in which i poorly justify my masochism
here the focus is on frustration through difficulty, though you can create frustration in gameplay through other means
part i: flow
when it comes to game design, you often hear people talking about keeping the player in a "state of flow".
if a players skill is less than the difficulty required of them, they get anxious, if it's higher they get bored: both of these are frustrating.
understanding this is important when designing games, but a lot of people often stick to it as if it's an objective way of designing a games difficulty.
after all, being frustrated is a bad thing...
right?
well, maybe not always.
theories and buzzwords like this aren't perfect objective qualities to determine how good something is.
negative emotions are commonly used in video games:
you play horror games for a reason;
you play sad games for a reason.
so, why can't we play frustrating games?
part ii: in which i make you play Rain World
Rain World is a very visually appealing game which puts the player directly into a complex and adaptive ecosystem, but often that's where its praise stops.
the game, critics say, is harsh, unfair, and frustrating, and not just in a Dark Souls way where you can simply 'git gud':
on top of the standard difficult game shenanigans, enemies can camp the players in unavoidable ways, causing instant deaths and often major losses of progress.
gif source
there's ways to get better and reduce deaths, but Rain World as a system is not designed for the player:
the npc are given just as much help, and just as much harm.
nature is harsh, and unforgiving, but it's not out to get you.
the same concept is supported by the games narrative:
the player is merely one being following the same path as many others, the Buddhist path to Nirvāṇa, to escape the cycle.
Rain World is one of my favourite video games.
it's a great case for using frustration as a device in designing video games, and the player wins not by triumphing over it, but accepting it as a fundemental truth.
it makes the bold choice to damage the player's ego in order to tell its story as effectively as it can.
part iii: the bad stuff
intentionally frustrating your player isn't all sunshine and rainbows, most players that i've shown Rain World never make it past the first area.
this is a common issue among games that use frustration, most people who play Getting Over It With Bennet Foddy never climb past the dead tree, and most who play Pathologic don't finish the first day.
games that frustrate their players are often asked for justification.
some games about frustrating ideas hide their frustration behind optional content in order to retain their casual players, but this often leaves me feeling like they refuse to explore their themes (see Celeste, a great game that has its best levels separate from the story, or Pikmin 4's only redeeming moment, the optional Olimar's Shipwreck Tale)
and most games will simply work their player up to their tough content, using the state of flow to remove the frustration in the first place.
as a player, i like neither of these options.
part iv: frustration is good
the very concept of a game that causes the player to feel uncomfortable emotions that might make them quit, sucks if you're trying to make a profit.
it's something that can only be done by a game made because the developer wanted to, not to pander to a wide audience.
to quote Bennet Foddy: Getting Over It is "A game I made for a certain kind of person. To hurt them." i think Foddy is talking about himself here- he made the game for his own sake, despite knowing most would quit as soon as the fad died.
these games deserve a spotlight outside of their cult followings and the occasional rage stream.
if you read this as a player, consider trying one of the games i've mentioned here, or finishing a game you found too frustrating.
if you read this as a developer, consider challenging your players notions of what a 'good game' is, use frustration as subversion.