09-01-2017, 02:28 AM
Hello
This post will leave some if not many people feeling aggrieved but what is said must be said. It appears some game testers misunderstand the ‘playability’ requirement of a game to satisfy the status of being “Playable”. Let us first recap the definition of “Playable” as given on the official website and this thread:
Playable: Games that can be played from start to finish with playable performance and no game breaking glitches.
Note that I have capitalized the term “Playable”. This is done to distinct the term from its ordinary dictionary meaning. For example, a game may be playable but will not be “Playable” if it, due to game breaking glitches, cannot be finished. For a game to be “Playable” it not only requires to be playable but also be beatable, that is it ‘can be properly played from start to finish’. For a better understanding of such distinction, it is necessary to look at the definition of a game achieving “Ingame” status:
Ingame: The emulator can go past the main menu, and you can actually "play" it, but glitches and random crashes, or even low performance, make it impossible to reasonably finish the game.
From the definition of “Playable” and “Ingame” we can see that whilst a game may be playable, even after a long session without crashes or glitches, it will not qualify for the status of being “Playable” until the tester/s has played the game from the start to finish absent any game breaking glitches, regardless of the number of sessions it took. Otherwise the game can only satisfy the lower “Ingame” status requirements.
I have read one too many threads that request a game’s compatibility status to be changed to “Playable” with the reason that they have played the game for a few hours and during that play session, no crashes were experienced. Whilst it is understandable that testers, like most of us in modern society, lead busy lives and are keen to encourage others to try out the same game they are playing without having to finish the game themselves first those reasons should not be sufficient to justify the lowering of the set compatibility standards, intentionally or otherwise.
Developers, either create another category to ameliorate the confusion caused by the definitions of the two “Playable” and “Ingame” statuses or otherwise strictly enforce the standards you have set by way of requiring proof of game completion prior to moving a game to the “Playable” status.
This post is not written with any intention to put anyone down. It was written to encourage the meeting of set standards. Those standards were not defined by myself but the developers themselves. I do not purport to fully understand the intention of the developers, I am merely attempting to gauge those intention by what they have written.
TL;DR: You need to have finished a game before stating that the game has reached “Playable” status.
This post will leave some if not many people feeling aggrieved but what is said must be said. It appears some game testers misunderstand the ‘playability’ requirement of a game to satisfy the status of being “Playable”. Let us first recap the definition of “Playable” as given on the official website and this thread:
Playable: Games that can be played from start to finish with playable performance and no game breaking glitches.
Note that I have capitalized the term “Playable”. This is done to distinct the term from its ordinary dictionary meaning. For example, a game may be playable but will not be “Playable” if it, due to game breaking glitches, cannot be finished. For a game to be “Playable” it not only requires to be playable but also be beatable, that is it ‘can be properly played from start to finish’. For a better understanding of such distinction, it is necessary to look at the definition of a game achieving “Ingame” status:
Ingame: The emulator can go past the main menu, and you can actually "play" it, but glitches and random crashes, or even low performance, make it impossible to reasonably finish the game.
From the definition of “Playable” and “Ingame” we can see that whilst a game may be playable, even after a long session without crashes or glitches, it will not qualify for the status of being “Playable” until the tester/s has played the game from the start to finish absent any game breaking glitches, regardless of the number of sessions it took. Otherwise the game can only satisfy the lower “Ingame” status requirements.
I have read one too many threads that request a game’s compatibility status to be changed to “Playable” with the reason that they have played the game for a few hours and during that play session, no crashes were experienced. Whilst it is understandable that testers, like most of us in modern society, lead busy lives and are keen to encourage others to try out the same game they are playing without having to finish the game themselves first those reasons should not be sufficient to justify the lowering of the set compatibility standards, intentionally or otherwise.
Developers, either create another category to ameliorate the confusion caused by the definitions of the two “Playable” and “Ingame” statuses or otherwise strictly enforce the standards you have set by way of requiring proof of game completion prior to moving a game to the “Playable” status.
This post is not written with any intention to put anyone down. It was written to encourage the meeting of set standards. Those standards were not defined by myself but the developers themselves. I do not purport to fully understand the intention of the developers, I am merely attempting to gauge those intention by what they have written.
TL;DR: You need to have finished a game before stating that the game has reached “Playable” status.