Failure has such a heavy and negative connotation, and unsurprisingly so. After all, normally in life, once you fail something, you are usually stuck with the consequences. As such, many are quite averse to the topic of failure. With games though, failure takes on a different meaning, where failure only affects the realm of that simulated space, and usually temporary at that. Because of it, failure is not only subtly encouraged, it is actually fun, and quite frankly, it appears most games nowadays main problem is: How much failure do they need to make it fun?
Making a game too easy would be boring for many people. That is not to say they could not attract them with other elements such as narrative, for instance, like some laid-back visual novels or games like Little Inferno where failure is basically impossible, or entice them with rewards such as clicker games, but even then there is quite a few in the community complaining of the simplistic, repetitive mechanics. Most games that people elevate, from Mario & Sonic to games like Red Dead Redemption all have failure integrated into their game. Without failure, many games are just considered boring and not worth it.
Too hard though and it incites the community. Taking Bennett Foddy's games, especially his recent Getting Over It, certainly drew a lot of people into taking up the challenge, because of the clear failure aspect, but I noticed that many also quickly gave up because the challenge was not only too steep for them, but the cost of failure too high. I myself gave up partway, growing too frustrated to continue on after ending up back in the beginning. Other games with steep failures also do not appear to work out as well. Games that do permadeath, for instance, are not as prevalent in the industry if steep failure was a thing. So having heavy costs of failure, while it may attract people, also quickly dissuade them.
Finding the balance is not an easy task, especially when there are games that appear to defy such logic, such as the Souls series, but perhaps the reasoning is more complex than that. Perhaps they found the right mixture of failure, while still forgiving enough to keep players coming back. I just wonder at how we can determine what failure is acceptable for it to be fun
I think game developers have been trying to determine what your post has been asking for a long time now! Obviously, no matter how long you work on a game, in the case of Red Dead Redemption 2 , if it's too hard, no one will want to play it. At the same time, although achievement hunters love games that are too easy, spending money on a game you can potentially beat in one sitting just doesn't make financial sense. Of course, one method to combat this issue has been the introduction of difficulty levels, to accommodate players of all skill levels. I personally always play on the "Medium" difficulty first, before going up to the hardest difficulty for a…