Discussing the possibilities of the "Perfect" rating

[Eloris]

One of the issues I have with the current ratings is the definition of "Playable", which you define as no game breaking bugs stopping you from completing the game. This means you classify games like Primal, which due to emulation shortcomings runs like a slideshow regardless of the underlying hardware, as playable, when it is anything but.

When something is classified as playable, it's reasonable to assume that you can actually play it (given reasonable hardware), but the current definition doesn't necessitate that.

In conjunction with introducing a new rating for games that work without any noticeable flaws, I would also suggest revisiting what you classify as playable.

[refraction]

One of the issues I have with the current ratings is the definition of "Playable", which you define as no game breaking bugs stopping you from completing the game. This means you classify games like Primal, which due to emulation shortcomings runs like a slideshow regardless of the underlying hardware, as playable, when it is anything but.

When something is classified as playable, it's reasonable to assume that you can actually play it (given reasonable hardware), but the current definition doesn't necessitate that.

In conjunction with introducing a new rating for games that work without any noticeable flaws, I would also suggest revisiting what you classify as playable.

We have always said it is playable regardless of hw specs, so somebody with an absolute beast of a machine might be able to play it, even if it's at 30fps or 20fps, so speed is never factored in to the equation.

As mentioned above, if we were to factor this in for the new rating, where do we have a cutoff? Is that "excellent" on a midrange i3? or on an i7 extreme edition? there's no way to pin a specification to a rating as nobody will understand it.

[Eloris]

That's not what I said. I mentioned Primal specifically because it doesn't have anything to do with hardware. It doesn't even max out a single thread on an i5. Not even close.
The performance issues in that game are due to emulation shortcomings, not lacking hardware power. Doesn't matter what you throw at it.
And maybe that's just a single edge case. Maybe there's a few more like that, I don't know. The PS2 library is enormous and I realize that's what makes a list like that complicated, because properly testing things is a nightmare.

But I believe calling something playable when it realistically isn't (for whatever reason) is just not very useful for users. Maybe the better option would be to just rename playable to something else. "Working", maybe. Something like that would be closer to the truth. A game that works isn't necessarily one that's playable.

[refraction]

right i see, well the "regardless of speed" issue still stands, it is playable, even if it is slow, people are quoting 20-30fps which is playable, speedhacks can help slightly. See the compatibility reports here: http://forums.pcsx2.net/Thread-Primal-SC...ght=primal

It seems to be restricted to the US version however, there are no such reports for speed issues on the EU version

[FlatOut]

The EU version has the same issue. I'd say in-game is a better category for this game. There has to be a point where speed issues do matter like this case. R:Racing, classified as in-game, does run very well, it just has invisible cars. But you can tell where the cars are in the game and you should be able to play through the whole game regardless. I'd rather classify that game as Playable than Primal.

[refraction]

Again, speed is not a factor in the compatibility reporting as it is technically playable if frustrating.

Invisible cars in a game is quite a setback considering it's a racing game, so that could be considered a much bigger issue than speed.

[FlatOut]

Again, speed is not a factor in the compatibility reporting as it is technically playable if frustrating.

Invisible cars in a game is quite a setback considering it's a racing game, so that could be considered a much bigger issue than speed.

If it was purely my system lacking like in some games it shouldn't matter. But Primal is different, it's just not playable to any decent degree on any system. The cars in R:Racing are invisible, but you can tell where they are, so it doesn't affect gameplay anywhere near as much as the issues in Primal. It's actually Playable unlike Primal.

[Eloris]

people are quoting 20-30fps which is playable, speedhacks can help slightly.

I'm sorry, but 50% speed (fps is a poor measure for emulated games, especially for older platforms where everything is tied to the framerate anyway) is in no way playable. Yes, you could in theory maybe complete a game running like that, but no one in their right mind would do it.

That's what makes it a poor description. It's technically correct, but practically not very useful. Finding a better name for that category would be helpful because it no longer feels like a false promise when you run into issues like that.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at. I've said all I have to on this subject, so I'll leave it at that.

[refraction]

I know what you're getting at but we will keep coming back to the same thing, what our testers might see as a playable 60fps could be 10fps on somebody elses machine which to them is not playable, there is no way to factor speed in to the compatibility status (with primal being more likely an edge case than anything), so we have always had the rule, that unless it is ridiculously slow, like, < 5-10fps, then it can be classed as playable. 30fps would suck a bit sure, but it would be possible to play it, right mind or not and that is all the list is there to measure.

[prafull]

I listed GTA 3 as playable when it ran at 3 fps. I managed to finish a level or two at that fps. Those were the days.