"Cozy" VS "Prosy"
By Raeda Baird, October 2, 2026
I like The Fields of Mistria. I really do. I don’t think I could have a proper opinion on it without my… let me check Steam… 50 hours of game time on it. But after the first year has passed, there’s something deep inside that is tired of asking the same question:
​
Where is reality?
​
It can be nice to enjoy cider-sweet stories from each character about their lives, the town, and what they want to do next. Everyone’s future is bright, and they are exactly where they want to be. But with a world so perfect, what happens to reality, that thing built on cracks and imperfections? The world feels inaccessible, not just as a space beyond time and a third dimension, but beyond connection. You can't live there, because the world you know could never exist in their world. Yes, it’s nice to hear about their dreams and festivals and how each new project is coming along, but it can also be… exhausting. At some point after the 20th “Things are going to be alright” and the 30th “We’re so glad you’re here,” the world feels both alien and prosaic simultaneously. But why?
​
“Cozy,” as a concept is not new, but our understanding of it is evolving as more games try to nail down the feeling. In my tenure as a game designer, I have best heard it described as the following:
​​
-
Safe – This is about making the player feel like the stakes
aren’t too high, and they aren’t stressed about what’s
going on. There is no looming threat or stressor, but
rather aspace to explore voluntarily. This often culminates
in alack of consequence, or the ability to retry something
any number of times. -
Soft – Softness is making the player feel comfortable
playing the game, not worrying about doing things “right”
or “wrong,” but simply feeling like they can play. This
means the game is low stress, often with a slower tempo
and a lack of “fail states.” -
Abundant – This means that all primary needs are met,
allowing players to focus on their secondary needs. This usually means there are lots of resources, so a player does not feel like they need to hoard them or spend them perfectly.
Let's look at how Fields of Mistria stack up against these points.
Safety
It is, of course, safe, as each season will come and go indefinitely without any impending timeline. There are seasonal crops, fish, and bugs, but they can always be gotten next year.
Did poorly in an event? Try next year. Died in the mines? It’s ok, you’ll lose some time and stamina but keep everything you found.
There are almost no stakes, which can quickly drain a player’s understood “meaning” in the game. It is safe, which meets the demands of being cozy, but the cost is that it no longer feels worth trying for almost anything.
Softness
It’s hard not to compare a game like this to Stardew Valley, the seed from which most farming simulations bloomed. Here, we can say Fields of Mistria is much softer than Stardew Valley, in that it has far fewer consequences. Where Stardew Valley gives players only two gift-giving spots a week, where they can mess up a friendship, Fields of Mistria allows one gift a day, with disliked gifts not impacting friendship level whatsoever.
This is just the beginning, but a good
example of when “soft” becomes too
soft. In some further examples, players
are given dialogue choices, none of
which impact a character’s relationship
with the player. Characters can be
ignored for seasons, but their friendship
level won’t go down. You can date as
many people as they want to, or reject
them with little consequence. Whatever
you do, it won't hurt others or your levels
with them. A player could give a character
a disliked gift every day, and the character will still say “thank you.”
To further the safety, health and defense are scaled far too high. When I’m playing, I don’t care if I take damage, because it is practically negligible. At that point, the mines become a bunch of rocks you need to break, only worrying about the pesky monsters when you need something from them, or the I-frames you get when they hit you are just too annoying to deal with. There is no challenge, no risk of pushing beyond your limits. It’s just another space you cannot fail.
At some point, “softness” gives way to “meaninglessness,” which takes agency away from a player and leaves them stranded, unsure why they are continuing.
Abundance
From Fields of Mistria
A letter from Caldarus after the player gets engaged to someone else.
This feature is evident in most farming sims, where a character does not need to eat nor drink and is handed an entire means of living right at the beginning of the game. Rather than inheriting this land by a relative’s death or a hungering community, this land is given to you under the desire for “more crops,” despite a farm already operating in the community.
This is deliberate, allowing a player to ignore the farming portion of the game without guilt. While some requests ask for crops, just as many are searching for trinkets from the mines or fish from the rivers, letting a player explore.
This is not a negative, but it does, once again, allow much leniency in the space of "Abundance." Players have too much health. They may run out of stamina, but can quickly recharge it with low-cost meals or ever-recharging magic. Many crops regrow every few days, allowing a player’s money to stack up quickly. Soon, players find there is very little they are lacking.
So, what gives? The Fields of Mistria perfectly reflects the three tenants of coze listed before. The gameplay is safe, keeping punishments soft and allowing abundance to flow. So why is it... boring? What is it missing?
Death
Oh, did I forget to mention “death” as one of my main points of coziness? That’s because it wasn’t part of what I had intially heard defined as "coziness". But don’t worry, by the time I finished discussing the concept with others (who were also advocating for it), “death is cozy” was a phrase every designer was on board with.
“Death” is something that we as humans are far too familiar with. We become acquainted with its existence when we are young, and spend much of our lives avoiding it or trying to keep it away. But it is one of the few things that are universal. Despite its finality, the ending gives our lives meaning.
If we were born immortal, there would be no pressure to do things. Why try something new when you could always later? Why do anything at all? Time is no measurement, and the world will pass by regardless of what you do. It is death that gives us meaning. Death that makes things matter. And so, it is only death that gives us something to strive for, making that “safety,” “softness,” and “abundance,” mean something.
I am not saying Fields of Mistria is missing something because your character never dies, even if it is a small gripe I have. Instead, I have to note that death could simply not exist in Mistria, and it would change very little. Each character would continue on, blissfully pursuing their purposes without care for hunger or time or reality.
While the concept of “death” pokes its head up in the deep wood in the form of tombstones, it is not something any of our characters concern themselves with. None of them are trying to make an impact or worried about their youth or years left. None of them have been harmed by someone living for themselves, all too aware of the falling grains of sand that define their lifeline. None of them are grasping, desperate, worried about tomorrow. Everything is fine.
And that’s the problem.
The uniting, inevitable state of death gives us all something to fear, while telegraphing an endpoint for us. There is no passionate,excited drive that defines humanity. There is no assurance in finality. There is no endpoint here, not even Stardew Valley’s "Perfection:” achievement to signify a job well done.
Things will just keep going, forever perfect, forever smiling. And it’s all just a bit dull.
When everything is safe, soft, and abundant, nothing feels real. And that’s a real shame.