Template talk:Ratings: Difference between revisions

Template talk:Ratings (view source)

Revision as of 12:03, 2 December 2015

72 bytes added , 2 December 2015

no edit summary

Lucario

6,576

edits

Revision as of 08:41, 2 December 2015 (view source) Lucario (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 12:03, 2 December 2015 (view source) Lucario (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
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 ~~someone may argue~~ whether the ~~"minor"~~ problem is ~~actually not~~ "minor" ~~to them~~. ~~<s> Perhaps we'll need another term that's very close to~~ "Perfect", ~~even closer than "Excellent"</s> Seems like~~ there ~~isn~~'~~t any.~~.. [[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. 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)