Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

I test manually. I obviously can’t test every possible resolution, so I focus my testing on the extremes: really small window, really wide window, really tall and skinny window, and 2160p full-screen.

Automated testing for UX issues is problematic. I could write automated tests for things like “make sure the enemies spawn off-screen”, “make sure the event my character is reacting to is on-screen”, “make sure all text fits the window without going smaller than a specified font size”, but doing so would be difficult. I can’t write automated tests for more subjective elements like “make sure the player can see far enough that she can reasonably respond to threats in time” and “make sure the text is readable at all resolutions”. So I generally don’t bother with automated testing for UX issues at all.

Thanks, that’s really helpful. The “test the extremes manually” workflow is exactly what I was curious about.

I agree that subjective UX is difficult to automate. What I’m experimenting with is a bit different — rather than trying to decide whether the UX is “good,” it records a test flow once, replays the same flow at several resolutions, and looks for visual/layout regressions or unexpected differences for a human to review.

Would something like that actually save you time, or would you still prefer checking the extreme resolutions manually?