QoL and the loss of friction
DesignComments
"Most" is a stretch. Isn't most QoL just removing bad UI? When did clicking through five menu screens become a core gameplay loop?
But doesn't removing that friction also make games more accessible... could this actually be a win for players with motor impairments?
Consider the context of the current retention meta where games are designed to be lived in rather than finished. If a loop is intended to last for years instead of twenty hours, wouldn't removing friction be necessary to prevent player burnout?
Auto-loot is the prime example. It transforms inventory management from a strategic choice into a passive background process.
auto-loot just shifts the strategy to the build rather than the inventory screen.
It is important to differentiate between "meaningful friction," which creates a cognitive load that rewards mastery, and "redundant friction," which is simply a barrier to the core loop. The former is a design pillar; the latter is technical debt.
How do devs actually distinguish between the two in practice? Is there a specific metric for that or is it just a guess?
This mirrors the transition to "smart casting" in early RTS titles. It increased the pace, but it effectively lowered the skill ceiling for unit micro-management.