Funny that the last example was Clair Obscur having no map.
A number of reviews/commenters I saw listed that as one of the few criticism of the games, while the guy in this video cites it as a positive.
"Friction" is a weird term- are we talking about challenge or are we talking about jank or poor design? The example given are all over the place.
The original video is a guy talking specifically about extraction shooters, a genre I have zero interest. So I'll take his word for it that people like that there's a billion menu things and you don't know what anything does. That sounds insane to me but that is also his point- the genre is not for me.
I'll admit I don't want "friction." Having to learn all the dodge timings from multiple attacks- some of which have multiple sub-attacks!- from every enemy in Clair Obscur, which already is turn-based combat and therefore so time consuming- is my nightmare. I have to try each fight over and over to "practice" dodge and then maybe parry while futzing with a menu interface. Kill me IRL lol. But people are loving this shit so *shrug*
FromSoftware "friction" is generally amusing because at least I can hit something or run around. The reason I love Sekiro is that it had nothing I would call "friction" in the sense I think we're using it. Challenge- yes, obviously, but without a stamina bar, without a ton of menus, with fluid movement and logical/generous checkpoints, I could always run at or away from stuff and try again and again.
Dragon's Dogma and its sequel were like Friction the Game. And they have their fans. I am not one of them.
I think this is why I like neat little games now. "pure" game. Same reason I like music with acoustic instruments more these days, and novels <400 pages, and movies without prequels and sequels. So much noise around the heart of the experience I don't have patience for.