Jump to content

Proposal: Have subpages for third-party tools

Recommended Posts

This is follow on from my post on the Special K Steam Discussions, but expanded to include other third party tools such as Re:shade.

Link to Steam Discussion thread: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1157970/discussions/0/2650881941771332222/


To my knowledge there's never really been any sort of central but also well known place to discuss, keep track of and otherwise share configs for games that use Special K. Launching the tool on Steam finally allows for something like this with it's forums and guides, but for what the tool is and what it does I think it's still not really the most optimal.

Let's take Final Fantasy 15 for example, where it's still recommended to use the local injection method due to the global method not being able to load early enough and be able to capture all of the individual processor threads, thus losing some of the tools unique functionally. Unless you have gone digging through the Steam discussion threads though you're probably not going to know or even be aware of this, and not everyone is going to think to even go searching for it when they aren't even aware that there is a problem to begin with.

Guides on the other hand do provide a much easier and clearer way for people to not just find information about a specific game, but also encourages people to write and catalogue specific fixes or configs for a particular game, however there still remains a small problem where a guide will only have one author, and such anything written will not only be purely subjective but also over time can become out of date and relevant when things change like the game updating or something in Special K changing, and the author can't be relied on always keeping their guide updated.

This then leaves the only option option being on another site/platform, and while something completely new could be created and manage by Kaldaien and the rest of the Special K group, I imagine you guys would already have your hands full working on the tool as it is, plus why bother creating something when there already exists a viable alternative?

Considering the nature of what Special K does in that it's often seen as a "fix" for PC games, to me it seems like a natural pairing for the PC gaming wiki especially when you consider that past older versions of the tool will get mentions on the individual game pages on the wiki.
However what I'm proposing is that with the launch on Steam, for the tool to have a lot prevalence on the wiki such as having its own dedicated section on a game's own wiki page, oor potentially even as its own web page due to the amount of information it would likely contain. It would be an ideal place to list things such as the prefered injection method for the game, any issues that using the tool may cause, as well as providing a recommended set of configurations for that game which would be vetted by each of the wiki editors.

I know this would also need discussion and agreement from the staff/admins from PCGW as it would alter some of the editing guidelines on the wiki, but generally speaking and bearing no ill will between the two parties I see it is a solid improvement to not just what Special K offers but also to the entire PC gaming community as it would have a lot to offer them while also giving them the power and tools to improve things for everyone, and at the same time not put extra pressure on the Special K team as the most could be done is add a link to the related PCGW subpage in the Special K launcher.

Reply from: @Aemony


While the suggestion is sound, the problem is generally where to put the information on PCGW.

As a PCGW staff member, we've historically tried to minimize the amount of third-party information displayed on the game pages themselves because of how this often can result in excessive amount of irrelevant information for the vast majority of users. Like, having a section or two on how to set up Special K for a game where Special K is deemed as an "essential improvement" is one thing, but adding a Special K oriented section on all game pages that Special K can be injected into, regardless of how "essential" the use of SK is with the game, means a lot of irrelevant information for the average user.

And if we were to do so, imagine what else users would add, and how the game-specific pages would end up looking like. As an example, I spotted a few weeks ago that someone added Logitech GamePanel sections to a bunch of games, which I've questioned the inclusion of multiple times since then.

It also becomes a question of what to cover on such a section. Like, would it only be critical config changes needed to get SK up and running, or also stuff like "most appropriate HDR config" (aka up to the user and whatnot) or similar.

A solution could probably be found, but I would need to discuss it with the rest of the PCGW staff. The current setup that I think might allow for the best base for other similar third-party tools that might be in the same position would be to basically have a new third-party table (have been discussed in the past) and then it would have link to, as you suggested, an appropriate subpages below each game-specific page.

For example, SK related stuff for Final Fantasy XV would reside on https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XV/Special_K, while similar stuff like e.g. ReShade would reside on https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XV/ReShade.

The third-party tool table on the actual page would then merely link to those subpages (and maybe have a true, hackable, false state to indicate overall support).

But even so I'd probably still have to write up a proposal of how the subpages would be structured, as to prevent an unstructured mess (see e.g. https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/SimCity_(2013)/Bugs ).

So good proposal. I'll have to contemplate and discuss it with the rest of the PCGW staff and members.


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The discussion on the PCGW Discord was quite heated when the proposal was raised, I'll admit 🙂 Though it mostly concerned whether there was a need of tracking third-party tools in general through a separate table, as opposed to just continuing to keep track of them through a separate page. While the proposal haven't been closed yet, I've gone ahead and set up a separate page that can be used to keep track of Special K support, based on the ReShade compatibility table:


Feel free to add or edit entries as desired.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Aemony said:

The discussion on the PCGW Discord was quite heated when the proposal was raised, I'll admit 🙂 Though it mostly concerned whether there was a need of tracking third-party tools in general through a separate table, as opposed to just continuing to keep track of them through a separate page. While the proposal haven't been closed yet, I've gone ahead and set up a separate page that can be used to keep track of Special K support, based on the ReShade compatibility table:


Feel free to add or edit entries as desired.

Thanks for the update! I've gone ahead and added the page to the list category as looking at other similar pages that seems to be how the wiki is structured.
ALso while doing so I did notice how most of the list pages are auto generated however, so regardless of whatever the choice ends up being I'm hoping that it can be done in a similar way where the data entered on the game's page would get automatically populate the list page as it won't be sustainable in its current form. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd only consider subpages for games that released in a horrible state and almost need a fixes wiki in their own right. If the Grand Theft Auto San Andreas article is an indication.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks really good @Aemony

It would be nice to use a similar method to quickly prototype lists of other settings e.g. DLSS, Raytracing which it would be nice to track but not necessarily integrate into our templates until we know it's an established setting. I know @Garrett is developing an Advanced video settings section but even when this is done, it would be nice to link up the 'DLSS article' with the 'List of DLSS supported games' easily too through navigation.

I am not opposed to dedicated subpages, as long as it is presented correctly in a clean prominent navigation template. For example, we could have a 'Glossarybox'/'Subpagesbox' or 'Relatedpagesbox' underneath the Infobox which would could link to Final_Fantasy_XV/ReShade or Final_Fantasy_XV/Special K and back to their respective articles. This same navigation could apply to other non-game pages and not just third-party tools e.g. Linking Vulkan and List of Vulkan games. This could include other subpages too if an article gets too long - for example Mods for GTA:SA

Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd probably preferably want a solution that combines dedicated subpages (in those cases they're necessary) with an actual "Third-party support" table, below the "Other information" section.

Imagine that we made use of a new table on the game pages where we tracked support among all kinds of third-party tools, such as ReShade, Special K, dgVoodoo 2, DXVK, Logitech's G Hub-whatsitcalled, etc, etc, etc that we can semi-easily extend by adding new parameters if a part of the community wants to track something new.

If the relevant information for e.g. ReShade or Special K was only "basic", then it would be situated in that table on the game page itself, and nowhere else. However if a subpage existed and was required for further instructions or details, a link would be added to that subpage, along with whatever else was entered in the relevant parameters.


For example, based on our ReShade page right now, for that particular third-party tool we would have to have three different parameters in that table:

  • reshade status
  • reshade render api
  • reshade notes


For Special K, we would be looking at some more, such as:


  • special k status
  • special k render api
  • special k version
  • special k injection
  • special k notes


For more 'basic' tools like dgVoodoo 2 or DXVK or OEM's lighting software suites, we would be looking at a typical 2 parameter combo:


  • dxvk
  • dxvk notes
  • dgvoodoo
  • dgvoodoo notes


So just based on those, the table would look something like this:


{{Third-party tools
|dgvoodoo                 = 
|dgvoodoo notes           =
|dxvk                     =
|dxvk notes               =
|logitech hub             = 
|logitech hub notes       = 
|reshade                  = 
|reshade api              = 
|reshade notes            = 
|special k                =
|special k api            = 
|special k version        =
|special k injection      = 
|special k notes          =
|steelseries engine       = 
|steelseries engine notes =


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I like the look of this table and it would expand our reach substantially, happy for it to be implemented. I think it would be appropriate under 'Other information'.

Subpages - these can be linked from the Notes section of this new table, eg Special K links to Final Fantasy V/Special K, but in addition I think they could have a more prominent established navigation on each game page.


Navigationally, It would be interesting to to see something like this:

- Article: collapsed box under Seriesbox that lists all Subpages
- Subpage: expanded box which also contains link back to the Article

I'd like to use a similar template to help tie up different Guide sections which is what I'd like to work on next, and separate fixes out of the maiin Article, e.g. Windows 10 and Windows 10/Fixes

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject, the RGB lighting middleware page has a lot of examples of third-party stuff that we could add to the table.

I'm going to contemplate the subject a few days more or something, and will probably then throw up a draft we can test.


22 hours ago, Andytizer said:

Navigationally, It would be interesting to to see something like this:

- Article: collapsed box under Seriesbox that lists all Subpages

That should actually be relatively easy to achieve using {{Special:PrefixIndex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/|hideredirects=yes|stripprefix=yes}}

That call creates an alphabetically ordered list of all subpages below the specified prefix (the page name in this case) and lists it in an ordered list.

See https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/User:Aemony#Pages for an example.

It would be rather easy to create an automatic inclusion of a seriesbox/categorybox containing such a list where appropriate and add it to the bottom of the infobox game template. Although I'd recommend not keeping it collapsed by default until we've seen how many subpages got used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course MediaWiki loves to throw a god damn curveball at you when you least expect it... Why do I even still expect it to function within expected parameters?! (╯‵□′)╯︵┻━┻

So the Special:PrefixIndex call itself isn't an issue -- determining whether to show the sidebar or not is. In a logical, perfect, world, a simple IF statement to check whether the Special:PrefixIndex call outputs anything would suffice, but in a MediaWiki world that isn't possible. Because even on pages where there's no actual subpages to list, that command still evaluates as 'true' on such statements and so the sidebar still appears even though it's intended to be hidden.

I've tried various ways of working around the issue but no dice, so far.

Dunno if I will be able to figure this one out, as I have basically nothing to go on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this help at all? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Qe11vb4856fnlpmh - seems an expensive way to check whether a subpage exists.

I'd be happy for RGB middleware and everything to be grouped under this one section Third-party tools. If we have lots of RGB stuff then becuase it's one template, we could output to its own subsection of the table in the future, e.g. Tools, RGB, etc.

Subpages and navigation, we'd need some subpages to exist first and to have some kind of prototype e.g. what is will a /Special K subpage going to look like?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Andytizer said:

Does this help at all? https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Qe11vb4856fnlpmh - seems an expensive way to check whether a subpage exists.

Mhm, I'd prefer it if I found another solution than that one. The thing I like with Special:PrefixIndex is that it allows for non-standard subpages, such as https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/SimCity_(2013)/Bugs, which would allow the community to create custom pages if they so desired.


46 minutes ago, Andytizer said:

I'd be happy for RGB middleware and everything to be grouped under this one section Third-party tools. If we have lots of RGB stuff then becuase it's one template, we could output to its own subsection of the table in the future, e.g. Tools, RGB, etc.

Yes, that's the direction that my own thoughts are going in right now -- to basically have a table akin to the input table that automatically hides or shows different subsections of the table according to the filled out rows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
  • Found PCGamingWiki useful? Please consider making a Donation or visiting our Patreon.
  • Similar Content

    • By onlinepc
      This wiki provides lots of info on patches, fixes and ways to tune the game to work on pc. But as someone who plays kb+m, it's difficult to find ways to tell if a ported game managed to convert controller prompts to kb+m equivalents.
      Any chance we could add this information to wiki's for games ported to pc?
    • By stuttgart
      I've had the idea that the infoboxes should somewhere contain information about a game's save system, since there are a lot of different ways games handle it:
      - Roguelikes (dying completely resets you, but you retain certain benefits)
      - Hardcore-modes where dying deletes your savegame, e.g. "Trial of Iron" mode in Pillars of Eternity 2
      - Only at the start of each level, e.g. Freespace 2
      - Only checkpoint / autosave, e.g. most modern shooters
      - Checkpoints that can be manually activated several times, e.g. Resident Evil typewriters or sleeping in Kingdom Come: Deliverance
      - Bonfire-system, e.g. Dark Souls (like above, but respawns all enemies)
      - Free, manual saving (and whether it also allows in combat + how many available save slots)
      - "Free" saving that still resets you to checkpoints, e.g. Tomb Raider: Legend
      - Manual saving, but at a cost, e.g. Kingdom Come: Deliverance (consumes alcohol)
      - Quicksaves
      - Special savegame shenanigans (e.g. message if you save too often in Metal Gear Solid 1, deleting your savegames if you die too often in Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice, voluntary savegame deletion in Nier and Nier: Automata...)
      - Whether it allows to select individual chapters to replay, e.g. Syndicate (2012) and Condemned: Criminal Origins
      What do you think about this feature? For me personally, not being able to save freely is almost disqualifying for a game, so I always want to know such information. And it often changes even inside a franchise (e.g. FEAR 1 has manual saving, 2 and 3 only have checkpoints; Splinter Cell 1-4 allow manual saves and quicksaves, 5 and 6 only have checkpoints; Call of Juarez 1+2 has quicksaves, 3+4 only has checkpoints; etc.), so even if you like the previous installment you can't be sure if the next game works the same when you want to buy it.
      This information could be included in the infobox below the "save game location" info. It could just be simplified into a simple checkbox whether the game allows manual saves or not, and a "Notes" field with additional information (e.g. the things I listed above, how many save slots etc.). This way it wouldn't be cluttered, you just have a simple "Manual Saves?" checkbox next to the save location, and if there is any additional custom information, it can be written into the Notes field. What do you think about that?
      Today more than ever, (fast) storage space is expensive. One thing that always makes me mad is the insane amount of unused Localizations, game modes (often dead/closed multiplayer modes) that are installed by default - this is literally dead content. Wasted storage. Wasted money.
      Now back in ye old days, it used to be a gigabyte at best. Not the end of the world, and not exactly worth the time investment. But old habits die hard, and I'm still doing it today.

      With games becoming larger and larger, storage has become an issue that can thankfully be alleviated. 
      I'm going to list a few interesting examples, then propose a solution and finally suggest a way to integrate it to PCGW's structure. I'll also list a couple of issues with my proposal, potential flaws and uses cases etc. If you have a better idea or any suggestion to make this a thing, you're more than welcome.

      Please note that all the numbers given are taken from Steam, but GoG, Uplay, EGS & Origin are guilty of the very same thing. Uplay's even worse, as always. 
      Any constructive feedback would be much appreciated - I never suggested a feature before, but this one has been on the back of my mind for at least a year. I feel like it could be very useful to many folks out there.

      So, let's get to it. Those are easy ones to "clean-up" (more on that later):
      Batman Arkham Origins. Had a multiplayer mode, servers are down. Delete one folder and the install size goes from 27.06Gb to 18.1Gb. 9Gb (33%) saved Final Fantasy XIII. Well documented, check the PCGW entry for it, you can remove ~20Gb if you don't want the Japanese audio. 57.6Gb to 37.7Gb. 19.9Gb (52%) saved (!!!) Doom 2016. Do you really play the MP or Snapmap modes? That's ~15Gb (11Gb if you only delete the MP) saved. From 69.68Gb to 54.68Gb. 15Gb (21.5%) saved Here's the problem. I can manually delete all localizations, "deluxe edition content", Readme/Support and redists safely from most MT_Framework, UE3 and Ubi games just fine because they use the same naming conventions. All I have to do is search in the root folder for any file with the _ita. suffix for instance and delete it - but that's because I know what I'm doing and I'm willing to take the time to locate and delete those files. 
      Listing that would massively bloat any page of course, and not many users would do it anyways. 

      The best way I can think of to implement a reliable and simple method to delete files that we're absolutely sure are safe to delete goes something like this:
      Add a "debloatable" boolean to the Other Information infobox, If True, how much can be shaved-off at best. Users like myself could build a database of games we know we can "shave" (much like SK/ReShade compat, with a dedicated page) The end user would download a batch file, hosted here and verified by members based on a template which would include one option for each localization, and a "clean-up" option (remove Readme, Deluxe content, redists if safe) So for instance, I can flag all the localization for Resident Evil 6 and write them down in the dedicated page. I don't have any experience making modular batch files like that however, so someone else would have to make a template. I can then edit that batch to point it to all the files we want to delete. The end user launches the batch file, delete all locales but the one he's/she's using and boom. That's money saved right there.
      I know there are programs that are much better than Win Explorer's Search feature - if we can feed such a program with a config file it should do the trick too. We'd still need to build a database though. 

      I do realize that I make it sound much easier than it may be, or that it may sound overkill if we're talking about a Gb at best. But for extreme cases like Doom 2016, Far Cry 3/4, FF XIII, the Arkham series, The Evil Within - huge games basically, it would be very helpful and hey, I'm already doing it anyways so might as well share it. There's also games like Battlefront 2 (2005) where you can cut the install size in half. It's about 5Gb (vanilla) if memory serves, about 2-3Gb when cleaned. 
      With that said, if anything I hope that this thread at least brings more attention to this issue. 

      Last but not least, to everyone: Happy holidays! I hope you're all doing well, and ready for more PCGW grunt work for this year to come.
      "Keep on keeping on". 
    • By mrrobertman
      Proposal to show support of Steam Family Sharing on the Wiki pages, as some games do not support Steam Family Sharing (this is the most recent list I could find) and this could be useful information to be recorded.
    • By SirYodaJedi
      This seems like an important setting, especially with the prominence of high-PPI UHD monitors.
      True: Has option to change scaling settings. May or may not automatically scale based on selected resolution. Example: SWTOR
      Always on: Is automatically scaled based on resolution, but has no manual setting. Example: Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga
      Limited: Only scales certain elements (ex: graphics but not text), or cannot be scaled beyond a certain percentage of the base resolution. Example: Half-Life 2
      False: Is not scaled and does not have an option to scale. Can't think of an example off the top of my head.
      Hackable: Hackable. Example: Quake
      This could go in the video settings table, or it could go in a potential accessibility table. I think probably wait until a dedicated accessibility table is made and put any info in 4K for now.
  • Who's Online   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 338 Guests (See full list)

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    Total Topics
    Total Posts
  • Create New...