..:: PCSX2 Forums ::..

Full Version: Discussing the possibilities of the "Perfect" rating
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Well "Playable" covers "you can play the game start to finish with only minor bugs" if you look at the compatibility key on the website, speed is never a factor in its rating as that is completely machine dependant in a very large majority of cases. I think we did toy with the idea of a "Fully Playable" rating to cover the games which were pretty much perfect maybe with only very very minor differences/bugs, I think having a " perfect in every single way" option is a bit on the silly side as it isn't completely possible.
(11-23-2015, 04:26 PM)refraction Wrote: [ -> ]Well "Playable" covers "you can play the game start to finish with only minor bugs" if you look at the compatibility key on the website, speed is never a factor in its rating as that is completely machine dependant in a very large majority of cases.  I think we did toy with the idea of a "Fully Playable" rating to cover the games which were pretty much perfect maybe with only very very minor differences/bugs, I think  having a " perfect in every single way" option is a bit on the silly side as it isn't completely possible.
especially in hardware mode.
Just state "this game works perfectly in hardware mode", and you can be pretty sure someone will come and say "really ? well, I had small artifacts using x resolution, y shader, and z filtering. so, it's not perfect"
The number of perfect games in hardware is surprisingly decent now, especially after the accurate options. Definitely not as high as software perfect or even close, but still significant nonetheless.

The usability of the rating system is what's important, not the distribution. I'd prefer a more useful system that doesn't have the best rating covering 90+% of the games over a less useful one that does.

Again, my main problem is not adding a software perfect rating, my main problem is calling it "Perfect" like it reached the pinnacle of accuracy and efficiency, and there is nothing can be done to improve it when there is a ton of improvements possible. Hell, some of these games are flat out broken, it's just not true.
I agree with K.F , I could name quite a few games which could be considered for perfect rating hardware renderer wise. ( Inuyasha : Feudal combat , Bomberman Kart , Naruto ultimate ninja series and various others.) even if there are less games that fit the perfect rating that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered for the rating system. This will internally reflect how accurate the Emulator handles the certain games and help each and every games to achieve perfect status in the future development.

It would be better to rework the rating system to something which is more understandable for users and developers. this way it'd make easier for testers/ dev to find games which are suffering from accuracy problems and improve it's overall condition.

Let's take a look at current rating system
Code:
1 = Nothing
-- 2 = Intro
-- 3 = Menu
-- 4 = In-game
-- 5 = Playable

does Nothing , Intro , Menu even matter here ? It's clear that game has some booting problems (or) some issues triggered during the start of gameplay. It'd be better to classify into something like,
  • Unplayable - the game is not capable of being completed on the Emulator. (crashes during gameplay)
  • Bad - game could be completed from the beginning to the end but suffers with lots of Plugin (or) Core bugs which makes the game difficult to progress.
  • Average - game suffers from little to minor Core (or) Plugin bugs and could be played quite well on the software renderer.
  • Good - game suffers from very few minor bugs which are unnoticeable to most of the users and could be played without any problems on the software renderer.
  • Perfect - game could be played on native resolution (Hardware renderer) without any single core (or) plugin bugs.

what do you guys think ?
I think it is really hard to label something as perfect. Is one wrong pixel sufficient to damage perfect rating? As I understand there will never be something as unlimited precision as long as you don't use the ps2.
(11-23-2015, 06:02 PM)ssakash Wrote: [ -> ]
  • Unplayable - the game is not capable of being completed on the Emulator. (crashes during gameplay)
  • Bad - game could be completed from the beginning to the end but suffers with lots of Plugin (or) Core bugs which makes the game difficult to progress.
  • Average - game suffers from little to minor Core (or) Plugin bugs and could be played quite well on the software renderer.
  • Good - game suffers from very few minor bugs which are unnoticeable to most of the users and could be played without any problems on the software renderer.
  • Perfect - game could be played on native resolution (Hardware renderer) without any single core (or) plugin bugs.

what do you guys think ?

None of those cover games which are menus or less, we like to let people know exactly how much we expect the game to run regardless of if it gets ingame or not, if we don't list ones which are less than ingame (or unplayable in your list) and they ask for support, we could be trying things for days trying to work out what is going on, just to find that we don't expect it to get any further than an intro screen or menu, plus it doesn't let the user know either, just in case they do read the screen Tongue
I think "Perfect" rating shouldn't be used. "Excellent" or other terms are better. There is no need to use an incorrect term.
(11-23-2015, 06:54 PM)refraction Wrote: [ -> ]None of those cover games which are menus or less, we like to let people know exactly how much we expect the game to run regardless of if it gets ingame or not, if we don't list ones which are less than ingame (or unplayable in your list) and they ask for support, we could be trying things for days trying to work out what is going on, just to find that we don't expect it to get any further than an intro screen or menu, plus it doesn't let the user know either, just in case they do read the screen Tongue

Intro and menus also fall under unplayable category, I'm not sure why the user would make a support thread instead of a bug report if a game with unplayable status fails before in-game.

(11-23-2015, 07:56 PM)xemnas99 Wrote: [ -> ]I think "Perfect" rating shouldn't be used. "Excellent" or other terms are better. There is no need to use an incorrect term.

Hmm, yeah. Excellent sounds good Smile
Excellent might be a good idea. It can mean roughly the same thing(we already discussed this to death and I don't think we should discuss it to death again. A few tweaks maybe) but avoids people calling us out on a tiny glitch that's one in a million.
The extension to the problem at hand is testing this. The official testers don't have time to play a game from start to finish, checking for little bugs, so this kind of thing would fall on the users, so an increase in users submitting test reports would be required to even consider a perfect/excellent rating.

Currently we play the game for about 30 minutes to an hour and if we experience no problems, we presume it to be playable, sometimes even using a save file at the end of the game to make sure you can complete it at the end, but a full test in order to check for any such possible bug is impossible.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14