Why most game designers fail interviews and how to fix it

The Moment Everything Changes

You’re in the interview. It’s going well. The hiring manager seems engaged. Your portfolio resonated. You’re feeling confident.

Then comes the design question; the one that will likely determine whether you get an offer.

“How would you improve the pacing in [game]?”

Your brain lights up. You know pacing. You’ve studied it. You have opinions. Strong ones. So you launch into your answer:

“I’d reduce enemy encounters by 20% and increase XP gain to help players level faster and feel more progression…”

You continue for two minutes, explaining your solution with detail and conviction. The interviewer nods politely, jots something down, and moves to the next question.

You think you nailed it.

You didn’t.

In those two minutes, you demonstrated exactly what studios are trying to filter out.

Most game designers fail their interviews. And it has nothing to do with their talent.

What Ten’s of Thousands of Interviews Have Taught Me

At Esports Tower we have tens of thousands of kids come through our program. In the first 3 years we had helped our students score over $6M in scholarships.  I’ve seen brilliant candidates stumble. I’ve watched less experienced designers outperform more knowledgeable ones. I’ve reviewed countless interview debriefs where talent was never the issue.

The pattern is always the same:

The biggest room for improvement is HOW they answer questions.

Not what they know. Not their design instincts. Not their creativity or passion.

How they structure their thinking.

This is the uncomfortable truth that most candidates never realize: The interviewer doesn’t care nearly as much about your specific solution as they do about the process you used to reach it.

Because in the real job, you won’t be asked, “What’s the answer to this design problem?”

You’ll be asked to:

• Navigate ambiguous requirements
• Identify the real problem beneath surface symptoms
• Balance competing priorities and constraints
• Collaborate with stakeholders who have different perspectives
• Propose solutions that can be implemented within resource limits
• Iterate based on data and feedback

Your interview answer needs to demonstrate you can do all of that.

A raw solution (no matter how clever) demonstrates none of it.

The Fatal Pattern: Solution Jumping

Let’s examine what actually happens in that bad answer.

The question: “How would you improve the pacing in [game]?”

The immediate response: “I’d reduce enemy encounters by 20% and increase XP gain.”

What’s Wrong With This

On the surface, it might even be a reasonable solution. Maybe reducing encounter density and speeding progression would improve pacing for certain player types in certain contexts.

But the answer reveals critical flaws in thinking:

❌ No problem definition – What does “pacing issue” actually mean? Boredom? Frustration? Overwhelm? Different root causes require different solutions.

❌ No constraint awareness – What resources are available? What can’t be changed? What’s the timeline?

❌ No prioritization – Which part of the game needs attention most? Early game? Mid-game? Endgame?

❌ No player segmentation – Are all players experiencing this issue, or specific segments?

❌ No data consideration – What does telemetry show? Where are players actually dropping off?

❌ No tradeoff analysis – What are the downsides of this solution? What might it break?

❌ No alternatives explored – Is this the only option? What else was considered?

Most critically: It shows the candidate would implement changes without understanding what they’re trying to fix or how success would be measured.

That’s terrifying to a hiring manager.

What Hiring Managers Actually Want to Hear

Let’s break down what a strong answer looks like and more importantly, why it works.

Here’s what hiring managers actually want to hear:

1) Define the Problem

Before solving anything, demonstrate you understand what you’re actually solving.

Weak: “The pacing is bad.”

Strong: “Is pacing an issue because players feel stuck, bored, or overwhelmed?”

This single question reveals:

• ✅ You recognize “pacing problem” is vague and could mean multiple things
• ✅ You know that different symptoms require different treatments
• ✅ You won’t jump into development without clarity on the actual issue
• ✅ You understand player psychology (stuck ≠ bored ≠ overwhelmed)

What this sounds like in practice:

“Before proposing changes, I’d want to understand what we mean by ‘pacing issue.’ Are we seeing:

• Players abandoning because progression feels too slow?
• Engagement metrics showing boredom during certain sections?
• Difficulty spikes causing frustration?
• Positive early retention but drop-off at specific points?

Each of these would suggest different root causes and solutions. What data do we have about where and why players are struggling?”

2) Prioritize Factors

Once you understand the problem, show you can identify what matters most.

Weak: “We should improve everything.”

Strong: “Which part of the game sees the highest drop-off rate?”

This demonstrates:

• ✅ You think in terms of impact and priority, not just possibilities
• ✅ You understand resource constraints require focusing efforts
• ✅ You use data to inform decisions rather than assumptions
• ✅ You can distinguish critical issues from nice-to-haves

What this sounds like in practice:

“If we have telemetry data, I’d start by identifying:

• Where are we losing the most players?
• What behaviors correlate with long-term retention vs. churn?
• Are there specific moments where engagement metrics drop sharply?
• How do completion times compare to our target experience length?

Let’s say the data shows 40% of players quit between levels 2 and 3, but retention is strong after level 5. That tells us the priority is fixing that early-game friction, not perfecting the late-game pacing.”

3) Suggest Solutions

Only now, after defining the problem and prioritizing, do you propose solutions.

Weak: “Reduce encounters and increase XP.”

Strong: “If players quit before the third level, we need to adjust early progression speed.”

Notice the structure: If [specific problem], then [targeted solution].

This demonstrates:

• ✅ Your solution directly addresses the identified problem
• ✅ You’re not proposing changes randomly or based on personal preference
• ✅ You understand causality and can justify your approach
• ✅ You can scope solutions to the actual need, not over-engineering

What this sounds like in practice:

“Given that the drop-off happens between levels 2-3, and assuming playtesting feedback indicates players feel ‘stuck’ rather than ‘bored,’ I’d explore a few options:

Option A: Accelerate XP gain specifically in levels 2-3 to reduce time-to-level-up

• Pros: Quick to implement, directly addresses feeling of stagnation
• Cons: Might create weird pacing if level 4+ suddenly feels slower

Option B: Add mid-level power-ups or achievements to create more frequent reward moments

• Pros: Doesn’t disrupt overall progression curve, adds texture to experience
• Cons: Requires new content, potential UI/tutorial work

Option C: Reduce enemy density in levels 2-3 to speed completion time

• Pros: Reduces frustration for struggling players
• Cons: Might make levels feel empty, could reduce challenge for skilled players

Pro Tip: We’d recommend starting with Option A as a quick test. We can implement it with minimal resources, measure the impact on retention at the level 3 mark, and iterate from there. If it works, then you can consider Option B for longer-term polish.”

The Complete Framework in Action

Let’s see the full structured approach applied to a common interview question.

Example Question

“Players are complaining that our mobile puzzle game is too difficult. How would you address this?”

---

❌ Bad Answer (Solution Jumping)

“I’d make the puzzles easier by reducing the number of required moves and adding more power-ups.”

Why this fails:

• No problem definition (too difficult for whom? At what point?)
• No data consideration (how many players? What do metrics show?)
• No alternatives (only one solution proposed)
• No tradeoff acknowledgment (might bore experienced players)

---

✅ Strong Answer (Structured Thinking)

Framework: Define problem + Prioritize factors + Suggest solutions + Acknowledge tradeoffs.

Step 1: Define the Problem

“Before adjusting difficulty, I’d want to understand the specifics:

• Are complaints coming from new players struggling with early levels, or veteran players hitting walls later?
• What does our retention data show? Are we losing players at specific difficulty spikes?
• How do completion rates compare to industry benchmarks for puzzle games?
• Are players complaining about ‘too hard’ or specifically about ‘unfair’ or ‘unclear’?

These distinctions matter because ‘too difficult’ could mean the puzzles are actually too complex, or it could mean our tutorialization is insufficient, or we’re not giving players the right tools. Different root causes need different fixes.”

Step 2: Prioritize Factors

“Assuming our data shows that 60% of players fail level 15 at least 5 times before either passing or churning, and that player feedback mentions ‘not understanding what’s possible,’ I’d prioritize:

1. Clarity and tutorialization first – if players don’t understand mechanics, actual difficulty is irrelevant
2. Difficulty curve calibration second – ensuring the spike at level 15 isn’t disproportionate
3. Optional assistance tools third – giving struggling players help without making the game easier for everyone

The goal is to reduce frustration without eliminating challenge, since our retention data likely shows that players who overcome difficult levels become more engaged long-term.”

Step 3: Suggest Solutions

“Based on that prioritization, I’d suggest:

For clarity:

• Add a ‘hint’ system at level 15 that shows one possible move without solving the whole puzzle
• Include a brief recap of mechanics introduced in levels 10-14, since players may have forgotten

For difficulty curve:

• Analyze levels 12-20 to ensure level 15 isn’t a disproportionate spike
• Consider adding a ‘warm-up’ challenge before the main level 15 puzzle

For optional assistance:

• Offer a ‘practice mode’ where players can retry without penalty
• Implement adaptive difficulty that subtly adjusts after repeated failures

Pro Tip: We’d recommend A/B testing the hint system first, as it’s quick to implement and directly addresses the ‘not understanding’ feedback. We can measure whether players who use hints show improved completion rates and retention compared to the control group.”

Step 4: Acknowledge Tradeoffs

“The main risk is over-correcting and making the game too easy, which could reduce long-term engagement from players who enjoy the challenge. That’s why I’d test incrementally and monitor both completion rates and long-term retention metrics, not just immediate satisfaction scores.”

Why This Answer Works

This response demonstrates:

✅ Analytical thinking before solution generation

✅ Data-driven decision making

✅ Player psychology understanding

✅ Prioritization based on impact

✅ Multiple solution options with justified selection

✅ Implementation awareness (what’s fast vs. resource-intensive)

✅ Measurement and iteration mindset

✅ Tradeoff acknowledgment

✅ Risk awareness

This is what professional game design looks like.

The Universal Pre-Answer Question

Here’s the simplest, most powerful tool you can use in any design interview:

Before answering any design question, stop and ask yourself: “Why is this a problem?”

• Not “what’s the solution?”
• Not “what would I do?”

“Why is this a problem?”

---

The Power of “Why”

When you force yourself to answer “why” before “how,” you:

• Slow down your thinking
  You resist the impulse to solution-jump, buying yourself time to structure a better answer.
• Reveal hidden assumptions
  Often the question contains unstated assumptions (“pacing is bad”) that need examination.
• Identify root causes
  Surface symptoms rarely point directly to underlying issues. “Why” helps you dig deeper.
• Generate better solutions
  Solutions derived from understanding root causes are far more effective than solutions aimed at symptoms.
• Demonstrate professional-level thinking
  Senior designers ask “why” relentlessly. Showing this habit signals you think like they do.

Applying “Why” in Practice

Question: “How would you monetize a free-to-play action game?”

Instinct: Jump into monetization mechanics (cosmetics, battle pass, energy systems…)

Better approach – Ask “Why”:

• Why are we monetizing? (Revenue target? Player expectations? Genre norms?)
• Why free-to-play vs. premium? (Market positioning? Audience reach?)
• Why is this question being asked? (New game? Struggling retention? Changing business model?)

Then your answer becomes:

“Before suggesting monetization mechanics, I’d want to understand our goals and constraints:

• What’s our target revenue per user?
• What’s our player acquisition cost and target payback period?
• What monetization do successful competitors use, and how do players respond?
• What’s our game’s core loop, and where can monetization integrate without disrupting it?

If we’re building a skill-based PvP game where fairness is critical, I’d lean toward cosmetic-only monetization. If it’s a progression-focused PvE game, we might consider time-savers or convenience items. Each approach has tradeoffs…”

See how “why” transformed the question from “list monetization ideas” to “demonstrate strategic thinking about business model design”?

Your Goal in Every Design Interview

Let’s reframe what success actually looks like.

Your goal as a designer isn’t to show off ideas. It’s to show structured thinking.

Studios have ideas. They have plenty of creative people who can generate concepts. What they lack—what they desperately need—is people who can:

• Cut through ambiguity to identify real problems
• Prioritize ruthlessly when resources are limited
• Generate multiple solutions and evaluate tradeoffs
• Think systematically about player experience
• Collaborate effectively with cross-functional teams
• Measure, iterate, and improve

These are process skills. And process skills are what interviews are designed to evaluate.

When you demonstrate structured thinking, you’re proving you can be trusted with real design responsibility. That you won’t waste team resources chasing poorly-defined problems. That you’ll make decisions based on evidence and reasoning, not gut feel.

That’s what gets you hired.

The Three-Part Answer Template

If you want a simple, repeatable structure for any design question, use this:

Part 1: Clarify (30 seconds)

Ask questions that reveal the real problem, constraints, and context.

“Before I answer, can you tell me more about [X]? I want to make sure I understand [Y].”

Part 2: Structure (60-90 seconds)

Walk through your thinking process using the framework:

1. Define the problem – What’s actually wrong and why?
2. Prioritize factors – What matters most given constraints?
3. Suggest solutions – Multiple options with tradeoffs
4. Recommend and justify – Your choice with clear reasoning

Part 3: Acknowledge Limitations (15-30 seconds)

Show awareness of what you don’t know and how you’d address it.

“The main uncertainty here is [X]. In a real scenario, I’d want to validate that assumption through [data/testing/stakeholder input] before committing resources.”

This template works for virtually any design question because it mirrors how professional design actually happens.

Practice Questions to Master the Framework

Use these to practice structured thinking:

1. “How would you improve player retention in a battle royale game?”
2. “Design a tutorial for a complex strategy game.”
3. “Our players say the economy is broken. How do you fix it?”
4. “How would you make [existing game] more accessible?”
5. “A key feature is testing poorly. What do you do?”

For each question, practice:

• Asking, “Why is this a problem?”
• Defining the problem before solving
• Prioritizing based on imagined data
• Suggesting multiple solutions
• Justifying your recommendation

The Confidence Shift

Here’s what happens when you master structured thinking:

Interviews stop feeling like tests you can pass or fail.

Instead, they become conversations where you demonstrate how you work. You’re not performing, you’re showing your actual process.

This shift is liberating. You don’t need to have perfect answers. You don’t need to know everything. You just need to think clearly, ask good questions, and walk through problems systematically.

That’s learnable. That’s practicable. That’s in your control.

The talent was never the question. Now you know how to show it.

---

Ready to understand where you stand and what roles might fit your skills?
Take the Game Careerz Assessment to get personalized insights into your path forward.

---