The hiring process at Fortis Games started off on a very positive note. The initial stages – initial screening, the leadership interview, and the culture interview – were well-executed, with thoughtful questions aligned to the role of Staff Engineer. I felt these stages were designed to evaluate the skills and qualities relevant to a senior technical position. However, things took a significant turn during the technical panel interviews. It became apparent that the interviewer was not aware that this was a process for a Staff Engineer role. Instead of focusing on leadership, cross-team alignment, or a broader strategic vision – all critical qualities for someone at this level – the questions were overly specific to the technical stack. While depth in technical topics is important, the line of questioning felt more suitable for a Specialist role rather than a Staff Engineer. What made the experience even more frustrating was the demeanor of the interviewer. At multiple points, he displayed expressions of clear dissatisfaction with my answers, which I found unprofessional and disrespectful in a hiring setting. The impression I got was that he was looking for someone with identical, hyper-specific technical knowledge to his own, rather than someone who could bring a broader perspective and strategic value to the team. Overall, while the process began promisingly, it was undermined by a poorly structured technical panel. I hope Fortis Games revisits their approach to ensure that interviewers are aligned with the position's expectations and prepared to evaluate candidates accordingly. A Staff Engineer role demands someone who can drive alignment, foster collaboration, and contribute strategically – not just someone with niche technical expertise. I wish them luck in their search, but with a process like this, I have my doubts.