have never know if the games we play are difficult or easy.
We can make the list of players who rated this game
For difficulty level (colony)
Very easy to 789,765 players
Easy 1,657,395 players
Medium 634,613 players
More or less difficult 1,586,463 players
Difficult 239,785 players
really hard 189,786 players
incredibly difficult 557,856 players
Did you ever think you could say they had games that were difficult moderator, I would like to discuss with you a fact. I saw several topics, written in bold (Hard Game)
I think by doing this, there would be a lot of happy
I would think that 'easy' and 'difficult' would be pretty subjective. I like puzzle games and tower defense games... and I'm pretty good at them (I flatter myself to think so, anyway). I'm not good at experiential/atmosphere type games...
guess which ones I would rate as easy and hard...
and I like hard games: replayability is usually MUCH better, if the game is good.
TOO Easy incredibly Easy Very Easy Easy Easy-Medium Lighter Medium Medium Arvage Medium Harder medium Hard-Medium Lighter Hard Hard More Hard Very Hard incredibly Hard Hard-Impossible Almost Impossible Impossible Really Impossible GODLIKE
The structuring is hard to comprehend but I believe he is proposing a system of rating a game according to its overall difficulty. He also wants the numbers of people who give a game a certain difficulty level to be displayed on the game page.
Can someone re-explain to me what Blackwolves is proposing exactly?
A community-based difficulty rating for a game. Beyond the 10-scale overall rating, a means for users to help other users identify which games are easier to play/beat than others.
This is a good idea sometimes the game seems easy and then gets hard, but if this were implamented, then there should also be mucis/plot/graphics ratings and such (0 ap most probably if all this does get added)
My concern is that difficulty isn't a constant thing in games. Many games offer varying levels of difficulty and in the end it all comes down to the player's skill. Some people might just give up easily and give a game a very high difficulty rating, which could negatively affect other potential players.
Well, if we're going to go that route, we could copy the "fun factor" graphic from the new shared game content screens.
My concern is that difficulty isn't a constant thing in games
Good point, knight ... games can also seem much easier when you've played it a bunch of times too. In the end though, if you're not a puzzle-minded player, you're not likely to play/rate puzzle games anyhow, and the law of averages states that 1000 votes for "easy" and one vote for "zomg brutal!" pretty much cancels out the one bad vote.
I wonder if we should impose the response timer, as mentioned in this thread, where you can only rate the difficulty of the game after playing it for a few minutes.
Maybe that difficulty rating would have to be built into the games themselves though so gamedevs can help us prove that a user actually *played* the game for a few levels/minutes, before looking at the first screen and rating it "impossible"
