Skip to content

Paolo's Blog Posts

Management and direction

Published by Paolo on 08/04/2026

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

Published by Paolo on 07/04/2026

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.

Optimize Screen Real Estate

Published by Tj'ièn Twijnstra on 01/04/2026

I was asked to review a game recently. The game was a simple puzzle game, something we’ve seen around. It had some cool level design, but the overall experience was underwhelming.

One of the thing I noticed is that screen real estate wasn’t used optimally. Buttons were too small, important elements weren’t visible enough and the camera was distant to the puzzles.

In the grand scheme of developing a game, developers -especially solo developers- can have blind spots. Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses and this developer’s strength was more about the puzzle design.

When thinking about screen layouts and how to optimize screen real estate you need to be very deliberate in your decisions. There are a couple of things to take into account, such as the importance of each element in your game. You can break importance up in multiple segments, such as importance to functionality, importance to communication of function, importance of game feel, importance to theme, importance to story and there are probably some more factors that could possibly be added to the pile of importance.

In addition, games and particular genres and even particular devices have conventions that player’s expect. It is important to make very deliberate choices if you want to break those conventions, but in most cases you want to adhere to them.

After having a clear understanding of the importance of every element on screen, it is simply a matter assigning the amount of space it deserves. The most important element needs the biggest amount of space, and the least important elements need the least amount of space.

Consider Monopoly go and it’s visual hierarchy and the real estate every element occupies.

There are 2 main things that stand out, the monopoly board and the giant GO button.

It is logical and intuitive that the board is a big part of the experience and no one would question to make the gameplay field occupy the the largest space on the screen.

But it is undeniable that the big GO button is the center of attention. Your eyes are automatically drawn to it, due to its size and contrasting color. It communicates “press me” and “easy one button game”. It screams to the player that this is a deliberate design decision and players are drawn to these clear decisions.

Deliberate design is the key.

Don’t let circumstances decide anything about your game, every decision needs to be deliberate and conscious, as your players will feel it without them understanding why.

In the blacksmith’s house, a wooden skewer

Published by Paolo on 06/02/2026

The recent stock market fluctuations following the arrival of AI tech that promises to generate interactive worlds from simple prompts speak volumes about the current lack of video game literacy.

Almost every veteran I know—myself included—started by modding, not just “creating.” My journey began with Q-Basic to tweak Gorillas, then modifying voices in Worms, creating custom avatars for Baldur’s Gate, and hacking Diablo hash codes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorillas_(video_game)

The best designers were often protagonists of the modding scene, diving into forums to figure out how to add value to the games they loved.

We’ve seen this cycle before. Tech giants often launch “revolutionary” gaming projects to fuel corporate career leaps, only to abandon them when the next trend arrives. But the real issue is the demand for shortcuts. Some entrepreneurs will try to use Genie3 to chase quick profits with flashy trailers, and some might even succeed in the short term.

Long-term success belongs to those who actually expand the horizons of gaming.

Reaching new audiences and solving the distribution puzzle requires more than a “genie.” It requires deep knowledge. While technocrats push “prompting and scrolling,” the smartest players are busy mastering history, philosophy, and art.

My advice? If you want to break into the market, stop looking for shortcuts. Work hard to engage your audience and start by modding what already exists. Read history books, and myths. Rack your brains, expose your work, and take risks.

You are far more likely to find success through craftsmanship than by playing a “word slot machine” and hoping for a believable game.

My take on Highguard

Published by Paolo on 05/02/2026

I was watching the last Deconstructor of Fun podcast, shooter monthly, on Highguard.

I downloaded the game days ago, completed the tutorial and played three matches. I am not really into hero shooters, but I have to admit that I also had the sensation, as these expert say, that the game was not properly play tested. Which is a common issue in the industry that leads to many games to fail miserably. You need to engage with your future clients, especially with service games. You cannot simply launch early access anymore, early access in current market is perceived as a full launch, especially if you game has been announced in “pompa magna” at The Game Awards by Jeff Keighley in person.

Regarding the market segmentation

The experts seem to agree (but not fully) on the fact that there are just two kind of profitable shooter genres: tactical and battle royale. I am not sure about that, I prefer this Owen Mahoney’s segmentation:

Owen Mahoney’s view of the industry

I believe that shooter as a genre fits in at least 2 quadrants: online and offline hardcore. Nicholas Lovell also has his view on the industry in general.

Nicholas Lovell’s view on the industry

And we know there are AAA fps, forever fps like Fortninte, mobile FPS, and also indies who build on top of boomer shooters. Finally, there is Christopher Dring view of the industry:

watch here: https://www.thegamebusiness.com/p/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-video

Under this lens, I see games like STALKER being fps with stories. Fortnite and so on, are for socializing, but also competition/sport. COD and Battlefield as well. Boomer shooters are for passing the time, especially indies like this one.

I believe that the market is more complex and varied than the one pictured by Phillip Black in the DoF shooter monthly podcast.

What I do believe about the game modes

In the podcast, they insisted that the right number of people should be 5vs5 or 3vs3vs3, and I agree with them. But I believe that are also other problems with general game pacing:

  • Mining crystal is not the best during a shooter session, in my humble opinion. I know it’s a basic in Fortnite, but there you can then build things instantly. Here, instead, is to buy stuff from a vendor.
  • The vendor itself is slow and boring, can be put in another place
  • Upgrading/reparing walls is not so exciting, too.

First idea I would try to pitch and eventually design is to buy weapons and repair walls when you die. You die and while you wait, your “soul” can repair stuff. I know, maybe you prefer to watch what is happening, but that can be an extra cam or something while you fix things.

Another thing I noticed is that the most exciting part is when you raid or you need to defend from a raid. Still, I had the feeling that the attackers, the raiders, were stronger than the defenders. Maybe it’s just psychological, but I would like to try something asymmetrical, like 3vs5 (5 defenders).

Running on the horse while shooting is also cool, I remember that from RDR2, which lead designer works for Highguard. Maybe there can be the moment of earning crystals instead of mining.

3 ideas I would pitch:

  1. Buy weapons and manage base on death
  2. Asymmetrical raids
  3. Earn crystals while killing people from the horse

Maybe these would create more exciting/unique moments for Highguard.

AI is not just a tool

Published by Paolo on 27/01/2026

I’m not convinced by this “AI is just a tool.” We’re wired for stories and narratives, in the sense that our perception is very attentive to them and our memory contains narrative sequences. A tool capable of creating a narrative structure ceases to be a simple tool for me.

It’s a bit like saying “movies are just a tool,” or “video games are just a tool.” Well, it’s certainly possible to use movies and video games as tools. How many times in school were we shown a movie to explain a story? Some teachers use role-playing games or even computer games to explain concepts.

However, these artifacts aren’t just tools. And AI isn’t one for me either. It can heavily influence the way we implement an idea, given that it’s capable of arguing (often bullshit) very well and could catch us at a stressful moment when it’s easy to give in to the temptation to trust. And this inevitably leads to missed opportunities.

Of course, you can cut off your finger with a knife. With Photoshop, you can gather a series of images and make a collage. But that’s a direct use during which you’re aware of the error, either before or just after.

AI isn’t just a tool; it can only be used as a tool, that’s true. But it’s designed, like many things these days, to capture our attention (so we pay the monthly subscription) in exchange for the feeling of being more productive.

And that’s not the case.

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

Published by Paolo on 22/01/2026

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

Published by Paolo on 20/01/2026

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

Published by Paolo on 19/01/2026

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.

Published by Paolo on 15/01/2026

An industry friend of mine showed me this game called Nom nom Cozy Forest Cafè:

You own a cafeteria in the middle of the wood and you receive your first client, a racoon. Soon you will discover how to make coffee, with a simple rhythm minigame. According to your accuracy you will earn more or less coins. Then the game teaches you how to customize your cafeteria and you will discover a vending machine to earn extra coins. Then you will unlock the second customer, a frog, and continue evolve your cafeteria.

Core loop: prepare -> serve -> earn -> get new furniture and personalization options

There is no pressure at all, that’s why it’s a cozy game. For instance, a client may wait indefinitely while you customize your cafeteria or prepare items for your vending machine, and that’s no problem. If you don’t like the result of the minigame you can repeat it indefinitely.

The economy is very simple:

  • You earn currency by serving clients
  • You unlock new clients by progressing on an achievement system
  • Every client comes with a dish and a progression
  • Every time you serve the same client you progress on its personal bar and unlock new furniture
  • Every time you complete achievements you get new personalization options

Plus, this game was made by a single person, a former student of this friend of mine over the course of 3 years. She managed to stay focused for 3 freaking years on her vision without stopping. That’s a great achievement which very few people have in their bags.

Give it a try, give her some love!

Powered by