Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Compatibility Guide: Difference between revisions

We've concluded that:

* A lower count of ratings would be for the best, we seem to have settled on using 3 levels + unrated.

We still need to decide upon the following:

We need to decide the specific titles/ descriptions used for each rating, there have been at least thee suggestions. The "Unknown" rating seems clear but we still need to conclude on the others. Some specific open topics:

* Acceptable?: Kolano feels what's "acceptable" varies too greatly between people to use this term.

* Ratings Basis: Kolano suggested we revise the description text to more closely relate things to the cause for these ratings (i.e. problems).

  * 3: Excellent: Nice stereoscopic 3D gameplay experience

  * 2: Acceptable: Some visual issues

  * 1: Not Recommended: Eyesore and/or renders in 2D

  * 3: Good: Everything else that doesn't fit the previous two categories get here

  * 2: Fair: Game renders in 3D but not all times or have other minor issues that shouldn't affect gameplay

  * 1: No 3D/Not Recommended: Graphics become messed, several issues/game breaking problems or no 3D at all

  * 3: Good: No problems

  * 2: Fair: Minor problems not impacting play

  * 1: Poor: Major problems impacting play

Should 2d titles be specifically called out or rated in some specific way?

* Kolano would prefer they be rated just like other titles, and only listed as imperfect if they display poorly under 3d output (i.e. have specific problems, rather than simply not using 3d).

* Jhonn / Lucario feel 2d titles should receive a 1 star rating regardless of how they output in 3d mode.

Major suggested that we not place the 3d rating into the info box, and instead keep it within the enhancement section.

: This may be prudent to listen to. In future we may also cover things like compatibility with anti-aliasing and anisotropic/forced filtering. It would probably be nice to include similar at a glance ratings for such, but adding 3+ ratings to the infobox seems excessive. I'd almost want to design a separate "Enhancements" sidebar, but that probably has some layout concerns (i.e. forcing gaps in page content to appear below infobox sidebar). [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 23:14, 1 December 2015 (CET)

We have 2 main designs for handling 3d ratings we need to decide between: stars mimicking our standard ratings or street light style. Outstanding issues:

* Major seems against non-textual displays. I think this has been resolved, as other admins fail to see text only solutions as providing an at a glace evaluation, but leaving a note here in case this needs more discussion.

|}

We'll likely need to define some guidance text to those providing ratings. I'm not quite how to best handle such, since the Infobox may not be a great place for the HTML comment style guidance provided elsewhere (and will be missed if an edit button is provided like our other ratings). It seems we default the undefined ratings to the text "0", so perhaps we can revise such to also provide an instructional comment (perhaps for our regular ratings too). [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 23:14, 1 December 2015 (CET)