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
That should help present a better picture of the difficulty. Should help if a game's difficulty is severely unbalanced. The best rating comes with beating a game though.
Mah I don't think it's a good idea. Many games are very easy at the beginning but their difficulty grows every level and they have a brutal final boss. Or maybe games with not intuitive controls that become easy only when you learn to master them... If this will become an AG3 feature I don't think I will use it.
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"
Should be much more believable than what is said on the game-rated page, although I believe it's just shifting how someone rates; rating the difficulty in the game and rating it outside the game shouldn't matter.
Gamefaqs has a "statistics" rating for every game submitted, where it shows "X amount of users rated 10" and "X amount of users rated 7". If a curious person, such as a willing-to-play user or a developer, wanted to see what the results of the ratings were, all they had to do is bring up a link or a drop-down box of what the results were and they would see that, even though the average difficulty is 7.5, more people rated 5.
That's another thing. Higher and lower numbers have a stronger effect on ratings than the middle numbers, as they are more radical. While more people rated lower, enough people rated higher to make the game seem it is more difficult. I'd rather the results not affect how the game is, but have the results be brought up to be determined by the user him/herself.
This is my main concern, just like knight_34 stated:
I believe some people will be influenced though
Gamers might actually avoid some of the games if those are rated 'HARD' and vise-versa... this doesn't add to the thing a developer wants the most: have gamers play HIS game! But on the other hand... while typing this, I suddenly remembered that this is already done with the current system, be it in another way... gamers might avoid bad rated games... *rests chin on hand* ...puzzling... still I think it's all too much to add this too, next to the rating of games, but maybe as a replacement of?! I personally prefer the rating system though, if I had to choose between the two...
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.
I agree!
along with MrDayCee, people might avoid the hard games. Color gauge is good, so we can see a game's difficulty level right off the bat. I think that we should have that AND the rating system in place, so people can say, "well this game looks hard, but people like it, so I'll play it." and vice-versa.
i realy think it has to many problems! but if you realy can do it, with the X rate 7.5 type it might work. but i could effect the plays still. maybe, if you can, do a try out on the beta or for a little while, and if it does not work and pulls down plays then stop. but in a perfect would it would be nice! all in all i say shoot for it!
I really like this Idea, sometimes i see a game that looks good and i play it then it's really hard. I also like what joe96 posted that there should be colors
I see no advantage in having a difficulty rating system. If you play a game and it's hard, leave a comment?
Nobody looks for hard and easy games, they look for fun games. If a game is fun but it is easy, then people will give it good ratings. If a game is fun while being hard, people will still give the game good ratings.
I believe difficulty is too trivial to be implemented in to the system. This is just my own personal opinion.
Also, the only way you can determine the difficulty of the game is:
1. When you beat the game. 2. When the game finally does become difficult.
I'm pretty sure a huge chunk of people lose interest in many of the flash games they play. They may not necisarily hate the game, but they may lose interest for one reason or another. Without finishing the game, how can they determine how difficult the game is?
Then you have games where you have no end goal. You simply keep playing the game until you lose. These games usually become too difficult to beat at some point. In this case, you must judge the game by how long it takes before the game becomes challenging.
Gamers might actually avoid some of the games if those are rated 'HARD' and vise-versa... this doesn't add to the thing a developer wants the most: have gamers play HIS game! But on the other hand... while typing this, I suddenly remembered that this is already done with the current system, be it in another way... gamers might avoid bad rated games... *rests chin on hand* ...puzzling... still I think it's all too much to add this too, next to the rating of games, but maybe as a replacement of?! I personally prefer the rating system though, if I had to choose between the two...
I also stumbled upon the same problem. The difficulty rating system can easily turn certain gamers off before the game gets any attention. However, this already happens with the current popularity system and many good games are avoided due to low scores.
Regardless, the rating system informs the author of a game how much people enjoyed their game. They look through the comments to figure out what people liked and did not like about the game. A difficulty rating is just one of many different things that can be measured such as sound, graphics, controls, and so on.
An idea i just thought of was that maybe like NoName said, a rating for sound, graphics, controls and such. and after you make a rating you could make a little comment to explain you rating like if:
Controls Rating: hard to use (or like a 3)
Reason: i would rather have WASD or arrow keys
there would be a whole list of different ratings to do. Then the person of the game could look at these ratings and reasons and fix the game accordingly. would this work?
A difficulty rating system would be nice but as it has been stated it may deter people from playing the games. And although a game with a low rating may already not be played adding a difficult or too easy stamp next to that and even more players will be deterred.
Also, what do you rate the difficulty of a game that already has difficulty systems built in (easy, medium, hard modes)?
boy, now went ya put it that way! LOL it would be nice but i think still think there are to many problem. but i realy think as i said
maybe, if you can, do a try out on the beta or for a little while, and if it does not work and pulls down plays then stop.
this would solve any of the probelms of people lowering the plays. we could manual make a game harder (with the permishon of the programmer) and see if the plays go down. seems simple (well nothing is realy simple).
