Poll: Should we add a new category above playable like excellent or perfect?
This poll is closed.
Yes
77.27%
17 77.27%
No
22.73%
5 22.73%
Total 22 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Discussing the possibilities of the "Perfect" rating
#1
As suggested by avih, I am opening this thread to continue the discussion of a proposed "Perfect" rating for PCSX2 compatibility. The idea here is to get everyone on the same page so that while we all may not 100% agree on what it is, we all at least understand what "Perfect" means in the context of our compatibility list.
[Image: ov4]
Gaming: Intel i7 3770k @ 4.2Ghz | R9 290 | 16GB RAM | 480GB(240GB+240GB RAID0) SSD | 3 TB HDD | 1 TB HDD | 500GB HDD
Server: AMD FX 6300 @ 4.4Ghz | GTX 670 | 16GB RAM | 240GB SSD | 320GB HDD
PCSX2 General Troubleshooting FAQ
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
Basically the current feeling I've heard(but mostly only from three people) is that perfect means it replicates the original console closely enough that an average user wouldn't be able to tell the difference(barring the fact that it's on a PC, of course). The current question is whether requiring software mode excludes a game from being perfect. I don't think it does, JMC47 doesn't either, and BlackTelomeres was kinda on the fence.
[Image: ov4]
Gaming: Intel i7 3770k @ 4.2Ghz | R9 290 | 16GB RAM | 480GB(240GB+240GB RAID0) SSD | 3 TB HDD | 1 TB HDD | 500GB HDD
Server: AMD FX 6300 @ 4.4Ghz | GTX 670 | 16GB RAM | 240GB SSD | 320GB HDD
PCSX2 General Troubleshooting FAQ
Reply
#3
My thoughts on this is that because the software renderer doesn't impact playability (like Dolphin's software renderer, which is only for developer/tester use really,) that hardware support is a bonus. Maybe there will be a day when the hardware backends are so accurate that a push can be made for such a decision, but accuracy needs to be a priority before worrying about enhancing the games.

The other major question is whether speed matters for the rating. I am against it, but on Dolphin I'm in the minority. If a game can't run full speed on powerful machines (due to things like LLE, Full MMU, EFB2RAM) then it gets 4 stars instead of 5. Just food for thought, I guess; hopefully it helps layout a few potential arguments based on the ones had over Dolphin's compatibility ratings.
Reply
#4
Well, to open up the options a bit more, there are few factors which could affect a rating higher than "5 - playable".

1. Speed. Games which are too slow are not fun and cannot be called "perfect". So maybe we need a special note (or icon) to denote that this game needs a faster than average system (WTF is an average system??!?) in order to work reasonably fast.

2. There could be perfect (or close enough) with software rendering or with HW rendering. Ultimately, IMO perfect should only relate to whatever works best (and 99% or 100% software rendering is more correct than HW rendering). However, we can't disregard the big bonus which HW rendering could add - both in speed and in resolution. So maybe another icon which says that HW rendering is mostly glitch-less? (or the corollary icon - that it's only perfect with SW rendering?).

In general, if we go for "exception" icons (high system requirements, SW rendering required, etc), then we don't even have to add a 6th star. Just note (the exception icons) what's the difference between this game's performance and "perfect".

I guess there are other approaches as well. The "6th star - perfect" rating was just the first suggestion which came to my mind which would both cover the need for a better system while preserving existing compatibility info. But surely there are more.
[i7-3630qm/gt650m-2G/Win-7] [i7-4500u/R.HD8850m/Win-8.1] [2010-MBA/OSX-10.9.x]. Scroll smoothly with SmoothWheel for Firefox.
Reply
#5
(07-06-2014, 12:18 PM)JMC47 Wrote: The other major question is whether speed matters for the rating. I am against it, but on Dolphin I'm in the minority. If a game can't run full speed on powerful machines (due to things like LLE, Full MMU, EFB2RAM) then it gets 4 stars instead of 5. Just food for thought, I guess; hopefully it helps layout a few potential arguments based on the ones had over Dolphin's compatibility ratings.

I don't think speed would preclude the Perfect rating from being applied. At this point in time, any game can be run at full speed in PCSX2 if hardware is powerful enough(meaning present day hardware). Even an AMD like my machine can run 95% of games at full speed. Haswell processors just eat PCSX2 up. They are beastly. Even in software mode.

Now the one exception to this for me would be Shadow of the Colossus. I don't know if there are other bugs that would preclude it or not; but SotC basically requires VU cycle stealing speedhack to be playable on any machine. As I understand, this is because of slowdowns on a real PS2. But still, requiring a speedhack(other than the extremely compatible defaults and MTVU which is not default but also extremely compatible), WOULD preclude it from perfect IMHO.
[Image: ov4]
Gaming: Intel i7 3770k @ 4.2Ghz | R9 290 | 16GB RAM | 480GB(240GB+240GB RAID0) SSD | 3 TB HDD | 1 TB HDD | 500GB HDD
Server: AMD FX 6300 @ 4.4Ghz | GTX 670 | 16GB RAM | 240GB SSD | 320GB HDD
PCSX2 General Troubleshooting FAQ
Reply
#6
Here are some other things to think about regarding a definition like "it replicates the original console closely enough that an average user wouldn't be able to tell the difference":

-Is this average user someone who played the game on the original hardware and thus might be a bit more informed about what the game looks like there or is it the average user who has not?
-How many games do we know of that would actually qualify for perfect offhand under such a definition? Are there some minor graphical issues in specific places in most games that "obviously" are errors to the average user? Would this be a situation where very, very few games are currently fitting that definition or would a decent amount of games fit?

(07-06-2014, 12:18 PM)JMC47 Wrote: The other major question is whether speed matters for the rating. I am against it, but on Dolphin I'm in the minority. If a game can't run full speed on powerful machines (due to things like LLE, Full MMU, EFB2RAM) then it gets 4 stars instead of 5. Just food for thought, I guess; hopefully it helps layout a few potential arguments based on the ones had over Dolphin's compatibility ratings.

About what do they consider as criteria for a powerful machine there?
Reply
#7
(07-06-2014, 12:22 PM)avih Wrote: Well, to open up the options a bit more, there are few factors which could affect a rating higher than "5 - playable".

1. Speed. Games which are too slow are not fun and cannot be called "perfect". So maybe we need a special note (or icon) to denote that this game needs a faster than average system (WTF is an average system??!?) in order to work reasonably fast.

2. There could be perfect (or close enough) with software rendering or with HW rendering. Ultimately, IMO perfect should only relate to whatever works best (and 99% or 100% software rendering is more correct than HW rendering). However, we can't disregard the big bonus which HW rendering could add - both in speed and in resolution. So maybe another icon which says that HW rendering is mostly glitch-less? (or the corollary icon - that it's only perfect with SW rendering?).

In general, if we go for "exception" icons (high system requirements, SW rendering required, etc), then we don't even have to add a 6th star. Just note (the exception icons) what's the difference between this game's performance and "perfect".

I guess there are other approaches as well. The "6th star - perfect" rating was just the first suggestion which came to my mind which would both cover the need for a better system while preserving existing compatibility info. But surely there are more.

1. I just addressed while you were writing this post. I don't feel this is necessary.

2. This seems useful. Specifically a little icon (maybe a circle with SW in it) to denote that while perfect, software is required.

The reason I like the six as perfect is this - as you know our compatibility list and compatibility on the main site are linked. A typical compatibility post is:

Code:
Xenosaga Episode I - Der Wille zur Macht [SLUS 20469] (U)
status=5;
version=1.3.0;
console=PS2;
crc=0E7807B2;
img_t=empty;
img_f=empty;

Adding the sixth "star" or level or whatever, means we can effectively not have to re categorize anything. We add it. The list will stay the same, and perfect games will be at 0%, and then when we update one to 6, it will reflect.

I liked it this way because I thought it would be the easiest on the "infrastructure", requiring the least changes. For instance if we made "5" perfect, then we would have to edit over two thousand posts downgrading the 5s to 4s. What a mess!
[Image: ov4]
Gaming: Intel i7 3770k @ 4.2Ghz | R9 290 | 16GB RAM | 480GB(240GB+240GB RAID0) SSD | 3 TB HDD | 1 TB HDD | 500GB HDD
Server: AMD FX 6300 @ 4.4Ghz | GTX 670 | 16GB RAM | 240GB SSD | 320GB HDD
PCSX2 General Troubleshooting FAQ
Reply
#8
(07-06-2014, 12:28 PM)BlackTelomeres Wrote: Here are some other things to think about regarding a definition like "it replicates the original console closely enough that an average user wouldn't be able to tell the difference":

-Is this average user someone who played the game on the original hardware and thus might be a bit more informed about what the game looks like there or is it the average user who has not?
-How many games do we know of that would actually qualify for perfect offhand under such a definition? Are there some minor graphical issues in specific places in most games that "obviously" are errors to the average user? Would this be a situation where very, very few games are currently fitting that definition or would a decent amount of games fit?

Okay so the average user thing. I mean it like this. Let's say we put a CRT TV in a room, and hooked a PC to it with SVIDEO. Then we ran the emulator and booted a game, in native resolution. Then we let someone play it. Would that person(regardless of whether they had played the game before, or not) at some point go "Hmm, this seems suspicious" or "this can't be right!"

I can think of a few games that would qualify for perfect. Kingdom Hearts, Persona 3 and 4, Ar tonelico games(in software mode). That's just off the top of my head.
[Image: ov4]
Gaming: Intel i7 3770k @ 4.2Ghz | R9 290 | 16GB RAM | 480GB(240GB+240GB RAID0) SSD | 3 TB HDD | 1 TB HDD | 500GB HDD
Server: AMD FX 6300 @ 4.4Ghz | GTX 670 | 16GB RAM | 240GB SSD | 320GB HDD
PCSX2 General Troubleshooting FAQ
Reply
#9
(07-06-2014, 12:28 PM)BlackTelomeres Wrote: About what do they consider as criteria for a powerful machine there?

I think it's currently considered as Sandy Bridge or later (Excluding low power variants)
Reply
#10
(07-06-2014, 12:30 PM)Blyss Sarania Wrote: For instance if we made "5" perfect, then we would have to edit over two thousand posts downgrading the 5s to 4s. What a mess!

Right, so this is not an option indeed. However, "perfect" means very different things to different people. For many (as you know better than most), people will ***** about speed all day. So for those, they should know that a game requires relatively high spec system.

My icons suggestion also doesn't need modification - keep the 1-5 rating we have now, but add icons: "Needs SW renderer" icon (implies higher spec requirement and no HD) or "Needs fast system" icon for games which runs slower than most also in HW mode.

So instead of adding another 6th "level", we add 2 (technically) mutually unrelated "ratings".

But, if you can come with with a single 6th level of perfect which has a very clear definition and which others agree with, sure, it better than "support features icons".
[i7-3630qm/gt650m-2G/Win-7] [i7-4500u/R.HD8850m/Win-8.1] [2010-MBA/OSX-10.9.x]. Scroll smoothly with SmoothWheel for Firefox.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)