[0:00] There are many important aspects that 
make video games feel like video games,  
[0:04] but one that I find especially interesting due 
to our complex relationship with it is failure.
[0:10] Without some sort of setback, or at the 
very least the potential of a setback,  
[0:15] games run the risk of losing meaning. The best 
way to make success feel good is by earning it,  
[0:21] and so space for failure is a key 
part of almost any game’s design.  
[0:25] This can take all sorts of forms, both big and 
small, harsh and forgiving. Frankly, there are  
[0:32] tons of ways to incorporate it—it all comes 
down to what a game is aiming to make you feel
[0:38] What makes failure tricky is that it is a 
thing we instinctively want to avoid. Like,  
[0:43] when I come across a new boss in a game, a part of 
me always hopes that I will clear it on that first  
[0:48] attempt. Of course, if I did first try every fight 
I came across, the feeling I would inevitably walk  
[0:52] away with is that the game was too easy for me. 
It only actually feels good when it is rare.  
[0:58] Despite our aversion to it, we need failure. 
The threat of it is what gives games stakes,  
[1:05] it's what makes your inputs matter. And for 
it to really work, the threat can’t just be  
[1:09] a threat—the consequences have to be carried 
out because if you never experience friction,  
[1:14] the threat will no longer feel threatening, 
causing it to feel more like a ride than a game.
[1:20] On the other hand though, there is only so much 
failure most players will be willing to endure,  
[1:25] creating this push and pull for developers where 
they have to consider how to implement failure  
[1:29] in a way that will feel meaningful and be 
in line with the type of experience they  
[1:33] are trying to create without driving away 
their core player base out of frustration.
[1:37] Over the past couple months, there has been 
a lot of discussion around Hollow Knight:  
[1:41] Silksong for this reason. The game is incredibly 
difficult; the various gauntlets and boss fights  
[1:47] will have you dying over and over again, and what 
has been one of the more controversial aspects is  
[1:52] that in most cases, instead of respawning in a 
spot close to whatever fight you were just in,  
[1:57] you most likely will be sent far, far away and 
need to engage in a dreaded runback. Runbacks  
[2:03] have long been a part of metroidvanias and other 
genres that take heavy inspiration from them,  
[2:08] but there has been a somewhat recent push 
away from them. A comparison I’ve seen a lot  
[2:15] is with how Elden Ring does it, that being always 
providing some kind of checkpoint right by a boss,  
[2:20] allowing players to immediately retry after 
a loss. The challenge is not the level as a  
[2:25] whole but instead the boss, and this format 
pairs logically with the immense difficulty  
[2:30] of some of these fights. They are balanced 
around the assumption that players will  
[2:33] come in at full strength and therefore they 
pull very few punches. The friction comes  
[2:38] from how difficult they are, not from 
how much they will punish the player.
[2:42] In Silksong, bosses also seem balanced around the 
assumption that players will be coming in at full  
[2:47] strength despite having to travel so far to get 
to them. In fairness, with Silksong, players are  
[2:52] never that far away from being at full strength, 
as the primary resource they will deplete, Silk,  
[2:57] can be recovered without any sort of item, 
unlike Elden Ring where the player can only  
[3:01] restore their primary resource, flasks, by 
resting or dying. Also, after every death,  
[3:07] Hornet leaves a cocoon behind, and breaking it 
fully restores her silk, creating the opportunity  
[3:12] for the player to start every fight with a 
good amount of health. Regardless of that,  
[3:16] there is still far more friction here. Every death 
has the weight of two failures, and instead of  
[3:22] getting to keep practicing the part that caused 
them to fail, players have to work through a  
[3:25] section that calls for a different skillset 
that they already feel like they overcame.
[3:29] Now, despite what people who hate them will 
say, it should be noted that there are plenty  
[3:33] of folks out there who do like runbacks, and 
particularly the ones in Silksong. They like  
[3:39] that the challenge comes from mastering an 
area on a wider scale instead of in tiny  
[3:43] segments. They like having space between 
attempts that push them to approach every  
[3:47] fight with consideration instead of casually 
throwing themselves into a meatgrinder. They  
[3:52] like finding the optimal path back and perfecting 
their movement through it. They may even like  
[3:57] the temptation it creates to go somewhere else 
for a little while that they may have missed.
[4:02] Sickos like this do exist. And, yes, I am 
sickos. I like Bilewater; I refuse to apologize.
[4:08] Admittedly, while I have started to find runbacks 
to be a bit tiring in many soullikes I play,  
[4:13] I didn’t have that same feeling in Silksong, 
largely due to it being a platformer. Where  
[4:18] awkwardly weaving between enemies in Dark 
Souls kind of goes against what the game  
[4:22] wants you to do, speeding through areas in 
Silksong feels natural and fun. There are a  
[4:27] bunch of moves specifically designed to help you 
traverse areas and bypass enemies, so instead  
[4:32] of it feeling like cheesing the intended 
design, it feels like the intended design.
[4:37] Now, even as someone who found value in them, it 
is undeniable that this type of failure is grating  
[4:43] for tons of people, and this largely comes down 
to how often any given player has to do it. Like,  
[4:48] obviously runbacks will feel different to those 
who only end up doing 2 to 3 attempts per boss  
[4:52] compared to those who come closer to 30 or 40. 
Doing more runs not only takes up more time,  
[4:58] but also will lead to diminishing 
returns in terms of your improvement  
[5:01] at the actual runback. For many, there is a 
good chance that after a bunch of attempts,  
[5:06] getting back to the part they’re stuck on will 
become near mindless; leaving it feeling less  
[5:10] like part of the challenge and more like 
a minute or two they’ll never get back.
[5:14] Unsurprisingly, the more punishing failure is, the 
less patience players will have for it. Discourse  
[5:20] around Silksong often gets boiled down to it 
being too hard, but as plenty of other people have  
[5:25] started to point out, it has more to do with how 
punishing the game is than how difficult it is.  
[5:29] They are obviously intertwined, but it's not 
as if the hardest parts of Silksong are so far  
[5:34] beyond anything a game has ever done before; 
it's that failing at them means replaying  
[5:38] a different hard part where dying on the way 
back could mean losing all of your hard earned  
[5:42] money. It is a tension that is hard to hold and 
based on the discussions surrounding the game,  
[5:47] it seems like for a good amount of people than 
tension shifted into frustration. Failure in  
[5:52] Silksong can so easily beget more failure, and 
that kind of spiral downwards is hard to stomach.
[5:58] Honestly, I think part of why roguelites 
have gained so much popularity is because  
[6:02] a lot of them do the opposite of this. They 
are designed around small chunks of gameplay,  
[6:07] where, yes, you most likely will fail time and 
time again before having anything that comes  
[6:12] close to even looking like a successful run; 
but, due to various forms of metaprogression,  
[6:16] every failure is a chance to improve your 
character whether it be increasing their stats or  
[6:20] unlocking new moves or anything else that may give 
you an edge. Failure in a roguelite is expected,  
[6:27] and the consolation is often that the playable 
character will be more effective. Even in games  
[6:31] with horizontal progression where its more 
about increasing gameplay options over stats,  
[6:35] having a wider pool of upgrades and 
abilities to choose from gives players  
[6:39] more opportunities to craft powerful builds. 
The improvement is impossible to avoid,  
[6:44] giving players a sort of permission structure 
in a way other types of games don’t.
[6:49] For instance, a pretty common phenomenon with 
games like Silksong or Elden Ring is that players  
[6:53] will come across a boss, be underpowered in 
some way, but still bash their head against  
[6:58] it until they beat it. Typically, bosses like 
this aren’t designed to be brute forced. They are  
[7:03] meant to be barriers that push players to explore 
elsewhere so they get more powerful and come back  
[7:07] better equipped, you’ve heard all this before. 
However, doing that can feel like giving up,  
[7:12] which isn’t easy for a lot of players to do. 
Exploring elsewhere is choosing to progress  
[7:17] the character's ability over the player's 
ability, leading to the fight being inherently  
[7:22] different when they do come back. If they get too 
powerful, the fight may not be challenging at all,  
[7:27] and so beating the boss won’t feel nearly 
as satisfying because of a choice they  
[7:32] made. However, in a roguelite, due to the 
structure, instead of coming back to a boss  
[7:36] with a massive increase in the character’s power, 
it will almost certainly be a more gradual one,  
[7:41] making it unlikely that the fight will be 
trivialized due to the increase and also causing  
[7:45] it to be harder to deem what deserves more credit 
in the success: the character or the player.
[7:50] Also, more and more roguelites have started 
to offer a number of ways to increase the  
[7:54] challenge once the player has started 
to figure things out and substantially  
[7:57] upgraded their character’s abilities. The Heat 
and Fear systems in the Hades series are solid  
[8:02] examples of this. Before each run, players can 
select modifiers ranging from simple stuff like  
[8:07] damage and health increases for enemies to more 
interesting obstacles like new versions of bosses,  
[8:12] time limits—changes that have a significant 
effect on what a run feels like. It is a  
[8:17] challenge players opt-into, customize to their 
liking and maybe most importantly can gradually  
[8:23] implement. It lets them increase the challenge 
to make it clear that their own skill is what  
[8:27] deserves the credit while making it rare to 
get the feeling of running into a brick wall.
[8:32] All of this creates a system that offers a 
smooth, challenging and varied experience that,  
[8:37] regardless of skill level, never 
feels like the player is doing the  
[8:40] exact same thing over and over again. It 
softens failure in every conceivable way.
[8:42] To be clear, I am not trying to say that 
this sort of implementation of failure is  
[8:45] better than other types—it is just that it's 
a type of failure that broadly is easier for  
[8:50] players to accept because it doesn't leave 
them feeling as if they've wasted their time.
[8:55] A person's tolerance for failure depends 
on so many different factors, but one that  
[9:00] looms larger than most is how much time they 
have to play games at all. If you only have  
[9:05] an hour every few nights to play something, 
do you really want to spend that whole time  
[9:09] dying to fucking Groal again? Most players 
want to feel as if they are making progress  
[9:14] within any given gaming session, and even if 
they are getting a tiny bit better each fight,  
[9:18] that isn't necessarily going to be felt 
in the way or at the speed they may want.
[9:23] The right amount of failure is a hard thing 
to measure. It is so dependent on the goals  
[9:27] of a game and the state of mind of the 
player, and frankly what I'd argue is  
[9:31] generally the ideal amount sort of exists on 
a razor's edge. I’d say the best time to beat  
[9:36] a boss is when you are on the brink, when 
one more loss will push you over the edge,  
[9:41] and so, especially with games that aim to be more 
punishing with their failure, where the number of  
[9:46] times you are willing to fail is relatively low, 
it is all too easy to get pushed past that point.
[9:51] Of course, failure isn’t always tied to having 
to replay a section multiple times. It can also  
[9:57] be used to shape what happens next whether 
that be narratively or gameplay-wise. While  
[10:02] this type of failure may seem like it'd be 
more appealing to those worried about having  
[10:05] their time wasted as it doesn't force them 
to do the same thing over and over again,  
[10:09] many seem averse to this approach as well. 
This is probably most true when it is tied  
[10:14] to gameplay. If you get thrown into a high 
pressure situation that could lead to the  
[10:18] permanent death of an NPC or something, 
the stakes may create valuable tension,  
[10:22] but failing will be a hard thing to accept. Not 
only can it fundamentally change the narrative  
[10:26] experience but also there is a decent chance that 
the failure may come from you simply not realizing  
[10:31] what you were supposed to do, making it feel less 
like your character was unable to save someone,  
[10:35] and more like a miscommunication 
between the player and the game.
[10:38] Even though plenty of people like to be 
tested on their mastery of mechanics,  
[10:42] they don't necessarily want the 
result of those kinds of tests  
[10:44] to have a lasting impact. They want to be 
able to have the space to figure things out,  
[10:49] and the fear of dealing with longterm 
punishment can be a massive deterrent.
[10:54] This fear is a big part of why 
people hate time limits in games,  
[10:57] especially ones that span the entire play 
through. While I do think there are ways  
[11:01] to balance titles to protect against this, a 
lot of people fear the idea of early failures  
[11:06] putting them so far behind that by the time 
they figure the game out, it will be too late.
[11:10] A fairly common critique I received on my recent 
video where I defended time limits and discussed  
[11:15] some games that I think would have been better 
if they had one is that I didn't fully address  
[11:19] the ways this fear can play out; what happens 
when you actually run out of time? In hindsight  
[11:25] I wish I would have because I think there are 
both a lot of good and interesting alternatives  
[11:29] to being forced to start the game over; and that 
it would have better supported the thesis of that  
[11:34] video which is that no matter how interesting 
the inclusion of a timer can make a game,  
[11:39] the discomfort they create will still 
never appeal to the majority of players.
[11:43] For instance, instead of getting a game over, 
running out of time or running low on time  
[11:48] could simply lead to some other consequence. In 
Unsighted, which yes is always my go-to example  
[11:53] when talking about titles that use time limits 
well, unsurprisingly has a great approach to this.  
[11:59] Every character, including your own, only has a 
certain amount of in-game hours to live, and their  
[12:04] life can be extended through the use of a resource 
that can be found throughout the world. This gives  
[12:08] a good reason to explore despite the time limit 
and also creates a personal goal to keep as many  
[12:13] characters alive as possible. However, if the 
playable character gets low enough on time,  
[12:18] they are presented with the option to sacrifice 
other characters to get time back. There are  
[12:23] certainly less brutal ways a game could go about 
this, but doing something along these lines that  
[12:28] fundamentally change character relationships or 
places you can visit without drawing the ire of  
[12:33] those who live there or anything else that brings 
a change to your relationship with world can be  
[12:38] effective ways of providing near unlimited time 
while not cheapening the impact of running out of  
[12:42] it. Another approach that could work with a system 
like this or even just stand on its own is to let  
[12:48] the player continue playing even after running 
out of time, but have that impact the ending  
[12:52] they get. Depending on the complexity of the game 
this could mean all sorts of different things,  
[12:56] but it would ensure that the player doesn't miss 
out on the core beats of the game and story.
[13:03] Now, the problem with these approaches is that 
they make you feel bad. Even if it isn't as  
[13:08] drastic as sacrificing other characters, doing 
something that severs a relationship with those  
[13:13] you've come to care about, while narratively 
intriguing, is a lot, and if the alternative is  
[13:18] a game over, you will pretty much have to do it or 
quit, and this could takeaway your favorite part  
[13:23] of game simply because you weren't quick enough. 
Even in a set up where it could just lead to a  
[13:28] bad ending for your character, this also can feel 
frustrating as people generally want to get what  
[13:32] is considered the good ending, the true ending, 
and so anything else feels like time wasted. And  
[13:38] as most people are probably only gonna play a 
game one time, the potential for a bad outcome  
[13:43] doesn't feel worth it for most. This increases the 
chances that a likely player behavior will be to  
[13:49] look up the most efficient path or over powered 
builds as to avoid the negative consequences.
[13:54] Honestly, this sentiment often exists even when 
skill is not part of the equation. This can be  
[13:59] seen with games that have meaningful 
choices within them. While on paper,  
[14:02] most players would say that they want to 
play a game where their choices matter,  
[14:06] I don’t know that that is what they actually 
want. More than there being a lot of choices  
[14:12] that matter, I think what the majority of folks 
want is for the story to play out in the way they  
[14:17] want it to play out. Obviously this doesn’t 
apply to everyone—some people love making a  
[14:25] choice and living with the consequence of that 
choice. However, a lot of players want to feel  
[14:30] in control. They want to know that the choice 
they are making is the right one. The one that  
[14:35] will get them the best ending or atleast the 
ending they will be happiest with. Especially if  
[14:39] you’re only going to play a game once, you 
don’t want everything to go wrong because  
[14:43] you gave the wrong fatherly advice or because you 
interpreted the words of a character incorrectly.
[14:48] What’s weird is that I imagine the majority 
of folks would agree that the most interesting  
[14:52] and engaging kinds of choices tend to 
be ones where what the outcome will  
[14:56] be is not clear. The kind that gets the 
player to stop and think about what could  
[15:00] happen. What could go right, what could go wrong, 
and then try to make the best choice they can,  
[15:03] whether that be based on the things 
they personally value or the things  
[15:06] the character they are playing as values. 
However, based on conversations I’ve had,  
[15:10] posts I’ve read, playthroughs I’ve watched, 
most people struggle with not actually knowing.  
[15:19] There is a reason why major gaming publications 
post guides for endings and romances for every  
[15:24] major release that includes choices surrounding 
them—people rely on them to avoid losing out.
[15:29] This gets even more complicated when luck is added 
to the mix. Back when it released there was a ton  
[15:34] of discourse around Baldur’s Gate 3 in regards 
to reloading saves, less kindly known as save  
[15:40] scumming. Whether it was to undo the consequences 
of any given choice or an unfortunate roll, it  
[15:46] became a wildly popular way to approach the game. 
In some ways this seems to be the antithesis of  
[15:50] what players should do when playing a title like 
Baldur’s Gate 3, one that is based on Dungeons  
[15:55] and Dragons, the ultimate example of a game where 
players have to live with their failures. However,  
[16:00] the mindset someone approaches a tabletop rpg 
with is not the same that they approach a video  
[16:05] game with. While there is a whole cottage industry 
examining Game Master horror stories, if you have  
[16:10] a halfway decent group to play with, chances are 
you will have some level of trust in your GM to  
[16:15] craft an experience that feels satisfying, that 
twists failures to be as interesting as successes,  
[16:21] that has payoffs for everything. But that 
is a lot harder to do with a video game.
[16:27] They can’t be as accommodating or nuanced as a 
person can be; they can’t pull you aside and ask  
[16:32] how you felt about how something played out 
and adjust accordingly, so outcomes can feel  
[16:37] more harsh because of that. For instance, if you 
fail the strength checks to pull Gale out of the  
[16:42] portal at the start of the game, you just don’t 
get Gale in your playthrough. Admittedly you’d  
[16:47] have to be pretty unlucky to miss in this way, but 
it could happen. Not to mention there is also a  
[16:52] chance that the player misreads the situation. 
They see a hand out of a portal and worry that  
[16:57] it is going to try to pull them in and miss him 
for that reason. Even though this kind of result  
[17:00] would allow players to focus more on the other 
brilliant characters in the game and ultimately  
[17:04] have to navigate situations later on in much 
different ways, it is hard for many to accept that  
[17:08] a character as beloved as Gale, one who is vital 
to the experience of most other players literally  
[17:14] will never be a part of theirs. This might work 
in a vacuum, but as information about characters  
[17:20] and games is often thrust upon us, it is near 
impossible to not have some fear of missing out.
[17:25] Obviously this is one of the more extreme 
examples of a potential outcome in Baldur’s  
[17:30] Gate 3, but even with choices that have a 
smaller impact, the fear of missing out on  
[17:34] characters or events is hard for players 
to shake. And so these kinds of failures  
[17:39] that make choices more interesting also 
make it more likely that players will  
[17:43] avoid falling into them whether that is through 
reloading a checkpoint or looking up a guide.
[17:48] What it always seems to come back to in one way 
or another is that players don't want to feel as  
[17:53] if their time is being wasted. They don’t want 
to put hours and hours into something and not  
[17:58] get back whatever it is they hope to get out 
of the experience. While many of us do waste  
[18:02] tons of time on things we barely even think about, 
there's something about playing a game that feels  
[18:07] different. It's more of an investment; it’s an 
active choice, and a part of their appeal is the  
[18:11] promise of control. Of being able to progress 
and overcome obstacles, of being able to have  
[18:16] a desired outcome. Failure is what makes this 
control matter, but it is also what interrupts it,  
[18:22] what in some cases puts it in jeopardy. It is a 
thing that players need, but don't often want.
[18:28] And one of the most unfortunate things about it 
is that, with most games, the players who are  
[18:32] the least interested in experiencing failure, 
are often the ones experiencing it the most.  
[18:38] Obviously there are many things that go into 
any given player's taste, but there does seem  
[18:42] to be a correlation between being more skilled at 
a game and wanting a higher level of challenge and  
[18:48] punishment. It is the search for the sweet spot, 
the balance that will get you in the flow state;  
[18:54] but so often, especially in titles with a single 
static difficulty, those players aren’t dealing  
[18:59] with the consequences of failure. They aren’t 
doing 40 runbacks to a boss, running out of  
[19:06] time after dozens and dozens of hours in a game, 
losing resources from dying. Instead, they are the  
[19:12] ones getting through with far less friction and in 
some games are rewarded for that by getting more  
[19:18] experience or access to weapons sooner, creating 
a snowball effect that makes things easier for  
[19:23] them. Meanwhile, those a bit less skilled get 
hit with negative feedback loops that get them  
[19:27] stuck for far longer. To be clear, being less 
skilled at games doesn't necessarily mean not  
[19:32] wanting to deal with failure at all; I'd imagine 
there are some who do just want smooth sailing  
[19:37] all the way through, but, I’d imagine many want 
to be in their own sweet spot, however, getting  
[19:42] punished this often and this severely pushes them 
outside of it. In some ways, it makes it so those  
[19:47] failing the most and those failing the least, wish 
they could have an experience more like the other.
[19:52] While difficulty discourse has long been at 
the forefront of gaming discussions, over  
[19:56] the past couple years it has started to feel a bit 
different. There seems to be a fatigue setting in,  
[20:02] and it's not just that a new group of people who 
have never liked more punishing desing are joining  
[20:07] the conversation; it's that a lot of people who 
used to be more onboard with this kind of design,  
[20:12] have started to sour on it. There are a lot 
of things that could explain this shift, from  
[20:17] the general mental exhaustion of being a human in 
our current digital and cultural age to gamers as  
[20:23] a whole getting older and older thus having less 
time and patience for punishing forms of failure;  
[20:27] as far as things directly related to the industry 
though, I think it is important to acknowledge the  
[20:32] Dark Souls of it all. Obviously, Dark Souls 
did not invent being hard, but it’s approach  
[20:37] to difficulty has been massively influential. 
Not only has FromSoft launched themselves from  
[20:43] being a niche studio to one of the most popular 
ones out there, but countless other developers,  
[20:49] indie, AAA, and everything in between, have 
taken cues from the Souls series. And it's  
[20:54] not even that there are too many soulslikes now, 
although I know plenty would argue that there are;  
[21:00] it's that more and more games in all types of 
genres have adopted aspects from the Souls series,  
[21:05] leading to the average game now being more 
punishing than the average game 15 years ago.  
[21:11] After an era of streamlined titles, the pendulum 
has swung back, certainly not anywhere close  
[21:17] to where it was in the 80s and early 90s, but 
games, as a whole have moved in that direction.  
[21:23] I don't think this is exactly a bad thing, and I 
am sure many of you have welcomed games becoming  
[21:28] a bit more punishing, but it feels like we're 
starting to hit the edges of what a broader  
[21:33] audience is interested in engaging with. As 
the average game has increased in difficulty  
[21:38] and harder ones have continuously tried to top 
themselves to present a new level of challenge,  
[21:44] failure feels heavier than it has in a long 
time. And when mixed with how most things  
[21:49] in life feel heavier now than they have in a 
long time, it is no real surprise that there  
[21:53] has started to be more pushback; that general 
audiences have grown tired of the heaviness they  
[21:58] experience within the hobby they turn to in order 
to escape all the other stuff for a little while.
[22:04] Failure makes games better. In some ways it is 
what makes them games at all, but submitting to  
[22:10] it is no easy feat as there is no guarantee that 
the reward will feel worth it. That your time will  
[22:16] be respected. And part of this is because what any 
given person views as their time being respected  
[22:22] will vary greatly depending on countless factors 
that developers can’t realistically control for. 
[22:27] Not to mention, at the end of the day games 
are not designed expressly with you, or,  
[22:31] more tragically, with me in mind; they 
instead are designed for the nebulous us,  
[22:37] more specifically for subsections of the nebulous 
us, and as that us gets bigger and bigger,  
[22:42] and those subsections become more varied, more 
and more people will fall outside of the target.
[22:48] All of this amplifies the frustration that 
comes with failure, and I don't blame anyone  
[22:53] for feeling this way. I do think there is value in 
submitting to failure. I also think sometimes we  
[22:59] are so averse to it that we don't even allow it to 
be an option, which is a shame. Due to our natural  
[23:05] inclination to avoid it, I think it can be hard 
to identify what amount of failure and what kind  
[23:10] of failure we will be okay dealing with. We write 
something off a bit too quickly. With that said,  
[23:19] it is quite easy to get pushed too far. This is a 
big part of what makes it so hard for developers  
[23:25] to balance. They are trying to find a line that 
is so circumstantial, a line that is frankly hard  
[23:31] to hit even in games that offer players plenty 
of ways to augment the difficulty, a line the  
[23:36] players are instinctively trying to push against, 
so it makes sense that it often feels off one  
[23:39] way or another. I expect to see games shift 
in the other direction as a response to the  
[23:44] current state of things. Truthfully, I wouldn't be 
surprised to see more and more games move toward  
[23:49] structures more reminiscent of roguelites, and I 
think this is kind of supported by the fact that  
[23:53] tons of major studios have experimented with them. 
Whatever happens, I do hope you continue to fail,  
[24:04] and I hope it is just the right amount of 
failure to leave you feeling accomplished.
[24:15] Now, one way I don't want you to be a failure is 
with giving gifts this holiday season. Whether  
[24:20] you've been struggling to find the perfect gift 
for someone in your life or just forgot, its time  
[24:26] to make a move and this video’s sponsor, Displate, 
has tons of incredible options for you. They  
[24:31] have a massive catalogue of high quality metallic 
posters, that are wildly easy to hang, and switch  
[24:36] out, and they are far more durable than any paper 
poster ever could be. To get them on the wall, you  
[24:42] put the protective leaf and magnet on your wall, 
and then are good to go. They have partnerships  
[24:47] with a lot of great properties ranging from The 
Witcher to Avatar: The Last Airbender and tons of  
[24:53] work from independent artists. Regardless 
of if its for a friend, a family member,  
[24:58] or even yourself because you deserve nice stuff 
to, there are so many great pieces to choose  
[25:04] from for fans of all sorts of things. Not to 
mention you can also create a custom displate,  
[25:09] which could be anything from a beautiful photo 
you took to this drawing of myself that I made  
[25:15] in 10 seconds. Either or. Displate offers fast 
delivery, and if you order using my link in the  
[25:20] description you can get 33% off for 1-2 displates, 
38% off if you order 3, and 40% off if you get 4  
[25:27] or more. All in all, Displates look great and are 
easy to manage, and now is the best time to grab  
[25:33] one for those you love as well as yourself. 
Thanks to Displate for sponsoring this video.
[25:43] For all of you still here, hello. I'd like 
to thank my patrons for making this channel  
[25:48] possible. I've been doing this for a while now. 
It's pretty cool. And anyone who's watching to  
[25:52] this point in the video, you're responsible for 
that. So, thank you. And if you're doing it out of  
[25:58] hate…respect. I hope you have a great day and/or 
night, and I'll see you in the next one. Bye.