Editing guide

[Nicereddy 109]

Dude like, your posts are honestly unreadable, stop doing that tiny text thingy, it makes everything so much harder to understand. I can't even be bothered to read them because of that.

 

I know it's mean but I'm not asking for much. Is one of your links broken? Did you mean to link another page? http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Assassin

 

_{I have no idea what you could possibly be referring to.}

[Guest]

_{I have no idea what you could possibly be referring to.}

 

I really don't see why you had to do that, it really strains my eyes really badly, I had already asked him if he could stop doing that a while before, it really puts me off from reading anything he writes.

[Mirh 103]

Dude like, your posts are honestly unreadable, stop doing that tiny text thingy, it makes everything so much harder to understand. I can't even be bothered to read them because of that.

 

I know it's mean but I'm not asking for much. Is one of your links broken? Did you mean to link another page? http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Assassin

For the tenth time, if it was important I wouldn't have miniaturized the thing in the first place.

Anyway, the second and third links were pointing to Assassin's Creed IV Black Flag and Assassin's Creed Liberation HD

 

Actually Mighty Switch Force! Hyper Drive Edition and Mighty Gunvolt vsync introduces so massive input lag people notice it (talking near one second) and indeed disabling or forcing vsync externally, did fix the issues not only for me but for others as well.

Yes, sorry. Such cases were indeed what I meant when referring to Dead Space.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

I've been reading a bunch of PMs I had gotten and Pridit had sent me this a while ago.

http://community.pcgamingwiki.com/topic/415-abandoning-title-case-in-general-information/

 

Is there a page related to the title case itself? The editing guide is really big right now and I didn't find anything related to it.

 

Also where should the 60 FPS lock note thing go? In the 60 FPS field or the 120 FPS field? To me it made more sense to place it inside the 60 FPS field seeing as it's less disconnected that way but I'm not sure.

[Blackbird 54]

I like it in the 120 FPS field personally, because as a 60 Hz user I don't care if the game is locked to 60 FPS.

[Guest]

I like it in the 120 FPS field personally, because as a 60 Hz user I don't care if the game is locked to 60 FPS.

I'll do that then, it doesn't matter too much to me but I asked just in case, seeing as I had seen another similar case.

[BONKERS 32]

The |minOS = field should normally have only one entry. All other supported versions of the OS family should be placed in the |recOS = field

This is wrong in several ways.

 

Most importantly, when the you recommend different OS's for both Min and Recommended it creates the impression that it has different functionality and works better on the recommended OS.

EVEN though in those cases it is functionally 100% the same and is recommended just the same.

 

Key point. Raiden IV, on Steam, min and recommended are both listed as Windows 7 AND 8. On GOG 7/8/10 are all listed on both.

 

Why on earth would 8 or 10 be more recommended or important? They wouldn't be, because they aren't. But listing ONLY them as recommended will create potential confusion for people.

 

(EDITED: Whoops)

[Mirh 103]

Mhh I guess this distinction had a lot more sense 15 years ago when you could support 98, 2000 and XP, and indeed "prefer" just one of them, for whatever reason (going from different kernel, to different supported drivers).

And exactly in light of this, we shouldn't assume everything between two supported release is supported.

 

Last but not least another question arises in the end: if developer doesn't "respect" our minimum/recommended conventions.. should these "override" its decision?

Because I know the policy* is "just stick with what dev says", but I wonder if that might not just apply to "contents", rather than "syntax".

 

And I'd like a note stating that game readme has always priority, because too many times I find cover scans on mobygames from different publishers/distributors with different information.

 

*= which is a bit misleading for end user, considering he might expect we "verify/check" them

 

------

 

On another news, I take advantage of this post to note down a discussion we had on IRC on the formal definition of "different game" (rather than different "editions of the same release") when coping with discerning cases like this from this.

We ruled off "title" and "publisher decisions" since they are just extrinsic (same rose but different names)

And we ruled out "if old fixes applies" given things like for example Omikron digital version. Where, for as much as you suffer of ~95% less problem than original release, it's nothing more than a simple dll that handles everything (not dissimilarly from being considered just a "vendor specific" patch)

 

So in the end the point should be "having an [enough] different codebase".

Which isn't still a definitive answer (when enough is enough? and what count as difference?) but at least seems the "most comprehensive" description.

I hope we'll be able to further refine it in the future, perhaps by analyzing corner cases like this, this or this.

 

EDIT: or this, lol.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Mirh

[Garrett 214]

Separate game versions can be difficult to assess since this involves some knowledge of what is different. So far games have either been split once the covered differences become extensive (e.g. Final Fantasy VII) or major differences are clear ahead of time (e.g. Age of Empires II HD).

[Mirh 103]

Why are we allowing these people to get away with "well.. there are problems when cap is disabled.. but whatever" claims?

I mean, why there's no clear criteria about issues for status ?

 

And why are we directly mentioning fraps and bandicam?

 

 

 

EDIT: What's the point of references?

Giving credits, helping the "future editor" understand when that may apply or just prove that there's a person on Earth believing that fixes something?

 

Seriously, this last link is the symbol of everything stupid I might be against

 

What's the value? Who is this value in? The editor? Or the average user?

A noob definitively gives no care. What's then?

Who might click them? Who might be interested in?

And I just see people that wants to deepen their knowing. Credits to first finder or official statements being kind of incidental cause.

But if even developer has no sound clue.. That's still not a reason.

 

Edited August 5, 2016 by Mirh
Add references thought here, so not to spam the world

[Mirh 103]

What do we do if sys req change over time?
 
For example, I noticed Overwatch dropped Vista from supported OS (although it should still work in the end, but this is another matter)
What if we were talking about a game requiring greater specs after an update or for an expansion?

 

EDIT: what about mentioning hardware/OS still working but not officially supported/mentioned?

 

P.S. we should tell editor to check for possible ways to decouple dubbing/interface/subtitles when possible.

[Marioysikax 89]

What do we do if sys req change over time?

 

For example, I noticed Overwatch dropped Vista from supported OS (although it should still work in the end, but this is another matter)

What if we were talking about a game requiring greater specs after an update or for an expansion?

 

EDIT: what about mentioning hardware/OS still working but not officially supported/mentioned?

With modern games getting automatic updates - especially in case of online multiplayer games where latest patches are actually required to even be able to play, newest system requirements are the ones that are kept and if they change to drop some significant support over time, like old OS or intel HD graphics, then put it as note. 

 

And I think similar method of thinkig should be applied to game working on OS that is not supported, who are going to check the game every time it's updated? Of course I do not see any issue of having note that "worked on Windows 2000 with version 1.01".

[ThatOneReaper 51]

Marioysikax has the right idea. Games that use digital distribution need to have the newest system requirements listed as games can drop support for outdated OSes and hardware (see Space Engineers).

 

I don't think we should put a note regarding lost OS/hardware support because it wouldn't really matter for the latest build. Unless there is a way to use older builds of a game legally, there is no point in adding it to the page beyond historical purposes.

 

Mentioning unofficial hardware/OS support also doesn't make sense. Even if a game still does work, there might have been a good reason why that hardware/software configuration was not listed (assuming hardware/OS is below minimum specs). Bringing it up may cause users to run the game on unsupported specs and find issues that are not present in officially supported specs.

[Mirh 103]

With modern games getting automatic updates - especially in case of online multiplayer games where latest patches are actually required to even be able to play, newest system requirements are the ones that are kept and if they change to drop some significant support over time, like old OS or intel HD graphics, then put it as note.

Well, of course I'm always talking about corner cases in the most hypothetical way. 

 

And even for an online game.. I mean, just suppose a World of Warcraft expansion that has greater requirements than base game.

 

And I think similar method of thinkig should be applied to game working on OS that is not supported, who are going to check the game every time it's updated? Of course I do not see any issue of having note that "worked on Windows 2000 with version 1.01".

Nobody of course.

But obviously nobody is actively checking anything in any other game too.

 

Marioysikax has the right idea. Games that use digital distribution need to have the newest system requirements listed as games can drop support for outdated OSes and hardware (see Space Engineers).

Iirc GOG galaxy can rollback patches btw. Also, cool third example.

 

I don't think we should put a note regarding lost OS/hardware support because it wouldn't really matter for the latest build. Unless there is a way to use older builds of a game legally, there is no point in adding it to the page beyond historical purposes.

 

Mentioning unofficial hardware/OS support also doesn't make sense. Even if a game still does work, there might have been a good reason why that hardware/software configuration was not listed (assuming hardware/OS is below minimum specs). Bringing it up may cause users to run the game on unsupported specs and find issues that are not present in officially supported specs.

These two sentences immensely outrage me.

1. It wouldn't be the first time we add something "just for the records of posterity"

2. Claiming "dev says so, you must comply" is.. I dunno, crazy in a place like this.

 

And I'm 3 times concerned given your status and given it's not like we hadn't even discussed in the past about lowendgaming or similar.

[ThatOneReaper 51]

Well, of course I'm always talking about corner cases in the most hypothetical way. 

 

And even for an online game.. I mean, just suppose a World of Warcraft expansion that has greater requirements than base game.

 

Nobody of course.

But obviously nobody is actively checking anything in any other game too.

 

Iirc GOG galaxy can rollback patches btw. Also, cool third example.

 

These two sentences immensely outrage me.

1. It wouldn't be the first time we add something "just for the records of posterity"

2. Claiming "dev says so, you must comply" is.. I dunno, crazy in a place like this.

 

And I'm 3 times concerned given your status and given it's not like we hadn't even discussed in the past about lowendgaming or similar.

I should backtrack a bit.

 

If you want to add in a note about lost OS/hardware support just from an archival prospective, go ahead. I'm just highlighting that it wouldn't serve any purpose beyond that.

 

As for mentioning unofficial OS/hardware support lower than what the minimum specs are, my reasoning is that it would complicate troubleshooting issues if we do. When a developer states minimum system requirements, they are saying "This is the general configuration we found that allows you to play the game at the bare minimum with no issues. We cannot guarantee stability with older configurations".

 

Of course, you can try to run the game on older configurations. It might even work just fine, abit with heavy compromise in graphics. But any issues that do arise under such configurations would be difficult to nail down. Is it the person's configuration that's causing the issue or the game itself?

 

The only reasonable fix I could give in such a situation is "Upgrade your hardware/software".

 

I am advocating "dev says so, you must comply", but for good reason. Our fixes assume that at the very least the system the person is using is equal to or newer than the minimum specs. I don't want someone to look at our statements on such support, run the game on the "supported" OS/hardware, and come back to us reporting bizarre issues that may or may not be due to the configuration.

 

Unofficial OS/hardware support equal to or newer than the minimum specs (but older than the recommended specs) is a different matter. If a particular OS/hardware works, but is not officially supported (and not specifically mentioned as an unsupported configuration), it can be listed. It would need some notice along the lines of "X OS/hardware works with the game, but is not officially supported. Stability is not guaranteed".