Why Difficult Games Make Us Want One More Try

You miss the same jump again, but this time you land closer to the edge. You have a specific change in mind for the next attempt: release the jump button sooner, or wait for the hazard to pass. That is the kind of moment this article explores. What makes a retry feel worth taking?

What does the research show?

Why can getting better feel rewarding?

In four studies, Ryan, Rigby, and Przybylski examined game motivation through self-determination theory. Players' perceptions of competence and autonomy were associated with enjoyment; the research also linked these experiences with motivation to play again. Intuitive controls were related to perceived competence and autonomy. [1]

Our interpretation for platformers is that a challenge becomes appealing when you can recognise your own improvement. Think of a room that once felt unreadable becoming a sequence you understand: jump, wait, then cross. A difficult section can give that improvement a clear shape. The study does not establish that making the section harder will make it more satisfying for every player.

Are gamers more persistent?

Ventura, Shute, and Zhao studied 102 undergraduates using anagrams and riddles. Greater reported game use was associated with spending longer on problems that remained unsolved. The researchers explicitly cautioned that their correlational design could not determine whether gaming increased persistence or already-persistent people played more games. [2]

That distinction matters when talking about repeated deaths in a platformer. The finding gives us a reason to investigate who enjoys persevering. It does not show that completing a hard game will make someone more resilient at work or school. For a player choosing their next game, the immediate question is whether trying, adjusting, and trying again is an experience they enjoy.

When does challenge become frustrating?

Przybylski and colleagues tested the other side of competence in seven studies. Play conditions that undermined players' sense of competence led to higher measured aggressive feelings, thoughts, or behaviours. This gives us a reason to examine the experience a challenge creates, rather than assuming that repeated failure is always rewarding. [3]

Our design interpretation is that failure needs to leave room for a useful next decision. A missed jump you can explain gives you something to change. An input you cannot understand may leave you with no clear next step. That is a way to evaluate a game you are playing, rather than an experimentally established rule for every platformer.

What about coordination and attention?

Two training papers help explain why researchers are interested in demanding games. Li, Chen, and Chen reported improved visuomotor control after participants trained with driving or shooter games for 5 or 10 hours. Strobach, Frensch, and Schubert reported improved performance in dual-task and task-switching situations after 15 hours of action-game practice compared with puzzle-game practice. [4] [5]

Timing a landing while watching moving hazards appears to share some demands with those tasks. That is a proposed connection: neither paper tested hard 2D platformers. Improving at a game's controls and demonstrating a lasting improvement on a different task are separate claims. These findings alone cannot establish the latter for iZBOT.

How do you choose a challenge worth retrying?

Here is our practical reading of the research. When looking at gameplay or trying a game, ask:

• Can I understand the mistake? Look for hazards and movement you can read, and a clear idea of what to change.
• Do I want to repeat this section? Consider how much replay each failed attempt involves.
• Can I see progress before winning? Reaching a new ledge or executing a sequence more consistently may matter to you.
• Does this challenge suit me today? Choose a pace and level of repetition you want to spend time with.

For examples, explore our precision platformer guide. If you are comparing achievement percentages, our Steam completion milestone page explains why those numbers cannot tell you how difficult or enjoyable a game will feel.

Sources and scope

This is a focused synthesis of five papers published between 2006 and 2016, checked on October 22, 2026. It is not a systematic review. We checked the original persistence paper and the publisher or PubMed abstracts for the other findings. Applications to precision platformers are our interpretations. The studies do not provide a prescribed amount of gaming or a universal benefit from difficulty.

1. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 344–360. DOI: 10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8.
2. Ventura, M., Shute, V., & Zhao, W. (2013). The relationship between video game use and a performance-based measure of persistence (PDF). Computers & Education, 60, 52–58. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.003.
3. Przybylski, A. K., Deci, E. L., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Competence-impeding electronic games and players' aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 441–457. DOI: 10.1037/a0034820.
4. Li, L., Chen, R., & Chen, J. (2016). Playing Action Video Games Improves Visuomotor Control. Psychological Science, 27, 1092–1108. DOI: 10.1177/0956797616650300.
5. Strobach, T., Frensch, P. A., & Schubert, T. (2012). Video game practice optimizes executive control skills in dual-task and task switching situations. Acta Psychologica, 140, 13–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.02.001.