Functionality
This is the category of game testing that is most generally related with the expression "game testing", as it commonly involves playing the game in some shape. Functionality testing does not need much in the way of industrial experience, though perception basic ideas about programming can provide testers vision about the potential origin of a problem, which both cuts the amount of effort they have to put, and usually makes their reports easier to comprehend by the developer. Functionality testers look for overall problems inside of the game itself or its user interface. Important issues include stability (does the game stall?), exactness of game mechanics (does the sword give out harm?), and entirety of game assets (are textures degraded?).
Compliance
In massive part, compliance testing is the main reason for the presence of game testing laboratories. First-party licensors for console platforms (e.g. Sony,Nintendo, Microsoft) have narrow technical conditions for every title that is authorized for their platforms. Sony spreads a Technical Requirements Checklist (TRC), while Microsoft spreads Technical Certification Requirements (TCR), and Nintendo discloses a set of "guidelines"(Lot Check) that oblige an equivalent scheme. Some of these conditions are highly complex in nature and subside outside the field of the game tester; despite, other parts, especially the appearancing of common error messages, manipulation of memory card data, and control of legally trademarked and licenced material, do subside within the accountability of the game testers to examine. If indeed a single breach is discovered by the first party during application for license approval, the game can be unaccepted (kicked back) to the publisher, presumably costing tens of thousands of bucks in additional testing and resubmission charges. Moreover, the suspension may cause the game to miss an effective launch window, potentially costing the publisher even bigger sums of capital. The game cannot be announced for the system lacking first-party approval, so it is in the publisher's economic interest to guarantee that the game is tested for acceptance as closely and as regularly as possible.
The requirements themselves are proprietary information disengaged to developers and publishers covered by confidentiality agreements. They are not accessible for the general public to evaluate, while awareness with these standards is believed a beneficial skill to have as a tester.
Compliance may also allude to to authoritative bodies such as the ESRB, if the game aims a certain content rating. Testers obliged to mark "objectionable content" in the title that may be improper for the requested rating. As with certification, titles that do not obtain the requested rating ought to be re-edited, retested, and resubmitted at additional expense.
