Formal documentation

Maybe you already googled blizzard "game analysis", but if not, do so. There don't seem to be any formal criteria besides the simple ones given by blizzard about length and don't use one of their games. You can however read the responses various people have given in various forums to your same question, can't hurt.

Personally I'd say the point is to show that you can unify the ability to see a game as a player and the ability to see a game as a designer. That you can clearly describe what a game is and then speculate intelligently how it works to make players have fun, and if there were any mistakes of design or implementation that got in the way of the game living up to its potential.

So you can't use their games.

Would be fun to send an application with a mock analysis of Rift, mostly criticizing things that are almost equal to that of wow

All blizzard games seems to follow: Being accessible, balanced, safe and proven mechanics. I would pherhaps be careful about criticizing these elements. Personally, that's the first thing I would do, not that being accessible is bad in general, but how in trying to be accessible, they often make the games predictable and boring (Arcania).

Thanks for the responses, guys.

I looked into it a little more, and I wasn't able to find a specific template to follow or even a sample analysis.
I did find a couple things, though. In case anybody else ever comes across this thread and needs some info, here they are:

General tips for landing a job as a game tester:
http://videogametestersalary.com/faqs/6-tips-for-landing-a-game-testing-job

Sample cover letter (a little plain, in my opinion):
http://www.greatsampleresume.com/Cover-Letters/Game-Tester-Cover-Letter.html


Basically, you were right, Mr. Sun; you have to prove to them that you can not only play video games, but also analyze them as a developer.
I think it would be good to include a general list of information before writing your actual analysis, too.
Some things you should include are:

Game title
Developer
Producer
Platform
Genre
ESRB rating
Release date
Time spent playing


ImmoralAtheist, what do you mean by criticizing the game's "accessibility?"
Are you referring to the game's overall difficulty?

Moving to Breaking In, since that's what the focus of the thread has become.

ImmoralAtheist, what do you mean by criticizing the game's "accessibility?"
Are you referring to the game's overall difficulty?

This response will be somewhat off topic:

I mentioned Arcania (aka. gothic 4). The developers said that (unlike the earlier games) Arcania would feature state of the art rpg elements, referring to things like exclamation marks and quest tracker. This ofcourse led to huge fanrage. In mmorpg's you spot an exclamation mark, accept the quest, and then follow the arrow to where you kill stuff. You don't really care about the details. Now let's say there's no no quest arrow. The questgiver may mark questlocation on your map, or explain where you can find it (location on map), or give directions on where to go. Game developers usually stay away from this because it's to "hardcore". Everything nowadays needs to be "accessible". What they're trying to do is bulletproofing players from getting frustrated.
What are the advantages of not implenting magical arrows and such? You need to be much more involved (you need to think more), and this + removing unrealistic elements (quest arrow) will add to immersion. It's important that it's implemented correctly though, and it would require a bit more dialouge.
Another thing is areas that always have monsters within the same level range. It really makes the wilderness much more plain and predictable (and I would also say boring).

In Risen many reviewers/players comlained about the insane difficulty of the wilderness. Apparently they did not understand that the wilderness was not scaled to their level. They would need to avoid those fights they were unable to will. They gave the impression that they tried to defeat a much stronger over and over again, as if this was some tunnel action game, and they had to get past that enemy. It's not about the difficulty, it's just that you need to navigate in the world, stay clear of certain things. To some this seems like an extreme difficulty, but I'm sure that with some tutorial explanation, those players would manage to navigate aswell.

However, I don't think Blizzard will be to over-excited about such things.

what do you mean by criticizing the game's "accessibility?"
Are you referring to the game's overall difficulty?

That's part of accessibility. A game tuned for hardcore players is inaccessible to casual players, even if they were attracted to the game's theme. A game with a theme that has a narrow appeal isn't going to reach a broad audience; it's not very accessible to the general public. I'm probably stretching the definition...

[quote name='WildWOLF' timestamp='1314567100' post='4854830']
what do you mean by criticizing the game's "accessibility?"
Are you referring to the game's overall difficulty?

That's part of accessibility. A game tuned for hardcore players is inaccessible to casual players, even if they were attracted to the game's theme. A game with a theme that has a narrow appeal isn't going to reach a broad audience; it's not very accessible to the general public. I'm probably stretching the definition...
[/quote]

Just that I think this is sort of a myth. Well ofcourse things like permadeath is quite hardcore, but enemies not necessarily scaled to your level is not hardcore. Well to some it actually is, but with some gradual approach (easy start), they would probably be fine. Note the " signs around accesibility. Accessibility is good, but that doesn't mean you must remove every element that may frustrate the user. You're also taking away what makes the game good and interesting. Besides if they're to frustrating it's probably because you have implemented it badly. Ofcourse early areas should not have powerful monsters that roamed around freely (and fast), and attacked on sight (from a huge distance). They should be quite easily avoidable.