hencook

Sorry for coming off as rude, but it was not intended. By game design forum, I was referring to the fact that the choices that influence difficulty are primarily the responsibility of the game designer, and not the gamer. If I was discussing it in a game design forum, then we could concentrate on how the designer designs difficulty instead.

On your second point, it is true that I am claiming to know better. To be specific, I'm claiming to know better about difficulty than people that don't know how to accurately choose their difficulty. If that comes across as arrogant, so be it, but it does not disprove my point.

but acting like you know better on what others enjoy is silly.

As silly as it sounds, that is exactly the point. Game designers do it all the time.

Some gamers aren't in it for the challenge and just like to experience games in a laid back manner, and if that's their preference who are you to tell them they would have more fun playing on hard than on easy?

Who am I to tell them how to have fun? I'm just a nobody with a theory that everybody would have more fun on an a difficulty that would challenge them without frustrating them.

I think I should be asking a game design forum instead... The few instances a player can control difficulty is either when he chooses it or if he advises what his friend should choose.

A game designer on the other hand has to do a lot of difficulty balancing. At first glance, the simplest way to do this is with a simple formula like...
On easy, players of all skill levels should be able to pass this level, with only a 5% failure rate on the first playthrough.
On hard, players of the top 20% skill level should be able to pass this level, with a failure rate of 50% on the first playthrough.

But then there are other things irrespective of the player's selected difficulty mode. How often would you place a save point? Should a player be able to save whenever they want, or should save points be twenty minutes away from each other? If a developer intentionally spaced save points 20 minutes away from each other, it's probably to add tension, and to give a sense of mortality to the player, at the risk of frustration. It's situations like this where some players don't know what's best for them, and where the game designer has the confidence to define the difficulty for the player. Other instances could be like if a designer intentionally strains a particular resource, like no ammo, or if the difficulty spikes due to a particularly challenging enemy.

And that sort of thing is just like me telling my friend what difficulty to choose. In this example, I believe I know what would be the optimal experience for my friend so that my friend would have the most fun time playing.

Should a player be able to save whenever he wants? How about spawning a health pack in front of them at any time?

Why don't RPGs start us off at Level 99? The player wants to be the most powerful level 99, yet the game sets the player to Level 1 so that he may have fun through progression.

My point is that some players that choose sub-normal difficulties are oblivious to the fact that they might be having more fun on a higher difficulty setting.

I'd like to put forth that players should always select a difficulty that challenges them to the point that losing in a game is uncertain. This is a belief that I've held for a while.

The way I see it, players that barely win a scenario are having more fun than players that completely dominate a scenario. Furthermore, I think this is almost "a one size fits all" sort of deal. Apart from some crazy gamers you may have come across in your favorite online game, I'd like to think that everybody would have more fun if they game over'd commonly, like at the rate of at least once an hour, depending on the game.

Of course, there are exceptions, like if you're just there to see the story... or if the player is just really bad at video games, and selecting easy is hard enough for them.

Personally, whenever someone plays a game with me and is trying to decide a difficulty, I'll nudge them towards the more difficult choice if I know they can handle it. Is this wrong for me to do?

Do some players simply enjoy relaxing games only? Are some players unable to cope with difficulty? Do some players not actually enjoy besting a tough adversary? What do you think?

Theme usually comes at the expense of fun.

Call of Duty is somewhat thematic, because you're shooting bad guys in a military op. Arma is more thematic. America's Army is very thematic, as you cannot even play the insurgents, and you must pass a training course to become a sniper or a medic. While Call of Duty makes me feel like I'm owning people by getting kill streaks, in America's Army, I'm treated like a soldier in training.

Imagine if you played COD, except when you get shot in the leg, you fall over and just sit there for 10 minutes waiting for someone to pick you up. You try to pick up your gun and defend yourself, or even crawl around a little, but your player character gives up and just sits there nursing his wound. The game would be very thematic, but not very fun. Instead COD has you respawning in random areas, five seconds away from your next target. COD is fun, but not thematic.

Theme usually comes at the expense of fun, but it doesn't have to. Dark Souls is an excellent example as described by sinusodial.

The Battlestar Galactica board game was like the show. In the show, Cylons are robots that are indistinguishable from Humans. In the board game, players are either humans or cylons, with the cylon players trying their best to blend in with their human adversaries. Accusations are thrown across the table. The themes of betrayal and cooperation are seen in the show and very well emulated in the game.

Most horror games emphasize narrative. Some games only allow narrative to influence only a limited degree, like Fallout. While at first the game feels desolate, as you go on, it's very easy to survive as the only adversaries are the ones that shoot you rather than the environment or the radiation that can be easily removed. Fallout certainly visually looked bleak, but the mechanics emphasized fun over theme. I remember playing a certain mod that bumped up the survival factor of the game, and it helped.

"Alternatively what would have to change in a certain game's narrative or gameplay to make the themes match?"

My first example marries theme and mechanics just right. It was unique too, okay maybe there are others like it, but it succeeded with innovation. The Jedi Knight series doesn't really feel like you're in the shoes of a peace loving Jedi, because it seems like you're running around killing countless stormtroopers and that you're a BAMF (to which I guess Mace Windu was anyways). But I'd rather be playing Kyle Katarn's version of Jedi Knight than play "Jedi Master" as Yoda.

Don't worry, we'll all get to experience companionship as soon as The Last Guardian comes out.

"I'll put it in simple terms: What are you trying to do?"

"Do you prefer a more stylistic elizabeth, or a more realistically proportioned one?"

Disclaimer: "I'm claiming that my version is more realistic."

I think there's more than enough responses that agree with my assessment that she's more realistic on the right. Sure, the legs could have used a tweak as well, but I didn't catch it since she's wearing such a long dress and the feet are cropped, making the leg size a little ambiguous on that part. The head along with the connected, visible torso is much more jarring to me, and for a, well, very slight majority of voters.

"I don't get the point of this because the premise is deeply flawed."

Even some people that prefer the stylistic version say that the realistic version is more realistic. You're free to disagree that one is more realistic than the other, or that even the concept of comparing digital pixels as realistic is far-fetched, but this is all my opinion.... and there is yours. I understand your opinion, why can't you understand mine? I don't see any flaws in either.

....This is an argument I don't wish to continue. On one hand, it leads to critical thinking... on the other hand, after awhile it gets kind of pointless. I got what I wanted, the votes between the two images, so thank you general discussion.

Ahhhh, that explains it. It must have something to do with the field of view translation. Maybe they could have tinkered with the field of view settings when you're talking to her... Wait, that happened all the time in Oblivion and Fallout, hahaha. Good stuff.

So you think I should have made the title: "What do you guys think of my fan art project?"

First off, I'm claiming that my version is more realistic. I'm claiming it to be fact, and that is my opinion. I acknowledge your point that the original art is aiming to be more stylistic. Were the titles "Actual" and "Realistic" hastily named? Yes, but I didn't want to bring everyone into this conversation, especially people that don't care. I see your point though, perhaps we can compromise on "Do you prefer a more stylistic elizabeth, or a more realistically proportioned one?"

I see it now and agree

I apologize for appearing as to insult anyone. I felt that my original post was not totally clear with my intent, and the poll answer "What's going on?" is meant to appeal to people who like to click on the joke answer in a poll. Originally I intended to be sort of vague, as to not contaminate the results, but I realized that clarity was necessary because a lot of people were clicking on "what's going on?". As for the praise, the poster said I made a nice photoshop edit, so I thanked him for the compliment.

No harm intended.