Skip to content

Tag: howto

Good leaders and alignment

I am playing Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 these days and I am honestly amazed by the game. As a designer, what interests me the most is the tricks they have used to avoid too much costs on things like cutscenes, level design, and so on. No worries, I am not going to spoil anything.

To me, that game is a case of good leadership; you can feel that the people involved worked on something they truly believed in. You can feel the responsibility of each one of them, and also the clarity of the vision holders. This game is a small miracle, in a way.

In fact, imagine you are the leader of a new game, let’s say it’s your own idea. How do you know it’s the good one? You don’t, so it’s better to keep it clear to your team while you cultivate relationships with them. I define this as “alignment”, but this includes lots of things: empathy, problem solving, team involvement and so on.

A good leader is not a genius, it’s the one who leads the team towards success. And that means you should be very aware on where they are stepping into, and how. And if you don’t know what to do (pretty common situation), just say it and find a solution together.

When you start a new game

Today I started with a brand new client, the first client of the year, and I am happy. They onboarded me in the project and already gave me my first things to do.

When you start with a new game, the first thing you need to do is to engage with the target audience. There is nothing more important than that, actually the best games are designed to steal audience from other games. By being better, by removing frustrations and steps that aren’t fun. That’s what I did today, while starting taking notes and research.

The real challenge is that, also if games are designed for people, you need as a designer to convince stakeholders first. So, in a sense, it’s like you are designing for them not for the final audience. The secret is to include them in the overall audience, trying to transport them in an empathetic state where they can really feel the power of your verbs, and so on.

Put your game on top

I believe that games should speak from themselves and not for the technology that lies behind them.

Example: you make a great game, very successful, then you reveal how you did it. You can say everybody the technological advancements you did.

The other way around bothers me, it’s pure hype and generally speaking BS. Lately, with recent technologies such as AI, many founders are pushing out BS narratives because many investors are looking at the wrong side of things: how to make the development cheaper.

Game development is already very cheap, compared to the distribution and positioning. It’s a matter of selling and make money, more than spend less to produce. If you find the best tech in the World to replace people, many other teams will find it. That will not be a differentiator, in my humble opinion.

That’s why promoting like “we are a new AI-based studio” has the same importance as “we are a new C++-based studio”, and things like that. It’s not interesting at all. And this without considering the blatant fact that players, generally speaking, hate slop.

4 indie advices

I just read the latest blog post from Tom Francis, a clever piece on indie game business and development. There is a clear difference when you read/hear from people who actually make games compared with “opinionists” and influencers you see out there who only criticize others.

Things I liked the most:

  • If you double your people, so your burn rate, you should earn at least the double. Which puts your game in a harder spot. Good to take that into account.
  • If your idea is not prototypable, probably it’s not a good one for an indie studio.
  • Playtesting is good also to check the position of your game. If you cannot manage to find 100 people to test your game for free, that means that your game has probably no chances in the market of today.

Strategic resolutions

I’m warning you: this is a boring New Year’s message.

It has no cinematic trailers, no dramatic feature reveals, and no hype. It’s about strategy. And in game design, true strategy is the stuff that looks tedious on a whiteboard.

We live in the attention economy, where every scroll, every platform, and every trend tells us that if your idea doesn’t entertain immediately—if it isn’t viral motion—it’s worthless. We see fellow developers chasing the latest “Friend-slop” or Idle-Horror micro-genre without asking the fundamental why.

But while everyone is busy publishing, recording, and moving, those who create lasting value are thinking.

The Game Designer’s Quiet Revolution

What changes the market is the silent architecture beneath the surface. We, as designers, are designing complex systems that capture and retain attention against impossible odds.

The most successful studios are those focused on the “boring stuff”: designing robust systems, defining clear processes, and understanding player psychology at its most fundamental level.

2026 Strategy: The Three Pillars of Quiet Design

As you close out a noisy year, take this challenge: stop chasing the manifestation (the trends) and start analyzing the instinctual core (the “why”).

The real strategy for your next project, the one that guarantees more than a flash of viral luck, comes down to three acts of “boring” reflection:

  1. Map the Instinct (The Core Loop): Define the 1-3 primal instincts your game satisfies. Is it pure Acquisition (the loot)? Is it Escape (the tension)? Is it Gregariousness (the social bond)? If you can’t name the instinct, you can’t design the loop.
  2. Deconstruct the System: Your game is a service, not a product. What is the core system that keeps the player coming back? For every flashy feature, define its input and its output. Can you describe your core loop in three elegant sentences that include all monetization and retention mechanics?
  3. Validate the Silence: Before you code, publish, or hype, engage in the ultimate boring task: data validation. Analyze your competition by tracking their update patterns and reading player comments. Your solitude ensures you reduce the risk of building something nobody wants.

Your biggest asset is your talent to see a successful idle RPG system and apply its flow to a new PS5 platformer. But that talent must be cultivated in silence.

So, for 2026, make this your rule: Pass more time alone. Isolate. Turn off the noise. Think.

What seems like time wasted in deep thought is what makes your game resilient. The boring stuff is what makes you free.

Show your impact

The interviewer just asked you: “Tell me about a game project you’re proud of, and why.

You may hear a casual request for a portfolio highlight, but what the hiring manager, especially a leader, is listening for is impact. They want to know what behavior you changed, and what value that behavior drove.

As game designers, we often fall into the trap of talking purely about mechanics or systems: “I designed a beautiful, highly iterative combat loop” or “We built a seamless crafting system.”

But that misses the crucial connection. The best answers connect various layers of validation, proving that your design decisions were not just creative, but strategically effective.

Three Layers of Impact

To succeed as a senior designer, your answer must connect the micro (player behavior/action) to the macro (company value).

Layer 1: The Behavioral Change (The Micro)Layer 2: The Game Metric (The System Validation)Layer 3: The Instinct & Business Goal (The Value)
How did the player react? (e.g., Rage quitting on a particular level, persistent use of an unintended social tool, high frequency of “Skip” button presses on a narrative sequence, time spent in the new social hub.)How did this affect the game’s core health? (e.g., D1/D7/D30 Retention, Feature Usage Rate, Churn Rate on a specific difficulty level, Average Session Length, Conversion Rate from free-to-play to paid content.)What was the ultimate “why”? (e.g., Instinct Fulfillment like Gregariousness or Acquisition) and How did it drive Lifetime Value (LTV)?

You don’t need perfect attribution to demonstrate value. But you must be able to frame your work like this:

“We noticed [Behavioral Change], players were consistently rage-quitting Level 4 because the difficulty curve was too steep, violating their [Instinct] for Assertiveness. We responded by [Design Change Y], adding a mid-level checkpoint and a combat hint system. This immediately decreased our [Metric] Level 4 Churn Rate—by Z%. This mattered because a lower early churn rate directly feeds into higher [Business Goal] Player LTV.”

Even if your design is one small piece of a giant system, you must show you understand the full context it belongs to.

The Game Designer’s Advocate

In games, data is often incomplete. Hiring managers know this. What they want to know is: Do you understand what you should have measured?

If the data is missing, here is a simple framework to demonstrate your value:

  1. Qualitative Signals: Don’t dismiss soft feedback. What did you hear repeatedly in user testing? Did you receive unsolicited positive feedback about a new Flow state or a new feeling of Acquisition (the primal instinct) in a specific community channel? Did internal teams start referencing your work as a new standard?
  2. Advocate for Tracking: Proactively explain what success would have looked like and what specific metric you would have put in place (e.g., “We were aiming to increase the Gregariousness instinct, so I would have implemented a metric to track spontaneous friend requests after a shared victory.”). This shows you think like a business owner and are an advocate for measurement.
  3. Connect to the Missing Instinct: The ultimate question is always “What human problem did this solve?” If you can’t prove the financial success, prove the Instinctual Success. Show that your design fulfilled a deep human need, which, given proper resources, would eventually translate to business success.

Stop describing your design. Start describing its effect on the player and its impact on the business.

Christmas Morning Lesson

Happy Holidays! As you’re likely watching kids tear into giant boxes this Christmas morning, let’s talk about the biggest mistake in game development. A mistake even massive, experienced AAA studios repeat every single year.

They are falling into the rookie trap of mixing beauty corners with gameplay prototypes. I’m talking about that moment when you force a prototype, meant for raw mechanic testing, into a beautiful, highly polished “vertical slice.”

Prototypes with Fancy Bows

Why do studios do this? Because they chase ambition over clarity. They want the investors, the publisher, or even their own team to feel the final game instantly. But when you try to turn a gameplay test into a forced fake vertical slice, you are wasting massive time and money. You are making iteration slow, silly expensive, and often impossible.

You are creating a heavy dependency where there should be two separate, lightweight streams of work.

Keep the Gifts Separate

This Christmas, remember the golden rule of efficient development—and assembly:

  1. Gameplay Prototypes are the Instructions (The WHY): These are built for mechanics, feel, and flow. The art should be block-out geometry and colored cubes. They answer: Is the core system fun? Meaning, is there something interesting for the Players to discover? If the answer is no, you throw it away.
  2. Art Prototypes are the Decorations (The HOW): These are built for style, pipeline, and tech validation. They answer: Can we achieve this visual fidelity at this frame rate? If the answer is no, you pivot the tech without breaking the core fun.

Mixing them only adds a heavy dependency. Imagine getting a toy for Xmas, and the functional components are glued to the decorative exterior. If the gears break, you have to destroy the entire fancy shell to fix them. That is your silly expensive iteration.

You only merge them in the final vertical slice, once both sides stand on solid ground.

So, as you enjoy the day, remember this lesson from the trenches: Stop making your prototyping process a messy, expensive Christmas morning. Keep the gifts separated.

One of the best GDC talks ever

I rewatched one of the most beautiful talks on the official GDC channel. It’s great because it evidences we need truly understanding and reach deep empathy with the players. I rewatched thanks to my bootcamp, I suggested this talk to my students.

We need to do the homework to improve as designers. We need to understand the games, especially the ones who are played by people that are different from us. It’s our job to understand players, and a necessary step for every game designer. Do your homeworks!

Uniqueness is a matter of taste and realism

As I am reading about another studio closure (I am sorry for the colleagues at SUPERVIVE), I am thinking on the distribution problem we have right now. I believe than on one hand you have to create a truly unique experience to have chances in this environment. Easier said than done, of course, because it’s a matter of taste and also realism. I worked on many derivative projects, and the leaders were absolutely sure of their uniqueness.

You need to put the right glasses on, and be extremely aware of your game unique selling points. A way to do that is by making business: if you’re not able to sell your game to publishers, if you don’t engage with players or other entities, you are on a dangerous track. We tend to look inside too much, when we should look outside and check if Players really have the same perception as us on the product. In this case, Players are also potential business partners.

I believe that videogames have still lots of margin for improvement, so we should stop repeating old formulas over and over and we should try to make a step forward.

Common ground beliefs

Marketing works better if the marketer believes in the product. Game design can help with this, if the company allows the communication between designers and marketers.

Sometimes, though, we are working on a game we don’t really believe in. We are there just for the job, someone above makes all the calls and we do not see any value behind the strategy. It happens, more than it should actually.

Everything gets more complicated from there, so one of our duties in this case is to find common ground and push to focus the efforts on that. Because only that may become unique, in the end.