failure isn't the same as taking an L

Failure isn't the same as taking an L.

What does that even mean? At its core, this is talking about different levels of failure and how we internalize these levels. When you take an L, you're making a conscious choice to accept a shortcoming; when you fail, there's the implication that you didn't expect things to go as poorly as they did. L's are laughable (mostly) because you are able to prepare yourself for an expected shortcoming; failure hits you harder because often times you are not prepared----or at least not prepared the same way you are as for an L----for how deep the actual shortcoming affects you.

This I think overlaps onto the different levels of failure that games can generate. In most games, you are motivated to continue through repeated failures. Difficulties spur you forward. But since failures can be internalized differently, the kinds of failures used project different meanings and thoughts onto the player and to the game. For instance, think about Spent.

In Spent, only failure is an option because the consequences of are too dire. In a world like this, it's harder for L's to exist. For an L to exist, there has to be a certain nonchalance to the shortcoming you expect. But what could be considered a laughable shortcoming when any slip-up could permanently ruin your chances at making it through the month and winning the game? With these consequences, this nonchalance cannot exist so L's cannot exist and failure as we know it can only prevail. This in part may be because of the subject matter of the game as well; the topic of poverty and the real stress of managing a strict budget to live paycheck to paycheck brings a sense of realness and urgency to your choices. In doing this, it is harder to see spending money unnecessarily as less consequential and more nonchalant. Instead, it makes the failure seem both more real and unable to be fully prepared for. Failure becomes the only result if you aren't careful enough.