Widescreen Gaming Forum

I'm not sure we need a grade, or at least not a full letter grade, for each aspect ratio; that seems like it could be overkill.

The current grading system grades the aspect change implementation, which I do think is appropriate, since implementation can be graded independent of what the "correct" aspect is. E.g. whether a game was initially designed for 4:3 and 16:9, I think we all agree that vert-/+ behavior is non-optimal.

The problem is that grading the implementation isn't necessarily representative of what it's like to actually play the game in widescreen.

Hmm. What if we kept the technical grading on the same A-F system it's on now (so that all all the old scores would still be applicable), but then had very simple subjective grades for Widescreen (lumping 16:9/16:10 together) and TH?

How about just three levels:
Great - Playing the game in widescreen is the intended experience , doesn't feel compromised versus other aspects in any way, or requires little work to get running perfectly
Acceptable - Playing the game in widescreen either feels compromised (but not so badly that you'd want to play in 4:3) or requires moderate work to get running perfectly.
Unacceptable - Playing the game in widescreen is too compromised to be worth it.

*replace "widescreen" with "triple head" in the descriptions as appropriate based on what we're scoring

So for example, I'd grade Wheelman thusly:

Technical grade: C/D (pending discussion about the hack)
Widescreen Experience: Great
Triple Head Experience: Acceptable

Keeping the subjective grades down to just three simple rating means there shouldn't be a lot of argument about what's a B and a C or stuff like that. Sure there will likely still be some dissention on what's Great and what's Acceptable for some titles, but I think most people would agree on one; and if some people disgree - so what, as I mentioned earlier a few people disagreeing doesn't invalide the usefullness of the subjective grade.

The technical grade can remain totally objective, and we don't have to change existing grades.

As far as who assigns the subjective grades - I say leave it up to the DR author, but with the stipulation that it can be overridden by Ibrin (or appropriate others) or a consensus from the community. Also even though the grade is subjective, we can still come up with suggestion guides on how to score them.

Review sites never go back and alter ratings or change it when a new system is in place.

Most don't, but most don't make aggregate lists of all-time ratings a major feature of the site either. WSGF does, which makes consistency across the board pretty important. Sites like IMDB and Mobygames *do* go back and alter ratings when a new system is in place for that reason.

Just make sure to note that there is a different grading system in place between then and now. Split them into two different categories based on the systems.

Just how do you envision a "split" MGL working without seriously confusing the users? Here's a backup copy I made of the "W" page I made, just for you:
http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Split_Games_List_-_W

You can alter this yourself, according to your vision.

I think seperate ratings for different aspect ratios and a seperate grading for the experience is all a little convoluted and overly complicated.

We need one grade which is consistent across all the games on the site... we speak about user friendliness, and I think that is probably the most important thing for the users of the site... simple but firm and consistent grading.

The one area I see as truly debateable is making a simple hack solution, like running a Racer_S patch or utility, a lesser offense. I get the point of punishing a developer for ignoring a simple solution, but we're actually punishing the game in the end. Perhaps making simple hacks result in a B or C instead of D would be a better way to do things, and I could see us voting on that idea.

The WSGF awards are a better place to punish developers, rather than the detailed reports. Thus Wheelman would move up to a B+ (perfect support through triplehead but hack use is a blemish) and Tigon would be mentioned on some kind of naughty developer list.

Blame Midway... not Tigon ;)
I concur though, seems a bit off to put a D for Disgrace on games that get fixed with minimal hassle for the user thanks to Racer_S's efforts. Especially when a hack is vital to TripleHead primarily.
Third-party hacks should prevent certification, but the grade should inform users that the game works ok somehow.

Third-party hacks should prevent certification, but the grade should inform users that the game works ok somehow.

This I fully agree with. A C+ or so would be great in my opinion.

I'm not saying you have to go with the system I mentioned. I'm just trying to make suggestions and provide ideas to help better the site. The way I see it right now, the site is a joke. Cranky hasn't tried to put in ideas or ways to better the site. All he does is take what other people try to suggest and shut them down.

I think this site should provide direct, easy-to-read detail on how different aspect-ratios are treated. This way any user that comes to the site can easily see whether they will have an enjoyable experience or not. The reason I think it needs to be broken down by aspect-ratio is that users typically have one screen they play games on. If I have a 16:10 screen, I don't care how 4:3 users might view the game. So why should their rating affect mine? I look and I see "16:9 - Native, 16:10 - A" and know that 16:9 is the native resolution, and it also works flawlessly in 16:10. I'm all for making the site about visitors and users. It shouldn't be about "How much work does cranky have to do?" or "Will cranky provide anything useful today?"

_________________
Widescreen Fixer - https://www.widescreenfixer.org/

Widescreen Fixer Twitter - https://twitter.com/widescreenfixer
Personal Twitter - https://twitter.com/davidrudie

I think this site should provide direct, easy-to-read detail on how different aspect-ratios are treated. This way any user that comes to the site can easily see whether they will have an enjoyable experience or not. The reason I think it needs to be broken down by aspect-ratio is that users typically have one screen they play games on. If I have a 16:10 screen, I don't care how 4:3 users might view the game. So why should their rating affect mine? I look and I see "16:9 - Native, 16:10 - A" and know that 16:9 is the native resolution, and it also works flawlessly in 16:10.

Well the pictures and artcile does that in a detailed report... not to sound like the guy who does tweakeguides, but a certain level of research can be expected of someone if they want to know exactly how a game works in their specific resolution. The reports already divide by resolution and even give picture examples.

The grade should just be an overview for categorization, I would think.

I think seperate ratings for different aspect ratios and a seperate grading for the experience is all a little convoluted and overly complicated.

"Technical grade: C/D (pending discussion about the hack)
Widescreen Experience: Great
Triple Head Experience: Acceptable"

This is convoluted? Seems pretty darn simple to me. You think people would have a difficult time understanding this? I think it's a heck of a lot more obvious than the technical grading by itself.

I really don't see what's so bad about giving a subjective score for the experience. We keep the technical grading so people who want to drill into how exactly a game behaves can do so and we don't have to change any existing scores. However, the subjective grades are good for people who just want to know how game is going to play on a widescreen or TH setup without having to read the grading instructions.

This seems like a good compromise to me in terms of providing a user with quick, simple info for casual users that doesn't require them to read the grading rubrik, without shaking up how things are done too much since the technical grading remains the same. We're just adding two new grades, not changing the whole system, there's not even all that much need to go back through all the existing DRs.

Seems a lot more convoluted to me to come to WidescreenGamingForum.com and have a just one grade to go off of that judges a technical implementation only and isn't all that representive of actual widescreen gaming...