Do I need both manual and automated testing?

Usually yes, they cover different things. Automated tests handle the stable, deterministic, high-value parts (core logic, save systems, economy) cheaply on every build, catching regressions. Manual testing handles feel, exploration, and the hard-to-automate aspects of games (is it fun, does it look right). Relying on one leaves gaps, automation misses the experience, manual misses cheap repetition, so most games need both, plus field capture for what testing misses once players arrive.

Why is automated testing hard for games?

Because much of a game, rendering, physics, feel, emergent interactions, resists automated assertion; you can't easily write a test that checks a game 'feels good' or 'looks right.' Automation excels where there's a clear correct answer (core logic, save data, economy calculations), but the experiential and emergent parts of games are best evaluated by humans. That's why games rely more on manual testing and real-world capture than other software, even where automation is valuable for the deterministic parts.

Manual Testing vs Automated Testing

Q: What's the difference between manual and automated testing?

Manual testing is a person playing and checking the game, strong at feel, exploration, and judgment (noticing something's wrong, evaluating fun), but it doesn't scale or repeat cheaply. Automated testing is code that verifies behavior without a human, strong at repetitive, deterministic checks (regression tests on core logic, saves) run cheaply every build, but it can't judge feel or the hard-to-automate parts of games. They suit different things.

Quick answer: Manual testing is a person playing and checking; automated testing is code that verifies behavior without a human. Automation excels at repetitive deterministic checks; manual excels at feel and exploration.

Manual and automated testing are two approaches to finding bugs before release, and they're suited to different things, especially for games. Knowing their strengths helps you use each well. Here's the comparison.

What Manual Testing Is Good At

Manual testing is a person playing the game and checking it works. Its strengths are feel, exploration, and judgment: a human notices that something feels wrong, explores unexpected paths, and evaluates the experience, things hard to encode in a test. For games, much of what matters, fun, polish, emergent behavior, is best caught manually.

Manual testing is also flexible, no setup required, and good for one-off and exploratory checks. Its weakness is that it doesn't scale or repeat cheaply: re-running the same checks every build is tedious and error-prone for a human, which is exactly where automation shines.

What Automated Testing Is Good At

Automated testing is code that verifies behavior without a human, running the same checks reliably every time. Its strengths are repetition and determinism: regression tests on core logic, save systems, and economy calculations run cheaply on every build, catching regressions automatically. Automation excels where there's a clear correct answer.

But games are genuinely hard to automate, rendering, feel, and emergent interactions resist automated assertion. Bugnet's per-version data tells you which systems regress, helping target automation. Automation is powerful for the deterministic parts, but it can't judge whether a game is fun or looks right.

Why You Need Both (and Field Capture)

They cover different things, so most games need both: automated tests for the stable, deterministic, high-value parts (core logic, saves), and manual testing for feel, exploration, and the hard-to-automate rest. Relying on one leaves gaps, automation misses the experience, manual misses the cheap repetition.

And both are backed by field capture for what testing misses once real players arrive. Bugnet captures crashes from the field, complementing both. So use automated testing for repetitive deterministic checks, manual testing for feel and exploration, and field capture for the rest, since complete coverage needs all three.

Manual testing is a person playing (great for feel and exploration); automated testing is code verifying behavior (great for repetitive deterministic checks). Games are hard to fully automate, so most need both, plus field capture.