79,225
edits
 |
Progress Continues
We've already had 21543 updates since Dolphin 5.0. Keep up with Dolphin's continuing progress through the Dolphin Blog: February, March, and April 2024 Dolphin Progress Report. |
 |
The Dolphin Emulator Wiki needs your help! Dolphin can play thousands of games, and changes are happening all the time. Help us keep up! Join in and help us make this the best resource for Dolphin. |
Template talk:Ratings: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Compatibility}} | |||
== Perfect vs Excellent == | == Perfect vs Excellent == | ||
From [[Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Support and Compatibility/Sandbox]], it occurred to me that we should bring one of the things proposed there over here! We should change "Perfect" to "Excellent". Excellent provides a way to allow minor errors in, such as shader compilation stuttering that is minor for every single game, without it interfering with the rating. And it should finally ease the "this is not perfect!" arguments, since the bar would be lower! It's also a drop in change for the 5th star, and very simple for us to do. What do you think guys? - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 10:13, 29 November 2015 (CET) | From [[Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Support and Compatibility/Sandbox]], it occurred to me that we should bring one of the things proposed there over here! We should change "Perfect" to "Excellent". Excellent provides a way to allow minor errors in, such as shader compilation stuttering that is minor for every single game, without it interfering with the rating. And it should finally ease the "this is not perfect!" arguments, since the bar would be lower! It's also a drop in change for the 5th star, and very simple for us to do. What do you think guys? - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 10:13, 29 November 2015 (CET) | ||
| Line 4: | Line 5: | ||
:One thing to note is that the emulator would need to be updated too. I wanted to ask here first though. I'm pretty sure it will go well there, but it's something to consider when thinking about this. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 11:29, 29 November 2015 (CET) | :One thing to note is that the emulator would need to be updated too. I wanted to ask here first though. I'm pretty sure it will go well there, but it's something to consider when thinking about this. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 11:29, 29 November 2015 (CET) | ||
:I very much dislike revising things so that the top rating isn't perfect. If some title is not perfect, then there should still be things to be worked on in the emulator related to it, and I don't what that to be lost as we start applying 5 star to imperfectly emulated titles. In theory we should have already resolved "shader compilation stuttering" resulting in imperfect ratings by migrating those problems to "Emulation Info" rather than under "Problems". [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 17:44, 29 November 2015 (CET) | ::One other area to remember in this renaming is the 5 star {{tl|VersionCompatibilityVersion}} templates. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 23:20, 2 December 2015 (CET) | ||
I very much dislike revising things so that the top rating isn't perfect. If some title is not perfect, then there should still be things to be worked on in the emulator related to it, and I don't what that to be lost as we start applying 5 star to imperfectly emulated titles. In theory we should have already resolved "shader compilation stuttering" resulting in imperfect ratings by migrating those problems to "Emulation Info" rather than under "Problems". [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 17:44, 29 November 2015 (CET) | |||
::We should be careful with "Perfect" rating, like, should we consider a game that need specific settings as "Perfect" or if a game needs settings that'll make it run very slow but accurate, should it get a Perfect rating too? That's the main issue I'm seeing with our current system, we lack a well defined set of aspects to quickly define what specific rating a game should get. Our current definitions are too vague and leads to different understandings, like this particular case... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 18:23, 29 November 2015 (CET) | ::We should be careful with "Perfect" rating, like, should we consider a game that need specific settings as "Perfect" or if a game needs settings that'll make it run very slow but accurate, should it get a Perfect rating too? That's the main issue I'm seeing with our current system, we lack a well defined set of aspects to quickly define what specific rating a game should get. Our current definitions are too vague and leads to different understandings, like this particular case... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 18:23, 29 November 2015 (CET) | ||
| Line 27: | Line 31: | ||
::::::::::: Anyway, this conversation is starting to go into circles, so I'm going to push it toward a conclusion and ask the other admins to weigh in. My point is simple: Dolphin can never be perfect! And yet we are ignoring global problems and unknown bugs to give games the immutable "perfect" rating. By changing from Perfect to Excellent, and do no other change to our ratings template, we are making the wording used in the compatibility rating better match how we are using it! And that's it! We'll actually be able to tell someone that a game is excellent without '''lying''' to them. That is what bothers me about "perfect" and why I want to make the change. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 09:48, 5 December 2015 (CET) | ::::::::::: Anyway, this conversation is starting to go into circles, so I'm going to push it toward a conclusion and ask the other admins to weigh in. My point is simple: Dolphin can never be perfect! And yet we are ignoring global problems and unknown bugs to give games the immutable "perfect" rating. By changing from Perfect to Excellent, and do no other change to our ratings template, we are making the wording used in the compatibility rating better match how we are using it! And that's it! We'll actually be able to tell someone that a game is excellent without '''lying''' to them. That is what bothers me about "perfect" and why I want to make the change. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 09:48, 5 December 2015 (CET) | ||
After the whole discussion I'm in favour of moving to Excellent as well as in essence it would just adjust to what we were doing in the past years, what we always did was tagging games that have no known problems as "Perfect" even when that certainly is not the case! (e.g. a less-known game that we don't know it have issues because nobody reported -- it can occur even with popular games, Super Smash Bros. Melee for example kept tagged as "Perfect" for a long time even with its known problems!). So, I suggest we move on with Excellent and then rename the relevant parts (compatibility table and chart, ping delroth or Parlane to update the wording in the main site as well, etc) - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (CET) | |||
(Outdented Jhonn and My responses, it gets silly that deep, and they are general responses anyway) | |||
First off "Excellent" does not equal "Perfect" even if we try to define it as if it did. It seems to set a lower bar for entry and is likely to lead to arguments over games with real, but minor, issues. I understand the counterpoint that almost nothing can be emulated in an exacting enough way to be perfect. I don't feel it's a very strong point though, as the only example of anything currently reported on the wiki seems to be shader compilation stuttering, which is now classified as an "Emulation Information" topic and as such won't effect ratings. Unless there is some other widespread issue that can't be similarly addressed I don't think arguments against "Perfect" hold much water. | |||
That being said, I would be supportive of getting text added to the wiki for the few other things Major listed (but I'm unaware of specific examples of them)... | |||
*issues with forced perspective to get around CRT timing issues, which creates subtle bugs in many GameCube titles, such as one pixel of masking being wrong | |||
*one pixel high jittering (which is a bigger problem worthy of the problems area) | |||
*other minor things without easy answers | |||
...these sorts of things likely should be listed on the wiki, and if they cause titles to no longer meet our "Perfect" rating (i.e. title can be played without issues /w default configuration) so be it. Even if they are global problems effecting a large number of titles. | |||
Major seems hung up on classifying something as "Perfect" that is not, and also seems to be of the opinion that many games currently classified as Perfect are not. It's unclear how it was handled prior to the wiki, but generally I'm confused how imperfect games would have received perfect ratings. The three cases I can think of: | |||
*Minor bugs missed by tester | |||
*New bugs introduced over time | |||
*Games maliciously rated as perfect by unscrupulous wiki editors | |||
...but I'd hope those aren't common occurrences. It also doesn't seem like it could be that widespread a problem, as there are only 295 titles, out of multiple thousands, that receive a perfect rating. If some of those have issues we should investigate them, but I'm not clear why we should assume that to be the case (and if we can assume such, we should drop them all to "Playable" now). [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 22:29, 5 December 2015 (CET) | |||