Riot Games Researcher Interview Questions
& Process

The interview process was quite lengthy and extended compared to other studios. It involved several rounds and a panel interview, with significant time gaps between each stage. In fact, I began another interview process, received an offer, and accepted another role before completing a single round of this studio's interviews.

So after applying online with my cover letter and CV, a Riot Researcher reached out to me for a first phone interview. After that, they told me they'd be in touch about a second interview. A couple of weeks went by, and then I had a second interview with two other Riot Researchers. A few days after that, I got the standard rejection email. What I liked about it was that I thought the interview process was pretty fair and seemed to work well for the company. Riot definitely has an awesome product, and you can tell they hire people who are really passionate and good at their jobs – like that Fortune 100 best place to work thing. The case studies were actually pretty fun. The researchers I talked to were super smart, both in terms of IQ and EQ. What I didn't like was that even though the case studies were fun, I felt like they didn't really let me show off my research approach. It's tough as an outsider to the gaming industry to tackle gaming case studies without having been in the thick of it for a while. And I'm not a huge fan of phone interviews in general; I find them awkward and would rather see someone's face, though I get that cost might be an issue and Skype is an option. Where I think I could have been stronger was my relevant research experience in video games, though I don't think that was the deciding factor. I'm also not great at being put on the spot with critical thinking questions when I'm not already embedded in the situation. I think having more qualitative experience would have also helped. Overall though, I still think their interview process is fair and I respect their decision.

The interview process was quite long, involving several rounds and culminating in an onsite interview. During the interviews, I learned about a toxic work environment and heard negative comments about former employees. The questions indicated they were looking for someone to support their business decisions with data, even if it meant manipulating it to align with sponsor requests, rather than someone to conduct genuine research. They explicitly stated they wanted someone who could 'spin a story' and implied that my refusal to fabricate data led to my rejection. I was told I could reapply in a few months if I learned to answer such questions 'correctly,' which I found ethically questionable. Despite their claims of being player-driven, it seemed they wanted 'researchers' to legitimize profit-driven strategies with statistics, rather than prioritizing player well-being. This experience was disappointing, especially given my previous positive perception of the company.