Star Wars - Rogue Squadron

[Iconoclast]

I just wanted to say that this game is NOT unplayable. The only chance is to use Nemu64 v0.8 with Nemu's default graphics plugin. Disable Audio HLE from under the Debug menu to hear sound. Turn on Force Z Clear in graphics configuration.

You may not be able to see most buildings in-game on the first level, but it IS playable because you can fly your spaceship around and still make a fair attempt to actually aim for beating the first level. Unplayable means you can't play it, and if I'm in-game shooting other ships staying high in the air so that I don't crash into anything, then I'm playing the game.

And I posted this here instead of along with the next release of my documentation (coming up in a minute) because I don't post how to get games working in that thread, just the chm for it.

Also, I may have missed something. Let me know if anyone can find other graphics fixes for anything in the game by enabling various options in the gfx configuration. Another reason to start a thread for open discussion.

Edit: And please, mods, don't get abusive. Don't close the thread and say, wrong forum. This is only one of two forums it could've gone in, and besides, you move threads to the right forum, not freaking close them....

[Trotterwatch]

Yeah this was posted about a while back, indeed I tried it way back then too.

At the time it was a bit slow as well as very glitchy, but I did recommend Lemmy's plugin to many :) Forgot who it was that found out about this originally though.

/Edit

Never did make it to Level 2, couldn't be bothered was a tad slow too. Does the 2nd level work at all? Can't try it myself due to lack of a proper graphics card.

[Iconoclast]

Oh. I guess someone beat me to it, then.

My prediction is that, if Hacktarux implements an option to disable the expansion pak, Star Wars RS will run even better in Mupen64 than in Nemu64. I could tell because the graphics loaded not only faster but also more of them loaded, or at least in that expansion pak detected screen before Mupen hanged.

There's also a way to get in-game using Rice's 5.9.9 and 6.1.1, but I'm still testing 5.9.9, and until I see an advantage over Nemu's graphics, there is nothing more for me to say.

Edit: I will look into it and reply regarding this sometime today.

[Iconoclast]

I must admit, I overestimated the playability of this game, as I got too impatient of flying around, so I just closed Nemu. I wasn't able to find the rest of the enemy devices, but I shot at least half of them. Therefore, I consider the game barely playable. As for crashing into buildings, I noticed that when you are about to crash into a surface, a very dark shadow appears on the surface. When you are low, try to go at a low speed. When you are high in the air, go as fast as you want.

But I really doubt that Level 2 will crash. Nemu64 is a very stable core and never crashes because of core instability like 1964 and Project64 sometimes do. If there is a crash in this game, it's caused by the graphics plugin, not the emulator, and I still doubt it because the graphics plugin has already gotten very into the game. I don't see what could stop it, unless TMEM emulation is used later on or something, which I doubt.

Anyway, enjoy this MP3 I ripped from the game using Nemu's audio plugin. (Originall a WAV, but converted to MP3 and then trimmed accurately.) Let this mark the birth of playability of the game.

FileSend - SWRS_HLE.MP3 (http://www.filesend.net/download.php?f=ea061315a716a1b62668b721e 4144275)

[Lemmy]

Rogue Squadron uses a so called heightfield microcode. So it is able to interprete height fields on the co-processor. The only other game with the same mechanism (to my knowledge) would the other Star Wars game. As all major emus emulate the graphics HIGH LEVEL, there is no chance this game can work unless someone completely manages to simulate the height field stuff OR if we finally get a lle graphics plugin.

I did some special work for Rogue Squadron (it is very unique) but didn't do any of the heightfield stuff. That's why you can see more than with other emus, but still I'd say it is unplayable.

[Iconoclast]

I think it's almost unplayable, because though I can still get in-game and still make a working attempt to shoot all of the droids, I can't see many in-game elements except some buildins, the sky and ground, my ship, and the droids themselves. It seems just roughly playable, but hard to look for the droids, deducting playability though to the point where you can still beat the level with persistence.

Anyway, right this is. I hear Project64 1.7 will have LLE for this game and will turn this game's playability inside out. For now, though, until then, I see no better method than this.

[Trotterwatch]

Yeah LLE works fine on PJ64 1.7 - obviously slow though.

Thanks for the explanation Lemmy, never heard any specifics about this issue until now.

[Clements]

Thanks Lemmy for the explanation. Moreover, as I have said before, and I repeat, Rogue Squadron reaches in-game only, with progression in the game passed the first level all but impossible, and is therefore classified as 'in-game' status, and not 'playable'. That is the classification that is agreed upon by the emulation community to describe a game that fits the following description:


You can get through menus, intro cutscenes / videos, and see ingame graphics, but either due to graphical bugs, crashes, un-resolved errors, you can't play through the entire game.

To use 'Playable' in the context of compatibility for this game is highly misleading, and is therefore definitely the wrong term to use. Playable does imply progression (i.e. the entire game is playable), rather than just reaching in-game (i.e. only some parts of the game are playable due to various problems with the emulation).

You can find more definitions of emulation compatibility terms on PCSX2.net:

PCSX2.net - Compatibility (http://www.pcsx2.net/compat.php?c=key)

You will find that 99.9% of the emulation community will agree to the terms used in the above link, and the term that best fits Rogue Squadron using Lemmy's plugin is in-game. Until someone can easily progress to end credits without cheat codes, the game isn't playable.

[olivieryuyu]

Rogue Squadron uses a so called heightfield microcode. So it is able to interprete height fields on the co-processor. The only other game with the same mechanism (to my knowledge) would the other Star Wars game. As all major emus emulate the graphics HIGH LEVEL, there is no chance this game can work unless someone completely manages to simulate the height field stuff OR if we finally get a lle graphics plugin.

I did some special work for Rogue Squadron (it is very unique) but didn't do any of the heightfield stuff. That's why you can see more than with other emus, but still I'd say it is unplayable.

Hmm in LLE it works the same than with Nemu plugin (at least for me).

Lemmy can you explain a bit what is height fields on the co-processor ? Because i really don t see what you mean by this ...

Thanks a lot in advance :-)

[mudlord]

My guess is that he meant that the terrain generator procedurally creates the areas (heightfields, or better known as "heightmaps")in the game on the RCP...but I can be wrong....

[Iconoclast]

Yes, I read the first time, Clements, but my point is simple: I can fly the ship around in-game, see it, my enemies, and shoot them successfully, therefore, I'm playing the game, and the game can only be played if it is playable.

I'm not here to complicate things. I've already said enough regarding this: You can shoot your enemies and see you and the enemy. The ONLY thing that has a chance of making level 1 unplayable is the world mapping textures, making it much difficult to navigate throughout the world.

While your definition is undisputable, you are still assuming level 1 as unplayable without trying it out for yourself, and if you did try it out for yourself, you should be able to play the game. Without the world background mapping, though, it sure is difficult to navigate.

It's just not playable to a tolerant level, is all. Regardless of any official conclusions any large community has chosen, I stick with what I see, not what I hear being claimed.

[Clements]

Your implication that I have not tried it is wrong. I played Rogue with Nemu64+Lemmy's plugin more than two years before you registered at the board (I believe when Trotter first pointed it out to me, May 2nd 2004 to be precise), and I posted screenshots in various threads about Rogue all over the board. What you were talking about in this thread about Rogue was known about two years ago, but what Lemmy said is completely new to my knowledge. I also played it years before that on the real console, so know the objectives and locations within the first level pretty well. I just have to point out that your definition is WAY off for this game and not a supported view.

In your original post, you claim that it is playable (possibly as a direct result of what I said in the other thread). I simply say it is not, with much evidence from other sources to back up my claims and not just my own personal opinion (I am a qualified Scientist after all). Your argument is that if you can reach in-game and move around you are 'playing' the game - but this is invalid in an emulation context since there are hundreds of emulated games in a similar boat to Rogue that reach in-game only and you would have to say are playable by your own definition. This misleads anyone who is new to the scene, assuming they can pick up the game and play without an issue - however, they cannot even progress beyond the first level, perhaps even the first objective! To most people on the board, that is not playable.

[Trotterwatch]

Whilst it is 'playable' it is a long long way off from actually being properly playable. Like saying a game of Tetris would be playable if the tops and bottom of the game screen were chopped off. Technically it would be, but it wouldn't really be that enjoyable.

First mention of the game showing graphics I know of was:

http://www.emutalk.net/showthread.php?p=168729&highlight=rogue+squadron#post168729

[Iconoclast]

Your implication that I have not tried it is wrong. I played Rogue with Nemu64+Lemmy's plugin more than two years before you registered at the board, and I posted screenshots in various threads about Rogue all over the board. What you were talking about in this thread about Rogue was known about two years ago, but what Lemmy said is completely new to my knowledge. I also played it years before that on the real console, so know the objectives and locations within the first level pretty well. I just have to point out that your definition is WAY off for this game and not a supported view.

In your original post, you claim that it is playable (possibly as a direct result of what I said in the other thread). I simply say it is not, with much evidence from other sources to back up my claims and not just my own personal opinion (I am a qualified Scientist after all). Your argument is that if you can reach in-game and move around you are 'playing' the game - but this is invalid in an emulation context since there are hundreds of emulated games in a similar boat to Rogue that reach in-game only and you would have to say are playable by your own definition. This misleads anyone who is new to the scene, assuming they can pick up the game and play without an issue - however, they cannot even progress beyond the first level, perhaps even the first objective! To most people on the board, that is not playable.I don't have to be a scientist to use definition logic. I am not making up my own definition of playable; I am using the current definition and comparing it to the game. On the other hand, all I see you trying to do is isolate me in support of this simple view and generally criticize the simplicity of my method of explanation. A view does not have to be well supported by the majority of human minds to be true. Support of an idea is irrelevant as to its truth.

Two differences in our arguments here:
You are referencing definitions made by a group of people who emulate video games (also, judging by the quote you originally gave, not very good at grammar), and I am using common-sense definition of the word 'playable' as you may all see in the dictionary: You can play the damn thing (not a dictionary definition you'd actually read, of course). Your source of pcsx2.net does not give some sort of official, worldwide definitions for terms. I'm pretty sure the webmasters, with their nice grammar, made those all up themselves. In fact, it is probably a key they made specifically for users to only abide by when reading their compatibility list for games under their emulator; not outside (of PSX console) emulators like Nemu64. That's not a universal source of definitions of 'playable', the English dictionary is, so long as we are speaking the language here.
While I am saying the game is playable, to a level of utter intolerance, because of an English definition of the word, you are saying it's not, halfway because it's misleading to users who mistake it for being playable but also to the level of tolerance. While I see this point of view, it does not stop the game from being playable. To avoid misleading newbies, that's why Project64's RDB doesn't call the game playable (pretending you could use Lemmy's video plugin on Project64 1.6). Instead, they listed it as: Unsupported video, which is even more accurate and of no misleading. Besides, you wanna know what's misleading?? Your own sources, here at pcsx2.net, are just a self-contradiction, and here's why:Playable
You can get from 'new game' to 'end credits'. This is regardless of FPS, it simply means you could with a great deal of patience, complete the game! eg: Slow, but stable!

Right...so, given this game's issues on Nemu64, Star Wars RS. Even with all of those issues, that's even more playable than a game running all the way at, say, 5 FPS, don't you think? Even the first level, at a speed of 60 FPS, is more playable than that, and where anything in a game is playable, the game itself is playable, logically speaking. Just imagine: Banjo-Kazooie, at 10 FPS. Though Banjo-Kazooie is a kind of game that makes slow emulation speed slightly worse than Star Wars RS, the definition of playable must be universal to games of all genres.

Anyway, regardless of how supported my view is, or how many people have the wits to agree with it, that is irrelevant to its truth. Sure you're speaking for everyone? That this view is unsupported by almost nobody on this site except for me? I mean, unless you're a million guys at once...but, to clear things up, I am not saying the game is playable just because you can get in-game and move your ship around, I am saying it is playable, though to no level of tolerance (more tolerantly than a point of regardlessness of FPS, that's for sure, yet THAT's considered playable on that site, and I do agree) because you can do just that but also see the enemies, shoot them, avoid buildings by watching out for shadows and staying high in the sky, and attempt though fail to play through the game for very long. Failing to progressively play through the game is not failing to play the game, which would be failure for it to be playable. Maybe, some moron is having fun right now, playing Star Wars RS on Nemu, wandering around and shooting the droids and somehow having fun out of that? If that's not considered playable, then there may as well be a restriction to the definition of a game based on how fun it is.

[Clements]

I don't have to be a scientist to use definition logic. I am not making up my own definition of playable; I am using the current definition and comparing it to the game.

You are pretty much inventing a new definition that is contrary to accepted definitions.


Two differences in our arguments here:
You are referencing definitions made by a group of people who emulate video games (also, judging by the quote you originally gave, not very good at grammar), and I am using common-sense definition of the word 'playable' as you may all see in the dictionary: You can play the damn thing (not a dictionary definition you'd actually read, of course). Your source of pcsx2.net does not give some sort of official, worldwide definitions for terms. I'm pretty sure the webmasters, with their nice grammar, made those all up themselves. In fact, it is probably a key they made specifically for users to only abide by when reading their compatibility list for games under their emulator; not outside (of PSX console) emulators like Nemu64. That's not a universal source of definitions of 'playable', the English dictionary is, so long as we are speaking the language here.

Your argument falls apart since the dictionary does not give reference of how the word playable refers to an emulation context. Dictionary definition is therefore not relevant here, but rather the definitions that PCSX2.net pointed out - with the intention of setting terms to help people construct MEANINGFUL compatibility lists.


While I am saying the game is playable, to a level of utter intolerance, because of an English definition of the word, you are saying it's not, halfway because it's misleading to users who mistake it for being playable but also to the level of tolerance. While I see this point of view, it does not stop the game from being playable.

When you shoot the first batch of robots, the game starts to become impossible to play, therefore it is not a completable game. You cannot reach the end of the level, let alone the end credits! You would classify Rogue Squadron in the same boat as Super Mario 64 with most plugins. Can't you see the fallacy in this? Compatibility lists drawn up with your definition would become meaningless as you cannot properly differentiate playable, in-game, menus or otherwise.


To avoid misleading newbies, that's why Project64's RDB doesn't call the game playable (pretending you could use Lemmy's video plugin on Project64 1.6). Instead, they listed it as: Unsupported video, which is even more accurate and of no misleading.

True, but this is not the issue.


Besides, you wanna know what's misleading?? Your own sources, here at pcsx2.net, are just a self-contradiction, and here's why:[/LIST]Playable
You can get from 'new game' to 'end credits'. This is regardless of FPS, it simply means you could with a great deal of patience, complete the game! eg: Slow, but stable!

Right...so, given this game's issues on Nemu64, Star Wars RS. Even with all of those issues, that's even more playable than a game running all the way at, say, 5 FPS, don't you think? Even the first level, at a speed of 60 FPS, is more playable than that, and where anything in a game is playable, the game itself is playable, logically speaking. Just imagine: Banjo-Kazooie, at 10 FPS. Though Banjo-Kazooie is a kind of game that makes slow emulation speed slightly worse than Star Wars RS, the definition of playable must be universal to games of all genres.

You completely misunderstood the definitions. Framerate is not important for emulator compatibility. PCSX2 states that if the game is completable, regardless of speed, it is playable. Rogue Squadron runs at fullspeed, but since the first level hasn't been passed by anyone in nearly three years, then you cannot reach the end credits, therefore it is in-game rather than playable.


Anyway, regardless of how supported my view is, or how many people have the wits to agree with it, that is irrelevant to its truth. Sure you're speaking for everyone? That this view is unsupported by almost nobody on this site except for me?

You are in a tiny minority. My years of experience dictates that.


I mean, unless you're a million guys at once...but, to clear things up, I am not saying the game is playable just because you can get in-game and move your ship around, I am saying it is playable, though to no level of tolerance (more tolerantly than a point of regardlessness of FPS, that's for sure, yet THAT's considered playable on that site, and I do agree) because you can do just that but also see the enemies, shoot them, avoid buildings by watching out for shadows and staying high in the sky, and attempt though fail to play through the game for very long. Failing to progressively play through the game is not failing to play the game, which would be failure for it to be playable. Maybe, some moron is having fun right now, playing Star Wars RS on Nemu, wandering around and shooting the droids and somehow having fun out of that? If that's not considered playable, then there may as well be a restriction to the definition of a game based on how fun it is.

But you can't even beat the first level because of HEAVY graphics problems. Therefore, it is not playable to end credits, and by the supported nomenclature, is considered in-game only. Playable status is only given to games that can be completed to the end credits.

[Iconoclast]

You are pretty much inventing a new definition that is contrary to accepted definitions.I'm not inventing new definitions. As I've said, the definition I used was from the English dictionary. I'll even post it here, definition of playable, on dictionary.com:

"capable of or suitable for being played."

While the 'suitable' part is hard to decide for this game's case, as I've just said in the previous post, maybe someone's silly enough to enjoy the game's current status of emulation on Nemu64. I'm sure they meant 'capable' alone. Either way, it says 'or', not 'and', if you want to get technical about it.
Your argument falls apart since the dictionary does not give reference of how the word playable refers to an emulation context. Dictionary definition is therefore not relevant here, but rather the definitions that PCSX2.net pointed out - with the intention of setting terms to help people construct MEANINGFUL compatibility lists.Quit using emulation as an excuse. Emulation does not deserve its own seperate definition of the word 'playable', and if you for a second think otherwise, you are thinking of 'emulation', just becaues of being one of the very many types of gaming, gets a get-around for English definitions. Take the ROM of Virtual Chess 64 as an example for what I am about to say. Let's say you can only play the first 10 moves of a chess game before the ROM crashes. You still played the very into of the game, and UNIVERSAL definitions rule all unofficial definitions made up by sites like pcsx2.net, and the universal definition, logically assumable, of a playable game, is a game that can be played. Playing the first 10 moves of the game is still playing, whether in an N64 ROM or on a chessboard in real life, and in Star Wars RS, shooting the ships and successfully dodging buildings is STILL playing the game. You just can't beat it unless you're some kind of 'blind' gamer. Now, I don't want to have to hear any excuses, things like emulation in itself deserving its own definition. The PCXS2.net definition you gave is also false and uneducated because, what's more, what about the games that don't even HAVE end credits? Virtual Chess 64 doesn't, for example. Also, the games that do, but don't have them at the very end of the game? Could be an in-game option to see them. The definition on the site you gave is completely inexperienced regarding common sense of the term. It is not an 'official' definition for emulation worldwide or something, and whether you find within yourself the capability to see that or not, that will never change. It is not even a logical definition, and if you try to tell me, again, that it is, you'll only have me repeating what I have said in this paragraph.
When you shoot the first batch of robots, the game starts to become impossible to play, therefore it is not a completable game. You cannot reach the end of the level, let alone the end credits! You would classify Rogue Squadron in the same boat as Super Mario 64 with most plugins. Can't you see the fallacy in this? Compatibility lists drawn up with your definition would become meaningless as you cannot properly differentiate playable, in-game, menus or otherwise.Yes, you can. I've told you already, that's why Project64's RDB doesn't call this game Playable, it says "needs video plugin" instead. A wise choice for other emulators to think the same way to avoid the misleading. Besides, even if you can't use your imagination in that department to think of other ways to more carefully define emulation status, which I know there are (ex. Barely Playable and Playable), it is not impossible to beat the first level of Star Wars RS. It may seem that way, since it's way too hard to do after you beat the first objective and shoot the droids and too many graphics are missing, but that's why it's classified as ALMOST impossible. Imagine, if you were God or something, and you somehow remembered every exact movement of the ship you would have to make without even being able to see the ship itself, just a black screen all the way(pretending this game's status was that much worse), the game is not considered impossible, though it will be tremendously stupid to fly around something you can't see unless you're God, it is ALMOST impossible to beat the level, as long as the ship can still be flied around without crashes or things making it competely possible. I don't care how absurd it may sound to you; I am trying to show you another way of looking at this.

Also, as for Super Mario 64 being in the same boat as Star Wars RS, there's a different: Super Mario 64 is fully playable, while Star Wars RS is barely playable.
True, but this is not the issue....? All I was saying is that this is how the Project64 team avoids calling the game playable, despite its being so, to avoid misleading. It therefore disproves the word you give my point of view, fallacy. It very much, therefore, pertains to the currently discussed issue. Even if calling the game Playable did end up being, for some strange reason of force, inevitably misleading, it's still considered playable whether you admit it or not. FACTS count, not what makes sense, only to you. Now, if I told the 1964 team, you should make it so that it says Star Wasr RS is Playable instead of Unplayable, you'd already have this argument won for such a stupid request of mine, because THAT would be misleading. What I am claiming here, however, that it is playable, that I won't add it to my list of unplayable N64 games in my N64EmuDoc for this reasoning, is not unreasonable, I don't think.
You completely misunderstood the definitions. Framerate is not important for emulator compatibility. PCSX2 states that if the game is completable, regardless of speed, it is playable. Rogue Squadron runs at fullspeed, but since the first level hasn't been passed by anyone in nearly three years, then you cannot reach the end credits, therefore it is in-game rather than playable.No, I completely understood the definitions. What part did I misunderstand? Answer me that, and maybe we're getting someone different. I believe I summarized it correctly. REGARDLESS of emulation speed. My point is simple: The first level of a game, and only the first level, being just barely playable (and please don't drag me through the whole idea where it isn't again, or you've just skipped reading my first paragraph), is more playable than a game running at just plain ANY emulation speed, if low enough. If Star Wars RS is unplayable, than so is a game that's too slow, that's for sure. And yet, another self-contradiction: You told me, long ago, about BigHead's configuration list. One of these unplayable games you mentioned is Mia Hamm Soccer 64, because of it's relatively tremendous slowdown. Yet, here you tell me a game is playable in disregard to ANY emulation speed, but not to missing graphics giving the user a hard time even completing the first objective.
You are in a tiny minority. My years of experience dictates that.A statement of intelligence, but also a little bit of arrogance, which I tend to sometimes have as well. Years of experience, whether in biological studies, college-certified science, forum posting and reasoning with users, do NOT mean that you can speak for other people and say that I'm the only one who supports this view. In fact, the only reason you probably said "tiny minority" this time is because Trotterwatch pretty much just agreed with me here in his post: To an intolerant extent, it is still considered playable.
But you can't even beat the first level because of HEAVY graphics problems. Therefore, it is not playable to end credits, and by the supported nomenclature, is considered in-game only. Playable status is only given to games that can be completed to the end credits.Yeah, at least according to the author of a PSX emulator, not a universal emulation resource. Even if it was such, rules of English apply to using English definitions as well, so to define playable, you define it using the definition of the word, which I have given from a website dictionary. 'Supported', my friend, is very different from 'true'. This 'nomenclature' you have referred to on PCXS2.net is an illogical definition, as justified in my paragraph before the previous paragraph, assuming you read that. I will not, however, be so stupid as to call this game playable to end credits. Though I did throw that (crap?) about the game being ALMOST impossible to beat from before, if you were God or just somehow had the graphics 'memorized' in your head, I can't say for sure that it is almost impossible, as the game might inevitably hang in Nemu64 later on. I was only saying that from what we know so far on how far Nemu64 can get into the ROM in emulation.

[And, btw, just for the record, I don't actually believe in God, or at least the kind that most Christians do. I'm more of an anti-Catholic, at that.]

[Clements]

I'm not inventing new definitions. As I've said, the definition I used was from the English dictionary. I'll even post it here, definition of playable, on dictionary.com:

"capable of or suitable for being played."

While the 'suitable' part is hard to decide for this game's case, as I've just said in the previous post, maybe someone's silly enough to enjoy the game's current status of emulation on Nemu64. I'm sure they meant 'capable' alone. Either way, it says 'or', not 'and', if you want to get technical about it.Quit using emulation as an excuse. Emulation does not deserve its own seperate definition of the word 'playable', and if you for a second think otherwise, you are thinking of 'emulation', just becaues of being one of the very many types of gaming, gets a get-around for English definitions.

That definition is so vague that it can mean anything you want it too. See later for the flaws in using Playable to describe RS.


Take the ROM of Virtual Chess 64 as an example for what I am about to say. Let's say you can only play the first 10 moves of a chess game before the ROM crashes. You still played the very into of the game, and UNIVERSAL definitions rule all unofficial definitions made up by sites like pcsx2.net, and the universal definition, logically assumable, of a playable game, is a game that can be played. Playing the first 10 moves of the game is still playing, whether in an N64 ROM or on a chessboard in real life, and in Star Wars RS, shooting the ships and successfully dodging buildings is STILL playing the game.

Playing a small portion of the game does not automatically imply it is playable. Sure you can play a small section of the game, but the rest is unreachable, so the playable status of these sections is totally unknown. Therefore, 'Playable' implies completable as a result, and RS is not completable. Simple. Can you reach Battle of Hoth, and do the Tow Cables work? Are the AT-ATs completely visible? You don't know since you can't get there. Some progression in RS is possible - you can reach menus and in-game, but no further. In-game would be a much more meaningful description than playable in RS's case. In-game also dispels all the confusion associated with your definition of playable.


You just can't beat it unless you're some kind of 'blind' gamer. Now, I don't want to have to hear any excuses, things like emulation in itself deserving its own definition. The PCXS2.net definition you gave is also false and uneducated because, what's more, what about the games that don't even HAVE end credits? Virtual Chess 64 doesn't, for example. Also, the games that do, but don't have them at the very end of the game? Could be an in-game option to see them.

Almost every game has some objectives, but if the game has no clear objectives then you could introduce a time scale in this specific edge case. If no one has experienced and reported problems such as crashes after hours of gameplay, then it's playable. End credits just represents unimpaired progression here. Hardly grounds for claiming the PCSX2 team's definition is "uneducated". (Quite rude IMO too).


The definition on the site you gave is completely inexperienced regarding common sense of the term. It is not an 'official' definition for emulation worldwide or something, and whether you find within yourself the capability to see that or not, that will never change. It is not even a logical definition, and if you try to tell me, again, that it is, you'll only have me repeating what I have said in this paragraph.

Playable implies full progression, in-game implies some progression, until bugs prevent that from happening. See earlier.


Yes, you can. I've told you already, that's why Project64's RDB doesn't call this game Playable, it says "needs video plugin" instead. A wise choice for other emulators to think the same way to avoid the misleading.

Sometimes the cause of the issues is unknown. Not so much in N64 emulation, but rather emulation for more modern or certain complex systems. Descriptions such as 'Needs video plugin' are much more helpful, but sometimes issues are harder to pinpoint, thus you see the more general menus/in-game/playable descriptions in many compat lists.


Besides, even if you can't use your imagination in that department to think of other ways to more carefully define emulation status, which I know there are (ex. Barely Playable and Playable), it is not impossible to beat the first level of Star Wars RS. It may seem that way, since it's way too hard to do after you beat the first objective and shoot the droids and too many graphics are missing, but that's why it's classified as ALMOST impossible.

Imagine, if you were God or something, and you somehow remembered every exact movement of the ship you would have to make without even being able to see the ship itself, just a black screen all the way(pretending this game's status was that much worse), the game is not considered impossible, though it will be tremendously stupid to fly around something you can't see unless you're God, it is ALMOST impossible to beat the level, as long as the ship can still be flied around without crashes or things making it competely possible. I don't care how absurd it may sound to you; I am trying to show you another way of looking at this.

Post a screenshot when you manage to pass the first level without cheats or save states, or better yet, the end credits without the cheat code. Plenty of people have tried since Nemu64's release three years ago, with the aim of seeing how other levels are emulated or if it crashes frequently. Until then, playability status of later levels is completely unknown. It is not worth anything to guess that future sections of the game will work - you have to actually prove it by getting there.


Also, as for Super Mario 64 being in the same boat as Star Wars RS, there's a different: Super Mario 64 is fully playable, while Star Wars RS is barely playable....? All I was saying is that this is how the Project64 team avoids calling the game playable, despite its being so, to avoid misleading. It therefore disproves the word you give my point of view, fallacy. It very much, therefore, pertains to the currently discussed issue. Even if calling the game Playable did end up being, for some strange reason of force, inevitably misleading, it's still considered playable whether you admit it or not. FACTS count, not what makes sense, only to you. Now, if I told the 1964 team, you should make it so that it says Star Wasr RS is Playable instead of Unplayable, you'd already have this argument won for such a stupid request of mine, because THAT would be misleading. What I am claiming here, however, that it is playable, that I won't add it to my list of unplayable N64 games in my N64EmuDoc for this reasoning, is not unreasonable, I don't think.

Seems like you are using similar definitions as PCSX2's site, but with different words that you have decided yourself to use instead. However, your choice of words is confusing since most users expect playable to mean completable. Barely playable to me implies the game is completable but with great difficulty - but to you it means you can play the game to some extent. By saying In-game, it is a better term since it tells you that you can reach in-game, but not finish the game - and nothing more. No confusion, everyone is happy. Also, see earlier regarding playability of later sections of the game.

When newbies read your Compat list looking for help, they may get the impression the game can be played beyond the first level. This is when confusion arises. How can this confusion be avoided? By using accepted, pre-defined terms that are already in use. The terms used for posting compatibility at Ngemu.com are very widespread already, so we don't need other 'new' systems.


No, I completely understood the definitions. What part did I misunderstand? Answer me that, and maybe we're getting someone different. I believe I summarized it correctly. REGARDLESS of emulation speed. My point is simple: The first level of a game, and only the first level, being just barely playable (and please don't drag me through the whole idea where it isn't again, or you've just skipped reading my first paragraph), is more playable than a game running at just plain ANY emulation speed, if low enough. If Star Wars RS is unplayable, than so is a game that's too slow, that's for sure.

Well, if you can play that 5fps game all the way to completing the game, then yes, it is more playable than a game that runs fullspeed, but with all the textures missing making the first level unbeatable. Many people completed Final Fantasy X long before most of the speed optimisations were in place in PCSX2. Very playable in my book. Can't say the same for Rogue Squadron.


And yet, another self-contradiction: You told me, long ago, about BigHead's configuration list. One of these unplayable games you mentioned is Mia Hamm Soccer 64, because of it's relatively tremendous slowdown. Yet, here you tell me a game is playable in disregard to ANY emulation speed, but not to missing graphics giving the user a hard time even completing the first objective.

I didn't try that game myself, so I just pasted from Bighead's list as I trust him. If in the case of Mia Hamm Soccer 64, if the game runs even at sub-5fps speeds, if it has no crashes or major emulation bugs preventing full progression, technically it is playable by PCSX2's definition. If the game freezes, then progression is lost and the game is not playable.


A statement of intelligence, but also a little bit of arrogance, which I tend to sometimes have as well. Years of experience, whether in biological studies, college-certified science, forum posting and reasoning with users, do NOT mean that you can speak for other people and say that I'm the only one who supports this view.

Well, no one seems to be supporting you. 1964's ini and Glide64's, PCSX2's and LowLine's compat lists are constructed in the same way I describe (in terms of playable = completable), as is BigHead's List (which considers RS 'not playable' as well, contradicting your use of words). I have plenty of sources to validate what I am saying, and I am trying to convey to you that your choice of words is definitely not the norm and why this is so. This is not arrogance since I am not assuming I am right - many do indeed support my view.

Only you are claiming it to be playable and no one else. You are the first person on this board to boldly claim it was playable - you said so in your original post, and I rightly contest that. Trotterwatch supports what I have been saying (in the staff forum), along with much of the Ngemu forum members who are told to adhere strictly to their definitions.


In fact, the only reason you probably said "tiny minority" this time is because Trotterwatch pretty much just agreed with me here in his post: To an intolerant extent, it is still considered playable.Yeah, at least according to the author of a PSX emulator, not a universal emulation resource. Even if it was such, rules of English apply to using English definitions as well, so to define playable, you define it using the definition of the word, which I have given from a website dictionary. 'Supported', my friend, is very different from 'true'. This 'nomenclature' you have referred to on PCXS2.net is an illogical definition, as justified in my paragraph before the previous paragraph, assuming you read that.

I fail to see how PCSX2's definitions are illogical. All you have done is criticise grammar and pointed out a few edge cases where games do not have end credits. The principle behind the definitions are clear.


I will not, however, be so stupid as to call this game playable to end credits.

Your use of 'Playable' implies this, whether you intended this or not.


Though I did throw that (crap?) about the game being ALMOST impossible to beat from before, if you were God or just somehow had the graphics 'memorized' in your head, I can't say for sure that it is almost impossible, as the game might inevitably hang in Nemu64 later on. I was only saying that from what we know so far on how far Nemu64 can get into the ROM in emulation.

Indeed, Rogue Squadron may have unexpected problems later on - but no one has got that far with it. Until the end credits have been reached, we can then designate 'Playable' status, since we know that critical errors do not occur with the game.

[Iconoclast]

It's been a long time since I've seen such persistence. Sad to see, half of it so far has been (intentional?) incomprehension.

Let me just cut the crap and try to point this out as simply as possible. Playable means you're '-able' to 'play-' it, right? And in Star Wars RS on Nemu64, you are able to a) fly your ship around and see it, b) see the background enough to have a fair ammount of detection to avoid going out of bounds, c) shoot the droids successfully. The object of the game, or at least level 1, is to, essentially (now, I don't know the details like you do), beat all of the objectives. If you are successfully working towards that, then you are playing the game by effort. If you are playing the game by effort, then you are playing the game. If you are playing the game, then you are able to play it. If you are able to play it, well, by the Transitive Property of Equality (heh), I guess that makes this game playable, and until you can prove that successfully being able to make an effort to play the object of the game (primarily the objectives, from what it sounds here) is NOT considered playing it, you are leading me into an infinite loop, here.

You're halfway right, there: I wasn't doing a good job of criticizing pcxs2.net's definition of playable as much as the three or four grammar errors I found and the fact that this is a non-universal definition that most likely applies only to their PSX emulator compatibility database (I mean, we're talking N64 here, right?), but those picky complaints were basically to criticize the webmasters, themselves. Obviously, that has failed to give you the impression that replacing my (more like, the dicitionary's) definition with some grammar-error-making webmaster. Grammar can sometimes symbolize the sophistication of the source you are reading from the Internet, but obviously, I fail to show to you these basics. One thing, however, I criticized about their definition that is important is what I said about all games being playable regardless of emulation speed, which I'll finish now.

In Star Wars RS, its current level of playability on Nemu64 is severe graphics instead of intolerable emulation speed. What you are saying is that missing graphics and full speed is harder to call playable than no gfx issues but ANY level of speed. I can even use 0.01- FPS as an example, if I wanted to. Now, are you prepared to say that the same person who is insane enough to have fun playing Star Wars RS on Nemu64 is just insane enough to enjoy playing it at THAT emulation speed? Even 5 FPS, I don't think is as tolerable as 60 FPS with a bunch of missing graphics so you can at least fly the damn ship around and make an attempt to start shooting some droids real soon. If it's anyone who's bold here, it's not just me, it's both of us, if you're willing to say that any slow speed is more tolerable than full speed with missing graphics. You are putting WAY too much defense, as well as your time arguing here, into a definition made by webmaster of a PSX site and NOT a universal dictionary definition! I find that quite bold! I don't see anything in that defintion like PCXS2's definition.

As for the confusion in my configuration guide, using acceptable terms? I'd rather just include a sentence saying something like, "Despite my not marking this game on my list of unplayable games, this does not mean that you can expect to get very far in this game, probably not even past level 1, due to the severe graphics issues." The last thing I would do is use terms between playable/in-game/etc.. How is that even better than Project64's compatibility?? It doesn't make it easier to pinpoint issues! "Needs video plugin," tells you much more about where the problem lies than just "playable," "unplayable," or "in-game." Why am I sensing some sort of self-denial here? Also, yes, BigHead's list says Star Wars RS is unplayable, but he was slightly a little hasty in his testing. He counted 13 unplayable N64 games, while I counted 9, as I tested all thirteen througoughly and fount that four of them were playable. He was only testing for the sake of his friends to play games with him though as well as the community, not to make an official declaration that Star Wars RS is unplayable.

Yes, you keep pointing out the flaws to make RS seem unplayable, the definition...on a PSX emulation website, and the same point of view over and over again, but I will repeat myself to no end until you see what I mean in my first paragraph: By the definition of playable, it is playable. You do not have to complicate things by using other sources as an excuse; my first paragraph in this post should have defined all that needs to be understood to realize this game as playable here.

I did not mean to imply as if you were arrogant for challenging my statement of this game being playable, but for attempting to isolate me in my support for this view. More like, if anyone, I think you are the one here who is believing in an unsupported view, compared to those who, by the definition from the damn dictionary, where 'emulation' itself is not excluded from in any way, shape or form, that the game is playable. I mean, who is everyone here going to believe? A dictionary, or some PSX emulation website that has several (three or four, I counted, in the Playable definition alone) grammar errors in their definitions? Despite your definite hold of much information out there in the world and the respect you have gotten from members here, facts count more than anything.
Whilst it is 'playable' it is a long long way off from actually being properly playable.Sure that means he agrees with you?

Edit: And in your profile, just curious, why does it say your country is England but your location is Britain?

[PsyMan]

I wonder... why do you keep this thread going on? This argument keeps going on just because of the way people can interpret the term "playable". It's not something standard. It's like on a football match where the referee decides if the field is playable or if a player committed a foul. A lot of people may disagree but this does not change anything. This does not however mean that the referee is always correct.
When it comes to emulation and PCs, where everything is relative, the term playable is defined by people experienced with the particular matters. Each person interprets what he sees, hears or feels with a different way (depending on his knowledge among other things) so it's necessary to find description terms that come close to most of these interpretations. It is expected that some people will find these description terms faulty because of the way they interpret things. There is no real solution on this since there will always be someone who does not agree.

[Iconoclast]

I wonder... why do you keep this thread going on? This argument keeps going on just because of the way people can interpret the term "playable". It's not something standard. It's like on a football match where the referee decides if the field is playable or if a player committed a foul. A lot of people may disagree but this does not change anything. This does not however mean that the referee is always correct.
When it comes to emulation and PCs, where everything is relative, the term playable is defined by people experienced with the particular matters. Each person interprets what he sees, hears or feels with a different way (depending on his knowledge among other things) so it's necessary to find description terms that come close to most of these interpretations. It is expected that some people will find these description terms faulty because of the way they interpret things. There is no real solution on this since there will always be someone who does not agree.There is an answer for the term, but if neither of us run into an agreement with this answer, then, yes, there will be no solution. Nevertheless, one way or another, the argument will somehow come to a stop, and we'll see what happens then.

Either way, your comparison does not bypass the rules of the English language. I fail to have anyone understand what I mean by the "definition of playable." Unless you have some sort of argument that denies that playable is not defined as something that is '-able' to be 'play-'ed, then I don't see where a neutral party comes in to such a matter.

Interpretations will cause conflicts, but they can never change truth. Nevertheless, I see what you mean when you say that arguing on a matter such as this where various perceptions of terms vary greatly to the point where such disagreement becomes difficult to resolve, but I believe it can be done with persistence. I'm sure Clements believes the same.

[Clements]

As for dictionary definitions, from my experience don't expect them to be 100% complete or even correct for many definitions. For me, it is very easy to pick out one example. Look how the word Senescence is defined in multiple dictionaries:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=senescence

Not a single mention that senescence in a cell biology context means that cells are no longer dividing or are in G0 of the cell cycle. Not a single mention of this - just a vague description of aging (cells that are in G0 and not dividing are not even necessarily aged - they can go into G0 in many other situations!). So much for the completeness or correctness of dictionaries...

You cannot therefore claim a vague dictionary definition, which does not even mention video games, is relevant. Try using sources from people in the emulation scene.

[Iconoclast]

Okay, now I screwed up in there. I'm not using sources from a dictionary, anymore. I'm using common sense now. Playable means you can play it. End of story. Transitive Property of Equailty/Congruence/whatever, end result, Star Wars RS is playable.

Besides, what makes you think an emulation site is going to know about biological terms like that? The dictionary may not be perfect, but at least it doesn't have grammar errors. I've already explained enough, even just by comparing disregarded emulation speed to full emulation speed with graphics issues on the tolerance scale, that the pcsx2 definition is not only unofficial but demonstrates an incorrect, as shown here, comparison of tolerance in playability between these two measues.

And the definition is not 'vague'. How silly. Just remember two things: 'able-' to 'play-'. Let me know if that makes it even more vague. It's probably the most universal as anything can ever get when defining the term.

Also, video game, regular board game, chess game, pin ball, it doesn't freaking matter! You are trying to tell me that just because such a definition doesn't mention video games means it doesn't apply to video games? It applies to anything that can be played. Unless you think you can get away with saying video games can't be played, your persistence in an argument that could've been so simply understood by now is starting to become suspicion here.

[PsyMan]

Either way, your comparison does not bypass the rules of the English language. I fail to have anyone understand what I mean by the "definition of playable." Unless you have some sort of argument that denies that playable is not defined as something that is '-able' to be 'play-'ed, then I don't see where a neutral party comes in to such a matter.
Definitions were created by people who interpreted certain things. The definition of a word can be different on different dictionaries.

By the way you interpret playability then if you hear sound while running a game but see no graphics then the game runs and it's "playable" since you can move (and depending on the game you may manage to reach the next stage)... but is it really playable? What if you start running a game and it freezes after the first couple of seconds? You are able to play the game just fine for this limited time but it freezes... can this be described as playable as well? On both cases there is something stopping you from running the game(s) as expected just like the errors on Star Wars.

On the case of PCSX2... Most games run too slow on most current machines but if you try to run Project 64 on a 10MHz CPU then the speed results will be the same. The term "playable" really depends on the power of the host machine on both cases. Plus, on both cases there is not something that makes it impossible to continue playing as long as you have the needed patience or a faster CPU.

[Clements]

Okay, now I screwed up in there. I'm not using sources from a dictionary, anymore. I'm using common sense now. Playable means you can play it. End of story. Transitive Property of Equailty/Congruence/whatever, end result, Star Wars RS is playable.

Now this is your own personal opinion. I can say categorically is that your view is something I haven't come across until now.


Besides, what makes you think an emulation site is going to know about biological terms like that?

The analogy was to convey that dictionaries do not include every context for each word, not that biological terms are used in Emulation sites. You misunderstood the analogy. Do not rely on dictionaries too much, as I proved that in technical cases, they can be flat out wrong.


The dictionary may not be perfect, but at least it doesn't have grammar errors.

Grammar errors are not going to make something less credible. I could cite Einstein's theories using poor grammar, but as long as the meaning is not lost, the theories are still correct.


And the definition is not 'vague'. How silly. Just remember two things: 'able-' to 'play-'. Let me know if that makes it even more vague. It's probably the most universal as anything can ever get when defining the term.

Look up the word 'set' and look at how many different contexts this small word has. I have already proved dictionaries can be wrong in technical cases.


Also, video game, regular board game, chess game, pin ball, it doesn't freaking matter! You are trying to tell me that just because such a definition doesn't mention video games means it doesn't apply to video games? It applies to anything that can be played. Unless you think you can get away with saying video games can't be played, your persistence in an argument that could've been so simply understood by now is starting to become suspicion here.

You cannot tell me that the Battle of Hoth level is playable. The Battle of Hoth level cannot be played. Just because less than 10% of a game is playable (just parts of Lv 1 in fact), does not mean the whole game can be declared playable. Only you state that it should be considered playable.

[Iconoclast]

Now this is your own personal opinion. I can say categorically is that your view is something I haven't come across until now.It's not my own personal opinion. Playable = can be played. No contest. Just because you haven't seen such a simple to understand statement doesn't mean it's wrong. What's this mean, my view has to be something you've seen before in order for it to be right? Why can't you just accept simple facts? Now, as long as we're past "playable = can be played" being a fact, we can move on. Otherwise, if you want to lose me even more so you win, start an argument on what 5 + 5 is....


The analogy was to convey that dictionaries do not include every context for each word, not that biological terms are used in Emulation sites. You misunderstood the analogy. Do not rely on dictionaries too much, as I proved that in technical cases, they can be flat out wrong.You only proved that they can sometimes miss some contexts, not that they are wrong. Point being, an emulation site like pcxs2.net has a much higher chance of using a wrong definition of a simple word such as playable than dictionary.com has a chance of merely forgetting one of many contexts of a biological word.


Grammar errors are not going to make something less credible. I could cite Einstein's theories using poor grammar, but as long as the meaning is not lost, the theories are still correct.Grammar errors represent the sophistication of the source, logically. Regardless, you repeatedly ignore my point. I have already compared disregarded emulation speed to major graphics issues on the scale of tolerance, and that's what's important in overthrowing the site's definition.


Look up the word 'set' and look at how many different contexts this small word has. I have already proved dictionaries can be wrong in technical cases.Doesn't matter how 'small' the word is. All of these contexts are correct. You are saying dictionaries are incorrect now just because of how many contexts it has for a short word. Is there an English rule stating that the number of definitions of a word are limited to its length? I'm no English expert myself, but though I don't study biology that much either, I can still understand common sense.;)


You cannot tell me that the Battle of Hoth level is playable. The Battle of Hoth level cannot be played. Just because less than 10% of a game is playable (just parts of Lv 1 in fact), does not mean the whole game can be declared playable. Only you state that it should be considered playable.There isn't a certain percentage you give at minimum to declare the game is playable. If that were true, defintions would be all too technical. It's either a 100 percent playable or its not, and Star Wars RS is (very much) less than 100 percent, making it classified as barely playable, since a part of the game can be played. A game is only unplayable when it cannot be played. Let me know when you're ready for me to stop repeating myself.

[PsyMan]

Let me know when you're ready for me to stop repeating myself.

Why don't you stop repeating yourself and start replying to me then? Or my questions are too hard and you just ignore them?

[Iconoclast]

Wait a second...who unbanned me? I don't expect anyone to tell me who banned me in the first place, but what's going on...I never double-posted in this thread, so why did I deserve a ban? I'm sorry, Clements, that I kind of got a little carried away and critical, but I should have a right to a freedom of speech!
Why don't you stop repeating yourself and start replying to me then? Or my questions are too hard and you just ignore them?I'll start replying to you once my questions have been answered.

[PsyMan]

I'm sorry, Clements, that I kind of got a little carried away and critical, but I should have a right to a freedom of speech!I'll start replying to you once my questions have been answered.
There is no freedom of speech on emutalk, nor on any other public forum. Never was, never will.
Quit dodging giving direct answers. I've read your replies and your PMs and the only thing I see is a 15 year old boy that stucks to the way he and only he interprets the definition of the term playable. We did not try to change the definition, we tried to explain that your interpretation of it IS WRONG. This whole thing keeps going just because you give dodgy answers (while we specify ours) in order to leave "windows" that prove you wrong closed. I'm not willing to continue with that never ending circle; it happens so often that most people in here got tired of it. Do whatever you want with your points of view but if you don't have something specific to support them then keep them for yourself and stop spreading misinformation.

[WhiteX]

Playable = can be played.

From the beginning to the end.

All emulation community agrees on that, it is agreed to use those words, playable, in-game and so on, by expecting a certain result from the game used on an emulator, you are trying to take the word for it´s common meaning to support your wrong claim, stop that, unless you can give reason to change all compatibility lists for all emualted systems to say "playable" to games that have such heavy graphical glitches that will not enable you to pass the first stage.


There is no freedom of speech on emutalk, nor on any other public forum. Never was, never will.

I just plain love you.

[Clements]

Freedom of speech is perfectly fine up to a certain point which you crossed several times in the thread. You are acting increasingly desperate in your arguments, resorting to a few unacceptable remarks and such (which I pointed out to you earlier to stop you from overstepping the mark again).

WhiteX and PsyMan basically state what I believe and was trying to put across repeatedly to you. I take matters such as this very seriously. You can see how people could take offence to your post stating that your definition is common sense and how wrong we all are, including me, various staff, and the authors of other compat lists who all support the mainstream definition.

It really can mislead people and cause unneeded confusion when you sling playable around like that. From our and most of the emulation community's perspective, it qualifies as misinformation to state Rogue Squadron is playable using any currently available emulators. If it was playable I would be really happy about it, as the game is fun to play on the N64. The word has a very set definition in the scene and has been around since I started out (always meaning you could reach the end, meaning the emulator/plugin has no problems with the game).

[Slougi]

Ok this has gone on long enough. Chill out everyone, please.