I have only really worked with small teams, so I don't know if it's the same process with AAA teams. But here's what I do: We prioritize bugs based on their impact on core gameplay and user experience. I encourage open discussions but set time limits to avoid endless debates. We use a simple severity scale and voting system to reach consensus quickly. For contentious issues, we implement temporary fixes and revisit later if needed. Regular check-ins help us stay focused on the most critical bugs and keep testing on schedule. #aigamepreneur

There are numerous systems and methodologies for discerning what kinds of bugs break the core player experience. Usually something like this: P0 - Stop everything and fix this. P1 - The game cannot ship with this. P2 - We really need to fix this soon. P3 - We would like to see this fixed at some point. I know that's rough and probably insulting to some Producer's philosophy somewhere, but it's the basic premise. Once everyone grasps this mode of thinking across departments, then people can quickly help to unblock progress for others, ensure more tests run smoothly, and the game can grow increasingly more stable. But it's these kinds of basic structures that will make or break a lot of the process.

1. Identify critical paths and prioritize testing. 2. Create test cases and scenarios. 3. Use automated testing tools. 4. Test on various platforms and devices. 5. Conduct user testing and feedback sessions. 6. Continuously iterate and refine.

I think it’s important to first define clear objectives. What the goal from Point A to point Z. Then prioritize high-risk components such things that crash games to duplicate meshes that aren’t high priority. Then outline a detailed test case based on problems while introducing solutions. Play test, fix play test fix. Run the algorithm over and over again.

I like how GGG does Leagues. Pretty much each league is a feature or mechanics test. If it does well, they put it in the main game. Also have small teams of alpha testers, then open to hard-core gamers or streamers. If possible single out or separate bugs for further testing.

I think it is important to define the depth of the bug and its spreading. A bug that affects several gameplay systems at the same time or breaks part of the core gameplay should be given more consideration than those that affect more superficial features. The classification of such bugs is more precisely determined will depend on the studio.

Communication is a vital key. If you can't track your team then staying in line to ensure the game can be thoroughly tested will be limited. Doesn't matter how well you find bugs if everyone is finding the same issue and not looking or reaching out other areas of testing.

Bugs and blunders go hand in hand, if it's a bug it has to go, WE are not trying to luck up on any thing, some things just don't make it into the game and some do

There are three priorities: fix it NOW, fix it NEXT, or fix it MAYBE. Be ruthless with the razors you use for determining those buckets. To the point where even you aren’t comfortable with those decision points. Pick high judgment representatives from each discipline to assess. Make decisions and stick to them. If people can’t agree, pick a czar and back them up. Quash politicking around bugs.

Define bug severities to provide guidelines. Focuses debate and removes ambiguity to make discussions more streamlined. It is easier to argue S3 vs S2 over S1 vs S4...