Very strange interview. Two hours of rapid-fire brain teasers and abstract hypotheticals, only a few of which were tangentially related to the position. Felt a lot more like they were building a psychological profile rather than testing my skills. The few questions that were related to the position were so subjective, abstract, and/or completely without context that I found them super frustrating to answer.
I went into this interview genuinely quite excited to get to talk to this team about their games and stories, but I came out bewildered and demoralized. Human conversation this was definitely not. If the point of these exercises was to screen for a particular personality type, I obviously don't have it, so being rejected wasn't a surprise. But I'm left wondering what their inscrutable criteria could possibly tell them about how well I could have done this job.
My earnest advice to Pixel Sprout: Rather than have your founder run his psychological experiments, involve e.g. the future supervisor of the person you're interviewing who does their actual job on a daily basis. Let the focus be on the day-to-day work in the role and how your candidate fits that. Remember that your candidates are human beings who desperately want a chance to show you their best work, not lab rats for you to outsmart with your little mazes.
