Talk:Stereoscopic 3D Compatibility Guide: Difference between revisions

|}

----

{| class="wikitable"

|-

!|3D Condition

| <span style="display:inline-block;width:12px;height:12px;border-radius:8px;background:#ccc;border:2px solid #888"></span><span style="margin-left:.5em;font-weight:bold;color:#666;">Unknown</span>

| Has not been tested yet

|}

* The stop light approach may make the numeric ratings less clear (i.e. does a 1 = red or green), such is much clearer when a star count matches the rating.

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)

=== Improvements? ===

Well, this is still a little early in, but you can kind of see the structure forming. Jump in with suggestions on better ways to handle it if you come up with any! - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 16:46, 7 August 2014 (CEST)

OK, this hasn't gotten much work in the past year. As of today, I'm leaning more to including the title specific content under the Enhancements section of each page where it's more likely to be seen with a link back here for the other details on 3d. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 23:51, 25 November 2015 (CET)

:I'd actually want to create a new rating system for 3D compatibility and integrate them into {{tl|Infobox VG}}. They're made up of four sets of green stars and in case of game displaying 2D in 3D mode, we'll use an image of two green stars and two gray stars but there'll be text "2D" hovering above them. The rating parameter will be familiarized with compatibility rating system (0-5) except there'll be no "5", then for 2D, the parameter will be "2D" which coincidentally there'll be two green stars just like "2"! This sounds clever! Can this be done? I'm afraid we'd have to put arbitrary comment about 3D effect issues into Emu Info along with compatibility rating in the Infobox VG. Is it alright this way? [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 04:53, 28 November 2015 (CET)

::Our general concern with ratings comes with the inability to clearly define rules for rating things that result in consistent assignments. I'm currently unclear we can work out rules beyond a Untested/0-2 star system (0: 3d unsupported (i.e. 2d games), 1: 3d /w Problems 2: Functional 3d), let us know if you have a clear ruleset for a more fine-grained system. Some level of significance around 3d Problems would be desirable, but I'm not sure clear rules can be defined. We shouldn't worry about the specific display of this info till we have a well defined system in place. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 08:19, 28 November 2015 (CET)

:::::::Oh right, I somehow thought you said to give 0 stars to the titles rated as "not recommended" in 3D rating compatibility. (I need a "not support 3d =/= not recommended" lesson apparently) I'd still like to give "2D" two stars to coincide with first digit in parameter "2". [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 12:53, 28 November 2015 (CET)

:I am against stars. The silly stars are a huge problem for emulation rating, even when it's much simpler that 3D! 3D is so absurdly complicated! When this was brought up the stars idea was discussed, and I pushed strongly against it, and we settled for the current text technique. I think it should stay as such.

:I'm also pretty wary of it showing up in pages. Notice how this page here ''describes'' the problems with 3D very clearly, as well as having rating. The rating *and* descriptions would need to be integrated into each page, and I have no idea how to do that without looking awkward. Well, the only idea I've come up with is putting it into Emulation Information, but at that point, couldn't you just integrate the rating with the post? - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 15:57, 28 November 2015 (CET)

:: This info needs to be assessed for every single title. The table here (and the page itself) will eventually become too unwieldy to be useful (i.e. once it contains multiple thousands of rows). The text ratings have the exact same issue as stars, in either case we need rules around how the ratings are assigned and we currently don't have any. My thoughts here had been to add the additional rating to the info box (though it could be moved elsewhere) and include the detailed instructions for problematic titles in the "Enhancements" section of each title. Likely prefixed with a {{tl|Problems}} template that  would cover 3d info in brief and link back to this page for more specific details around 3d output support. As I think was discussed previously, with no linkages here no one is likely to ever find/see the 3d info provided; and if we add a link to each title we might as well provide the 3d info on the title's page. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 16:47, 28 November 2015 (CET)

:::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)

|-

!|3D Condition

| Unknown: Has not been tested yet

|}

::Surprised to hear that you are very against the star rating for 3D condition chart. How come? Just for confirmation, are you a 3D user? I'm considering integrating into Infobox VG as there is compatibility rating and I felt that it's good spot for secondary rating set made to rate 3D of each game (I can't speak for virtual console games however.....). It will be an "easy access" for 3D users and I can't see how is it redundant/silly. Just for future reference I'm against arbitrary data to there. The 3D issue comments should go into Emu Info/Enhancements. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 04:50, 29 November 2015 (CET)

:::Yes, I'm a 3D user (generally by hooking my laptop to an Active 3D Sony BRAVIA TV), not a die-hard user that always run Dolphin in 3D but I test/play my games in 3D often. About the 3D Rating, let me rephrase what I wrote before: like MaJoR, I'm against the "star" rating system because of the problems we already have with it, they're controversial and nobody knows for sure how or what conditions a game may need to achieve a 5-star compatibility rating, for example (there are too many variables to take into account). So, I'm against introducing another rating system based on this concept because it'll almost certainly suffer from the same flaws in long term. However, I also can't think of a better way to provide that info, so I think something well defined and as simple as possible (like the 3-state 3D compatibility I proposed before) *might* work, shapening into a rating system that doesn't suffer from the same flaws our current compatibility rating system have (but again, I'm not a fan of this approach either, but it's what we have at the moment). In other words, my current position is:

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

::::::::::::: The table has been revised to exactly follow MaJoR's concept. What do you think? [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 03:40, 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". <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)

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)

:: To give appropriate credit, Lucario revised the colors. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 02:45, 1 December 2015 (CET)

While talking with JMC earlier, it seems changes coming down the pike related to supporting VR headsets are likely to impact/improve 3d rendering in a lot of titles. Based on that they encouraged us to not rush into actually rating things right now. We probably should bring the discussion of how we'll handle things when it's appropriate to move forward with such to a close though. Feel free to continue to respond, but I'll try to add some summary of things later so we can hopefully keep things needing further discussion moving forward. [[User:Kolano|Kolano]] ([[User talk:Kolano|talk]]) 02:52, 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)