Hi Andy,
Thank you for your input.
A few things:
1 - To complete the form you need to read a lengthy set of instructions and review the anomaly guide. If you do not read this carefully enough you might make mistakes or contribute a currently incompatible game like Crysis 2.
2 - On the first page of GG3D, once you have filled in your details, there is an text box for 'Stereo Driver Profile'. What is that (rhetorical)? It sounds important and I can't fill it in! This bit alone puts me off as a 3D Vision user.
3 - It is very complex (I havent a photographic memory so I cannot remember all the anomaly guide) and you have to read through each of the pages carefully to find and select the best fit description which is never easy or enjoyable.
I don't think it's that complicated. There isn't any jargon or language that only a game developer would understand, and when reading MTBS' forums as well as DDD and Nvidia's site, the level is far more advanced than what GG3D is asking. HMDs, crazy rigs, special settings, etc. - GG3D is child's play in comparison.
The Stereo Driver profile is more applicable to DDD than anyone else. We opened it up to other solutions for instances like REGEDIT files or config files, but I agree - this is adding unnecessary confusion. We can correct the descriptive text so it doesn't create unnecessary pressures on Nvidia 3D Vision users to complete something that doesn't really exist for them.
The guide is just there for people who don't know what an anomaly is and to help them classify them. It's not a tax return.
I like high FPS and I like quality graphics. Unfortunately I don't have a top end system...
What I'm gathering is you are tweaking your game for performance more so than graphics quality. That's fine by me, and GG3D isn't there to interfere with that. If anything, GG3D will help you accomplish this goal because it tells you the maximum visual flexibility you can hope to attain, and the minimum setting reductions needed to accomplish that flexibility. GG3D isn't an artistic score, it's a QA and visual flexibility score.
I haven't read anything here that would prevent gamers from maxing their eye candy settings, and figuring out which are required to remove to get their 3D game to visually work. That's probably the most basic thing you had to do before you started tweaking for performance. There isn't anything unnatural here.
GG3D wants -
gamers to submit a detailed technical analysis of a game's 3D so it can provide a 3D score based on the technical quality of the game's 3D;
Gamers want -
a grade based on 3D experience so they can chose to buy the game or share their thoughts on a purchased game.
I think you are jumping to conclusions as to what gamers want. Look at the forum surveys on MTBS. Countless views in many cases...but how many take the simplest step of clicking a vote button? Seven?!? Limited gamer participation has nothing to do with GG3D or anything else - it's just the nature of the beast.
On the topic of Oil Rush, the choice or level of 3D depth is a measurable criteria that can be added to GameGrade3D (similar to what we did with Battlefield 3). We just didn't get around to it yet. GG3D is a continually developing and evolving service.
This was about the time entering the data, there are clearly plenty of posts on this forum as well as at least one blog about the last couple of points. A user on the 3D Vision forum has mentioned this to me (its good but its too much), a 3D gamer mate who plays Battlefield (OK, wrong audience admitedly, but he was interested in the scoring system and he didn't get it) and my father (interested in my hobbies and he asked the question about how 3D quality is officially rated) who joked if I any time to play the games!
The blogger you are thinking of has been making some of the best and most detailed GG3D submissions we have ever seen. There is still some debate about the scoring values, but the benefits to 3D gaming are clear.
For those that don't understand it, the GG3D scoring is all detailed here:
http://www.mtbs3d.com/index.php?option= ... Itemid=122
It's just a Bronze to Platinum grade based on ranges of numeric scoring quality, and the letters indicate the conditions of having depth/pop-out if that's important to you. I don't think it gets any simpler than that. Maybe the descriptions or the text isn't well written enough - we can review.
I agree that the checklist format of GG3D makes it look bigger or longer than it really is. We are exploring ways to get the same data in a more digestible format.
Especially when GG3D scores the game differently to the 3D experience (for better or worse). I find this galling.
Yes, but how did the subjective score fair? Would it be equally galling to you if the person scored a game you really like with a 2 instead of a 10? I hated the Avengers in 3D and I couldn't tolerate another showing of Avatar in 3D if you paid me. Is this equally galling?
If I wasn't allowed to share these opinions, I too would have a problem with GG3D. However, GG3D lets you share these opinions and more, but it has to always maintain the measurable portion because there will be times where DDD does a better QA job, Nvidia will do a better QA job, etc. etc. A service devoted to subjective scoring would only deteriorate into how many voices are loyal to one brand over another - it's inevitable. I think this would do more harm than good.
Regards,
Neil