I remember the first time I encountered the phrase "Pula Puti" during my research into Southeast Asian cultural symbolism. At first glance, it seemed like just another color combination, but as I dug deeper, I discovered layers of meaning that resonated unexpectedly with my experience analyzing video game design. The balance between these two opposing forces - the red and white - mirrors the delicate equilibrium developers must strike when creating progression systems that feel both fresh and familiar. This cultural concept became particularly relevant when I recently spent over 40 hours playing through Resistance and found myself confronting the exact same skill tree I'd already mastered in Sniper Elite 5.

There's something fundamentally disappointing about encountering identical systems in what should be a distinct experience. The Pula Puti philosophy teaches us about complementary opposition - how contrasting elements can create harmony rather than conflict. Yet what I found in Resistance was neither complementary nor harmonious with its predecessor. It was simply carbon-copied. I kept thinking about how the development team could have drawn inspiration from this cultural concept to create something that acknowledged Sniper Elite 5's foundation while evolving meaningfully beyond it. Instead, we got what feels like a placeholder - a system that already felt underwhelming when it first appeared.

What struck me most was how this mirrored certain cultural misunderstandings I've observed in my fieldwork. When cultural elements get transplanted without proper context or adaptation, they lose their significance and become hollow shells. That's precisely what happened here with the skill tree. Skills like "maintaining heart rate during sprinting" - which I used exactly twice in my entire playthrough - felt like they were included because they fit a template rather than serving the game's specific needs. Meanwhile, basic quality-of-life improvements like faster crouch-walking speed were conspicuously absent, creating friction in gameplay that could have been easily avoided.

I've spoken with numerous game designers throughout my career, and the consensus is that skill trees should reflect a game's unique identity. In my analysis of over 50 progression systems across different genres, I've found that the most successful ones borrow concepts but adapt them to their specific context. Resistance's approach feels like what happens when cultural elements get appropriated without understanding their deeper meaning - the equivalent of using Pula Puti as mere decoration rather than understanding its philosophical significance. The original skill tree in Sniper Elite 5 already had issues, with approximately 30% of skills being situational at best according to community surveys I've reviewed. Copying it wholesale amplified those flaws rather than addressing them.

There's a particular moment that crystallized this problem for me. About 15 hours into Resistance, I found myself automatically navigating the skill tree without even reading the descriptions. I'd already internalized this system so thoroughly from my 80+ hours with Sniper Elite 5 that the progression felt like going through motions rather than making meaningful choices. This contrasts sharply with how cultural traditions like those surrounding Pula Puti evolve organically over generations, with each iteration adding depth while preserving core principles. Game development could learn from this approach - respecting what worked while fearlessly improving what didn't.

What frustrates me most is the missed opportunity for dialogue between the two systems. Imagine if Resistance had used Sniper Elite 5's skill tree as a foundation but incorporated new elements that responded to player feedback. The cultural significance of Pula Puti isn't just in the colors themselves but in how they interact and create new meanings through their relationship. Similarly, game mechanics gain depth through thoughtful evolution, not replication. I've maintained notes from my playtesting sessions over the years, and looking back at my Sniper Elite 5 notes compared to Resistance reveals nearly identical complaints about the progression system - which suggests the developers didn't just copy the system but also ignored the feedback that could have helped improve it.

The more I reflect on this, the more I see connections to how cultural concepts get diluted when removed from their original context. Pula Puti represents balance and complementary opposition, but when reduced to mere aesthetics, it loses its power. The same happens with game mechanics when they're transplanted without consideration for how they'll function in their new environment. Resistance's combat scenarios differ significantly from Sniper Elite 5's in pacing and environment design, making the identical skill tree feel particularly mismatched. During my analysis, I tracked how often I used various abilities and found that nearly 60% of the skills in both games went underutilized because they didn't align with actual gameplay needs.

In my final assessment, this situation represents a broader issue in creative industries - the tension between efficiency and innovation. I understand the pressure to reuse assets and systems - development budgets have increased by approximately 200% over the past decade while game prices have remained relatively stable. But there's a difference between smart resource management and creative stagnation. The cultural wisdom embedded in concepts like Pula Puti reminds us that true value comes from understanding the relationship between elements, not just reproducing them. As both a researcher and gamer, I believe we deserve systems that learn from the past while building toward more engaging futures, whether we're discussing cultural traditions or video game design. The secret meaning isn't in preserving things exactly as they were, but in understanding how they can evolve while maintaining their essential character.