Template talk:Ratings: Difference between revisions

m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 13: Line 13:


:::::Why would Excellent not get along with Playable? :/ It seems fine to me. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 14:27, 30 November 2015 (CET)
:::::Why would Excellent not get along with Playable? :/ It seems fine to me. - [[User:MaJoR|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR|talk]]) 14:27, 30 November 2015 (CET)
::::::The definition behind five rating sets feels distinctive from each others. I think it's perfect (not technical of course!). The definition of "Excellent" will blur the bar between "Playable" and "Perfect" and will not end well as if there's debate between whether the problem is quite "minor" or not. We shouln't be splitting hairs here. With "Perfect", anytime there is a problem then let the other four rating sets do the job. They're based on where the point it crashed during the emulation. If no crash, but still has problem, "Playable" it is. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 07:34, 2 December 2015 (CET)
::::::The definition behind five rating sets feels distinctive from each others. I think it's perfect (not technical of course!). The definition of "Excellent" will blur the bar between "Playable" and "Perfect" and will not end well as if there's debate between whether the problem is quite "minor" or not. We shouldn't be splitting hairs there. With "Perfect", anytime there is a problem then let the other four rating sets do the job. They're based on where the point it crashed during the emulation. If no crash, gameplay progress fine, but still has problem, "Playable" it is. [[User:Lucario|Lucario]] ([[User talk:Lucario|talk]]) 07:34, 2 December 2015 (CET)
6,576

edits