[fuwafuwa]

Short answer: No. Gamedevs have to keep showing testing zealots the door.

Long answer: The problems with the approach are manyfold. There are a few points where testing is automatable, but they don't describe entire game projects well.

* What are you testing when you add gameplay? You are testing for a whole set of design concerns across the project, not just a technical specification or quality of service metric. You cannot do it in isolation and get the results you want at the speed you need, because you need tons of feedback to discover what a complex game is currently strong or weak at. The only reasonable way to gain the necessary feedback is to allow prototyping code to drive near-term changes, manually playtest it, and then factor out the most stable parts of the resulting soup where you can. This works against test-first because you don't really know what you're testing. You throw in a feature on a hunch - "maybe this will give the experience we're looking for" - and see how it behaves hands-on. If it works, there are still usually ramifications and elaborations that didn't surface up-front. And once it does work it's hard to break out into a sandbox because the interesting part of the behavior is in the coupling to other systems and features.

* Games deal with vast quantities of mutable state strapped onto relatively straightforward data pipelines: the parts that are most testable are engine and toolchain core elements like asset builds and rendering systems. These parts do see unit tests and integration tests, although there isn't total consensus on how much testing is needed or how it should be done. They are the most like business and application software, though, since their development can be more structured around technical goals and quality metrics.

* Many bugs are ultimately data bugs. Some designer or artist set up the wrong binding of assets or made a valid yet broken combination of parameters. Games tend to fly apart very suddenly when they operate on bad data. But the code is doing exactly what it should do for that set of inputs - and if it's a failure it's at the level of process and tooling, not the runtime code.