Half-formed thoughts on "difficult" game design

I found this post on my feed, and I had to take a moment to think about it from my perspective as a player. My first instinct was to simply dismiss it as another involuted post from a game designer trying to ~say something~ with their work, but as I turned my attention back to other things, this post stayed up on my side screen -- and I thought about it again. Mr Nelson is right, to an extent: as in the realm of physics, friction engages, forces a slowdown, requires an investiture of energy to overcome. At the same time, I think it's important to analyze systems on a case-by-case basis: from the perspective of the system in question, is it working with the player, against the player, or is it something the player simply works through?

Monster tells in MonHun games, for example, are an example of the player and system working in concert; as the former learns, the game becomes smoother, and by resolving the friction, the investment is deepened. Underwater movement in Metroid games before you get the Gravity Suit I see as an example of the last category: it's an element, but not one that particularly deepens a connection nor boots the player out. It's the middle category, the system actively working against the player, that I feel is permissible to call "bad" or at least troublesome design. In the linked post, the system that I would most clearly place in this category is the instant-purchase, no-confirmation ordering. The order book shifting around without player input is something the player works through, but zero confirmation actively works against the player, and might merit another look.

In summary: 'bad' game design needs to be evaluated in the context of whether it actively works against the player before it can be fully placed into context.