Depth is what makes a result feel earned rather than arbitrary

The argument

A second argument for this explanation concerns why players accept losing. Proponents observe that a competitive game has to be played far more often than it is won, so the common experience of it is defeat, and that a game survives only if defeat is tolerable. What makes it tolerable, on this account, is the sense that the result was determined by something the player could in principle have done better: a position chosen badly, an engagement taken at the wrong range, a piece of information not gathered. A loss that can be explained is a loss that invites another attempt. The argument holds that this requires depth. A game with few variables produces results that feel like coin flips, because there is nothing for the losing player to point to, and proponents argue that such games are abandoned quickly even when they are enjoyable at first. A game with many interacting elements always offers an account of what went wrong, whether or not the account is accurate, and that is enough to keep the player in the loop. Proponents are explicit that this is a claim about felt experience rather than about design philosophy. The player does not need to be right about why they lost, and does not need to understand the systems in any technical way; the systems only need to be rich enough that a plausible explanation is always available. On this reading complexity works as a kind of narrative resource, and the franchise's popularity follows from having enough of it that defeat reads as a problem to be solved rather than as bad luck.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Opponents argue that the mechanism described is satisfied by very simple games, where players also explain their defeats readily and often wrongly, so depth is not required for the effect. They also contest the premise about tolerating defeat, pointing out that enormous audiences persist for games decided largely by chance, which suggests the appeal of another attempt does not depend on an account of the last one. A further reply is that the argument explains why a competitive game retains players in general without explaining why this franchise rather than its many competitors did so.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Opponents hold that many players do not treat the activity competitively at all, so framing defeat as the common experience does not describe them. [Rejecting P2] Audiences persist for games decided largely by chance, so tolerance of defeat does not depend on an account of its causes. [Rejecting P3] Players explain their defeats readily in very simple games too, so many interacting elements are not required to supply the explanation. [Rejecting C] The argument explains the retention of competitive games in general without explaining why this franchise rather than its competitors.