UX, Unpacking the Player Experience
- Nicolas Ferron
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
UX. What is it?
I’ve been talking about UX this and UX that, but I just realized I never actually explained what it is. Or how I see it.
“UX is about optimizing the experience of the player, ensuring the game is understandable, engaging, and accessible. It’s not about making a game easier, but about making it fair and enjoyable.”
Celia Hodent
There you have it. See you next week!
Jokes aside, I wanted to explain a bit more about what it all means, because when you start making a game, you think about the practical aspects, the technical aspects, how to present it, but more often than not, you forget something: UX (User Experience).
My definition goes a little bit further than Ms. Hodent’s, mainly because I come from a customer service background, and the Customer Experience (or CX) encompasses more than just the contact itself. Same goes for UX. It is not only the UI.
UX (User Experience) is everything that shapes how the player perceives your game. Controls, pad feel, fun, logical systems. This isn’t magic. These are thought-out systems.

UX ≠ UI: The common mistake
Some think (wrongly) that UX = UI. UI is part of UX, but it’s not the only component. If you search for UX in video games for example you will see what I mean.
You can create the most beautiful UI (User Interface, just in case I need to remind you) and still deliver a bad UX. If your buttons are pretty but make no sense, the player will be confused.
On the other hand, you can have a great UX with a very minimalist UI.
I talked last week about the state of Cyberpunk 2077 at release. Sure, the game was pretty, but do I need to remind you how the whole experience felt? It was a disaster. Overloaded inventory, crashes, technical issues. The core was there, but the UX was nowhere to be found.
Now look at RimWorld. Not the fanciest, is it? And yet, 97% of 180,000 user reviews are positive. Why?
Because the systems are logical, the interface is effective, and you can find what you need easily. Plus, the gameplay loop keeps things fresh.
So if there’s one lesson here, it’s this: make sure your game is fun.
And you’ll ask me, how do we do that?

Why UX is core to a game’s success
It starts with a good user experience. By that, I mean your game needs several things: logical menus, responsive feedback both visually and sonically, clear information display, and an engaging gameplay loop. That’s the foundation.
A good UX is more than fancy menus or pretty graphics.
Let’s take The Callisto Protocol, for example. It’s a beautiful game. Great sound, great voice acting, even diegetic UI elements.
But repetitive and flat gameplay made it average at best (60 in user ratings on OpenCritic, mixed reviews on Steam).
What’s missing? Engaging combat and rewarding exploration would have been a good start. There’s also a clear lack of agency, systemic interactions, and surprises.
A good UX creates added value. Happy players will stick around, talk about it, and keep playing. Depending on your monetization model, that alone can make or break your game.

UX starts before pressing Start
Let’s talk about one of my favorite games, and what I hate about it: Hitman 3, now renamed World of Assassination.
Hitman, in its genre, is arguably one of the best, if not the best. But before playing, you have to buy it, and oh boy, that part is not fun. Confusing editions, unclear upgrade paths, when there were upgrade paths. It was such a mess they had to rename the game entirely.
Hitman was initially released in episodes (despite being the 6th game), allowing for more content and polish between each one. A good idea on paper, until the editions started to multiply.
Hitman 2 let you import Hitman 1 content, then came Hitman 3, more DLCs, upgrade paths, and more confusion. Eventually, IOI had to rebrand everything into Hitman: World of Assassination just to clarify what was what.
The whole idea, merging content across games, reusing levels with better tech, proposing free upgrades, was technically smart. But from a player’s point of view, it was a mess. Confusing editions, time-limited imports, redundant menus in the launcher and in-game.
It all felt like patchwork, not a plan. Even if at heart it was to give more value to the players, it was not implemented with the player in mind.
My point is simple: your UX doesn’t start when the controller is in hand. It starts long before that.
UX after finishing the game
And just as it doesn’t start with the controller, it doesn’t end when you put it down.
Let’s take a recent example. I just finished AI Limit, and you can find the UX FTUE (First Time User Experience) on my YouTube channel.
As a soulslike, the New Game Plus (NG+) feature isn’t a nice bonus anymore. It’s expected. So, eager to see what changed, I launched what they called Cycle 2.
A good NG+ usually includes basics like stronger enemies, keeping your level and weapons, but also surprises: new enemy placements, maybe new boss move sets.
Here? None of that. Same enemies, same spots, and as far as I could see, nothing had changed.
A good UX here would have encouraged me to explore more, try different things.
Instead, it just felt like doing the exact same thing for no reason.
Sure, I could unlock a different ending, but do I really want to redo exactly what I did for the last 15 hours? I don’t think so.
Replay value adds massive value to a game.
It doesn’t apply to every genre, of course, but players always notice when the effort stops at the finish line. And they won’t let it slide.
UX is like CX: players first
Where I come from, Customer Experience, a lot of companies eventually understood they needed to become Customer-Centric. Put the customer first in every interaction.
In the gaming industry, it’s the same.
Your UX needs to be Player-Centric.
Your game is made for players to enjoy. Never forget that.
And that’s exactly what I aim to do with UXerLabs: help studios create engaging, lasting, and meaningful experiences for players.
If you’re an indie or AA dev and need an external view on your game, get in touch.
Comments