- Primary Subject: Hell Let Loose: Vietnam (design philosophy on “friction”)
- Key Update: Game director Paul “Rushy” Rustchynksy argues that modern games are losing meaningful friction, where struggle and slower systems enhance mastery and player satisfaction, though the game itself has launched with technical issues that are not part of that intended design.
- Status: Opinion
- Last Verified: August 17, 2026
- Quick Answer: I agree that meaningful friction can improve games by making success more rewarding, but it only works when it comes from design, not technical problems or instability.
Hell Let Loose: Vietnam game director Paul “Rushy” Rustchynksy recently argued that modern games risk losing something important when developers remove too much friction from the experience.
His point was not that every game needs to be brutally difficult, but that struggle can make success more satisfying and give players more room to actually master what they are playing.
I think he is right, even if Hell Let Loose: Vietnam itself is currently in an awkward position to make that argument. The game has had a rough launch, with players running into crashes, audio issues and plenty of visual bugs.
Those complaints are completely fair, and I would never count broken performance as the kind of “friction” worth defending. I am happy to wrestle with a game's systems, but I shouldn't have to wrestle with the game just to enjoy them.
When its systems are working as intended, Hell Let Loose: Vietnam is deliberately demanding. Rustchynksy wants players to slow down, talk to their squad and accept that blindly chasing gunfire probably will not end well.
That sounds frustrating on paper, especially when so many shooters have trained us to expect constant movement and immediate action, but I think that discomfort is precisely what gives a game like this its identity.
Have Games Become Too Afraid To Let Us Struggle?
I do not want to romanticize bad old-fashioned game design. Plenty of older games were awkward because developers had not figured out better solutions yet, not because every irritating mechanic secretly served some grand artistic purpose.
I am perfectly happy to leave terrible checkpoints, incomprehensible menus and pointless grinding in the past. But I miss when games were a little more willing to let you get things wrong.
We now have objective markers showing exactly where to go, highlighted climbing surfaces, companions telling us how to solve puzzles almost immediately and maps covered in icons explaining what we will find before we even arrive.
None of those things are inherently bad (and accessibility options are an entirely separate issue), but when every obstacle is softened, labelled or explained in advance, I start to feel like the game is almost allergic to the possibility that I might wander off, get confused or miss something.
Hell Let Loose: Vietnam pushes in the opposite direction. You can move through a large area without firing a shot, hear something in the distance and suddenly realize that crossing the next patch of open ground might be a terrible idea.
I would probably curse the sniper I never saw, but I would much rather deal with that than play a shooter where every encounter feels conveniently arranged for me. But the downtime earns its place by making every burst of action feel sharper.
Remove the danger from moving, make death easy to shrug off and teammates optional, and much of the tension goes with it. I like the feeling of initially being terrible at a game, slowly understanding what it wants from me and eventually noticing that situations which once felt impossible have become manageable.
Games such as Elden Ring and Monster Hunter understand this extremely well. They can feel relentless at first, but the satisfaction comes from noticing that the same obstacles are still there and I am simply handling them better. The enemy is still perfectly capable of flattening me; I am si mply harder to catch making stupid mistakes.
Hell Let Loose: Vietnam applies some of that thinking to multiplayer. Its 50v50 battles depend heavily on communication and positioning, while the opposing factions have different tactical strengths, including NVA tunnel mechanics and US helicopter mobility.
I like that because it means success cannot always be reduced to having the fastest reflexes. Someone who understands where the battle is moving can be more valuable than someone who simply has better aim.
I am not arguing that every game should suddenly become punishing. Sometimes I want something easy, fast and comfortably predictable. Not every RPG needs Elden Ring bosses, and not every shooter needs to punish me for crossing a road without checking the treeline first.
I want more developers to trust that a little irritation can be worthwhile when there is something satisfying on the other side. I like games that let me get properly lost, make a daft call, or get completely schooled by someone better, because clawing my way past that is half the satisfaction.
So yes, Hell Let Loose: Vietnam needs its technical problems fixed. Crashes and technical hiccups are just aggravation without the payoff, but I hope the rougher edges that actually belong to its design remain intact.
There is something satisfying about a game making me fumble around before I finally learn how to handle it.
For more like this, stick with us here at Gfinityesports.com, the best website for gaming news, reviews, features, and guides.