Project:General Discussions: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 54: Line 54:


So guys, what do you think? We'll need to get as many specifics as we can hammered out before we go along with this. If things get too complicated we can use [[Project:Wiki Conventions]] for detailed information and have a trimmed down version in the ratings guide. It's work, definitely, but this is a long standing crappy system that really could use an overhaul. When it's done, this should be a nice improvement for us. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 06:11, 23 August 2013 (CEST)
So guys, what do you think? We'll need to get as many specifics as we can hammered out before we go along with this. If things get too complicated we can use [[Project:Wiki Conventions]] for detailed information and have a trimmed down version in the ratings guide. It's work, definitely, but this is a long standing crappy system that really could use an overhaul. When it's done, this should be a nice improvement for us. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 06:11, 23 August 2013 (CEST)
: Well, I'm in with it. About rating 4 and 5, I think that if a game need an extreme setting (interpreter, LLE, EFB to Ram uncached, MMU), we should mark it as 4. Otherwise, mark it as 5. And for graphical related issues, if the problem is backend specific and the issue can be fixed by using OpenGL (that works Windows/Mac/Linux), we should mark as 5, otherwise mark it as 4. Despite this two notes, I agree with the rest - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]])
: Well, I'm in with it. About rating 4 and 5, I think that if a game need an extreme setting (interpreter, LLE, EFB to Ram uncached, MMU), we should mark it as 4. Otherwise, mark it as 5. And for graphical related issues, if the problem is backend specific and the issue can be fixed by using OpenGL (that works Windows/Mac/Linux), we should mark as 5, otherwise mark it as 4. Despite this two notes, I agree with the rest - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]])
:: I agree with Jhonn on this. I'd even go further and say games that require interpreter, video software or full MMU+TLB emulation (=> no way to run even at 50% speed on any current computer) should be marked as 2 (unplayable) instead of 4. LLE, EFB to Ram uncached should be 4. Not sure about Single Core / SyncGPU. Please tell me when you reach a decision, I'll need to update the website to match that. [[User:Delroth|delroth]] ([[User talk:Delroth|talk]]) 14:14, 25 August 2013 (CEST)
:: I agree with Jhonn on this. I'd even go further and say games that require interpreter, video software or full MMU+TLB emulation (=> no way to run even at 50% speed on any current computer) should be marked as 2 (unplayable) instead of 4. LLE, EFB to Ram uncached should be 4. Not sure about Single Core / SyncGPU. Please tell me when you reach a decision, I'll need to update the website to match that. [[User:Delroth|delroth]] ([[User talk:Delroth|talk]]) 14:14, 25 August 2013 (CEST)
: I'm generally OK with rehashing the definitions, but it will be a big job to re-align existing rankings. It looks like anything that was a 1 or 2 becomes a 1, which we could automate and 5 would stay 5 but all the 3/4 rankings would likely need investigation. We'll need some way to flag ratings that have been checked, perhaps we can script adding a comment/category into ratings pages to indicate ratings need review (and while we are doing this, we may also want to capture a date/revision a rating is captured against).
:I'm a bit concerned regarding the "Perfect with the right settings" description for 5 stars though. I'd prefer to keep that as "Perfect with default settings", since if special settings are needed we likely should be looking at updating game ini's to provide more appropriate defaults.[[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 21:52, 27 August 2013 (CEST)


===DB Error===
===DB Error===

Navigation menu