Skip to content

Tag: professional

Three loops of Expedition 33

These days I am playing Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 pretty intensively (when other 40y-old-man-duties permit) these days. And I am also completing my bootcamp on videogames design and conceptualization. A class I gave was based on the 3 main loops of a game, and today I want to apply this knowledge to the 2025 GOTY.

Moment-to-moment (second-to-second)

This first loop is the central one, and it describes what the player does the most. You can say it describes the core dynamic, somehow. In case of Expedition33:

  • Action: Reactive turn-base combat
  • Challenge: groups of nevrons (enemies)
  • Reward: skill points, loot

WHY to repeat this loot: the game is divided in zones within an open world, the Player wants to complete the zone to unlock the next.

Core loop

The core loop is what the Player does the most during the game and gives meaning to the moment-to-moment loop. We can say that it considers the game session as a whole.

  • Action: Improve team stats
  • Challenge: complete zone sections
  • Reward: Advance with the story

WHY to repeat this loot: as any good JRPG it’s about the map! You want to play to unlock new venues and discover new places into the map.

Metagame loop

This loop describes what keeps the Players engaged, what makes them think “I need to return back into the game because I want to…”. Describes the features and mechanics that make me think into the game when I am not playing it. In the case of Expedition33:

  • Action: defeat bosses
  • Challenge: what will happen in the story?
  • Reward: plot twists and secrets discoveries

WHY to repeat this loot: the game is one great adventure story!

Design docs are about builds

A good way of thinking in GDD is to write down more details of what’s already in a build of some sort. With this I mean that if you design pages and pages of documentation regarding something not concrete, you are at risk of delivering something disconnected from reality.

Frame the problem, develop prototypes, align, and only after write down specs. That’s the way. You need less talk and more rock.

Give the best of your “more or less”

Many years ago, I lost my job ad a dream company and I decided to become the best game designer I could possibly be. Part of this is still within me, also if many things changed. One for all, I understood that teams/clients do not need, nor want, the best in class.

If you are reliable, honest, candid, and humble, generally speaking you will be better welcomed into games teams. I notice, especially among junior game designers, the will to be better than others or more knowledgeable. You can easily end up being perceived as superb, like that.

The best way to do your job is to give the best of your “more or less”, without delivering too much. You will lose less energies and your job will be recognized in any case.

Unreal Engine and Claude: advantages and headaches

I use Claude to make my prototypes within Unreal Engine. I don’t have anything embedded in the engine itself, I have the program installed and go back and forth to implement what the LLM suggests me.

It works pretty good, I have to say. On one end, it forces me to structure well the problem to solve; Claude helps with everything, from research to properly framing. I am faster in creating my own JIRA tasks and message my colleagues in a proper and clear way. Then, I use blueprint and I have to say that the results (from a prototype perspective) are pretty satisfying. Also, at the end of each chat I tell it to create a report for its knowledge base, so that in future should be better and better. At least, I hope so.

There is a challenge though: switching back and forth from Claude to the engine to implement what the LLM says is tiring and I end up my days with headache. It’s like having someone giving you suggestions constantly. I know there is a way to integrate everything into the engine, but it’s still experimental and I don’t want to risk on a shared code.

Inspiration and pragmatism

There is no secret formula to make a successful game, otherwise it would have been discovered already. It’s true, though, that success cases generally involve the right doses of inspiration and pragmatism.

The inspiration is needed to create something novel, something unique, something people wants. When I see games starting from charts and SensorTower reports I already know they are doomed. Games should start from something intimate to someone, and inspiring. It can be a childish fantasy, there is absolutely no need to be a tormented artist.

For instance, think in Royal Match the match-3 game from Turkey: they clearly started from the fantasy of breaking expensive dishes and pots in a royal mansion. Something that many of us had when children, visiting historical places with our family or schools. You need something like that, if you don’t have that do not throw away your money and find it first.

Pragmatism is needed because you need to be very aware of what the market actually wants. In this way, we would have avoided the $80B investment in “the Metaverse” by Meta, for instance. Lots of effort, creative energies involved to try to find the Grail, and for what? It is clear that people doesn’t want VR devices covering their faces. Also Activision/Blizzard, recently presenting a MOBA game for mobile phone with Overwatch IP, for Western audience. People here do not want to play MOBAs, why are you greenlighting something like that?

You need to be inspired by some fantasy and read the room before of starting a new expensive venture, things that I would like to see more here in Europe.

Management and direction

Last year I found a great client; good team, excellent leadership, profitable company. The project was (well, is) ambitious and novel. I felt part of the leadership team, I contributed to the development of their MVP. And then, a more expert designer joined and I was out. I had an interesting chat with my client, and he explained me exactly why the decision. It made sense, I learnt a lot. Still, it hurt because everything worth in life hurts a little.

Now that it’s one month since I joined GSC Game World, I already feel there is something very different in the way of managing high-quality projects compared with mobile f2p. Mobile needs pragmatism: you are chasing big numbers because you are investing huge amounts of money to give a highly technological product in the hand of distract people for free with the hope to engage their attention. High quality games, on the other end, are for people who decide to light a console up to be immersed into an experience they paid for.

And this leads to a fundamental difference: (product) management is what leads mobile, while creative direction is what leads high quality games. Of course, I am passionate and prepared designer and I can tackle any challenge, plus I have a certain age and experience so I can be a great leader. But mobile games are managed in a McKinsey-an style, and companies chase perfection. And the best way to avoid the risk of not having it is to hire people with a real pedigree (which I don’t have). On the other end, PC/Console single player high quality games (open world, FPS, survival) look for people capable of prototyping and realize the creative vision being away of design pillars, vision, and so on.

Two different worlds that I am sure can learn from each other. I know I will bring learnings from premium to mobile, and viceversa.

Updates on my career: Remote and AI

One month ago I have started a new full time gig at GSC Game World. It’s been years of doing extra work to learn the technologies and methods of high-quality games, finally the stars aligned and I got my opportunity. I am excited by this new venture, and I am rearranging forces to keep my consulting services on, thanks to the help of a game design assistant who I recently selected among my students.

I want to say just two things on this; the first is that it would have been impossible to get this new job without the existence of remote working. And it would have been impossible both for me and for the company that hired me. I know that a lot of people believes that we need to be in the same place to make a good job, I am not a guru so I don’t know. I only know that GSC Game World has become more international thanks to the advent of remote work.

Second thing is that I could hire an assistant thanks to the existence of LLM platforms, specifically Claude in my case. Having collaborators and assistants means communication, alignment, management, and lots of other things. I need to measure well my words, and provide concrete schedules. All of this constitutes an overhead that would have been simply impossible to tackle without the help of some automation of sort. Also on the other end, I am able to frame and solve the right problems faster and deliver both with my employer and my clients.

My services are becoming more sophisticated, and I hope to share with you important learnings on this channel. Stay tuned.

Ubisoft and the “Efficiency Trap”: Why Algorithmic Logic Can’t Save a Lost Vision

The recent news regarding Ubisoft isn’t just another headline about industry layoffs; it’s a “leading indicator” of a systemic crash. When the numbers don’t add up, the corporate playbook is predictably uninspired: cut the talent, automate the core, and pray the spreadsheet balances itself out.

But creativity isn’t an assembly line, Ubisoft might be the “canary in the coal mine” for an industry chasing its own tail. This isn’t just a trend; it’s a form of “drowning.” When inefficiency (ROI) drops too low, leadership grabs whatever is in reach—AI, NFT initiatives, or massive restructuring—often without even knowing what questions to ask their experts. They are borrowing against a future they don’t understand, hoping that money alone can catch the wind.

The “Glass Ceiling” of the French Elite

A company is only as brave as its leadership, and here we find a significant bottleneck. Ubisoft’s executive team is roughly 90% French, educated at the same elite business schools (ESSEC, ISG), with tenures spanning 30 years.

While these credentials are impressive on paper, they’ve created a cultural monoculture. This “upper-middle-class business elite” is now tasked with innovating for a global, diverse audience they are increasingly disconnected from. When leadership hasn’t seen the inside of another studio in three decades, they stop leading and start rehashing.

The AI Gamble: Partner or “Slop” Generator?

The debate around AI in development is often polarized. Someone argues that AAA gaming is “dead” without AI to reduce the staggering $200m+ budgets. I don’t disagree that budgets are exploding, but I disagree that AI is the silver bullet for quality.

AI isn’t the root of the problem, but it’s a risky “solution”. Relying on a technology that hasn’t yet delivered on its creative promises to save your strategy is a bet, not a plan. If you use AI to generate “slop,” you might save on costs, but you’ll lose the player.

From Rational Design to Brand Decay

Ubisoft once had a superpower: Rational Game Design. It was a method that allowed them to optimize the creation of epic adventures while maintaining a clear vision. But as they chased whales, “Games as a Service,” and unsustainable growth, they lost the creative DNA that made them special.

A software (and AI is just that) cannot solve a brand crisis. AI can’t fix the fact that Ubisoft has distanced itself from player fantasies and instinct—things that aren’t taught in prestigious business schools.

The Opportunity in the Chaos

The failure of long-term vision in these managers is an opening. The collapse of the old guard creates space for those who actually understand imagination and positioning.

Ubisoft’s stock may be back to 1998 levels, but the talent is still out there. The question is: will they be allowed to lead, or will they be replaced by an algorithm until there’s nothing left to automate?

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.