Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
compatability key needs a new key IMO
#1
the compatability key is a pretty good measure but I think it would be great if it was taken a step further and had another marker for those games that are not just playable but also keep within say 50-60 FPS throughout oh let's say 95% of the game or better so when we look at the list we know which games work almost seamless with pcsx2 without too much trouble or use of speedhacks and crazy settings.
AMD Phenom™ II X4 955 Processor (4 CPUs), ~3.2GHz, 8192MB RAM, ATI Radeon HD 5700 Series
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
what?
Reply
#3
50-60FPS using what?

I really can't run any game that fast unless it is 2D. And how does how fast the game will run determine how compatible it is?

For example, I know Tekken 5 is a pretty demanding game, but I have heard it is also pretty compatible with the emulator.

However, it would also be neat as more games reach playable status if a higher level of compatibility was put on the scale.
Want to contribute? Don't know how? Check out the PCSX2 Wiki page!



Keep safe with MyWOT.

I have everything...
Reply
#4
Not really a helpful item, a game running at a max of 60FPS in an i5 2500k @4.8GHz would run about ~20FPS in a core 2 duo @2GHz (considering CPU is the bottleneck) and as MyDreamName said it doesn't say anything about how compatible it is... just that you have slow or fast hardware.
Core i5 3570k -- Geforce GTX 670  --  Windows 7 x64
Reply
#5
Been here ever? Smile
Reply
#6
(05-20-2011, 03:59 AM)Shadow Lady Wrote: Not really a helpful item, a game running at a max of 60FPS in an i5 2500k @4.8GHz would run about ~20FPS in a core 2 duo @2GHz (considering CPU is the bottleneck) and as MyDreamName said it doesn't say anything about how compatible it is... just that you have slow or fast hardware.
Not exactly true. Speed is an important factor, and if a game is compatible but plays at 10 FPS, then it's not really playable in the way that people expect it to be (i.e. actually play the game and have fun, which isn't quite possible with 10 FPS).

While speed depends much on the System the user has, it also varies between games, and some games work well with much lesser hardware than others.

So it can be useful for people IMO if it also has a "requirements" index. For the sake of simplicity, I'll choose 3 possible values: High, Medium and Low, just so that people can know what to expect with that game. This requirements index should take into account speed hacks which help the game, such that if default settings requires a high end system for good FPS, but with speed hacks it will work nicely on a low end system, then this game's requirements index would be 'Low'.

It's not a scientific measure, But I'd say that 'High' requirements should mean that it would be reasonably playable on high end systems (i7/i5 2500K etc at 3GHz and above) with a modern GPU (GTX260 or equivalent and above).

Medium requirements would mean around E5700 @ 2-3 GHz with GPU around 8600GT or so.

Low requirements would mean laptops with embedded GPU, and/or CPU around 2GHz and below.

Just to have a rough clue which games demand more resources than others.

The specific scale I suggested here might not be good, but I'm sure a reasonable scale can be set, possibly with the help of the CPU benchmark thread.

However, that still leaves the issue of who will actually test and write down how fast each game plays. As it stands, the beta testers already put much time into testing many games. Asking them to also index the speed might be a bit much IMO.

I know I'd like the compatibility list to also have a rough requirements index too.. but I can also live without it and just try the games and see if they run well or not...
[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
#7
Let's not forget that the effects of Speedhacks can vary from game to game. Could get pretty complicated.

Would be cool to see a low, med and high scale added. If not for every game, at least for the sake of having some of the heavier one noted as such.

Beyond that, you might as well start using the Wiki. Wink
Reply
#8
(05-20-2011, 04:49 AM)avih Wrote: Not exactly true. Speed is an important factor, and if a game is compatible but plays at 10 FPS, then it's not really playable in the way that people expect it to be (i.e. actually play the game and have fun, which isn't quite possible with 10 FPS).

Ok... compatibility and playability are not the same...

There are lots of users that consider games playing 30-40fps playable, while there's others that complain when a game is slowing down down to 50FPS (omg it's not running 60FPS all the time... UNPLAYABLE!!!!)... but the compatibility is exactly the same...

And who is to know what the user expects?

In the end it's up to the user and the machine how "playable" it is to them, but has nothing to do with the compatibility, if the game you mention running at 10FPS (I don't think we consider any game running such low FPS as playable anyway since it'd probably have a bug somewhere Tongue2) is in a very slow machine but runs ok in a much faster one... did it change compatibility at all? at any moment?

And ehr the "playability" being up to the user can get the same lengths not only about speed but visual quality, let's ask [email protected] how playable he considers his super robot taisen game to be... I can tell you... he considers it unplayable... because he has a glitch when he enables an option that he wanted to use and he refused to play otherwise (unplayable indeed...) does that need to go in the "compatibility" too? despite many other people played those same games and even finished and was playable to them? did the compatibility change?

There is an unofficial wiki and the screenshots/videos thread where people can comment how good did it work for them, how "playable" they consider it, how "unplayable" a glitch makes it for them... but the compatibility? doesn't change at all.
Core i5 3570k -- Geforce GTX 670  --  Windows 7 x64
Reply
#9
I particularly like the part about how one user says 30-40fps is playable, but another says 50fps is "horrible lag". Laugh

One other thing I'd like to point out, it the way the type of game it is has an impact on how tolerable a lower FPS may be. An RPG like Final Fantasy X isn't as bad at 50fps, since it's a slower paced game that doesn't rely so much on time based activities during gameplay.

As opposed to a fast paced action type game like Tekken, that is all about timing and time based activities. The slower paced gameplay takes away from playablility more in this case, making 50fps seem slower, and make it less tolerable (or "playable").

Of course, this is just another opinion. Tongue
(I do get a kick out of the way a little slow down can make some games uber-easy)
Reply
#10
If I could input my two cents:

First off, I partially disagree with avih's requirements system, but would like it more if it separated the CPU from the GPU. This is because of some games, which are listed as playable but have emulation errors which puts more strain on the CPU or GPU than it should (usually GPU). For example, take the game "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories". The game is listed as "playable". It runs at 60 FPS easily while your character is facing several directions, but has considerable lag in other directions due to what I suspect are filters for the "bloom" effect. During one scene, I had gotten 8 FPS (although "allow 8-bit textures" is a huge help, but the game does not always run at full speed, while the GPU is always the bottleneck), while in many other games my GPU is at 1/5s usage. This would be currently listed as needing a (very) high GPU, and a low/medium CPU.

If I were running the compatibility page, I would include those requirements (plus a recommended clock speed-up), if possible. I would also include a compatibility above "playable" that is "perfect". Perfect compatibility basically meaning that it is impossible for the emulator to prevent any bugs from happening in that game (usually graphical bugs from increasing the resolution), if any, and that it really cannot get more optimized than it is. I would also have every game that is not listed as "perfect" to have notes explaining why it is not. I figure that would be a good way to analyze patterns in broken games and figure out exactly what is wrong.

But, that is probably too much work, and the betatesters do a lot already.
Want to contribute? Don't know how? Check out the PCSX2 Wiki page!



Keep safe with MyWOT.

I have everything...
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)