog when I can.
But, enough excuses. Straight to business, men!

Robledo, R. (n.d.). Game Tester - What is a Game Tester?. Retrieved May 16th, 2014, from http://www.animationarena.com/game-tester.html

Anthropy, A., Clark, N. (2014). How a Common Game Design Language Can Improve Game Design [Page 1]. Retrieved May 16th, 2014, from http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2178859

Robledo's article is generally about game testing and the clarification of misconceptions associated with the career name "game tester". He argues that game testing is difficult work, requiring some games to be played for months. 8-12 hours a day. 5-7 days a week. Add that up, and game testing becomes much more than a side hobby.
In fact, there are even many types of game testers, such as Publisher and Developer QA Teams, 3rd Party QA Teams, and good ol' Beta Testers. Included are some tips on how achieving the career in the first place is even remotely possible, as well as the Pro's and Con's of each type of testing.
In any game, testing is a huge part of addressing bugs and exploits in game play and design. So, I guess it's important that people realise the importance of even the most frivolous and under looked role in game development. Sure, pay varies on each game, but it does seem more interesting than sitting in a chair all day.

Moving on, Anthropy's article is only an introduction in a 4-part series (you can read the rest at the hyper linked page), but still raises some interesting points.
She indicates that game designers are losing trust in players to instinctively and inventively find out how controls work instead of being bombarded by blocks of text and somewhat bothersome introductions. She then proposes a universal 'vocabulary' where designers can intuitively let players figure out controls on their own, without parental-like intervention. Control manuals can offer such levels of tutorial, but the game itself is more likely to be 'read' and interpreted than the manual.
I've played games where instructional calibre varies greatly, from Unreal Tournament 2004 (nothing tells you how to fly a space ship, so you pretty much have to figure out everything on the fly) to Super Meat Boy (when unlocking new characters with distinct abilities, you gotta pass specific levels built for that character) to Pokemon Platinum (I DO NOT need a fifth introduction on how to catch Pokemon! A choice to choose whether to view the tutorial would have helped a lot).
In all these games, instructions as we know it are imbued and ingrained into game development so much so that we forget why players play games to begin with: Not so much to learn, but to discover, to explore a world with their own hands rather than being guided by an overarching figure, ensuring players have "the essential skills" to pass levels.

That surely gives us something to think about, whether we're playing or designing games, finding bugs or merely commentating on functionality.
Well, I'll try and catch y'all next week, or the week after if you don't see anything new next week.

Peace. ☮