15,197
edits
Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Compatibility Guide: Difference between revisions
Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Compatibility Guide (view source)
Revision as of 06:56, 29 November 2015
, 29 November 2015→Improvements?
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
:::: [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 04:50, 29 November 2015 (CET) | :::: [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 04:50, 29 November 2015 (CET) | ||
::Surprised to hear that you are very against the star rating for 3D condition chart. How come? Just for confirmation, are you a 3D user? I'm considering integrating into Infobox VG as there is compatibility rating and I felt that it's good spot for secondary rating set made to rate 3D of each game (I can't speak for virtual console games however.....). It will be an "easy access" for 3D users and I can't see how is it redundant/silly. Just for future reference I'm against arbitrary data to there. The 3D issue comments should go into Emu Info/Enhancements. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 04:50, 29 November 2015 (CET) | ::Surprised to hear that you are very against the star rating for 3D condition chart. How come? Just for confirmation, are you a 3D user? I'm considering integrating into Infobox VG as there is compatibility rating and I felt that it's good spot for secondary rating set made to rate 3D of each game (I can't speak for virtual console games however.....). It will be an "easy access" for 3D users and I can't see how is it redundant/silly. Just for future reference I'm against arbitrary data to there. The 3D issue comments should go into Emu Info/Enhancements. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 04:50, 29 November 2015 (CET) | ||
:::Yes, I'm a 3D user (generally by hooking my laptop to an Active 3D Sony BRAVIA TV), not a die-hard user that always run Dolphin in 3D but I test/play my games in 3D often. About the 3D Rating, let me rephrase what I wrote before: like MaJoR, I'm against the "star" rating system because of the problems we already have with it, they're controversial and nobody knows for sure how or what conditions a game may need to achieve a 5-star compatibility rating, for example (there are too many variables to take into account). So, I'm against introducing another rating system based on this concept because it'll almost certainly suffer from the same flaws in long term. However, I also can't think of a better way to provide that info, so I think something well defined and as simple as possible (like the 3-state 3D compatibility I proposed before) *might* work, shapening into a rating system that doesn't suffer from the same flaws our current compatibility rating system have (but again, I'm not a fan of this approach either, but it's what we have at the moment). In other words, my current position is: | |||
:::* Having the Notes from the current page into its own entry under Enhancements section of the said game (and probably add recommended depth/separation values too since most games requires different values) because in long term this page will get cluttered and crowded (it's already somewhat like that currently) | |||
:::* If we can't figure out another way to "rate" the 3D compatibility without using the flawed stars concept, try something very well defined and very simple like the 3-state rating I proposed before (again, I'm not a fan of more stars but this *may* work in that case) | |||
:::[[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 05:56, 29 November 2015 (CET) | |||