15,188
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
Username rename (Jhonn => mbc07)
(Username rename (Jhonn => mbc07)) |
|||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| | | | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
|+MaJoR/ | |+MaJoR/mbc07 | ||
|- | |- | ||
! Compatibility | ! Compatibility | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
::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: | ::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:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 18:23, 29 November 2015 (CET) | ||
:::That is kind of what this is meant to deal with. We've had games that were perfect, and when a super minor bug is discovered, even though it was there all along, it is demoted to 4 stars. By lowering the standard just a little bit, a lot of problems will be reduced. "Perfect" is an impossible standard! A little give will smooth out a lot of issues in the rating system, imo. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 08:43, 30 November 2015 (CET) | :::That is kind of what this is meant to deal with. We've had games that were perfect, and when a super minor bug is discovered, even though it was there all along, it is demoted to 4 stars. By lowering the standard just a little bit, a lot of problems will be reduced. "Perfect" is an impossible standard! A little give will smooth out a lot of issues in the rating system, imo. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 08:43, 30 November 2015 (CET) | ||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
:::::::::::: I'm starting to feel stupid especially after long discussion like this. Please disregard my opinions if you think I'm still wrong. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 01:34, 6 December 2015 (CET) | :::::::::::: I'm starting to feel stupid especially after long discussion like this. Please disregard my opinions if you think I'm still wrong. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 01:34, 6 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: | 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:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 17:33, 5 December 2015 (CET) | ||
(Outdented | (Outdented mbc07 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
::For the record, I think Excellent is better. I'm just kind of tired of endless bikeshedding over silly things, so I don't want to go into huge long battles over this. If this tiny change to the perfect definition is all you guys will accept, it's better than nothing... - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 13:41, 11 December 2015 (CET) | ::For the record, I think Excellent is better. I'm just kind of tired of endless bikeshedding over silly things, so I don't want to go into huge long battles over this. If this tiny change to the perfect definition is all you guys will accept, it's better than nothing... - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 13:41, 11 December 2015 (CET) | ||
So, conclusions? I read the new "no relevant issues" proposal and meh, looks like we're exchanging "six" for "half a dozen", essentially not changing anything. Considering Dolphin is an emulator of a complex console, unless some day it becomes an accuracy focused emulator (like higan), calling the top-most rating as Perfect doesn't look completely right to me. In other words, my vote goes now to Excellent as well - [[User: | So, conclusions? I read the new "no relevant issues" proposal and meh, looks like we're exchanging "six" for "half a dozen", essentially not changing anything. Considering Dolphin is an emulator of a complex console, unless some day it becomes an accuracy focused emulator (like higan), calling the top-most rating as Perfect doesn't look completely right to me. In other words, my vote goes now to Excellent as well - [[User:mbc07|mbc07]] ([[User talk:mbc07|talk]]) 20:27, 10 December 2015 (CET) | ||
:At least "No relevant issues" is better than saying "No issues at all!". The latter one sounds misleading and childish so I'm in for this change, whether it's simply a placeholder for the upcoming better description. Have any idea how to write description for "Excellent" also? I'm ok for either but may blur the bar between "perfect" and "playable" and that's something we're afraid of. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 00:28, 11 December 2015 (CET) | :At least "No relevant issues" is better than saying "No issues at all!". The latter one sounds misleading and childish so I'm in for this change, whether it's simply a placeholder for the upcoming better description. Have any idea how to write description for "Excellent" also? I'm ok for either but may blur the bar between "perfect" and "playable" and that's something we're afraid of. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 00:28, 11 December 2015 (CET) | ||