This was a fantastic read and really interesting analysis.

This is all sorts of excellent. "I dare you to overcome my awful little room" is going to stick with me.

still have to read this but replying 'cos don't know how else to message people here: sylvie have you seen finger limes? they're native aussie and they're full of little balls that pop with lime juice. they come in a bunch of colours too! had to tell you 'cos we got a bunch of them for new years and every time i have one i can't help singing 'what's going on this tiiiime, i've got a little pink finger liiiime'

i'm glad i got to read this piece now, i found it very resonant and useful. i've described a lot my favorite games or design choices as "hostile" to the player, but i think adversarial is a little fairer, and connecting the effect to the sense of dialogue between player and author is clear-headed in an infectious way where it makes my head feel clearer too. where it connects for me is that often when games have gotten adversarial or otherwise made uncomfortable demands of me, i've made the choice (often consciously) to place my "trust" in them, to assume at least for a while that the game has a good reason for what it's and to be patient with that discomfort while i try to make some meaning of it. whether that trust "pays off" or not can feel really personal for me, in a weirdly anthropomorphic way. if it doesn't pay off, i can feel a little hurt or betrayed, even though the stakes are actually pretty low. if it does pay off, it can make me feel extra warmly toward or "closer" to a game, like a friend went out of their way to keep a promise to me. these are some of the most joyful gaming moments for me and i wind up feeling very affectionately toward certain games because of it...

Love this approach to games.

I also believe that "abusive" is a strong word as I would definitely make a distinction of games with "dark design" practices that attempt you to steal your time and money. Think of lootboxes, misused energy mechanics to male you feel anxious to buy. Our know the drill. Those can have the smoothest experience ever, only to roadblock you with buying stuff schemes or other things to make you obsessed and make you pay.

Soon I'd rather like to use Adversarial game design, if not that it reminds of the original biblical connotations of it meaning that and adversary as an angel or demon that challenges you, nut not to make your life hell on purpose or to be simply mean. But for the purpose of learning and understanding.

But, setting that aside, I do believe there are methods to some of these ideas. Here are some games that I think resonate with this concept.

1. Getting over it with Bennet Foddy: well yeah, no surprises there. The conversation with the player is literally there with Bennet talking to you directly and exploring/explaining the process with you. It is on the nose, but it does put designer front and center with the game to not be just a thing to annoy you.

2. Lemmings, especially the first version: Seriously? Lemmings? Yup I do believe this game that this ethos, you can feel it especially in the later levels, which are devious and devilishly clever. There is a special part of the later levels that will put you on the original starting levels, but with a complete different set of tools available that run those levels inside out and one specifically can be done only with a totally new technique that you have to discover and will transform completely how do you play the game (if you have played it, you know the one level). Oh and you will feel the devs hand on those levels and say "oh those bastards" with a smile on your face.

I understand lemmings was basically crrated by the devs making levels to challenge each other with more and more weird BS being put against each other. Then they just simplified those levels to be the first ones and called it a day. So I guess it has a LandStalkers quality to it. But you can definitely feel the devs hand there especially in the more complicated levels.

Dark Castle and Beyond Dark Castle, the original for Mac Os system 6: Oh yeah, nothing like dying because of trying to get the fireball power up before the shield (you'll get toasted), or dying trying to get the shield because you got striken by lightning even if you get the shield (you need to put the shield up and wait to get striken by lightning, I mean it obvious isn't it?). Or even taking a wrong turn, or being taken by the gargoyle in the final boss takes you to the dungeon that makes you go through three screens just to get out of it to try again. You can hear the devs chuckle when you fall to the dungeon for any reason. It's a system that you start getting their tricky logic that in hindsight s eems obvious.

I believe that many games in the 2010's do hold some of this philosophy. What @zaratustra names the "interregnum" of indie games (too old for steam and too young for archive.org). Lots of people making cheeky games with game maker or flash are parte of this idea. Some more obvious than others. I can think of stuff like I wanna be the guy, the original hitchhiking game that inspired Bennet Foddy's game, Seiklus, Karoshi, Kyle in the cube Sector, etc.

But yeah I really love the idea of games that go against the idea of feeling invisible and instead like you said, be clear that there is a dev behind and you just wantontalk and say your piece with the tools you have. I love it.