Computer games are serious business and so is their quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. Over the last several decades, computer games started to have a significant impact on society. However, although a computer game is a type of software, the process to conceptualize, produce and deliver a game could involve unusual features. In software testing, for instance, studies demonstrated the hesitance of professionals to use automated testing techniques with games, due to the constant changes in requirements and design, and pointed out the need for creating testing tools that take into account the flexibility required for the game development process. Goal. This study aims to improve the current body of knowledge regarding these theme and point out the existing particularities observed in software testing considering the development of a computer game. Method. A mixed-method approach based on a case study and a survey was applied to collect quantitative and qualitative data from practitioners regarding the particularities of software testing in game development. Results. We analyzed over 70 messages posted on three well-established network of question-and-answer communities and received answers of 38 practitioners, and identified important aspects to be observed in the process of planning, performing and reporting tests games. Conclusion. Considering computer games, software testing must focus not only on the common aspects of a general software, but also, track and investigate issues that could be related to game balance, game physics and entertainment related-aspects to guarantee the quality of computer games and a successful testing process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".