When the Loot Lies: Dark Design Patterns in ARPGs
Image generated using Midjourney (2025).
TLDR: Diablo IV and similar ARPGs embed dark design patterns that manipulate rather than empower players. Loot behaves like a slot machine, boss fights are artificially extended, visuals obscure essential information, and seasonal resets exploit FOMO. These systems shift gameplay from meaningful progression to compulsive engagement. This reflects a wider culture of attention extraction, where interfaces prioritise metrics over agency. A shift toward human-centred design is essential—one that values clarity, intention, and dignity over manipulation and dependency.By Lance Bunt *Thoughts refined and sharpened with the help of ChatGPT
We descend into dungeons not just to escape, but to earn. Our builds are the mirrors we polish through play — delicate calibrations of skill, gear, and time. In Action Role-Playing Games (ARPGs), power is not handed to us. It is forged, affixed, and fine-tuned across the scorched earth of challenge.
…But what if the game is not your forge, but your puppeteer?
Diablo IV, like many of its contemporaries, doesn’t just simulate reward — it simulates need. The longer I play, the more I realise: I am not grinding toward something. I am grinding within something — a carefully engineered ecosystem of manipulation.
Not all design is benevolent. Some of it is predatory. And some of it hides its teeth behind the glitter of gold and the illusion of growth.
I. The Loot Mirage: Variable Reward and the Erosion of Meaning
The fundamental fantasy of an ARPG is transformation: I kill, I collect, I evolve.
But in Diablo IV, loot is no longer a signal of progression — it’s a static background hum. Every encounter spills a confetti of legendaries and uniques, and every pile feels identical. This is not generosity. It is variable ratio reinforcement — a dark pattern lifted straight from the psychology of slot machines.
The premise is simple and sinister: unpredictability amplifies compulsion. You might get something valuable, so you keep clicking. But when every drop is framed in gold, the shine loses meaning. We are not evaluating items anymore — we are parsing a torrent of noise for signal. Activision Blizzard attempts to solve this glut with systems like the Greater Affix (GA) mechanic — where an item may have "elevated" stats if rolled just right. But this only deepens the manipulation. GA items are not more frequent; they are simply more enticing. A carrot dangled further out, on a longer stick.
This is obscured optimisation: a system so layered with RNG and dependencies (item type, affix roll, tempering, aspect matching, rerolling costs) that the player never feels confident. Instead, they defer mastery in favour of endless iteration. You never “arrive.” You just hover in the possibility of arrival — which is exactly where the system wants you.
II. Boss Fights as Bureaucracy: Temporal Manipulation Masquerading as Challenge
Bosses should be the apex of ARPG play. But in Season 4 of Diablo IV, they are not encounters — they are procedures. Extended, padded, and deliberately diluted.
Let’s name the pattern: temporal taxation. The goal is not to challenge your build. It is to consume your time. Invulnerability phases are a prime offender here — scripted sequences that remove the boss from the battlefield, rendering your damage, your timing, your preparation irrelevant.
This design is neither challenging nor respectful. It introduces false difficulty: content that appears harder because it takes longer, not because it tests anything new. And in doing so, it breaks the fundamental ARPG covenant — that effort leads to efficiency.
If you are strong enough to one-shot a boss, the game shouldn’t punish you with three mandatory intermissions. That’s not balance. That’s sabotage. This is flow disruption, and it’s often used to regulate engagement metrics. The longer a boss takes, the more “playtime” the game reports — even if half that time is spent waiting.
III. Obfuscation Over Clarity: The Veil of Visual Overload
Diablo IV is a gorgeous game. But somewhere in the pursuit of spectacle, it forgot to be legible. Combat zones are drenched in visual noise — AOEs that shimmer with the same hues as the environment, particle effects that eclipse telegraphs, skill animations that obscure enemy behaviour. This isn’t artistic flourish. It’s cognitive overload.
When I die, I should know why. When I fail, I should learn. But too often, failure feels arbitrary — a stray orb, an unseen puddle, a blink-and-you’re-dead mechanic that punishes latency more than strategy. This is a hallmark of the information withholding pattern: when essential game knowledge is not accessible through play, but through third-party research or death loops. You don't learn the fight — you memorise the pain.
In such a system, reflection is displaced by reaction. Mastery gives way to mimicry. The player no longer improves — they just endure.
IV. The Grind Loop as Psychological Trap
Progress in Diablo IV is framed around repetition: re-farming bosses, reforging gear, resetting paragon boards, and climbing seasonal ladders. But beneath this lies a darker rhythm — one rooted in behavioural conditioning.
You play more not because the game opens up, but because it never resolves. This is the infinite treadmill, a system of delayed gratification without culmination.
Seasonal models reinforce this. Every few months, your progress resets. Your hard-won build becomes historical, your investment provisional. This is cloaked in the language of “freshness” — but it is, in effect, institutionalised impermanence.
And here’s where it cuts deepest: ARPGs, at their best, are power fantasies. They allow you to become godlike, to earn the fantasy. But in Diablo IV, power is borrowed — and constantly revoked. Scheduled obsolescence, borrowed from the worst of consumerist capitalism, infects the design. You are always about to become powerful, but never quite there. Each system offers partial agency, incomplete empowerment, and always — always — another season.
V. FOMO and the Disempowerment of Time
And then there’s the real enemy: fear of missing out. It’s not just a social phenomenon anymore — it’s a design tool.
Timed events, limited cosmetics, seasonal currencies — these are not content. They are deadlines. They transform the player into a worker, a collector, a respondent to incentives they did not ask for but feel compelled to obey.
When the game tells you that what you do now will disappear forever, it hijacks your agency. You are no longer playing for joy. You are playing out of anxiety — that your time might be wasted if you don’t optimise it within the system’s calendar. This is not a side effect. It is the intended loop.
VI. The False Binary: Casual vs. Hardcore as Smokescreen
Often, pushback against these critiques is dismissed with the casual-vs-hardcore dichotomy. "This isn't for you," they say. "The changes cater to a different player."
But that’s a deflection. In truth, neither group is well-served.
Casual players are alienated by rising complexity, poor onboarding, and unrewarding loot. Hardcore players are punished by artificial slowdowns, lack of meaningful chase content, and systems that conflate randomness with depth.
This false binary hides the real division: between player-centred design and metric-centred design.
The former asks: What makes this game worth playing?
The latter asks: What keeps this game from being closed?
We must reject the frame that “hardcore” means masochistic and that “casual” means undeserving. We all play to feel. To overcome. To explore a system that respects our time and attention.
VII. …Everyday I’m Pattern-ing
These dark design patterns are not confined to games. They echo in our daily scrolls and swipes — on social media, in streaming platforms, in every interface designed not to end, but to continue. Netflix queues episodes before we ask; TikTok loops us into infinite feeds; Spotify generates auto-playlists calibrated to keep us from silence. This is not entertainment as offering — it is attention extraction, engineered through the same principles: variable rewards, artificial scarcity, and frictionless loops. Like Diablo’s loot grind, these systems don’t want us satisfied — they want us suspended. And in both worlds, the cost isn’t just time. It’s the erosion of intentionality.
VIII. Reclaiming the Interface
Dark design patterns do not make a system evil. They make it extractive. They reduce interaction to optimisation, emotion to metrics, and human agency to behavioural residue. They do not merely fail to serve us — they train us to serve them.
But we are not passive users. We are collaborators in the systems we inhabit.
We can ask more.
For interfaces that empower discernment, not automate desire.
For feedback that teaches, rather than manipulates.
For friction that fosters reflection, not fatigue.
For systems that reward intention, not mere endurance.
Design is never neutral. Every menu, mechanic, and algorithm is a negotiation between user and system. And in that negotiation, we can choose dignity over dependency. Clarity over compulsion. Meaning over metrics.
Human-centred design must mean more than convenience. It must mean respect. Because in the end, the tools we use shape the selves we become.
Dark Design Patterns Referenced
Variable Ratio Reinforcement
Leveraging unpredictable reward schedules to increase compulsion (e.g., loot drops).
Obscured Optimisation / Obfuscation
Hiding optimal strategies or meaningful choices behind layered randomness or unclear systems.
Flow Disruption / Temporal Taxation
Artificially prolonging tasks (e.g., boss invulnerability phases) to stretch engagement metrics.
Information Withholding / Cognitive Overload
Designing systems where key information is hard to perceive, leading to confusion rather than mastery.
Endless Treadmill / Delayed Gratification Without Culmination
Structuring progression to feel perpetual, never truly allowing a sense of completion or rest.
Scheduled Obsolescence
Resetting progress (e.g., seasonal wipes) to ensure repeated engagement without long-term ownership.
Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)
Introducing time-limited content or exclusive events to pressure constant engagement.
False Binarism
Framing player feedback within reductive categories (e.g., casual vs. hardcore) to deflect critique.
Attention Extraction
Designing interfaces to maximise screen time and reduce intentionality.
References
Brignull, H., 2010. Dark Patterns: User Interfaces Designed to Trick People. [online] Available at: https://www.darkpatterns.org [Accessed 5 May 2025].
Fogg, B.J., 2003. Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. 1st ed. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Gray, C.M., Kou, Y., Battles, B., Hoggatt, J. and Toombs, A.L., 2018. The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). New York: ACM. pp.1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174108
Lukoff, K., Yu, B. and Kientz, J.A., 2018. What Makes a Good Life? Designing Technologies for Intentional Living. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173866
Narayanan, A., Mathur, A., Chetty, M. and Kshirsagar, M., 2020. Dark Patterns: Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the ACM, 63(9), pp.42–47. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397884
Nielsen, J., 1995. 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Nielsen Norman Group. [online] Available at: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/ [Accessed 5 May 2025].
Orji, R., Mandryk, R.L., Vassileva, J. and Gerling, K., 2014. Tailoring Persuasive Health Games to Gamers’ Personalities. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, pp.2467–2476. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2556967
Zagal, J.P., Björk, S. and Lewis, C., 2013. Dark Patterns in the Design of Games. In: FDG '13: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. Chania, Crete, Greece, 14–17 May. pp.1–8.
