Discussing the possibilities of the "Perfect" rating

[Blyss Sarania]

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".

Well, considering the icon thing for a second, we could also have a "gold star" or something on the playable games, that denoted them perfect. This would also allow keeping the current system. However, I am not sure how to implement these icons, the compatibility posts have a very specific syntax, how hard will it be to modify that? Is it possible to keep the current working syntax and also add new variables for SW, high sys req, and perfect?

[BlackTelomeres]

I think it's currently considered as Sandy Bridge or later (Excluding low power variants)

Sounds reasonable.

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 realize this is perhaps a rare exception but remember the recent Xenosaga 1 thread where the guy pointed out green-blob Ziggy looked like a bug in the emulator and genuinely couldn't tell that was how it was supposed to be. Some stuff in games that is accurate may get IDed by people who didn't play the game on the original hardware as a false positive. This is kind of nitpicking though I guess because this probably shouldn't come up that often. Probably the more likely scenario is someone who played the game on a PS2 noticing an inaccuracy that looks fine to someone who didn't play the game on one before.

[avih]

Well, considering the icon thing for a second, we could also have a "gold star" or something on the playable games, that denoted them perfect. This would also allow keeping the current system. However, I am not sure how to implement these icons, the compatibility posts have a very specific syntax, how hard will it be to modify that? Is it possible to keep the current working syntax and also add new variables for SW, high sys req, and perfect?

We can change the syntax. For the sake of this discussion assume that we can change anything we'd like.

But before we add gold star perfect or any other change, find a good and acceptable definition of perfect which is different than the current "5 - playable". Then, we'll check how hard it would be to change the current reports syntax etc.

Generally, when you try to come up with an improvement - you start with the best improvement you can think of, and only then you start making compromises if those are required.

So come on, come up with the "perfect" system first

[Blyss Sarania]

Sounds reasonable.


I realize this is perhaps a rare exception but remember the recent Xenosaga 1 thread where the guy pointed out green-blob Ziggy looked like a bug in the emulator and genuinely couldn't tell that was how it was supposed to be. Some stuff in games that is accurate may get IDed by people who didn't play the game on the original hardware as a false positive. This is kind of nitpicking though I guess because this probably shouldn't come up that often. Probably the more likely scenario is someone who played the game on a PS2 noticing an inaccuracy that looks fine to someone who didn't play the game on one before.

I didn't really mean that as a genuine test, more of an example. I think testers especially would be able to identify something that would seem out of place to an ordinary user. I meant it as if I was testing a game, that's what I would ask myself in my head - would that hypothetical user notice anything was wrong? And yes, I remember the thread. I kinda suspected that from the start but was unsure myself lol

[Blyss Sarania]

So come on, come up with the "perfect" system first

Well I've already made it clear what my personal opinion is. But here it is all nice and listy:

• I don't think speed excludes a game from perfect
  
• I don't think requiring software mode excludes a game from perfect
  
• I think needing a manual gamefix or patch definitely excludes a game from perfect
  
• I think Perfect means providing a very PS2 like experience, where the average user could not tell the difference(for more in depth on this see other posts)
  
• I think needing special rounding or clamping modes that are NOT automatically applied excludes a game from perfect
  
• Basically, if a user has to do more than press F9(Software mode) to reach the PS2 like experience, then it's not perfect
  

That is my opinion in a nutshell. Now I am going to bed, it is 0600.

[refraction]

I agree with that apart from 2 points.

• I don't think speed excludes a game from perfect
  

This is really a tough subject, however i think there has to be a level of tollerance. If a game runs at under sort of 15fps, it becomes extremely difficult to play and kinda comes away from the "perfect" experience, but this could be entirely dependant on the machine you are using.

• I think needing a manual gamefix or patch definitely excludes a game from perfect
  

This is entirely dependant on what the patch does. Some patches just rearrange the opcodes to get around problems with timing of code like COP2. In this scenario it should still be classed as perfect as nothing is removed or changed in the game. If the patch however disables sound or video or anything like that, then it is no longer a representation of true emulation and cannot be considered perfect.

[Blyss Sarania]

This is really a tough subject, however i think there has to be a level of tollerance. If a game runs at under sort of 15fps, it becomes extremely difficult to play and kinda comes away from the "perfect" experience, but this could be entirely dependant on the machine you are using.

Then it that case, we need to have some level of reference hardware. Since we already have the PCSX2 benchmark, perhaps the 60fps line in that is the cutoff point - i.e. CPU above that point, if THOSE can't maintain full speed, then it's not perfect?

This is entirely dependant on what the patch does. Some patches just rearrange the opcodes to get around problems with timing of code like COP2. In this scenario it should still be classed as perfect as nothing is removed or changed in the game. If the patch however disables sound or video or anything like that, then it is no longer a representation of true emulation and cannot be considered perfect.

I meant that if it's a patch the user has to supply. If it's a built in patch in the gameindex or whatever, that is fine. Making patches of any kind seems to be a tripping point for most users. Even if provided the patch text, they still leave it as pnach.txt or something.

[dabore]

if you'd ask me perfect is native @50/60 fps or special - like sotc does on the the real hardware - completely bugfree from start to finish. hw or sw might be mentioned. some old bitmapppers do perfect sw even on slow but for demanding 3d games hw mode should be measure. i'd still give it a perfect if pc is available that can do it in software @50/60fps. just cause it does it.

[Asmodean]

I agree, that hw & sw should be specified. Sure far more games in that category would be sw (at least for now), but there are quite a few games what I would consider perfect to play in hw also.

[dabore]

hw or sw whatever tho... the problem with this is still that some or new users reading the list might not catch the difference in perfect emulation and perfect playability which is the master bogus in the expectations in the speed department differing hw and sw or generally. this is already a faulty "user logic" when thinking about the "playable" definition. just wilding a 3rd person view of a newbie here.