Poll: Should compatibility with different games be more detailed?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
68.97%
20 68.97%
No
31.03%
9 31.03%
Total 29 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Compatibility
#31
(04-23-2009, 01:28 PM)roska.posti Wrote: Yeah, if you say you have 4Ghz computer, and games run fine. It won`t tell me much. How about you see something like this?
1. E8400 Dual Core/8800GT/4GB/12000 3DMark06/Final Fantasy X: 70-100 FPS, Runs fine.
2. E6600 Dual Core/8800GT/2GB/ 9000 3DMark06/Final Fantasy X: 35-55 FPS, Runs ok.
This would tell me if I can run it or not ... or if it is playable

The problem is that you aren't really getting it, with 'it' being the fact that we have already considered this at length aren't going to do it. But that problem aside, I'll cheerfully repeat what everyone else has already said, but perhaps in a more enjoyably witty matter:

Why we can't do a Speed List:

Reason 1: Because by god every damn PC runs every damn game differently.

Have an ATI? Woops! Some games will run like 20 fps, which otherwise run 50-100 on Geforce. Ah! But it only happens on some scenes. Rest of the game is fine. And Woops! Some other scenes are really slow if you don't have SSE4.1. And oh no! The whole gam runs like crap on an AMD because it's abusing SSE denormals or something. And some games actually hammer the SPU pretty hard, and if this game happens to be one of those 2D games that hits the SPU2, an you're on a sub 2ghz cpu, and using the right SPU2 plugin [and by right, I mean wrong], it'll kill your fps.

Do you see where this is going now? And this is not an obscure case. The majority of titles end up having "rules" like these, albeit if your system is high-end enough it won't matter (runs full speed regardless of the game's particulars and nuances).

Reason #2: Because tomorrow came, and now the information is outdated.

We're constantly working on speeding up the emulator. Hardware changes faster than my underware (which isn't really saying much...). And in 2 years time I garauntee you the whole concept will be irrelevant. We're not going to invest time into implementing a system that's going to be worthless months after we finally get it live.

Quote:Yes, I can see the problem, if you lets users comment on something. Though I won`t think that links to torrent sites would be problem ... something like "ROFL! LOL" "OMZ" comments would be a bigger problem. Then again, there are lot of power hungry volunteers to moderate such comments ...

No, the problem would be that people would give what they felt was constructive input, and it'd be wrong or outdated. Everyone's:

a) Opinion of what runs decent varies.
b) Video driver installs vary.
c) Plugin selections and version vary.
d) Hardware varies.
e) Opinion of what constitutes good or bad or high or low end hardware varies.

So you'd end up with banter about stuff like "well my system is crap it at runs fine!" etc. followed by "on my system it's a bog, so I dunno what the hell you're playing dude." etc.

Not going to happen.

But! If you like the idea a lot, you could always make your own compat list and put up your own website. There's nothing wrong with that. We're just not going to do it here at pcsx2.net.
Jake Stine (Air) - Programmer - PCSX2 Dev Team
Reply

Sponsored links

#32
(04-23-2009, 02:18 PM)Air Wrote: The problem is that you aren't really getting it. Because by god every damn PC runs every damn game differently.

But, I AM getting it. You are saying that you are NOT going to add any references to which kind of system can run the game. And also that you think it would be USELESS. Also you are saying that maintaining such list by users, would not be helpful because it would be used like a chatbox.

(04-23-2009, 02:18 PM)Air Wrote: But! If you like the idea a lot, you could always make your own compat list.

My only point is that such list WOULD be helpful for some people. If I see a similar system saying that the game runs well, how is that not going to help me? If so, then how the game runs on system depends on luck and karma, and it has nothing to do with setup.

No, I do not even like the idea. I like the idea of knowing more accurately CAN I actually run the game with a smooth FPS.
Reply
#33
if you want to know that accurately, the best thing you can do is pop the game in your pc, fire up the emulator and see how it runs, you cannot get much more accurate than that! But if you are doing it to check before you buy the game, don't bother, no game purchases you make should be based on if the emulator can run it, as i said in my previous post, the emulator is not a replacement for the original console.
[Image: ref-sig-anim.gif]

Reply
#34
(04-23-2009, 03:16 PM)roska.posti Wrote: But, I AM getting it. You are saying that you are NOT going to add any references to which kind of system can run the game. And also that you think it would be USELESS. Also you are saying that maintaining such list by users, would not be helpful because it would be used like a chatbox.

Partly, but not really. I'm also saying it would take time and effort to implement user-maintained comments correctly. We can't just "bing!" and have a new Compat List with user comments and administration. That requires WORK and, in fact, quite a lot of work if we're to make it by today's web guidelines especially. Even if we tie it into the forum, it's not exactly easy nor fun work. So if it's to be done, it damn well better be useful.

... and it's not, because:

Quote:My only point is that such list WOULD be helpful for some people. If I see a similar system saying that the game runs well, how is that not going to help me? If so, then how the game runs on system depends on luck and karma, and it has nothing to do with setup.

Honestly, the second part is more accurate. We monitor these forums religiously, and some of us have had a variety of systems to work and test pcsx2 on directly. And the performance of the emulator can vary wildly even between similar-sounding systems. If you didn't get it (and you still didn't!) then I'll reiterate: versions of plugins can matter lots. Beta versions of Pcsx2 can matter lots. Choices of plugins can matter lots. Versions of video drivers can matter (tho not so much usually). Bios configurations regarding Speedstep or other things can matter lots. Whether a machine is a full size desktop (good cooling) or a low-profile (bad cooling) can matter lots. Laptops usually suck lots also (but not always).

I can go on.

So in the end we're doing it to protect you and everyone else as much as our own time-constrained interests. Such info would, in fact, not be helpful for most games and systems.

There is only one categorical exception to this rule, which are those games which simply run slow on everything -- as in max 2-5 fps on highest-end hardware of today. I can see some merit to affixing an asterisk of sorts to these titles, with the footnote being that "no known modern hardware cn un this game at anyhting remotely close to playable speeds." Short, simple, easy to implement, and universally helpful. Smile
Jake Stine (Air) - Programmer - PCSX2 Dev Team
Reply
#35
(04-23-2009, 10:44 PM)Air Wrote: There is only one categorical exception to this rule, which are those games which simply run slow on everything -- as in max 2-5 fps on highest-end hardware of today. I can see some merit to affixing an asterisk of sorts to these titles, with the footnote being that "no known modern hardware cn un this game at anyhting remotely close to playable speeds." Short, simple, easy to implement, and universally helpful. Smile

yes, I agree on that point, but what of things like god of war 1 & 2?
Reply
#36
(04-23-2009, 10:49 PM)Saiki Wrote:
(04-23-2009, 10:44 PM)Air Wrote: There is only one categorical exception to this rule, which are those games which simply run slow on everything -- as in max 2-5 fps on highest-end hardware of today. I can see some merit to affixing an asterisk of sorts to these titles, with the footnote being that "no known modern hardware cn un this game at anyhting remotely close to playable speeds." Short, simple, easy to implement, and universally helpful. Smile

yes, I agree on that point, but what of things like god of war 1 & 2?

What about them? God of War 1 runs on my desktop and appears playable, never tried God of War 2.

Since the current compatibility is God of War - Playable, God of War 2 - Ingame I think it's accurate.

I agree with Air in that the only really useful information that the list can give is whether the game runs at all, it shouldn't be used to infer speed. Small changes in hardware/configurations can make or break all of the conclusions you want to draw, you're much better off getting the latest plugins and directly measuring your computer's performance.
"This thread should be closed immediately, it causes parallel imagination and multiprocess hallucination" --ardhi
Reply
#37
When I read the OP here, I was more or less in agreement with the ideas- not so much with seperate categories for "runs on a ..." stuff, but just a short description of possible issues which could provide some clarification of potential problems to be included as a short extra to the list (moderated, and needing to be approved by forum moderators before acceptance).

Having read through this thread, I now feel the current system is best. There are just too many variables to cover in the list. Once you decide to try a particular game where it says it works fully, search the forum because that is the correct place for problems some (but not all) people are having with it. In a few rare cases, a global fix may currently be needed which would be nice to mention, but if it involves copyright-infringing hacks or downloads, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Leave the Compatibility List as a place where a game can be said to work or not, regardless of whether you need a Core i7 clocked at 5GHz and a large tub of liquid-nitrogen to make it work at full speed Tongue2
CPU: Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (2.2GHz @ solid 2.53GHz)
GPU: nVidia GeForce 8800GTS 640MB (not currently O/C)
Memory: 2GB DDR400 (2x 1GB @ DDR422 2.5-3-2)
Reply
#38
(04-24-2009, 01:00 AM)PrinceGaz Wrote: In a few rare cases, a global fix may currently be needed which would be nice to mention, but if it involves copyright-infringing hacks or downloads, that opens up a whole new can of worms.

Leave the Compatibility List as a place where a game can be said to work or not, regardless of whether you need a Core i7 clocked at 5GHz and a large tub of liquid-nitrogen to make it work at full speed Tongue2

hacks are made the same way pcsx2 is, it's no more illegal or infringing. and I do agree on the specs thing, BAD idea
Reply
#39
Not really, PCSX2 does not modify any copyrighted material. Whatever these hacks/patches do, I'm not sure if it's illegal or not but it definitely is NOT comparable to what PCSX2 is using/is doing.
[Image: newsig.jpg]
Reply
#40
(04-24-2009, 01:33 AM)Bositman Wrote: Not really, PCSX2 does not modify any copyrighted material. Whatever these hacks/patches do, I'm not sure if it's illegal or not but it definitely is NOT comparable to what PCSX2 is using/is doing.
Toxic DL for example, only patches an ISO image inside a disc. (img390.bin or something) fixes a problem when loading the dvd on pcsx2 (though some pirates use it too, that doesn't make the program a pirate program)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)