Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Compatibility Guide: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
Line 72: Line 72:
| Acceptable: Some visual issues
| Acceptable: Some visual issues
|-
|-
| [[Image:3DStars1.png]]<br /><span style="display:inline-block;width:72px;text-align:center;font-size:8pt;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Eyesore/2D</span>
| [[Image:3DStars1.png]]<br /><span style="display:inline-block;width:72px;text-align:center;font-size:8pt;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Not&nbsp;Recommended</span>
| Not recommended: Eyesore and/or renders in 2D
| Not recommended: Eyesore and/or renders in 2D
|-
|-
Line 89: Line 89:


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)
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". Can you update your font styling changes to {{tl|Infobox VG/sandbox}} as well? Thanks. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 10:09, 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)
6,576

edits

Navigation menu