The Gaming Buzzword of 2025

(Intro)

A lot of people across the gaming sphere have been using the word friction to describe a game that provides either a challenge or layers of complexity that makes the player feel uncomfortable. It’s an important aspect to many different games and genres that allows for growth and understanding of mechanics at the slight expense of the user experience, at least at the start. And lately, it feels as though many modern games have been doing their best to remove some points of contention that would create these friction moments. I’m hearing the word used a lot more these days from a variety of different creators in the space, so I wanted to dive a little into the word itself. Looking at some of the literal definitions, how these can apply to different video games and genres, where games get it right, wrong, and whether it’s good for companies to try and remove these contentious points. To put it short and snappy; if a game doesn’t have a learning process or at least doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable for a little while, it’s doing something wrong. Games should not optimize the fun out of them; there’s a beauty in the learning process.

(What does friction actually mean?)

Before we get into the weeds of this conversation, we first need to understand the word and its real-life definition and how it can be applied to video games. Friction has a few definitions, but the one we will be focusing on in the context of gaming is: “A conflict or animosity, caused by a clash of wills, temperaments, or opinions.” It’s not perfect, but this idea of conflict in general fits the bill for the involvement around games. Games not only in many stories but in their gameplay have conflict; moments where the player might not understand exactly what is being asked of them from the game and are left to either discern the exact requirements, or to simply wing it and figure it out as they go. And either of these methods are the correct means of dissecting a game and its mechanics. Now here’s the problem; what makes sense for one player might be a confusing nightmare for another. We all think about games differently; we all want different things out of games. So, it makes sense that if for example, a tutorial message is asking a player to press the right trigger after holding down the left bumper, players might interpret that information differently. Which is where the conflict comes into play. Whether it’s ambiguous information, or a game generally feeling lackluster and devoid of any depth, games need a sense of purpose in some way, shape or form. If you optimize the fun out of the game, what’s left to keep you coming back? The easiest example of this by far, is Tarkov.

(The best example of friction)

As someone covering this game for years now, what makes it so addicting is how there is so much to learn as a player. All the guns, ammunitions, armor levels, maps and level layouts; it’s an unprecedented amount of information to try and store in your brain. While you’re in raid, there is no map unless you remember to bring one with you, there are barely any HUD elements, and the only information you know about how to leave is vague names for each of the extractions. This game does not hold your hand, and that’s what makes it so addicting once you start to learn and pick up on the subtle context clues littered throughout most of the maps. Compare EFT to many other extraction shooters out there; at any time, you can pull up a map and know exactly where you are, the names of all the locations across the level, you can usually see your teammates health information. It’s all laid out in front of you. There is very little communication needed to figure out the current circumstance with how they are doing. Now, some would argue that having that information readily accessible is just better game design than what Tarkov does. And in some cases, I would agree with you. However, in a genre like extraction shooters or especially fighting games (which we will be talking about later), these genres are far from casual. They are some of the most hardcore genres to try and get into. They’re niche, the community that really engages with them is small when compared to other genres, and there is an expectation when it comes to new games entering this genre. And when they aren’t met, that game is usually dropped rather quickly by the majority.

(The simplification of battle royale)

When comparing different battle royale games, another example of games essentially watering down the formula to reach a wider audience, is blackout versus warzone. For many, the best part of the battle royale experience is the story; how you landed, get some crappy weapons but were able to upgrade them with attachments found throughout the map. And slowly, your arsenal got more powerful until you were victorious. In warzone however, the story is much more simplified. You land, get some money, buy your loadout, and now you simply hunt for players until you either win or lose. Warzone took out the story of finding attachments to make your weapons better because every weapon you find already has attachments on them. Or you bypass that part of looking for ground loot and just skip to a loadout you made yourself with exactly what you want on it. In a vacuum, there is nothing wrong with that, but removing that part of the game where you might be running around with something that isn’t best in slot takes away elements of friction. You have much more control over what you enter engagements with. It’s a streamlined experience designed to make players not have to use things they don’t want to, lessening the frustration of dying with a crappy gun. Loadouts is the part of warzone I hated the most because I wanted to slowly build up my weapons and make them better instead of just earning some money, which contracts trivialize and then have my two weapons ready to go. Other players might not like the former and that’s okay, but you cannot deny the story in blackout is much more interesting to hear than saying you dropped thirty frags in warzone.

(Fighting games are the epitome of friction)

The other genre next to extraction games that has arguably some of the highest learning curves are fighting games. For anyone who doesn’t play them, just looking at some of the input requirements for a character's special attacks are enough to deter them from ever trying to learn. But that learning cycle; the process of trying again and again to get just a simple fireball motion down, is some of the most rewarding experiences anyone can have with video games. And what has been happening recently from some fighting games, is dumbing down the requirements to be successful at them. Removing motion inputs for some special moves, having certain attacks bloated with tons of secondary properties, and just generally lessening the skill ceiling that is available for some games, have garnered a general level of disdain from enthusiasts of fighting games. This genre is very important for a lot of people; it’s the genre that made people realize the true process of learning not only games but anything in life, isn’t simple. It’s tedious, arduous and some people respond faster to it than others. There will always be someone better than you, and yet that should be motivation for getting better. You should be able to watch someone else play the same character you do but see new things and become inspired to want to learn that new combo or setup. But it’s becoming increasingly difficult when games go out of their way to remove the fun, the creativity, and the ability to show your prowess with a certain game or character because you spent the time to master it. Tekken 8 tried to do something like this with season two; it blew up in their face hilariously. Now, months later they are still reeling from those design philosophies and the creative shift on how Bandai Namco makes their games. It will most likely be this way until season three releases, which is a shame. But you reap what you sow.

(Even PvE games are suffering from this)

It’s not just games that focus primarily on player versus player engagements that have this problem. Even games where you only work with others are susceptible to the same pitfalls. Monster Hunter Wilds released earlier this year, and again, ignoring the atrocious performance issues that still haven’t been figured out, the core gameplay loop for many is a watered-down version of the previous game, Monster Hunter World. Even plying the game for a fraction of the time many others have, I noticed these little oddities early on. How, when you set out on a monster hunt, the game just takes you to where the monster is automatically; the hunt for it doesn’t really exist anymore. You don’t need to prepare for a hunt; you can just have the game take you there and defeat the monster in record time. Now here’s the thing; many additions and changes to this game were genuine quality of life improvements which are fair and should be as they currently are. But many other changes were stripping away components from old games that people actually enjoyed, even if they felt obtuse of cumbersome. The only reason to hunt the same monster multiple times is to get their gear because you like the look of it. And even that process has become much easier than previous games with how much loot they drop. The ability to swap to a more precise aiming functionality so your attacks essentially never miss is also something that people seem to disagree with, even though again, some would argue that’s a huge quality of life improvement over the previous game. It would be like if the Souls’ games had the option to either free aim, lock on to a single target, or bring up a reticle that allows you to adjust your sword swing mid attack if an enemy moves out of the way. These games are slow and deliberate; if the monster or enemy dodges out of the way, or you take too long charging up a big attack, you should whiff because you messed up. But Monster Hunter Wilds almost doesn’t want you to feel bad for missing. It does everything in its power to make you feel like a god. Monster fights are some of the fastest in the entire series, and you can constantly stun and stagger the monsters so they can’t retaliate. But part of the charm of these games is how the monsters would make it difficult for you to land even a single swing. That’s what fans of this series enjoy. The dance between the player and the monster. And now, you just stomp all over them and it’s barely a fight. But with a handful of different game examples that either embrace the idea of friction or choose to reject it, the main question I have, is why?

(Why Developers remove friction)

A lot of people have been asking why this is happening. Removing points in games that might rub people the wrong way in an effort to streamline the process only works if what is sticking around has equal or greater engagement than what was there previously. Developers might remove friction for a few possible reasons. The first and most obvious one is to capture a larger audience. It’s no secret that companies and games are willing to sacrifice their original audiences with a new game in order to foster something new and potentially larger. Unfortunately, games in 2025 are seen with only growth in mind. It can’t just sell two million units that’s what the previous game sold. Now, it needs to sell between four and five million or else it’s a failure. Another reason for why this might happen is just bad game direction. An idea can be sound on paper, but when implemented and tested, sometimes it can just not work. It’s rare that developers don’t have the foresight to see when an idea is going to just fall flat on its face, but they still happen every now and again. Sometimes, it can be outside of the control of the development team and mandated by people in higher positions to add or remove features because there are other games doing the same thing, so we need to copy them in order to be successful. For a lot of companies that are mainstream, it’s not about just making a good, functional game, it needs to be able to generate revenue beyond the initial purchase. So, games can also be made around a monetization system that was created first and foremost. There are tons more reasons why games will remove friction, but I hope you get the idea at this point. It’s a shame that companies are so afraid of making their players feel uncomfortable or not respecting their intelligence; people that play video games are smart, intuitive, and can problem solve well. They aren’t afraid if a game puts up a challenge that they need to overcome. It’s why the Souls’ games are so popular. The idea of coming across what feels like an impossible task, and then slowly but surely chipping away at it and then eventually being victorious is one of the most genuinely gratifying moments any game can illicit to a player. A great recent example is Elden Ring Nightreign. My friends and I have been stuck on one of the bosses for like a week, and after many attempts and different builds and strategies, we finally conquered it a couple nights ago. It was such a relief to be done and move on to the next boss, but it also felt so good to beat something so challenging to us. There’s nothing wrong with a little struggle; it makes the reward so much more enjoyable when it does finally happen.

(Outro)

Friction has become somewhat of a buzzword here in 2025 for video games. But I think it’s an important conversation to have. With so many games out there, so many people trying to create something that is either fun, difficult, engaging, or whatever adjectives you want to use, this central idea of having players really grind their teeth on certain aspects of video games and their respective genres is important to uphold and maintain. Nobody wants a game that does everything for you, at least at the start. There are tons of smaller indie games that are the antithesis of this like Fear and Hunger, which literally doesn’t tell you anything and is doing everything it can to make you lose. But there are also games like Atlyss which feel as though they’re a doorway into the past; an earlier time for gaming that was simpler and much comfier. Either way, no matter where you do your gaming, what device you use, or the kinds of genres you enjoy playing, if a game has you scratching your head, asking questions and putting in a little extra effort to see the fruits of those labors, cherish that game because it’s doing you a favor, and you might not even realize it. Thank you very much for taking the time out of your day to watch this video. Let me know down in the comment section below your thoughts on whether or not games should have friction, which games you think are the best examples of having friction and be sure to subscribe for more videos about broader video game topics and discussions about ideas that are fundamentally to games being fun. I hope to see you in future ones.