AppDB rating definitions, was: Re: Canonical and wine
sparr0 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 15 18:31:39 CST 2008
I think that Highest Settings is unfair, there are issues with many
games in Windows with settings maxed (Check Oblivion forums, every
problem we have in wine is also had by people in native windows).
Default settings is a far more appropriate measuring stick.
I also think there needs to be a reviewer meta-review system, similar
to slashdot's karma system. There are a few reviewers consistently
rating 1 or 2 steps above what they should. "Rating: Gold. What
doesn't work: Sound. What wasn't tested: Multiplayer." WTF?
2008/12/15 M.Kiesel <wine-devel at continuity.cjb.net>:
> My suggestion for "Platinum":
> "Application installs and runs flawlessly completely/at highest settings
> 'out of the box'. No changes required in winecfg."
> (add "completely/at highest settings")
> For "Gold":
> "Application works completely/at highest settings flawlessly in the latest
> Wine development release (no patches needed), possibly with DLL overrides,
> other settings, or third party software."
> (add same as above; add "latest Wine development release"; remove "*some*
> DLL overrides)
> I feel that games that are playable only at low settings shouldn't get Gold
> or Platinum ratings at all. Other opinions?
> Austin: I think for apps that run completely with tweaks a Gold rating is
> okay regardless of the number of tweaks involved; for the user it doesn't
> matter really whether one or ten DLLs have to be overridden. I wouldn't go
> as far as allowing patched Wine versions though.
> I also suggest to hyperlink every mention of "Rating" in the browser with
> that page. Otherwise it isn't completely clear (without searching) what the
> individual ratings mean really.
> Who has the rights to change AppDB on that level?
More information about the wine-devel