I agree. While I do enjoy the platformers that are featured, they definitely could use some more variety.

Water

muellly wrote:

I-Iz-A-Litten wrote:

Cub56 wrote:

I-Iz-A-Litten wrote:

No support, what if it's someone's first platformer and it was like that? The ST would discriminate against those because of this feature.

I don't see how it would be “discrimination” to not feature a project though. There are thousands of remixes of the Pong Starter game and you probably wouldn't say it's unfair to not keep regularly featuring more and more Pong remixes.

but still, this won't really benefit Scratch much, no support

-snip-

yeah, but there isn't much platformers on the Featured Section, and still, these are for suggestions on how to make Scratch a better website, not for personal opinions

I-Iz-A-Litten wrote:

muellly wrote:

I-Iz-A-Litten wrote:

Cub56 wrote:

I-Iz-A-Litten wrote:

No support, what if it's someone's first platformer and it was like that? The ST would discriminate against those because of this feature.

I don't see how it would be “discrimination” to not feature a project though. There are thousands of remixes of the Pong Starter game and you probably wouldn't say it's unfair to not keep regularly featuring more and more Pong remixes.

but still, this won't really benefit Scratch much, no support

-snip-

yeah, but there isn't much platformers on the Featured Section, and still, these are for suggestions on how to make Scratch a better website, not for personal opinions

Wow, the only person who disagrees. How rude.

Anyways, support.

I don't see many diverse platformers these days, so yeah.

Nexus_HQ wrote:

Wow, the only person who disagrees. How rude.

How is that rude? People are allowed to voice their opinions on here. I could say that you're rude for supporting this.

But I won't because I do support this lol. I just think it's out of spite for these kind of things but most platformers are just unoriginal and are based off of each other.

Water

aking_ wrote:

Nexus_HQ wrote:

Wow, the only person who disagrees. How rude.

How is that rude? People are allowed to voice their opinions on here. I could say that you're rude for supporting this.

But I won't because I do support this lol. I just think it's out of spite for these kind of things but most platformers are just unoriginal and are based off of each other.

Water

Well, If you've read the ugly duckling, you'll get a better view in my shoes.

Nexus_HQ wrote:

aking_ wrote:

Nexus_HQ wrote:

Wow, the only person who disagrees. How rude.

How is that rude? People are allowed to voice their opinions on here. I could say that you're rude for supporting this.

But I won't because I do support this lol. I just think it's out of spite for these kind of things but most platformers are just unoriginal and are based off of each other.

Water

Well, If you've read the ugly duckling, you'll get a better view in my shoes.

What does that story have to do with this?

*LEt's explain this quickly*
Duckling ugly, so he da discriminated from the rest of his family.You are the ugly duckling, as you're the only one who shows nay.
The rest of us on this suggestion are normal ducklings.
The parents are the ST.

“Discrimination” doesn't really have anything to do with it. The problem is that the platformers that get featured are usually very generic and almost the same as each other.

As a result:

• There is much less variety in platformers on the front page and there's no reason to play one over another
  

• It fails to showcase all the interesting things can be done with platformers (doesn't have new level design or mechanics or story) so there is less inspiration for new users about what they can do with platformers. Which leads to more and more generic ones being made.
  

• Platformers that are innovative don't get much attention since it's mainly the generic ones being featured.
  

What I would really like to see is a platformer that introduces a new concept - jumping on platforms is all well and good, maybe a gravity change here or there, but if there could be something totally new in the world of platformers, that would be pretty nice.

I do support featuring more varied platformers, but

braxbroscratcher wrote:

The front page is really bland and I don't actually ever look on it. Only part I look at is the curated section.

I actually don't even use the front page anymore except as a way to log in.

kenny2scratch wrote:

What I would really like to see is a platformer that introduces a new concept - jumping on platforms is all well and good, maybe a gravity change here or there, but if there could be something totally new in the world of platformers, that would be pretty nice.

I do support featuring more varied platformers, but

braxbroscratcher wrote:

The front page is really bland and I don't actually ever look on it. Only part I look at is the curated section.

I actually don't even use the front page anymore except as a way to log in.

New level design applies as well.

I support. I would like it if featured platformers had more variety.

I SUPPORT!

I really enjoy playing platformers, and it often gets annoying to see this trend:

Level 1: reach the other side with no obstacles whatsoever
Level 2: walljump over a wall, or jump over a pool of lava
Level 3: walljump over a wall, or jump over a pool of lava (whichever one Level 2 wasn't)
Level 4/5: bouncy platform that bounces you over a massive red rectangle (LAVA DOESN'T FLOAT!!!)
Level 6 - END: basically just jumping over lots of lava puddles

██       ██  ██            ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██            ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██     ██     ██  ██       ██
██       ██  ██     ██     ██  ██       ██
███     ███   ██   ████   ██   ███     ███
 █████████     █████  █████     █████████

-ShadowOfTheFuture- wrote:

I SUPPORT!

I really enjoy playing platformers, and it often gets annoying to see this trend:

Level 1: reach the other side with no obstacles whatsoever
Level 2: walljump over a wall, or jump over a pool of lava
Level 3: walljump over a wall, or jump over a pool of lava (whichever one Level 2 wasn't)
Level 4/5: bouncy platform that bounces you over a massive red rectangle (LAVA DOESN'T FLOAT!!!)
Level 6 - END: basically just jumping over lots of lava puddles

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for support

Support. Most platformers are
1. No obstacles
2. Wall Jump
3. Lava blocking the end but it's a slightly different color
4. Jump on text (that usually says “This looks a bit tricky”)
5. Text that says something like “Yay you did it!”
Sometimes they are in different order or have more levels but that's basically it.

Even though we all wish for more complicated features, it just can't happen because we need to remember that Scratch is meant for a younger demographic. Most featured projects are easy and take a short amount of time to complete to engage a younger player base, even if those projects to most people seem dumbed down or repetitive. I support, but this most likely will not change due to what I stated above.

Ghomaghity wrote:

Even though we all wish for more complicated features, it just can't happen because we need to remember that Scratch is meant for a younger demographic. Most featured projects are easy and take a short amount of time to complete to engage a younger player base, even if those projects to most people seem dumbed down or repetitive. I support, but this most likely will not change due to what I stated above.

Scratch is mainly targeted at 8-16 year olds, although for all ages. It would be making Scratch babyish if the only projects with attention drawn to them were extremely simple and dumbed down. Even if younger users are playing an innovative platformer, it doesn't mean they won't be engaged.

Keeping everything the same (i.e. same platformers featured over and over) I would expect to have the opposite effect: to make users less engaged.

Although Scratch is targeted more towards newer programmers, this is not the same thing as targeting it to extremely young kids who just want to play the same thing over and over.

Cub56 wrote:

Ghomaghity wrote:

Even though we all wish for more complicated features, it just can't happen because we need to remember that Scratch is meant for a younger demographic. Most featured projects are easy and take a short amount of time to complete to engage a younger player base, even if those projects to most people seem dumbed down or repetitive. I support, but this most likely will not change due to what I stated above.

Scratch is mainly targeted at 8-16 year olds, although for all ages. It would be making Scratch babyish if the only projects with attention drawn to them were extremely simple and dumbed down. Even if younger users are playing an innovative platformer, it doesn't mean they won't be engaged.

Keeping everything the same (i.e. same platformers featured over and over) I would expect to have the opposite effect: to make users less engaged.

Although Scratch is targeted more towards newer programmers, this is not the same thing as targeting it to extremely young kids who just want to play the same thing over and over.

Actually it's 8-12, but I agree.

jromagnoli wrote:

Actually it's 8-12, but I agree.

It is actually 8-16 so it would be best to allow catering to teenagers as well as kids.

Scratch is intended to be accessible to new programmers (as well as experienced ones that can make much more complex projects) and that does include kids, however accessible to new programmers isn't the same thing as pandering to very young children or making Scratch a toddler site.

Only featuring simple platformers for fear younger kids wouldn't “understand” more complex ones wouldn't be beneficial and would instead make Scratch very simplistic.

Bump

friendly non-OP bump