Categories Inside Categories?

[I play css naked]

I've always thought about this, does any one else think there should be a category of heavys inside the heavy songs. For example, matsuri Japan would be heavy, but Cartoon heroes would be Heavy plus. I've always wanted to seperate the waka laka's from the from the easy eight footers, and the sakura's from the max's. Now tell me what you think.
_________________

I like my avatar, its a box with a red X inside for all of you who are blind or Morbidly Obese

[Julie QQQ...?]

No, because everyone has their different ideas on what should go where depending on what a person's good at. Like, I don't consider Waka Laka to be hard at all, and I tend to PA Matsuri Japan like crap. My score on Cartoon Heroes is less than half the missing DP of my Matsuri Japan score, so in my personal preference, I'd call Matsuri Japan harder, but most people wouldn't think of it that way. This would just turn into one big argument and a new "Top 5 Hardest 9 Footers thread" all over again.

[Paranoia_Brother]

[Slowpoke]

[E-Prime]

Ditto to Slowpoke. Foot ratings seem sufficient, unless you propose that each song has both a "heavy" and a "heavy plus" version. I'd fully support that, if only because it would mean more songs to play.

[Parama]

[I play css naked]

[mister_doublea]

I don't judge a song on "Beginner, light, standard, heavy." I go by a system similar to the original DDR system.

1-3 foot: Beginner
4-5 foot: Easy
6-7 foot: Normal
8 foot: Advanced
9 foot: Hard
10 foot: painful

I usually stick to advanced and hard.
_________________

)D(D)R(!)K(I)D( wrote:

Nyanko Pudding wrote: Well, you could use any noun as a verb; it's not like the grammar police are going to find you and kick your ass. Someone has obviously never met the grammer police ::points at Nyanko Pudding::