I really can't enjoy Balatro at all, and this is a great explanation of why, to me anyway. It feels like such a thin thin layer on top of any simple solitaire gambling (slot machines, 90s video poker, etc). There is no opposition, and losing doesn't really seem like much of a setback since the game is so short before its arbitrary endpoint. Your choices are either clear (numerical superiority) or, given the information you have at the moment, undecidable -- so you may as well just do whatever feels fun, and then, as you describe, you're then subject to random reinforcement which makes you think you are on to something. I know no one really wants to talk about the line between toys and games anymore, but were one to exist, it sure would be close to it for me...
Your framing of Balatro as a "shopping game" is perfect—the actual poker playing is almost secondary to the synergy hunt. Every run is optimizing which Jokers combine multiplicatively vs additively, which is fundamentally a deck composition puzzle.
This is the core tension in all deck-building roguelikes: you're not playing cards, you're curating a probability engine. Slay the Spire works the same way—advanced players spend more mental energy in card reward screens than in combat, because deck composition determines win probability far more than tactical execution.
I've been documenting Slay the Spire 2's development (March 2026 early access), and Mega Crit is leaning harder into this: more card synergies, more build-around archetypes, more "shopping" decisions. The Necrobinder character has Soul cards that persist between combats, which makes the meta-game (what to add/remove from deck) even more critical than the micro-game (which card to play this turn).
The skill/luck balance you mention is why these games work: randomness determines what's available in the shop, skill determines whether you recognize the synergies worth building toward.
Mm, great analysis! Balatro makes for such a good study in game design and I love to see some focus on not just what makes it work so well, but the aspects that it succeeds, as you say, "despite". I hope LocalThunk and the modding community can take this kind of stuff on board for future development.
One of my biggest beefs with the game (which again - I love) is the extent to which you're really dependent on RNGesus, especially at higher stakes. For example, even optimally played runs can be ruined by the wrong boss showing up, and the game's efforts to mitigate that (with Director's Cut, Reroll Tags, and Luchador) are no use if they never appear.
It still works but once you're "pretty good" the rest largely comes down to luck; there's nothing to reward the level of strategic sophistication we see from top players competing for high scores.
I think the best way to address that and other minor flaws would be through a "pick a path" game mode which offers different challenges and rewards along the way.
Balatro is definitely fun because of strategizing around the variance and the joy/relief that comes from using my last discard and actually drawing the one card I needed to put me over the top -- like you've described here.
But I think it's also a great game because it belongs to the meta-genre of games that take a simple concept (poker hands and playing cards) and then meticulously (and whimsically) expand on the concept until it has explored every facet of the space it resides in. VVVVVV, Baba is You, Portal (2) and also Universal Paperclips are other good examples of this kind of game. It just pleases me a lot when a game is able to develop so much design out of a simple premise.
The sun rises and the sun sets: reassuring, the order of the world, a measure of certainty
Frank likes Balatro: same feeling
I really can't enjoy Balatro at all, and this is a great explanation of why, to me anyway. It feels like such a thin thin layer on top of any simple solitaire gambling (slot machines, 90s video poker, etc). There is no opposition, and losing doesn't really seem like much of a setback since the game is so short before its arbitrary endpoint. Your choices are either clear (numerical superiority) or, given the information you have at the moment, undecidable -- so you may as well just do whatever feels fun, and then, as you describe, you're then subject to random reinforcement which makes you think you are on to something. I know no one really wants to talk about the line between toys and games anymore, but were one to exist, it sure would be close to it for me...
But it's a blockbuster hit! So what do I know.
Your framing of Balatro as a "shopping game" is perfect—the actual poker playing is almost secondary to the synergy hunt. Every run is optimizing which Jokers combine multiplicatively vs additively, which is fundamentally a deck composition puzzle.
This is the core tension in all deck-building roguelikes: you're not playing cards, you're curating a probability engine. Slay the Spire works the same way—advanced players spend more mental energy in card reward screens than in combat, because deck composition determines win probability far more than tactical execution.
I've been documenting Slay the Spire 2's development (March 2026 early access), and Mega Crit is leaning harder into this: more card synergies, more build-around archetypes, more "shopping" decisions. The Necrobinder character has Soul cards that persist between combats, which makes the meta-game (what to add/remove from deck) even more critical than the micro-game (which card to play this turn).
The skill/luck balance you mention is why these games work: randomness determines what's available in the shop, skill determines whether you recognize the synergies worth building toward.
Deeper dive on STS2's synergy design here: https://thoughts.jock.pl/p/slay-the-spire-2-everything-we-know-card-database-2026
Mm, great analysis! Balatro makes for such a good study in game design and I love to see some focus on not just what makes it work so well, but the aspects that it succeeds, as you say, "despite". I hope LocalThunk and the modding community can take this kind of stuff on board for future development.
One of my biggest beefs with the game (which again - I love) is the extent to which you're really dependent on RNGesus, especially at higher stakes. For example, even optimally played runs can be ruined by the wrong boss showing up, and the game's efforts to mitigate that (with Director's Cut, Reroll Tags, and Luchador) are no use if they never appear.
It still works but once you're "pretty good" the rest largely comes down to luck; there's nothing to reward the level of strategic sophistication we see from top players competing for high scores.
I think the best way to address that and other minor flaws would be through a "pick a path" game mode which offers different challenges and rewards along the way.
First time reader. Really interesting stuff!
Balatro is definitely fun because of strategizing around the variance and the joy/relief that comes from using my last discard and actually drawing the one card I needed to put me over the top -- like you've described here.
But I think it's also a great game because it belongs to the meta-genre of games that take a simple concept (poker hands and playing cards) and then meticulously (and whimsically) expand on the concept until it has explored every facet of the space it resides in. VVVVVV, Baba is You, Portal (2) and also Universal Paperclips are other good examples of this kind of game. It just pleases me a lot when a game is able to develop so much design out of a simple premise.
"we are not our reward function" damn this was so good big ups to Miles for getting me on this