Figma sold us the dream of perfect consistency — but what we got was ‘design by spreadsheet’. See how design systems turned from creative tools into corporate control mechanisms. From token fatigue to system bloat to the death of design judgment, let’s take a look at how Figma’s obsession with structure smothered the soul of design.
When Figma first revolutionized collaborative design, it promised something that sounded irresistible: true consistency at scale.
Design systems became the new religion, and Figma was its temple. Tokens, components, variants — all designed to ensure that every button, card, and color stayed perfectly aligned across products, teams, and time zones.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth: consistency doesn’t always equal coherence. Designers spend endless hours chasing pixel-perfect sameness, while the soul of the product — the part that makes users feel something — quietly dies under the weight of systems. What started as a noble mission to unify design has metastasized into a bloated bureaucracy of over-engineering and “design ops theater.”
Figma didn’t invent this obsession. But it certainly productized and scaled it, turning every visual decision into a token, every behavior into a variable, and every designer into a system administrator.
At their best, design systems should empower creativity. At their worst, they become corporate control mechanisms — compliance tools wrapped in the language of design efficiency.
Figma’s architecture reinforces this control. Shared libraries, branching, versioning — all sound great on paper. In reality, many teams end up fighting the tool instead of designing with it. Designers become reluctant to deviate from established components because doing so means breaking the “rules.” The design process becomes a form of paperwork: filling out checkboxes to stay compliant with the system.
When a button color needs a tweak, the discussion doesn’t happen in the context of user impact — it happens in a Jira ticket about whether the new hue violates the “primary-token-500” spec. Design systems stop serving people and start serving themselves.
Figma’s real misstep wasn’t technical — it was cultural. It created the illusion that centralization equals clarity, when in reality, it often just breeds stagnation.
In the early days, tokens seemed like magic. Define your colors, spacings, radii, and typography once, and everything updates automatically. Theoretically, this promised a universe where design, dev, and brand all spoke the same language.
In practice, design tokens have become the new meetings — endless layers of abstraction that multiply faster than the problems they solve. You start with ten color tokens, and before long, you’re managing hundreds. Each one has a cryptic name like “accent-on-primary-inverted-hover.”
At some point, no one remembers why they exist or what they’re for. The human meaning behind them — why this blue feels calm or why this spacing breathes better — is lost in translation.
This isn’t a failure of Figma’s engineering. It’s a failure of design philosophy. We replaced the intuition and taste of good designers with the illusion of mathematical rigor. We turned art into algebra.
Figma made componentization easy. Too easy. Drag, drop, nest, and voilà — you’ve got a beautiful atomic system. The problem? Context doesn’t scale.
Components know how they look, but not why they exist. A button inside a checkout form serves a different emotional purpose than the same button in an error modal. Yet design systems enforce sameness, mistaking aesthetic consistency for functional clarity.
This leads to a subtle kind of UX uncanny valley — everything looks consistent, but feels oddly disconnected. Each screen follows the rules, yet the product lacks rhythm, warmth, and flow. The human touch is missing.
Good design systems should teach when to break the rules, not just how to follow them. But Figma’s tooling rewards compliance, not judgment. The result? Designers who think less and manage more.
Figma’s biggest triumph — multiplayer collaboration — is also its most dangerous feature. It created the illusion of alignment. Multiple designers editing the same file feels like teamwork, but often it’s just collective micromanagement.
When everyone can see and comment on everything, design becomes a performance. Teams over-document decisions, add layers of approval, and annotate trivialities out of fear that someone will misunderstand or override them. The craft of design turns into design by committee, where innovation is slowly polished into blandness.
This isn’t a software bug — it’s human psychology amplified by Figma’s openness. The tool flattens hierarchy and opinion until all that’s left is consensus design: safe, predictable, and utterly forgettable.
Figma’s pitch for design systems rests on scalability. But most design systems don’t need to scale. The majority of teams aren’t building multinational platforms with thousands of contributors. They’re building one or two products with a handful of designers — and yet, they spend months building infrastructure meant for Google-level complexity.
This is where Figma’s business model subtly shapes design culture. The company thrives when organizations standardize, share, and scale. Every new library, every token set, every branching workflow justifies more seats and more enterprise plans. It’s a virtuous cycle — for Figma.
For designers, though, it’s a trap. Instead of iterating on the actual product, teams spend months refining their system. The user sees no benefit. The design team gets a false sense of productivity. The design system becomes the product.
A decade ago, the challenge was inconsistency — too many ad-hoc styles and colors. Today, the problem is the opposite: design bloat disguised as order.
Modern Figma files often contain thousands of components, layers, and tokens, making them heavy, confusing, and slow. The very tools meant to simplify design have created complexity debt — an accumulation of structure that makes genuine creativity harder.
You open a Figma file and feel like you’re entering a maze: frames inside frames, instances inside variants, nested overrides that behave unpredictably. The promise of efficiency becomes a mirage. You spend more time managing systems than making meaningful choices.
Some teams have started a quiet rebellion — system minimalism. They delete 80% of their components, keep only the essentials, and trust designers to handle the rest. The result? Faster workflows, lighter files, and better products.
The biggest casualty of all this systemization isn’t speed or simplicity. It’s judgment.
When every decision is codified into tokens and components, designers stop exercising taste. They stop asking, Does this feel right? Instead, they ask, Does this follow the system?
Good design emerges from tension — from pushing boundaries, from knowing when to bend the rules. But a rigid design system punishes deviation. The culture shifts from creative exploration to maintenance.
You can see the consequences everywhere: apps that look identical, brands that blur into one another, and interfaces that feel algorithmically generated. In chasing consistency, we’ve sacrificed identity.
Figma doesn’t need to abandon design systems. It needs to rethink their philosophy.
Figma didn’t kill creativity — it just gave structure too much power. The pendulum swung from chaos to control, and somewhere along the way, we forgot that design is a conversation, not a codebase.
Design systems should exist to liberate designers, not restrain them. They should amplify taste, not replace it. The next evolution in design tooling isn’t more tokens or smarter components — it’s tools that honor human intuition.
Because no matter how powerful Figma becomes, it can’t systematize the one thing that makes design truly great: judgment.
Every generation of designers seems to rediscover the same paradox: the more information we can display, the less anyone can process. The web is bursting with pixels that compete for…
There was a time when design meant making something—actually making something. You’d open Photoshop (or, if you’re older, Illustrator 9), throw ideas on the canvas, and wrestle with composition, hierarchy, rhythm,…
New year … and so many new tools to be happy about. This month’s list is teeming with fun options as well as things to help speed up or enhance…
For most of design history, a brand has been a fixed thing — a logo, a color palette, a tagline, a style guide locked in a PDF somewhere. The goal…
Every December, design Twitter fills with lists of “hot trends” that sound like buzzwords generated by an algorithm: “AI-native ecosystems,” “metaverse-ready experiences,” “contextual design synergies.” But the truth is, 2026…
Somewhere between the Dribbble boom and the personal-brand gold rush, design became performance art. We stopped making and started marketing. The loudest designers weren’t necessarily the best — just the most consistent at…