For those readers interested in a sound bite: the interviews were profoundly thorough and respectful. You will meet employees straight off the production room floor, so they know their stuff. Questions tend towards the academic (stuff you learn in schools), and the typical "tell ne about... [scenario]" fare -- but.. I felt well listened to. Read on for details.
I was granted a total of five interviews for two positions. I was rejected for the first position (Advanced Technology Group), but received a job offer when applying instead for User Interface work in the "game modes" section of the FC project.
My first contact was via a Recruiter: shortly after setting #OpenToWork status on LinkedIn, Beatriz M. T. contacted me and set up a video chat so as to better understand what kind of role I seek.
The interviews that follow tend to be arranged in the order of non-technical then technical, conducted over Zoom, with two members from the team you will be a part of if accepted. The meetings are strictly an hour in length and punctual to the starting time they're set for.
The A.T.G. interviews were significantly more difficult than those for the Game Modes position; it might be that my second application went smoother than my first because they could have a shared pool of exercises that doesn't repeat. The trials consisted of four types of activity: questions designed to test my knowledge of programming challenges, questions designed to probe into how I work and face catastrophe, an exercise involving actual programming, and an exercise of code-review.
I call the first two kinds of trials "academic" because these are questions that you'll get in any interview. Example: Tell us about an accomplishment you're most proud of; a challenge you faced, and how. Other examples: Define the differences between Heap and Stack Memory. What are the biggest obstacles in parallel processing?
Here, I would caution the reader about the hardship the interviewers faced in testing my knowledge {without including the answer in the question}. In particular, a repeat topic was about Design Architecture: they want to know that YOU know about Model-View-Controller separation, and the alternatives to this method -- there are a surprising number of architectures; ask ChatGPT about it. DON'T talk instead about headers and CPP files, or the subfolders of your current project -- that was my mistake.
Another question that seems to be important to all EA teams is whether the applicant considers themselves an "I.C." (independent contributor), or instead, has ambitions to lead teams and direct the course of the project. In my first interviews I admitted to loving being told what to do, but I sensed disappointment. In the last interviews, I emphasized how my current job had groomed me to a more active role and I professed readiness for more responsibilities.
There is one 'criticism' that I have, which I hesitate to identify as criticism because I believe it comes from a good place. The e-mails from the Talent Manager sometimes predict topics that the applicant is advised to study-up on; these predictions do not seem to be accurate. For example, I was advised that the C++ "malloc" functions would be discussed, but they were not. However, there was an in-depth series of questions about memory fragmentation -- a related idea.
Overall, I was impressed by the vibe that EA interviewers have: they may be asking the usual questions, but it feels like they are on the lookout for answers they haven't heard before. EA is listening to its applicants for solutions to problems seen in-house. They know what the applicant is talking about, and cite stories as "relatable". The applicant feels validated and part of the in-group even though employment is not guaranteed.
