KylieDog said:
chenguo4 said:
KylieDog said:
HideoK said:
@KylieDog
Regarding the time difficulty debate I think it's unfair to only allow a MAX of 1 stars added for time difficulty.
I'm curious at how many hours would you determine to add 1 star?
Say we add 1 star for 200 hours of time. I think at game that takes 200 hours vs 1000 hours is still too big of a discrepancy for a single star rating to cover.
A while ago I proposed a time rating system with a range of times. 1000 hours would undoubtedly be 5 star difficulty in that system. But then you'd take the 5 stars and average it with the general difficulty of the game. A 5 star time and a 1 star skill based would come out to a 3 in that system. Sounds like WKC is more skill based as the higher level monsters requiring the need to form strong parties. Maybe skill based it would be at least a 3? So overall a 4 then?
|
It is meant to be a very easy game, most people who played it before Western release claimed that and reviews all criticised the game for it too.
These are meant to be difficulty ratings anyway, not time ratings. Look at how messed up some games ratings are, Heavy Rain is meant to compare to Uncharted on Crushing? Smackdown vs Raw meant to compare to RE5 on Pro? Trine compared to Uncharted 2 Crushing?
Factoring time is making a joke of the games that actually have challenge to them. I not even using the examples of games where the hardest trophy is near impossible, they are a hundred times harder than what they are being compared against though.
|
Yeah some ratings are bullshit. No one ever debated that.
Look, we're essentially arguing over semantics. You define difficulty as purely gameplay difficulty. We define diffculty as sum of obstacles to platinum, which factors in not only gameplay but time. Going by current ratings, clearly a precedence has been set where games can receive more than 1 extra star for its length. And that's not only this site, this is also reflected on PS3trophies.org.
Most people agree that time, if long enough, is worth more than 1 extra star. That's why the rules are set up as such, to reflect the opinions of most people on a subjective metric for which there is no clear absolute rating.
It's fine that you disagree on the definition of difficutly. But when the system has been set up based off the opinions of most people, there's no reason to redefine the system for a minority of gameplay difficulty purists.
|
I already pointed out the flaws of following PS3trophies.org ratings. They used to enforce the "Don't count time" rule but now they don't, making differing games get similar average rankings. Once a vote is made it is made forever too, does not factor in any patches, DLC or just new methods worked out by players since the time when most fo the ratings are made (early after a games release) and these can change platinum difficulty a lot.
Take Mirror's Edge for example, since the majority of votes there have been lots of youtube vids showing newly discovered shortcuts, this removes a lot of the challenge from speed runs and the time trials. DLC has since been released also and you can just grab a bunch of stars from the DLC and they will add towards the time trial star rating trophy needed for the platinum, so instead of needing 3 star (max per time trial) every time trial you can just 1 or 2 star them and then 1 or 2 star a bunch from the DLC to make up the extras, makes the platinum incredibly easier. None of this is factored though.
|
In that case, yes, that's extremely flawed. Here not only has difficulty gone down, but time gone down too, since I imagine 3 starring some runs would have taken many many tries.
Aside from somewhat special cases like this, say for WKC, a game for which difficulty has not changed, and is kind of a poster boy in the extremely long but easy category, most people rate it highly, and it shows that for most people length of completion is defined to add to difficulty.
