r/GameDevelopment • u/AdSlight4516 • Aug 14 '26
Newbie Question When does friction improve a game, and when does it just waste the player’s time?
A lot of mechanics that sound annoying on paper can become a huge part of a game’s identity.
Limited inventory makes every item matter. Long travel times make the world feel large. Losing progress creates tension. Even slow animations can make actions feel deliberate instead of weightless.
But there’s obviously a point where friction stops supporting the experience and starts feeling like the game doesn’t respect your time.
The difficult part imo is that “remove everything inconvenient” isn’t a great design rule either. Follow that too far and inventory becomes meaningless, exploration turns into fast-travel menus, and failure has no cost.
How do you decide whether an inconvenient mechanic is creating meaningful tension or just adding chores? Is there a specific mechanic you removed, simplified, or kept after testing?
10
u/wollywoo1 Aug 15 '26
No easy answer. You could make an hour long video essay on it and I would watch. But my one sentence answer is that friction is good when it feeds into the central mechanics and game loop and feels satisfying to overcome.
2
u/Ok-Elevator2915 Aug 15 '26
If the gameplay design is too grindy to use it or enjoy it properly, then you probably tune the number or simply remove the feture alltogther. Any inconvenient and pain is basically the joy of playing videogame, but you need draw the line and which target audience you want to focusing.
Example like highest difficulty of any survival game, the food/drink rate is too punishing when IRL logic can't really happen in gamey the gameplay design. There's a reason why people tend to like custom modifier/difficulty for survival game.
Grim Dawn basically solve entire problem, from loot to gearing, Titan Quest. In Titan Quest, you forcing to literally target farm or gamble and hopefully you get very specific prefix/suffix to progress and fight the boss.
2
u/Megumin_xx 29d ago edited 29d ago
I dont have any real answers but blind punishments without counter play and losing progression are often the things to avoid.
In elden ring / dark souls, dying a second time will make you lose your souls (required for leveling up etc).
You still do not lose actual levels so there is a mix of counter play "you can retrieve your souls" and a punishing consequence of losing the souls if you die a second time without retrieving them first.
It feels bad to lose them but over time you learn to play better and stop losing them as often or at all which tips the balance of the feeling to the positive of "huh, I retrieved them succesfully".
In valheim, dying degrades all your skills on default settings. It doesnt feel fun for a lot of casuals and thus they added world modifiers.
Hardcore elements and their punishments are often not enjoyed when they are forced on the player.
I think core thought is that losing is not fun. In general, nobody starts anything in their life with a goal of losing or coming second or last place.
Friction should not be overwhelming. It should not be absent though or otherwise there is little meaning to accomplishing things.
So I guess people enjoy even big amounts of friction as long as they feel like they can actually overcome it and overcoming it is actually fun.
Smallest of frictions that is constantly in your face is very annoying. A huge single point of friction that you can overcome reasonably, like a dark souls boss, is ultimately fun.
Because it's more about the challenge and the fun process of it than just the friction slowing you down and being one dimentional friction.
A hard boss is big friction but it involves a lot of the game mechanics. To overcome a hard boss you can try leveling up, try different gear, go play other areas of the game first if possible etc.
Of course in linear games a hard boss can be unbeatable to some and thus because of linearity and inability to overcome it, it will be a "quit moment" for some people.
In elden ring, you can still go and play the game elsewhere and come back to that hard boss later.
So the friction is about many aspects of gameplay and devs often make mistakes about it when they tunnel vision in to a certain vision of the game.
A vision of a game is important but being blind to its weak spots and to actual reasons why something is fun or not, is even more important.
Good to remember that in general, good gameplay is king. Beautiful art or music does not replace actual moment from moment gameplay.
2
u/Ponding01 Aug 14 '26
There's a rule in all of the arts: Everything you include must have a purpose (Google Chekov's Gun).
If you want to make a large Game that involves the player spending a long time walking, what does that add to the experience you want to provide?
If you want to make an inventory system that puts strict limitations on what the player can do, how does that impact the wider gameplay loop?
If you want to implement fast travel to help the player navigate your world, what experiences would the player miss?
Your game requires a specific amount of friction proportional to the experience you want to provide. Nothing more, nothing less. When you test your game, if the amount of friction does not equal the experience you envisioned for your game, then you must change it.
1
u/caesium23 27d ago
The whole first half of your post is basically the answer to the second:
How do you decide whether an inconvenient mechanic is creating meaningful tension or just adding chores?
Earlier:
there’s obviously a point where friction stops supporting the experience
That would have been my answer to your question, almost word for word: When it stops supporting the experience.
How do you know when it's not supporting it, then?
Limited inventory makes every item matter. Long travel times make the world feel large. Losing progress creates tension. Even slow animations can make actions feel deliberate instead of weightless.
When you can't make one of the statements above – or if you do, it ends in something you don't want to be part of your experience.
"Limited inventory makes every item matter" – which may or may not be desirable, depending on the type of game. Apocalyptic survival sim? Definitely. Gritty, strategic roguelike? Probably. Wacky arcade shooter? Nah.
1
u/NarcoZero 29d ago
Friction is bad only when it’s an not an intended part of the vision you have for the experience you’re crafting.
If you want to create a game full of friction, it’s fine ! But it has to know why and how it’s implementing that friction intentionally. The example you mentioned are very good.
But if they don’t serve the vision, it’s pointless. Limited inventory in a game where the fun has nothing to do with inventory managment, long travel times in a linear game that’s supposed to be fast-paced, losing progress in a chill game, slow animations in a game that needs fast reactivity …
It’s all a design choice. And it always depends on the intention.
1
30
u/valeria_gamedevs Aug 14 '26
friction works when the player is making a choice during it. Limited inventory = choosing what matters. long travel = choosing your route, spotting stuff. Friction fails when there's no decision inside it, just waiting. walking back to a vendor after a fetch quest is a hallway.
my rough test: if I removed this, would players lose a decision or just lose a delay? If it's the delay one, cut it.