Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Compatibility Guide: Difference between revisions

|}

* The stop light approach may make the numeric ratings less clear (i.e. does a 1 = red or green), such is much clearer when a star count matches the rating.

== Instruction ==

We'll likely need to define some guidance text to those providing ratings. I'm not quite how to best handle such, since the Infobox may not be a great place for the HTML comment style guidance provided elsewhere (and will be missed if an edit button is provided like our other ratings). It seems we default the undefined ratings to the text "0", so perhaps we can revise such to also provide an instructional comment (perhaps for our regular ratings too). [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 23:14, 1 December 2015 (CET)

=== Improvements? ===

Well, this is still a little early in, but you can kind of see the structure forming. Jump in with suggestions on better ways to handle it if you come up with any! - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 16:46, 7 August 2014 (CEST)

:I'd actually want to create a new rating system for 3D compatibility and integrate them into {{tl|Infobox VG}}. They're made up of four sets of green stars and in case of game displaying 2D in 3D mode, we'll use an image of two green stars and two gray stars but there'll be text "2D" hovering above them. The rating parameter will be familiarized with compatibility rating system (0-5) except there'll be no "5", then for 2D, the parameter will be "2D" which coincidentally there'll be two green stars just like "2"! This sounds clever! Can this be done? I'm afraid we'd have to put arbitrary comment about 3D effect issues into Emu Info along with compatibility rating in the Infobox VG. Is it alright this way? [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 04:53, 28 November 2015 (CET)

::Our general concern with ratings comes with the inability to clearly define rules for rating things that result in consistent assignments. I'm currently unclear we can work out rules beyond a Untested/0-2 star system (0: 3d unsupported (i.e. 2d games), 1: 3d /w Problems 2: Functional 3d), let us know if you have a clear ruleset for a more fine-grained system. Some level of significance around 3d Problems would be desirable, but I'm not sure clear rules can be defined. We shouldn't worry about the specific display of this info till we have a well defined system in place. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 08:19, 28 November 2015 (CET)

:::::::Oh right, I somehow thought you said to give 0 stars to the titles rated as "not recommended" in 3D rating compatibility. (I need a "not support 3d =/= not recommended" lesson apparently) I'd still like to give "2D" two stars to coincide with first digit in parameter "2". [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 12:53, 28 November 2015 (CET)

:I am against stars. The silly stars are a huge problem for emulation rating, even when it's much simpler that 3D! 3D is so absurdly complicated! When this was brought up the stars idea was discussed, and I pushed strongly against it, and we settled for the current text technique. I think it should stay as such.

:I'm also pretty wary of it showing up in pages. Notice how this page here ''describes'' the problems with 3D very clearly, as well as having rating. The rating *and* descriptions would need to be integrated into each page, and I have no idea how to do that without looking awkward. Well, the only idea I've come up with is putting it into Emulation Information, but at that point, couldn't you just integrate the rating with the post? - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 15:57, 28 November 2015 (CET)

:: This info needs to be assessed for every single title. The table here (and the page itself) will eventually become too unwieldy to be useful (i.e. once it contains multiple thousands of rows). The text ratings have the exact same issue as stars, in either case we need rules around how the ratings are assigned and we currently don't have any. My thoughts here had been to add the additional rating to the info box (though it could be moved elsewhere) and include the detailed instructions for problematic titles in the "Enhancements" section of each title. Likely prefixed with a {{tl|Problems}} template that  would cover 3d info in brief and link back to this page for more specific details around 3d output support. As I think was discussed previously, with no linkages here no one is likely to ever find/see the 3d info provided; and if we add a link to each title we might as well provide the 3d info on the title's page. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 16:47, 28 November 2015 (CET)

::::::::::::: I'm gonna agree with Jhonn actually. By doing this the clickable area of the image of stars is inadvertently blocked by it.

::::::::::::: The table has been revised to exactly follow MaJoR's concept. What do you think? [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 03:40, 30 November 2015 (CET)

Cleaned up the text alignment, and removed the quotes. I don't think the text in the final row should appear, as we should be concerned with 3d issues generally, not just during gameplay. I also feel the ratings should associate with the level of problems that occur in a title under 3d output. So I still dislike labeling 2D titles as 1 star. Titles that can be played in 3d output mode without issues should get 3 stars, even if not making use of 3d output features. Some 2d titles may be completely wacky under 3d output, which would be listed as issues for the title and depending on the severity would grant them a different rating. Related to that, I'd suggest changing the text, perhaps: "Excellent: No problems", "Acceptable: Minor problems not impacting play","Not recommended: Problems impacting play". I definitely dislike the "Eyesore" label, we should be matching the other columns label. I presume the "Eyesore/2d" text was used because "Not recommended" extended beyond the width of 3 stars, perhaps "Unacceptable" which is about the same width would be better. Not sure if there's a better set of terms, I'm a bit uncomfortable stating what may or not be acceptable to someone else. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 09:31, 30 November 2015 (CET)

:I can tell you that "Not Recommended" extending beyond the width of 3 stars is no longer an issue. It was originally inline over the stars but they're now on beneath of them. I'm okay with going back to "Not Recommended". <s>Can you update your font styling changes to {{tl|Infobox VG/sandbox}} as well? Thanks.</s> [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 10:09, 30 November 2015 (CET)

I thought of something that may look clever: For 3D ratings we'll have only 3 states, right? What about a small circle that can get gray (for undefined), yellow (to replace 1 star), green (to replace 2 stars) or blue (to replace 3 stars), following the label? BTW, those colors aren't final, initially I thought of gray, red, yellow, green but red may look like it's shouting "LOOK TO ME NOW!". I'll do a mockup soon - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 18:04, 30 November 2015 (CET)

: /\ THIS! Exactly what I meant, despite the gray (that I made a little lighter) Kolano even managed to tone down the red color a little bit so it don't look like it's shouting to my eyes, thanks, I liked... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 02:14, 1 December 2015 (CET)

:: To give appropriate credit, Lucario revised the colors. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 02:45, 1 December 2015 (CET)

While talking with JMC earlier, it seems changes coming down the pike related to supporting VR headsets are likely to impact/improve 3d rendering in a lot of titles. Based on that they encouraged us to not rush into actually rating things right now. We probably should bring the discussion of how we'll handle things when it's appropriate to move forward with such to a close though. Feel free to continue to respond, but I'll try to add some summary of things later so we can hopefully keep things needing further discussion moving forward. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (CET)

: Gotcha. What if we move the discussion to how the 3D info should look/what should we put on the entry when moved to Enhancements section (well, if you guys agree moving it there) and hold the 3D rating implementation until it's ready (I mean, keep discussing it but don't implement anything outside of sandboxes, at least not yet)? - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 03:19, 1 December 2015 (CET)

My wordings in the description column aren't set in the stone. I'm always up for better way how it's written.[[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 01:32, 2 December 2015 (CET)