Template talk:Ratings: Difference between revisions

Template talk:Ratings (view source)

Revision as of 18:41, 2 December 2015

190 bytes added , 2 December 2015

no edit summary

MayImilae

Bureaucrats, Administrators

5,502

edits

Revision as of 18:30, 2 December 2015 (view source) MayImilae (talk \| contribs) (→‎Perfect vs Excellent) ← Older edit		Revision as of 18:41, 2 December 2015 (view source) MayImilae (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 16:		Line 16:
	::::::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)		::::::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)

	:::::::How ~~is that confusing? Playable is hardly a high bar!~~ 4 ~~stars is~~ more or less a ~~"lack of severe issues"~~. Excellent would more or less be the same as Perfect, but with a small change - the global bugs, undiscovered bugs, and all of those things we ignore and allow us to call it perfect just because the problems area is empty? It's tolerable now, because it's NOT PERFECT! ~~This isn~~'t about changing our rating system at all, it's about changing the word we use to describe the 5th star to better reflect how we are using it~~. Not to mention getting rid of the pretense of "perfection" which zero games qualify for as long as shader compilation stuttering exists~~. - [[User:MaJoR\|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR\|talk]]) 17:30, 2 December 2015 (CET)		:::::::Hmm... How about this - we still have minor issues demoting from 5 stars to 4, so perfect would more or less just be renamed. But even like that, I still think excellent is a good thing to move to. Excellent would more or less be the same as Perfect, but with a small change - the global bugs, undiscovered bugs, and all of those things we ignore and allow us to call it perfect just because the problems area is empty? It's tolerable now, because it's NOT PERFECT! Perfect is perfect, and as long as we have shader compilation stuttering, nothing can be perfect. Moving to this would give us the wiggle room to actually say something is excellent and allow us to actually mean it. It wouldn't be about changing our rating system at all, it would only be about changing the word we use to describe the 5th star to better reflect how we are using it. - [[User:MaJoR\|MaJoR]] ([[User talk:MaJoR\|talk]]) 17:30, 2 December 2015 (CET)