I'm glad that the syllabus accidentally linked to Let's Play: Ancient Greek Punishment: Limited Edition because in my opinion, it is more interesting than the original game Pippin Barr made. In the original game, it is impossible to win and finish the task. In the Sisyphus level, it even counts your number of failures because that's the point of the game. It's trying to represent ancient Greek punishments that have been written about. Constant failure is the equivalent of punishment. This definitely works as a comparison because failure comes from not doing a task correctly and then you are punished by feelings of internal or external failure. So, is failure always a bad thing? Well, in terms of video games, I don't believe so. Failure states help the player learn from their mistakes and get ahead in the game. Failure helps the game move along and stay interesting because it creates breaks of change in the game if it has repetitive gameplay. This is seen in any Mario game. Failure gives motivation to complete the game, especially in longer games. This is seen in games like Dark Souls and God of War. However, Little Inferno is a good example that shows failure isn't necessary for game development. There is no failure state in the game. Sometimes the narrative and mechanics are good enough by themselves.
I thought that Let's Play: Ancient Greek Punishment: Limited Edition was more thought-provoking than the original. In the game, it is possible to complete the task. After completing it, the game continues and the character has nothing else to do anymore. He can go sit on the ledge while it becomes nighttime. What is life without failure and without constantly having to try and improve? Does life become dull and meaningless? Or is the state of having nothing to do supposed to represent peace at last? I think this version was necessary to play to show the role of failure in games and to show the opposite of failure in games with no win screen. Played together, the original and limited version offer a thoughtful start to thinking about failure in games.
What I wonder about the Limited Edition is how it might be different if the game had ended, or provided some sort of affirmation of success after you completed a task. You're definitely right that it's saying something about the important role of failure in games, but is it not also saying something about success? That is to say, without anything within the game that is positively affirming our success or completion, we somehow feel as though we've failed even if we haven't.
I did not come into contact with the limited edition of Ancient Greek Punishment, and didn't realize that there's that big of a difference between the two! I think it serves really well to comment on how not all failure states include a "You failed" screen or an explicit failure state. Your post suggests that succeeding without any future goals to work towards is its own kind of failure state, which I find really thought provoking. However, how does this differ from a normal win screen on a game? For example, how is this different from beating Undertale and having no more story? Does Ancient Greek Punishment stand out in the fact that you don't expect to reach …
You write that failure gives motivation to complete the game, but do you think that there is a certain level of failure that no longer motivates people to keep playing the game, but rather makes them turn it off out of frustration? How do we determine that level?