Ok, the title does make sense, but you'll have to follow me :) I want to bring to attention a point that is relevant to this forum. There is not really a question that is being asked here as much as facts piling up, and how I think newcomers could use this knowledge to their advantage. To illustrate my topic, I will use three different iconic fake people: Jon Bob Joe Jon is your typical contractual QA. He gets to work in the industry 3 months per year because he gets a job at any of the local studios. They hire him because he is convenient (he has some experience of the business, and often little else to showcase). Let's face it, he's no hero, but he has over 12 cumulative months under his belt, and for upcoming releases, he's an adequate candidate for a ramp-up. Bob is a full-time QA. He works from time to time on a AAA, knows what to do the right way (he can be very precise in his bug description, knows how to cut to the shortest amounts of repro steps etc) Joe is a new recruit. He's been hired for a 3 months QA contract to test a crappy game that has little to no potential. He has an inquisitive nature, likes to ask questions and see the big picture. He isn't experienced with what it means to be a QA, but is willing to learn. My 'question' if there is one is, who gets the most experience out of what they do? Jon has no future whatsoever. He looks good on paper, but he isn't learning anything new. He's not improving his skills. He knows how to get the job done, that is, the one that is defined by the contract. But is that really want the industry wants or needs? Bob is good. But in terms of experience, he sucks big time. The day technology changes, or logics are applied differently, he will simply fail to adapt. He's learn to build a protocol to test protocols. He lacks adaptability because he has simply found a convenient spot where he no longer needs to think or learn. His previous experience has given him an edge over most of the other QAs, but he's really not earning the most out of his experience time. Joe is a two-sided knife. 99% of those coming in the industry with this attitude really won't work that well. They will learn what they 'want'. However, with a certain level of maturity, they are the best bets, and I'll tell you why, concretely: In a said situation, where a bug requires to think outside the box, the one that questioned (out of curiosity) certain aspects of the product, is more likely to understand what's happening. He may be able to get quicker reproductibility steps and the likes. He is your 'white box' X2, because, while its his job to get documentation on how everything works, he also actually wants to know it. Chances are a year after the setup scenario, a new console gets out: Jon gets re-hired for 3 months Bob gets fired because he can't adapt, or relocated to lower scope projects. Joe gets a promotion or earns his well-deserve permanent contract. Word of advice: if you get into the industry, get the most experience of the time you have been given. It pays off. Even if it doesn't secure you a job immediately, someone will notice, at least you will, and you may have something new to say during the next interview that may simply make you a valid candidate where your CV wouldn't. Does it actually work? It does. I love my job! And I'm a Joe to the bone ;)

Quote:Original post by Orymus
1. My 'question' if there is one is, who gets the most experience out of what they do?
2. Word of advice: if you get into the industry, get the most experience of the time you have been given.
3. Bob is good. But in terms of experience, he sucks big time. The day technology changes, or logics are applied differently, he will simply fail to adapt.

1. I don't understand. Maybe the problem is the word "experience." What does the word mean to you? I explain my definition of the word at http://www.igda.org/games-game-october-2006
2. I don't understand the point you're making. If you get a chance to work in a game company, your advice is to do what exactly?
3. How do you figure that about Bob? All we know about Bob is what you told us in your initial description -- he's a full-time QA professional. Are you saying that all full-time testers cannot adapt and thus all suck big time? Where do you get that idea?