Jesus Christ be praised


I have finally joined the forum. No doubt this forum will be a bastion for comaraderie, constructive advice, and patience.


Hi everybody!


Just remember you can only talk about the game on this forum lol… jk😆


Follow up on previous software validation stuff (here since other board closed). QA comes at the ass end of a lot of work. Doesn’t matter cars, drugs, or software. Businesses are under pressure to get product to market. A lot of times, they (QA peeps) don’t find major things but they often find minor things.

Depending on mgmt perspective, this can play out in a number of peculiar ways. Since QA is important (necessary evil) but not high yield (doesn’t actually produce anything), some will keep a lean (cut to bone) QA function. Some will effectively limit the scope of what QA inspects (limit time or function for review, or, limit investment in tools that have to audit/inspect/troubleshoot). Some will acknowledge QA observations/findings but choose to do little in response (can morph from temp delay to chronic negligence to address). Some will put decisionmaking about what to do in response to QA assessment in hands of someone who isn’t right for the job (doesn’t have enforcement power, doesn’t understand downstream effects/future implications). Some will put intense pressure on QA to finish up… this one is really rich for software projects that start years in advance, have numerous delays (some incredibly stupid), have flip flopping in the requirements needed (late requests to change this or that), and then it’s up to QA to get ‘er done asap!!

The above is the context within which QA typically operates. Watch the documentary. You can see hints of aforementioned in it.

All the tensions are why this function needs an expert(s) driving/managing/following the software change management process… when you cut corners (intentionally or unintentionally, doesn’t matter), releases fail or underperform


From my limited perspective it seams that at some point the rains of the game need to be handed over to QA. At which point it becomes there baby(with editorial over site) until predetermined parameters have been met. Dose it ever work that way?


Yeah… Sorry about the other board. That was my fault.


Your so bad. It was all your fault. lol


Well at least I know how to close a thread with one word lol… But I’m not going to push it. This isn’t the place.


What the heck happened to my thread? I am not sure who you think I am, but I am brand new. I am not some exile that has come back with a new identity.


We were all talking about something else. Sorry.

Wanted to make you feel like part of the group lol.


turn back now this forum is not a place for people who enjoy the game or for people who criticize the game constructively and talk about how the game can be improved, its a forum for people who hates the game and want to shit on the game all day.

you have been warned!


Is this the yang to this yin?


Haters gunna hate lol…


You miss interpreted me. I was just preemptively welcoming the trolls that fallow positive threads around hear. :slight_smile:


I hasten to jump in as a new user/player.

One of my colleagues told me to get the game. He said it was buggy as hell and that I would get frustrated. A lot.
He also told me that it was a rare gem of a game. And that I would enjoy it, despite it’s faults.

He is right. I love it. I spend an awful lot of time on foot or horseback and refrain from fast travel. There are some great stuff hidden around the world if you travel cross country rather than follow the paths.

I have also noted that a lot of the hate comes from professional haters and from purists, that can’t seem to understand, that game developers don’t want to make the games they like. You can follow them from game to game and they always complain about their pet peeves not being there.
And of course when they say “The game is unplayable” while at the same time you can see how many hours they have played or they tell you stuff from the game that is close to the ending,
Well you know they lie. They are trouble makers. They can and should be ignored.

I really love this game. Fortunately I can do that. I play on a pc with a relatively decent setup.
I would hate to play on a PS, but hey, I would hate to play any game on a PS. I simply can’t get to grips with controllers.

OH! Nearly forgot.
Hi to you all and thanks for the help I have already gotten from reading past postings.


In quality mgmt theory, one doesn’t turn over fundamental decision making to QA. The thinking goes that if they (QA) make a bad decision, their credibility will be undermined. It is believed that QA need independence to avoid attacks such as ‘you made this bad decision. now, own it and fix it.’

That’s the black and white theory. In practice, there’s grey. QA often have a place at the table in making major decisions. One of their intended functions is to frame decisions and discussions in terms of risk (technical, financial, regulatory, etc). Jan and the others are likely S(oftware)QA and not corporate QA so their scope will likely be accordingly restricted.

Instead of turning the keys over to QA, mgmt needs to empower and trust the QA function. Empowerment can come in the form of investing in tools ($$$), people, time and process (including establishing minimum quality thresholds/expectations that devs are held to). Giving more time was acknowledged by Daniel after 1.4.3 announcement. QA needs this time to do deeper dives (to regression test more, to spend more time double checking change control is right). This delay for consoles could be a very good thing. If so, hope it becomes a trend of fewer to no release issues. Time will tell.

Much is weighing on 1.4.3. Have enough adjustments been made? Have the easy mistakes been eliminated? The releases will never be pristine but including obsolete/corrupt data is not a matter of that.

One has to acknowledge that Jan (@WH_janrucker ) has been empowered and there certainly seems to be some trust in what he does. He’s on Twitter. He has a presence in the WH forum. He listens, etc. It’s hard to understate how important this is. It’s a trend that i hope continues.

With software companies, there’s often a wall that QA hit. Loosely put, on their side of the wall, SQA are responsible for making sure the game works as intended and that includes making sure bugs get fixed. They test to how WH sees (or wants to see) the game. Many, probably well over half, of the issues sent to aren’t really bugs. They’re design issues that customers don’t like. These are on the other side of the wall.

Sometimes, customer friendly details are missed (cleaning horse items at bathhouse?) or deemed good enough (Daniel mentioned this very thing in vid). Other times, the studio decides it doesnt have the time or resources (smithy). QA can triage this feedback, but for reasons outlined above they can have limits to their advocacy. This is where a customer advocate/liasison role can be really useful. Some Software as a Service (SaaS) vendors even elevate this position to VP or director level.

Listen to the customers, understand the tech, and propose changes. When you do this, you can do 2 things: (1) generate content that increase product interest and loyalty and (2) avoid creating content that doesn’t do much for (or even angers) customers (eg gun skins in Fallout 4’s Creation Club). WH needs this role to get the most out of their DLC and mod support investments ahead.


How did this thread become about QA :stuck_out_tongue:
@Zarasophist welcome to the forum. May the Lord be with you, may his grace shine upon you and give you peace everlasting.


KCD is the Jaguar (car brand) of RPGs. Creative, really good looking design but quality wise it requires patience


Confession… it’s all my fault. too lazy to start new topic to finish a side bar conversation with Justin1


Thank you for that crash coarse in SQA, its much appreciated. I owe you one.