So perhaps we need to shift the hardest 1/3 of 2-star games and move them to 3 stars?

If 3 is the new 2, all our averages will be around 3 now!

But anyways, I think the industry really does have a standard in trophy difficulties now - as in most action adventure games will be around the same level (2 stars). It's just like putting DVDs in alphabetical order, but there just seems to be a lot of movies starting with the letter "D", and not many starting with "X". That's why we're getting the distribution ratio, because it accurately describes the reality of the difficulty of getting platinum trophies in all games.

So the question is: If the majority of games is around 4-6/10 on PS3Trophies.org guides, then is it wise for us to try and draw a line through that?

You realize Kylie, we have the opposite problem. On a 0-10 scale, 5 is right in the middle. On a 1-5 scale, 3 is right in the middle. So where game reviews form a skewed high distribution, we're a skewed low distribution.

I think it's good that we recognize people tend to vote high on difficulty, but I think we're overadjusting for it.

I think you're the type that's in favor of a pyramid-ish distribution, so there'd be the most 1 star games, then less 2 star games, then less 3 star games, etc. In which case moving the easier 2 star games to 1 star does indeed make sense, and it's something I'd be in favor of over the current distribution.

In such a case, out of our 226 games (for convenience I'll use 225), we can have something like

1 star: 75
2 star: 60
3 star: 45
4 star: 30
5 star: 15

5's less of a whoamg now, but we don't have 40% of all the games with the same rating.

This is our current distribution:

1 star: 51
2 star: 92
3 star: 49
4 star: 24
5 star: 7

In a regular (unskewed) normal distribution, the midpoint has the most samples, which is 3 star here. 2 and 4 stars should have the same number. 1 and 5 stars should have the same number. Given how 5 stars seems to be regarded as a holy grail here, this probably isn't reasonable. If we can ditch that mentality, however, I think a bell curve makes the most sense. Instead of having 7 5-star games, if we had maybe 20, a bell curve would work, something like:

1 star: 25
2 star: 50
3 star: 75
4 star: 50
5 star: 25

That's what I said... "modified bell curve."  Your inability to properly parse this makes me question your intelligence and therefore I now have little reason to place importance on any of your suggestions. :)

In grade school, students are typically graded on a 0-100 scale.  The average grades aren't around 50, they are closer to 70-90.  If the average was a 50, most people would be failing.  Most of the platinum ratings hover around 2 because they are in fact generally easy.  This isn't the atari or NES generation where every game ever was almost impossible.

What's hilarious about this is that the end result of most of the things you suggest will have the effect of lowering the significance of your badass platinums by making them closer to the new average, which you claim should be 3.  So again, sir, I question your intelligence and hereby vote to have you removed from the league for the sole reason of stupitude.

man, who cares if the ratings look like a typical bell curve or not? Conclusio u get out of data provided by Arcturus: mainstream games concentrate on achieving a difficulty alligning to our 2* rating. nothing more nothing less. i dont see the point in changing our requirements for difficulty just to fit a certain curve or any other apportionment. as i see it: if we would do that, difficulty ratings wouldnt reflect reality any more. keep it the way it is, with the eventual game to be down or upgraded

I think Chen's idea is a bad one.
Raising the average value of plats will handicap me in the plat ranking as I have less plats that people ranked close to me on the ladder so as a result I am going to veto his ideas and keep playing Shogun Total war 2 !!! ( haven't touched the PS3 since Sunday, this week is on track for an abysmal 0 points earned...)

Apart from a few games, I think a majority of the ratings for the games here are good. I agree that 2* is probably the average, because I think most companies put out a game where most people don't have trouble finishing the game and getting all trophies/achievements. A 3* game would be a step up in either difficulty/time consumption, with a 4* being incredibly tough or time consuming, and 5* being a huge PITA to achieve platinum (a lot of games in this category are either "break your controller" frustrating or months of constant playing to achieve platinum, like WKC or Star Ocean 4). Personally, this is how I see it (don't forget that certain people have skills that may make a game easier to them)...

1* - A game that takes absolutely no skill to achieve platinum and can usually be gotten in 1-2 days

2* - A game that takes a little bit/some moderation of skill and/or takes a decent amount of time to complete (30-50 hours?)

3* - A game that has moderate difficulty, meaning it takes quite a bit of skill to complete. It can also mean a game takes a fair amount of time to finish (70-130 hours?)

4* - A game that takes a lot of skill to finish, or one that takes a long time to finish (175-250 hours?)

5* - A game that either takes master-like skill to complete (Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2) or an UNGODLY amount of time to finish (White Knight Chronicles; so around 350+ hours?)

Don't forget that a game can be really hard to complete, even if it takes 25-30 hours to finish, which might put it at 3 or 4*. Also, I emphasize in the above paragraph that a game that takes A LOT of hours to finish, but doesn't require you to actually be there to play it (like Mortal Kombat or Wizardry: Labyrinth of Lost Souls), so time shouldn't factor in much there.

Time should definitely be a factor if you're playing that entire time, as it's distracting you from playing other games. A 400 hour game would take 17 days to complete, if you were playing 24 hours each day (which is not going to happen). At 12 hours a day, which is something a little more realistic for some people, that comes out to 34 days, which means you would probably be spending one month and one week playing nothing but the same game.

Exactly what I was trying to say before, but probably didn't express too well~

Maybe even developers come to this thread for consultation when they create their trophy lists!

@xenostar I'm doing brink now, just got that annoying mine trophy to do along with audio logs, rank 5 and satchel kill for platinum.
If you need mine trophy still add me and I should be on 2moz afternoon around 5ish uk time and il help you get it within few mins

Alright, if this many people are against it I withdraw everything. I was probably pushing a bit too hard for no reason. After all, if everyone's graded on the same scale, it doesn't matter what that scale is. Apologies to all.