[Scummvm-devel] Touche

Travis Howell kirben at optusnet.com.au
Sat Feb 14 00:13:19 CET 2009


Gregory Montoir wrote:
 > But well, that % thing just doesn't seem right to me.
 > What the difference between 98 and 95 for the end user ? (IIRC the first
 > one is when an engine was based on original code and second on RE'ing)
 > What about changing this to 3 or 5 levels ? Something like runnable /
 > playable / no known issues ? Or just an appropriate link to the wiki ?

A 98% means the game engine in ScummVM is known to be equal to the 
original games engine, or went beyond the original game engine.

Max Horn wrote:
> There's something to it. 3-5 levels, plus a legend explaining what  
> each level means, sounds quite reasonable to me. Rough table:
> 
> 0: Not (yet?) part of ScummVM (for just started engine; or we omit this)
> 1: Early work, sever problems, not suitable for players
> 2: Good enough for testing by a wider audience, but might not be  
> completable, might still have missing features (e.g. no music support).
> 3: Completable, but has some semi-critical bugs (like may crash in  
> certain places, but still completable)
> 4: Good to play, could have non-critical minor glitches in places,  
> maybe not all versions/variants supported
> 5: Almost perfect, possibly with improvements over the original
> 
> This would be less confusing to both users and developers, I'd say. We  
> should still include the list of known issues, as we do now, and add a  
> link to the wiki pages.
> 
> 
> What do others think?

The advantage of the current percent rates, is that it is possible to 
give better idea of amount of known bugs/issues, by the exact percentage 
rate used.

Why not just keep the current compatibility table, but provide a legend 
to explain the percentage ranges/rates? a much easier change, than 
rating all games again too.




More information about the Scummvm-devel mailing list