Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Compatibility Guide: Difference between revisions

* A baseline "3d Output" {{tl|Problems}} template needs to be defined to provide preliminary 3d output support details and linkages back to the [[Stereoscopic 3D Support and Compatibility/Sandbox|Stereoscopic 3D Support and Compatibility]] page. Each title's page will also likely need to provide detailed notes around specific 3d issues/workarounds and depth/separation configuration details (where such isn't integrated with pre-existing inis).

  * 2: Acceptable: Some visual issues

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

 

==== Jhonn ====

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.

== Older Discussion ==

:::Ok, read the whole discussion now. I think we should move the testing details currently available on this page to an entry in Enhancements section of the respective games, as this page as it is now is starting to get crowded and clunky. About the ratings, I somewhat share the same opinion as MaJoR but I'm also afraid we may not have a better way to evaluate them. What I would suggest is trying to define *veeeeeery clear* rules/aspects to define what "3D rating" a game should get (if we can achieve that I think we won't have further issues with the system) before moving on with that, perhaps using a more simplified rating (that doesn't necessarily needs to be stars, maybe a single "circle" which get a color based on the rating -- maybe on the infobox?). Something like 3 stars? 0 means untested, 1 means No 3D/Not Recommended (e.g. graphics become messed, several issues/game breaking problems or no 3D at all), 2 means fair (e.g. game renders in 3D but not all times or have other minor issues that shouldn't affect gameplay) and 3 means Good (everything else that doesn't fit the previous two categories get here). I would also like to somehow incorporate recommended depth/separation values in the game pages since most games in Dolphin doesn't come with any on their INIs and from personal experience many games requires different values to even get a 3D effect... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 03:48, 29 November 2015 (CET)

::::I felt like now's the good time to bring up the mockup 3D rating table. These are my own words. Might need to hue the stars little more.

::::{| class="wikitable"

| [[Image:3DStars2D.png]]

:::: [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 04:50, 29 November 2015 (CET)

:::[[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 05:56, 29 November 2015 (CET)

:::::::I would replace that "Eyesore" with "Not Recommended", it's a bit more ample, we could tag 2D only titles here as well... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 18:27, 29 November 2015 (CET)

:::::::::There's a lot of aspects to consider when defining whether a game runs in 2D or 3D, and I'm afraid this will increase chances of complaints/fights about a given rating because this system very susceptible to those kind of flaws, that's why I think both 2D games or games severely messed when in 3D should use the same 1-star rating (to specifically avoid that -- we could note whether the game is 2D or 3D on Enhancements section, for example). There are games that are obviously 2D only (like Zelda Four Swords Adventures) but we also have veeery odd cases of 3D games that for whatever reason doesn't output 3D at all (e.g. Super Paper Mario is a game that generally plays in 2D perspective but Mario has the ability to "flip" the world in 3D but even in the flipped world I couldn't get any depth at all, even after messing with all available options -- only the HUD were affected). - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 22:44, 29 November 2015 (CET)

:::::::::::: LOL, NO! Please, no! This text overlapping the stars is just awful, looks like broken website rendering! I would go either stars only or the previous "label" concept MaJoR showed before in [[Template talk:Infobox VG]] - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 03:22, 30 November 2015 (CET)

::::::::::::: I'm gonna agree with Jhonn actually. By doing this the clickable area of the image of stars is inadvertently blocked by it.

Here's a version of Jhonn's idea in code that can be modified. I think stop light colors provide clearer info /wo documentation than yellow, green, blue. We can go pastel if the colors are too bold. One problem I see with it rather than using stars is that it's less clear that a rating of 1=Not recommended and 3=Excellent than when using a star count that match the assigned rating. On the other hand, perhaps the lack of stars is better to distinguish the two ratings. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 19:58, 30 November 2015 (CET)

: /\ THIS! Exactly what I meant, despite the gray (that I made a little lighter) Kolano even managed to tone down the red color a little bit so it don't look like it's shouting to my eyes, thanks, I liked... - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 02:14, 1 December 2015 (CET)

: Gotcha. What if we move the discussion to how the 3D info should look/what should we put on the entry when moved to Enhancements section (well, if you guys agree moving it there) and hold the 3D rating implementation until it's ready (I mean, keep discussing it but don't implement anything outside of sandboxes, at least not yet)? - [[User:Jhonn|Jhonn]] ([[User talk:Jhonn|talk]]) 03:19, 1 December 2015 (CET)