How do you rate difficulty of a game with how much practice/time it takes to platinum?

[iGGTheEnd]

So I was just thinking how difficulty of many hard games aren't as bad as they seem depending on the amount of time/practice I put into a game.

 

Dragon quest XI would be considered very easy but grindy and most would put it at 3/10 difficulty even tho it is 80+ hours.

 

Then there is I am bread a game where you will play the same levels over and over again until you finally A++ them but the game won't take more than 40 hours to platinum if you just keep trying until you finally get the platinum.  This game is rated 9/10 difficulty.

 

Thats 40 hours saved between a easy platinum and an UR, the UR taking half the time to get the platinum as long as you put the time into it, but the game is meant to be trial and error so is it really as hard as the difficulty suggests.

 

Lets say I am Bread had the following that Dark souls has. Dark souls has a very dedicated player base which pumps up the rarity of their platinums significantly or vice versa if Dark souls was just a meme fuck around game like I am Bread would the percentage be below %5?

 

I failed 30+ times on some bosses in Bloodborne until I finally beat them.  In I am bread some levels took me 30+ tries but eventually just like Bloodborne/DS I was finally able to beat them. Hell one level in I am Bread took me 100+ attempts but the game still took me way less time to plat than Bloodborne so wouldn't I am bread be considered easier?

 

In this community or other achievement communities I feel like games often get a harder difficulty rating because people don't want to put in the time but if rating was based on time/practice to platinum many games become much less daunting to attempt. Obviously the time to platinum a game and how much practice it would take would vary from person to person but I dont consider myself an amazing gamer, I would say I am a bit above average but nothing amazing so when I look at a difficult game sometimes I get turned off but then I start them and get fixated on them and once I finish them in less time than a "easy" plat I end up thinking the game was much more do-able than once I first started it.

 

Sorry I am kind of just ranting but just wanted some other peoples thoughts on the matter.

Edited November 1, 2020 by iGGTheEnd

[ShadeSplit]

I prefer to randomly assign each game a 3 or 4 before the game is even released.

[funboy1246]

i dont usually pay much attention to difficulities when it comes to platinums for this very reason. some games that i find easy its supposedly hard and vice versa. like for example. oh sir the insult simulator is rated a 1/10 but many of the trophies are RNG based and its an ultra rare. if its so easy why is it so rare? if the rng is so bad that it makes getting a certain trophy neigh on impossible shouldn't that make it harder?

[sepheroithisgod]

It's a very hard question to answer.

 

Clearly there's a big difference between two games that are 3/10's but one takes 10 hrs and the other takes a 100. As such, I do think there's a point where the time you have to put in adds to difficulty.

 

For example, both White Knight Chronicles 1 and 2 took me close to 500 hrs a piece. However, I wouldn't consider anything actually difficult (this was when the servers were still up), but I would certainly rate it a solid 8/10 because dedicating that much time is very difficult.

 

And of course there are actually challenging games that are long, like Crash Bandicoot 4.

 

Obviously, the amount of time that pushes a game up in difficulty is different for everyone, which is why its good policy to keep difficulty and time as different factors.

 

Thus, I would suggest deciding how much time is equal to 1 difficulty point and add that to the difficulty score. For example, if a game is a 3/10 but takes a 100 hrs you might equate 100 hrs with 2 points and decide the game is a 5/10. It's going to be different for everyone.

 

Edited November 1, 2020 by sepheroithisgod

[iGGTheEnd]

1 minute ago, funboy1246 said:

i dont usually pay much attention to difficulities when it comes to platinums for this very reason. some games that i find easy its supposedly hard and vice versa. like for example. oh sir the insult simulator is rated a 1/10 but many of the trophies are RNG based and its an ultra rare. if its so easy why is it so rare? if the rng is so bad that it makes getting a certain trophy neigh on impossible shouldn't that make it harder?

Exactly, I found most of Death road to canada pretty easy except one trophy which was pure RNG.  Finding the hermit took me 12 hours to find which was more time than the first 6 modes combined.  Should I consider an easy trophy that was 12 hours of RNG harder than some of the harder trophies that only took me 3-4 hours?

3 minutes ago, sepheroithisgod said:

Obviously, the amount of time that pushes a game up in difficulty is different for everyone, which is why its good policy to keep difficulty and time as different factors.

 

Thus, I would suggest deciding how much time is equal to 1 difficulty point and add that to the difficulty score. For example, if a game is a 3/10 but takes a 100 hrs you might equate 100 hrs with 2 points and decide the game is a 5/10. It's going to be different for everyone.

 

I like this idea actually maybe I should think of difficulty this way.  If a game is 3/10 and 30 hours I would probably keep it at a 3/10 but maybe every 10 hours after 50 hours I might add another point to the difficulty.

[DaivRules]

I posted my take on difficulty rating here:

 

https://forum.psnprofiles.com/topic/187-most-recent-platinum/?do=findComment&comment=1824984

 

Breaks down to this:

DDS v 1.0 (April 2019)

• Time limited (+1)
  • Modifiers
    • Near perfect/Perfect Run required (+1)
    • Glitches/exploits for Time Limited requirement (-1)
• Fast Reflexes Required (+1)
  • Modifiers
    • 3 Simultaneous buttons required (+1)
    • 4 Simultaneous buttons required (+1)
    • Sustained reflexes required for 7+ seconds (+1)
• Instant Death/No Healthbar (+1)
  • Modifier
    • Level/Progress Reset when killed (+1)
• Multiplayer Coordination Required (+1)

Things that are not considered Difficult. Spending time is not a challenge so these do not contribute to the Difficulty rating.

• Grinding (XP, Etc)
• Collectibles (No matter the quantity)
• Puzzles that have solutions available online
• Random/Luck-based *anything*
• Multiple Playthroughs
   

I don’t attribute any extra difficulty points to any grinding in preparation for playing a game, as noted above. 
 

But most people wouldn’t follow my scale because it doesn’t make the games they want to be seen as difficult reflect as terribly difficult. 

[Masamune]

If a game just takes hundreds of hours of mindless grinding, & another can be beat in a couple days depending on practice & skill, I would give the shorter one a higher difficulty rating. Let's take Mugen Souls, & the original Crash Bandicoot game for example... Mugen Souls takes 300+ hours to plat (at best, I've seen double that), because the amount of grinding (usually easy) it requires. I'd give that a 6-7 out of 10 at max. Crash on the other hand I finished in 3-4 days, but since 1 of the stages took me nearly an entire day of practicing to clear, I'd give that a 8-9 out of 10. ?

[Beyondthegrave07]

What an interesting question. Personally, when I rate games, I find it easier to compare it with games within the same genre.

 

For example (using fighting games), if P4A is a 10/10 and Sonic Fighters is a 1/10, where does everything else fit in between? If I rate Tekken 7 a 3/10, then what would I rate Under Night: In-birth? Is it harder than Tekken 7, but easier than Tekken 6 or maybe the same difficulty? What's would be an average fighting game? Idk, I think doing a comparison this way and ranking them accordingly makes it a little more palpable imo. It takes time to work it out, but in the end, it's easy to follow the logic behind it at least.

 

I think it's too difficult sometimes to rate games like ICO vs a game like CoD MW2 against each other because some people are just better at certain genres than others and I don't want to underestimate or overestimate the difficulty to someone else.

 

Of course, rating difficulty is always going to be subjective by nature based on our own personal experiences and biases, but I think as long as you can follow the logic of the rating, it's fine imo.

[iGGTheEnd]

2 minutes ago, Beyondthegrave07 said:

What an interesting question. Personally, when I rate games, I find it easier to compare it with games within the same genre.

 

For example (using fighting games), if P4A is a 10/10 and Sonic Fighters is a 1/10, where does everything else fit in between? If I rate Tekken 7 a 3/10, then what would I rate Under Night: In-birth? Is it harder than Tekken 7, but easier than Tekken 6 or maybe the same difficulty? What's would be an average fighting game? Idk, I think doing a comparison this way and ranking them accordingly makes it a little more palpable imo. It takes time to work it out, but in the end, it's easy to follow the logic behind it at least.

 

I think it's too difficult sometimes to rate games like ICO vs a game like CoD MW2 against each other because some people are just better at certain genres than others and I don't want to underestimate or overestimate the difficulty to someone else.

 

Of course, rating difficulty is always going to be subjective by nature based on our own personal experiences and biases, but I think as long as you can follow the logic of the rating, it's fine imo.

This for sure,  Real time stategy games like Frostpunk although I love them are extremely difficult for me but for others who have played them a ton can carry what they learned over to other RTS games and make them much easier.  I would say I am pretty good at platformers and card games because I have been playing them for years, I didnt find Fall guys nearly as hard as others (%100 steam) but people who haven't played many platformers can't even win one game let alone 5 in a row.  People are just better at different genres, there is no chance I could platinum all the COD games but theres some people out there with insane aim who find it no problem at all.  I guess it all depends on what you grew up on.

[VigilantCrow]

My breakdown is primarily determined by how much attention I'll need to commit while playing. Higher ratings also require significant trial&error/practice. The big 3 milestones for my rankings are;

1/10 -  I can split my attention between the game and something else (movie, eating etc) and easily succeed. Ex: Clicker Hero

5/10 - Game requires me to dedicate myself to succeeding, requires a lot of trial and error to understand the game intimately. Ex: XCOM 2

10/10 - Game forces me to go beyond my gaming skill sets and makes me a better gamer at the end. Ex: NecroDancer (if I ever start it haha)

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by VigilantCrow

[scemopagliaccioh]

I calculate time in the difficulty  equation.

Skill is something that requires time, time requires dedication.

Regarding the souls series, dying there it's different,  it's EXTREMELY forgiving and feels automatic, compare that to the flyboy trophy in cod ww2 where when you fail, you need to repeat the entire level.

Failing/dying  isn't the same in every game.

Edited November 2, 2020 by scemopagliaccioh

[Helyx]

I rate the difficulty of a game by how much skill is needed in that game's genre.

 

If I'm not particularly proficient in a genre (like racing), I usually apply a 1.5x multiplier to the average difficulty from the community.

 

Something like first-person shooters or sOuLsLiKeS, I cut the average difficulty by 50%, since that's more in my wheelhouse.

[machaesthetic]

It's a tricky question because most of the difficult games have short raw time requirements, and although difficult, they become easier with practice. They are "grinds" not in the sense that you are running through a long checklist of tasks, but that you must practice, learn the game, and improve. But even for these difficult games, most (average) players can reasonably complete the game within a certain time-frame. For example, Spelunky is a brutally difficult game (at least that is how many new players will certainly feel), but your opinion of its difficulty will vary whether you have 10, 25, 50, or 100+ hours in it.

 

What seems to be actually one of the biggest determinant of difficulties is motivation or enjoyment of a game. If you are able to and want to put in time to learn and improve at a game, then it will make it a lot less frustrating and tedious. Similarly, many games are both grindy and difficult (such as Isaac), which can actually make them appear easier since players have to put in so much time for the grind anyways, that by the time they have spent so much time in the game, the challenges don't seem so tough. Although there are some games like N++ and Trackmania Turbo that can be quite brutal since the difficulty continually ramps up as you progress. 

 

So I do feel that time requirements must be taken into consideration somewhat, and I would say many shorter games that are commonly seen as difficult aren't really that bad if an average player could learn and complete them in the time it would take to Platinum a standard AAA game (20-40 hours). With that being said, I still would much prefer to learn and improve at a difficult game (provided it's actually decent) rather than just grind away mindlessly at a checklist.

[AJ_Radio]

I reserve a 9.5/10 out of 10 for exceptionally hard games. Super Meat Boy and Surgeon Simulator are two examples.

 

Everyone knows why Super Meat Boy is hard, it's been covered a thousand times on these forums so I don't need to explain it. Surgeon Simulator can be made significantly easier using the 1.00 version exploit, detailed in a thread (https://forum.psnprofiles.com/topic/67810-guide-how-to-get-100-digital-games/).

 

I did every surgery to A++, and this requires the utmost precision and a great deal of patience on your part.

Edited November 4, 2020 by Spaz

[Elvick_]

For me I don’t factor in time into difficulty at all.

 

there’s really no good way to rate difficulty. Even hard or moderately difficult games become easier if you devote more time into them instead of take the fastest route to platinum. 

 

Uncharted is a perfect example, or Deadpool but we’ll go with Uncharted. If you’re like me then the path to platinum was longer than probably most, but easier. Other than U4 and LL, I played every Uncharted on normal, then hard, then crushing with collectibles after. By the time I hit Crushing, I’m dying less than I was on normal. I’m familiar with the mechanics of the game, the controls, the levels, and the enemy AI. So by the time I get to the hardest difficulty it’s pretty easy for me. Meanwhile a lot of people say the games are hard. From experience, these people always start on Crushing. Even replaying on PS4, 1-3 were still super easy from all my muscle memory and experiences with the games on PS3 so diving straight in with Crushing was fine (even did the dreaded flooded room of U1 first try). 
 

another example for me is G-Force (goofy as it may be I like that game quite a bit), the game requires a sizeable amount of replays to do it easily. Guides recommend merging different things together, but this makes the overall experience harder. Had I gone for more than 2 playthroughs, I would have had a lot easier time. But I didn’t. From memory, you merge the accuracy trophy with no upgrades or some shit. It’s a lot to keep track of and I’m on mobile so can’t easily check the list, but there’s also a speedrun you merge with something else. 
 

How do you rate it “accurately”? You can’t, not everyone is going to play the same way. Not everyone even has the same skill set to accomplish tasks the same way. So it will always differ. 
 

it’d be better to drop the number system and focus on detailing your experience with the game itself, the series, the genre... I’m better at TPS than I am at FPS for example. So maybe that helps make any tps an easier experience. If guides better explained how they determined the rating maybe that would be useful. Like Deadpool, if you do two playthroughs it makes it so much easier as you have full upgrades for the hardest playthrough. If a guide says the game is a 6 (as I saw many call it on org) then you should say that’s related to one playthroughs method, rather than oversell the difficulty if played a different way.

 

Efficient trophy earning often increases difficulty. I suppose Kingdom Hearts is another example. 

 

It’s too complicated for an arbitrary “pull a number out of your ass” system. Especially since a lot of people’s perception of one number is different. Some thing 1 should only be for auto pops, or “free” platinums. But what’s a free plat? Rata games? TellTale? Both? One requires not even finishing the game most of the time but TellTale at least does require that much. VN? Is a VN “easy” because it can be skipped? Or that you can use a guide for the endings? Or is the save management itself a part of difficulty? Some would find that somewhat difficult, or at least rewpauiring of enough effort to warrant something more than a 1. Who knows, but it’s a *number* of 10 for reasons unknown from random user #248283 so we have all we need with that! 
 

 

[hsn963]

Interesting pointers here, would add the following:

 

- Proficiency with genre.

- Overall enjoyment.

 

Above could effect your tolerance and take on games, considerably.

 

A friend of mine played Sekiro as his 1st souls game, to which he faced a lot of hard times, and took him months to plat, compared to that, it did not take me half his time or effort to plat this game, due to my experience with the souls genre.

But he kept playing the game even after obtaining the olatinum, because he genuinely enjoyed it.

[kingjavs]

Time is definitely a major factor to me. When i think of an "easy" platinum, I'm thinking of a game that doesn't take very long with low skill level.

 

A game can be extremely easy, but if it takes 100+ hours to platinum, I would rate it on a higher difficulty. Most recent example for myself is Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White witch. The game is super easy, any skill level can get through the story no problem. But the requirements for the platinum were such a sluggish grind, I would never recommend it as an "easy game to platinum." When filling out an alchemy list to (almost) completion involves extremely rare material drops in high volumes, yeah...that aint it.

Edited November 17, 2020 by kingjavs

[You]

Difficulty should be based somewhere along the lines of

 

Raw dexterity

VS

Genre variety

VS

Time taken VS Suffering

 

Raw dexterity

----------------------

If a game requires a 1 minute task or less but with extreme skill required to get it, even though it is very short. That makes it very hard if you have to require and rely on raw skill to beat it.

 

(See Goat Simulator Flappy goat, Street Fighter 4 time trials etc)

 

Genre variety

----------------------

How good is your overall game play skill base. You might have one hard task, say like it's a difficult driving game, or a difficult puzzle game, but what if there are multiple genres of games that are all also difficult included in the same game? Sure you might be a pro at one genre, but about a difficult special stage/mini game?

 

(See the Yakuza games, Puyo Puyo mini game etc)

 

Time taken VS Suffering

----------------------

 

If a game is long but easy, allow the factor of your personal belief for "how long" something is.

My name is Mayo is considered easy, but imagine if it was 10000 clicks, or 100,000 clicks, or 1 million clicks, or 10 million clicks.

For sure, the game is still easy. but if it was impossible to cheese 1 million clicks, doing an easy task for a painfully long amount of time, yeah that's hard in my opinion, it's hard to put up the psychological and human suffering on a painful grind.

 

How grindy a task is though, varies between players.

 

(See the blow up 1 million walls trophy in BomberMan on PS4, or spilling 100s pints of Blood for each character in Mortal Kombat on PS3)

[Xenoblast91]

My guess is that difficulty comes from playing the game the first time blindly. Exactly as that. If you never played any Souls game as your example, or may be Cuphead, the difficulty can be justly put between 8-9 out of 10. But that can decrease with effort, practice and awareness of what you're doing. Learning the patterns of the bosses, knowing what to expect and mastering the controls overall impact directly the experience. I beat the latter game on PC and took me around 2 years on and off, mostly because it took me so retries and obviously that frustrates because you want fluidity in your play through, rather than repetition over and over. But that's how those games are designed. 

 

Currently, playing Doomsday Heists on GTA Online have proved to be a challenge due to the requirements of the Masterminds trophy; when a friend and me attempted it first time was like hell. We didn't expect so much trouble and outcomes, and despite watching videos for guidance, our own experience give us the winning card. Now we can run them pretty quick, no deaths and very few missteps done, if any. The corresponding guide in this site states 6 out of 10, but I honestly give it around an 8 due to its time, challenge and alike as my first impression, but currently can be easily placed in a 5 over 10, exactly as the guide states but that was after playing it once, rather than the first run we made.

 

Hence, any game can be placed in a high difficulty, but time, getting used to the mechanics, learning through all the way until mastering certain aspects of gameplay and consciously doing what is required for you, will drop the apparent hardship to its true form. I ignore the time required for completition, since many people can speed run it and in fact they do that but once they understand what the game goes for. Like you can expect +100 hours in a title, but that would be in the first run may be, and then on the second just half of that tie and so on. Again, guides state the difficulty just in the first and foremost initial play through you go for the game. It doesn't matter to watch a YouTube video and "knowing" what to do, that's a huge difference and why I mostly avoid watching gameplays for games I haven't even touched. It's just a broken experience in my opinion. 

[Pottercito_]

I just would say that Devil May Cry 2 in this site is a 3/10. But Bloody Palace doing it legal, and the multiple playthroughs of this garbage game was a 10/10 for me. Just so boring and repetetive that deserved a higher difficulty rating. DMC3 and DMC1 are harder than 2 in DMD but were ENJOYABLE. And BP can be done with suoer costumes.