..:: 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 some of our regular users actually play games from start to finish(me included) in PCSX2, those would be the ones that this sort of thing would fall on the report I think.

It wouldn't be a matter of "hey we now have to retest all *insert however many thousand games* and figure this out," the rating would be created and things would be moved as appropriate.

It's better to have an excellent game in playable than have an only playable game in excellent.

I heavily agree that our "Playable" category is far too broad, containing games from just barely passable and certainly not a fun experience all the way up to flawless.
Yeah, the difference between a game like 24-The game and Kingdom Hearts is massive. I really think we need another category for games that work well
Yep. The emulator is mature enough now that our ratings should be more indicative of the actual experience a user gets.

TBH IMO Intro and Menus should be combined. There are only 75 games in both categories total, and both mean "If you want to play this in PCSX2 you are *****." Back in the day it might have been useful, but PCSX2 is far more mature now and that distinction is pretty pedantic.

If I had my way it'd look like this:

Nothing
Intro/Menus
In game
Playable
Excellent

Unfortunately I do also realize the logistics of combining the categories are pretty nightmarish because of how our rating system is all tied together. The compat list and the wiki both pull from the compat forums and expect the numbers to equal what they currently do. If it weren't for that, I'd push really hard to combine those two like that.
(11-23-2015, 10:40 PM)Blyss Sarania Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately I do also realize the logistics of combining the categories are pretty nightmarish because of how our rating system is all tied together. The compat list and the wiki both pull from the compat forums and expect the numbers to equal what they currently do. If it weren't for that, I'd push really hard to combine those two like that.

From a pure data point of view, what prevents you from keeping the data the same (the numbers 1-5, adding any new levels i.e. 6) and just representing it differently on the compatibility page (i.e. merge the data sets for intro and menu for the purpose of displaying them)? That would just entail changing whatever script processes the syntax to treat levels 2 and 3 like it was the same thing, ultimately sidestepping any changes to the data source (in this case the compat forums) The Idea basically comes down to MVC. If this is applied it might also be a good idea to "deprecate" the menu (3) rating, with a note along these lines: "The Menu rating (3) is deprecated and should not be used in new reports. Games that cannot get in-game, regardless of a working menu, should be classified Intro (2)".

EDIT: Actually, it seems the Wiki already does this (It only has three categories for Playable, Ingame and everything else)

Just the 50ct of a long time pcsx2 fan that was mostly on the consumer side of things until now Wink
Still working on the logistics of the perfect/excellent rating eh? Excellent probably is better than perfect because there's always some little inaccuracies that wouldn't really be noticeable with games as complex as PS2 ones but if the user won't notice it, the emulation will still be able to provide an enjoyable experience. Modern hardware is just not to the level where people can get down to the level of perfect accuracy on PS2. I do think it's worth having something like "excellent" for no noticeable bugs though because when a user sees that "excellent" they essentially know beforehand that everything will be fine if they just get the right settings, rather than wondering and trying different things only to find out there's probably no way to fix the bug, or even missing something that would've fixed it and giving up on the game.

Sadly I don't think any game I've played would qualify as in excellent condition though Laugh
(03-16-2016, 01:50 PM)BlackTelomeres Wrote: [ -> ]Sadly I don't think any game I've played would qualify as in excellent condition though Laugh

That would be my biggest issue with doing this, there isn't enough games that would fit in to this category to justify all the work involved. Playable is good enough for the condition the emulator is in Tongue
(03-16-2016, 02:03 PM)refraction Wrote: [ -> ]That would be my biggest issue with doing this, there isn't enough games that would fit in to this category to justify all the work involved. Playable is good enough for the condition the emulator is in Tongue
But a lot of Playable rated games are not at all playable at an enjoyable level. There should be a rating above playable to show it doesn't have any major gameplay influencing bugs/issues and can be completed without a lot of tweaking/struggling.
(03-16-2016, 02:16 PM)FlatOut Wrote: [ -> ]But a lot of Playable rated games are not at all playable at an enjoyable level. There should be a rating above playable to show it doesn't have any major gameplay influencing bugs/issues and can be completed without a lot of tweaking/struggling.

We do, it's called your playstation 2 console Tongue
(03-16-2016, 02:20 PM)refraction Wrote: [ -> ]We do, it's called your playstation 2 console Tongue
That response doesn't make sense. There are more than enough games that would fall under the let's call it "enjoyable" rating, instead of the playable rating. A perfect/excellent rating might be out of reach for more than a handful of titles, but a step between is definitely worth adding. The gap between the states of some playable ranked games is too big.
(03-16-2016, 02:29 PM)FlatOut Wrote: [ -> ]That response doesn't make sense. There are more than enough games that would fall under the let's call it "enjoyable" rating, instead of the playable rating. A perfect/excellent rating might be out of reach for more than a handful of titles, but a step between is definitely worth adding. The gap between the states of some playable ranked games is too big.

sorry, I was being facetious.

There may be some merit to that, but as mentioned there will be a lot of data work and testing to do as a result, as we will have to go through all the games marked as playable (which is 94% of them now) to filter out what ones are "playable" and what ones are "playable without annoying issues" and that won't be a 5 minute job as we will pretty much need to complete the game in order to find out of there are issues in later levels which may cause the frustrations you are on about. Given games take 10-20 hours to complete (lets say 10 for a best case scenario), of the 2436 that will take potentially 15,000-24,360 hours to complete (taking in to account a few of those games are puzzle games and simple games). I honestly don't think we have the man power for that, or if it's even worth it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14