Announcement Compatibility Ratings coming to the main site

[MayImilae]

The devs are adding a Compatibility Ratings section to the mainpage! It will look fairly similar to PCSX2's compatibility rating page, minus the serial and region stuff that no one cares about. But unlike them, we have a wiki with years of testing and information for hundreds and hundreds of games. So the ratings will be pulled from the wiki, and clicking on the rating will go to the wiki for the full details. Hopefully it will make it even easier for users to find info on games!

Little problem though.... Some of the things on it are a little out of date. Obviously anything popular, like a zelda or mario game, is going to have someone updating it every other week, but Dolphin can play over 2000 games. Stuff is bound to fall through the cracks. So we want you guys to help us out. Check out the wiki pages for the games you have, and see if the rating fits. Especially if the game is unusual and rare.


Ratings on the wiki work on a star system, 0-5, based on emulation status with the current development version of the master branch. It's very simple.

- Perfect Emulation. EFB to Texture and HLE (some allowances there) work perfectly.
- Playable. Works well, but has minor unfixable glitches and/or problems that requires demanding settings like EFB to Ram and DSP LLE to fix.
- Starts/Heavy Glitches. The game runs, maybe even runs well, but has severe glitches which cannot be fixed, or the fix has consequences (like disabling EFB Copies).
- Intro/Menu. Boots and loads the menu, but fails before gameplay. Unplayable.
- Utterly Broken. Fails to boot at all. (please double-check dumps before setting something to this)
- Unknown. No one has made a rating for it yet.

To modify a rating, just go to the game on the wiki or the game thread here on the forums, and click the edit icon ( ) beside the star rating. The rating page will open, and then just change the rating number to the amount of stars it should have. Easy. Remember it's the compatibility ranting for the current development version of the master branch, not the 3.5 or 3.0 release versions.


The wiki administrator's job is to double check everything, so I ask that when you edit it, can you give a short description in the summary area? It's right above the "save page" button. Just say something like "Doesn't need Skip EFB anymore, 4 stars". We don't have every game, and even if we did it would take tons of time to double check, so a short little blurb explaining why will really make our jobs easier and avoid any misunderstandings. Plus, if you give us information like the revision that fixed it, we could update other stuff based on it, like problems on the game page, or show when it was fixed on the graph. Just remember that it's our jobs to keep things standardized so if something happens that you don't agree with, just talk to us, either here on the forum or on a talk page on the wiki, and we'll sort it out.

Thanks for the help everyone!

[delroth]

If you want to help but don't know where to start:

List of games which currently have an "Unknown" rating (updated every minute)
List of games with rating <= 3 and rating not updated for 3 months (updated every minute)

Thanks a lot to everyone who will help in this effort!

[Soopah]

Nice initiative!

[neobrain]

While we're at it, is it really necessary to put the "works perfectly when using Real XFB" games in the same category as "Starts/Heavy Glitches"? That sounds kinda wrong to me. All that the option does is reduce image quality to the point where games look like on real HW.

[MayImilae]

Well, real XFB looks worse than 1x native from what I remember, so I think it's fair. Of course the last game I ran with it had horrible glitches anyway, so perhaps I should double check.

EDIT: Referring to the distortion bug in Real XFB. It works on some backends so I changed the first post. If a game works well with XFB, then it should count as 4 stars.

[LordVador]

The only problem is that any guy's gonna change the rating because a game works or doesn't work for him. I mean if a guy tried to play a game and couldn't make it work (bad dump, MMU needed, etc) he's gonna change the rating to 1 or 2 stars even if someone else had attributed 3 or 4 stars before (I saw the case recently )

[skid]

Real XFB is the accurate option. Games which work only with Real XFB should not have this count against them in the rating.

[Zee530]

The comments sections should also tell us if the rating was viable or not.

[delroth]

The only problem is that any guy's gonna change the rating because a game works or doesn't work for him. I mean if a guy tried to play a game and couldn't make it work (bad dump, MMU needed, etc) he's gonna change the rating to 1 or 2 stars even if someone else had attributed 3 or 4 stars before (I saw the case recently )

Then revert it. If people can't make the effort to look up if their issue is global or not, they shouldn't rate stuff anyway.

[MayImilae]

The only problem is that any guy's gonna change the rating because a game works or doesn't work for him. I mean if a guy tried to play a game and couldn't make it work (bad dump, MMU needed, etc) he's gonna change the rating to 1 or 2 stars even if someone else had attributed 3 or 4 stars before (I saw the case recently )

That's why I asked people to make a note of what they are doing in the summary. If someone does something wrong, it will be easier to fix it if they gave information on it. But most importantly, if someone does something that looks wrong but really isn't, if they give information about why then we'll know not to revert it, and the page is given an important fix. I figure most people won't bother, but it would be really helpful if they did.