Site Feedback

Wow, I never expected you to work on this. I figured it was some impossible dream giving the size of the task.

I guess I should end my pause on bulk editing soon *cracks knuckles* The change will also make bulk editing easier as now I've gotten to the larger platforms, they are filled with so many "false hits" it makes the task harder.

Now we just need true percentile ratings, and peace will at last be brought to this fair kingdom.

Things to consider/discuss are handling backwards compatible games, streaming services (xCloud, Playstation Now), download services (Game Pass, etc.) and emulated games.

I assumed the purpose of this update was to prevent people from adding games as a streaming service, backwards compatible, emulated, etc.?

If a user has a game listed as a platform that is later removed from that game (as I understand is the intent here, to trim platforms on titles down to be more accurate), what happens to their entry? Does it simply not factor into game stats (I'd prefer this, as a way to disincentivize inaccurate entries)?

If you do this, I'd like to see the streaming services removed. Ones like Stadia might be fine, since that's also a device and might(?) have exclusives. But, if possible to do on the backend, maybe have things like Stadia merged into PC for stat-keeping?

As for the issue of emulated: if you do keep the ability to record a game as being emulated, I'd propose that you ignore all such entries from affecting stats.

What happens to their entry? Does it simply not factor into game stats

This will likely be the case, especially for super popular titles. Some titles would be easy to convert (like when the game was only released on one platform but logged on a BC platform, PSNow, emulated, etc.) but others may be too difficult to sort.

As for the issue of emulated: if you do keep the ability to record a game as being emulated, I'd propose that you ignore all such entries from affecting stats.

I will likely allow users to categorize the game as emulated if they'd like, because I'm all about personal freedom on categorizing their own profile but the stats may not be included in the HLTB time, I'm still figuring that out.

Coming soon...

Soon, each title will have their platforms hard selected instead of community based.

This means more accurate platform list but it also means a lot of updating to the database.

Once the change over happens, it will pre-fill the platform with the current state. This will enable some features in the future, like having the platform select list be limited to the actual platforms of the title. This will eliminate confusion on "which platform to select".

Things to consider/discuss are handling backwards compatible games, streaming services (xCloud, Playstation Now), download services (Game Pass, etc.) and emulated games.

My thoughts are that all titles will be categorized with their original platforms, not backwards compatible platforms or streamed on platforms. Basically, which version of the game are you playing? This makes sorting previously submitted titles tricky and I'm still considering ways to handle that.

I've got a few things to sort out before I push the update but I wanted to give the community a heads up in case they had some considerations I didn't think of.

What are we doing about older games you have digitally/downloaded, like the virtual console games on Wii U and such? I personally in those cases rather log them on the console I played on (in this example Wii U) since I can’t technically play it on it original console.

What are we doing about older games you have digitally/downloaded, like the virtual console games on Wii U and such? I personally in those cases rather log them on the console I played on (in this example Wii U) since I can’t technically play it on it original console.

As I propose above, if people insist on logging games incorrectly, such records should not be factored into the times, since the times are separated by platform.

As I propose above, if people insist on logging games incorrectly, such records should not be factored into the times, since the times are separated by platform.

Is it really incorrect though? Although it’s not the original, it is a platform the game can be played on.

Is it really incorrect though? Although it’s not the original, it is a platform the game can be played on.

Perhaps you missed Everdred's update above:

Originally Posted by: Everdred

Soon, each title will have their platforms hard selected instead of community based.

This means more accurate platform list but it also means a lot of updating to the database.

Once the change over happens, it will pre-fill the platform with the current state. This will enable some features in the future, like having the platform select list be limited to the actual platforms of the title. This will eliminate confusion on "which platform to select".

Perhaps you missed Everdred's update above:

Originally Posted by: Everdred

Soon, each title will have their platforms hard selected instead of community based.

This means more accurate platform list but it also means a lot of updating to the database.

Once the change over happens, it will pre-fill the platform with the current state. This will enable some features in the future, like having the platform select list be limited to the actual platforms of the title. This will eliminate confusion on "which platform to select".

I guess that the part I’m confused and asking about, if in the hard select are we planning on including only the platforms the game originally released on, or every platform it’s playable on (like if it’s years after the release like virtual console games on the Wii, 3DS, Wii U for example).

I like the idea of limiting the choices so people can’t select Xbox for a PlayStation exclusive, or selecting PS1 for a PS4 game. But if the current plan is to only the original console(s) it’s playable on, then I guess I’m debating against that.

Edit: Sorry, I skimmed all the posts earlier when I was on my lunch break at work, and replied later when my memory of the posts faded a bit. So it looks like the plan is to only included the original releases.

So overall, I personally like having more variety in the selection of platforms. I think we should definitely limit it so people can’t select just anything, but I definitely would like the option to pick any platform it’s technically playable on, not just be limited to what originally released on.

I guess that the part I’m confused and asking about, if in the hard select are we planning on including only the platforms the game originally released on, or every platform it’s playable on (like if it’s years after the release like virtual console games on the Wii, 3DS, Wii U for example).

I like the idea of limiting the choices so people can’t select Xbox for a PlayStation exclusive, or selecting PS1 for a PS4 game. But if the current plan is to only the original console(s) it’s playable on, then I guess I’m debating against that.

Edit: Sorry, I skimmed all the posts earlier when I was on my lunch break at work, and replied later when my memory of the posts faded a bit. So it looks like the plan is to only included the original releases.

So overall, I personally like having more variety in the selection of platforms. I think we should definitely limit it so people can’t select just anything, but I definitely would like the option to pick any platform it’s technically playable on, not just be limited to what originally released on.

Hah, you're good, no harm no foul.

the plan is to only included the original releases

pick any platform it’s technically playable on

I think that "technically playable on" loophole is what Everdred is trying to get around. As time goes on, it becomes more and feasible to emulate older games. I can play almost any game from the 3DS VC on my modded Vita. I can play DOS games on my modded Wii U. I can play NES games on my Xbox One's web browser. Switch games on my PC via emulator. PC games on my phone via streaming. We may as well add PC to every game, just for good measure, since even PS4 may be emulated one day.

I think this debate is actually easy to settle using your own core argument: the Virtual Console. The VC is actually quite clear that you're playing a DS game, NES game, whatever platform. It isn't packaged as a port to 3DS or Wii or Wii U. It's very clearly an emulated version of the original game, button prompts and all.

Same with PS Now. The catalog says games are PS2, PS3 or PS4 games. Xbox One library separates Xbox One, Xbox 360 and Xbox games.

The platforms that people use as an argument for including inaccurate platforms in the records don't even agree with said argument.

I understand that it's not a popular opinion, but I do think that "platform played on" should not just be thrown out the window as it does make a difference when recording times. For example - many items in the Playstation Store are sold by platform - as in, you buy whatever platform you want the game for PS3/PS4/Vita/etc. A lot of the time the game doesn't get released for every platform, but gets ported at a later date, especially with Vita titles. So would an originally Vita game played on PS4 be recorded as Vita or PS4? Even though you have to select the specific PS4 version and purchase that instead of the original Vita version?

Also, what about load times that are inherently different between platforms. For example - I'm about to sit down with my original SNES and play through something like a Final Fantasy game. I look at the site to see how long it will take me and there's a discrepancy of 10hrs, simply because a bunch of people emulated the game on PC and load times were non-existent. The same is true for the reverse - maybe I sit down to play an emulated title on my PC - or simply an older PC title, on a newer PC - the load times and a bunch of other stuff is going to benefit from my faster hardware, so my times will not reflect those of the original release.

Basically my point is that if a bunch of data is ignored from game pages and not used to calculate times - it kind of makes the whole "how long to beat" part of the site useless. Just as I'm sure that people think the same thing about their version of incorrectly logged platforms. It's why I think that having all the information available for anyone interested is a good way to keep the data useful, but also to allow for differences of opinion.

Last example - let's say I care a lot about Stunt Race FX, but I don't want those pesky emulated times to truncate the actual times from original hardware. Sure I could ban anything other than the original hardware, but that's not really fair for those folks who are mad keen on racing on their emulated version on PC. Instead perhaps I can take a closer look at the game page and even sort by platform, or show times only for a certain platform, that way I can keep my precious original platform times and also let others see what they might be looking for.

Anyway, at the end of the day this is just one perspective, but I think it's worth putting forward. I do think it's cool to limit games to only the platforms they're -available- because there's no doubt that anything else is an error, but if I look up a time for how long it will take me to beat X game on Y platform, only to find that Y platform isn't listed - the site becomes pretty useless for that function.

Edit: Oh and fair warning - let's not get into a debate about it - I know we might disagree, but that's the whole reason it's worth voicing different opinions =)

I understand that it's not a popular opinion, but I do think that "platform played on" should not just be thrown out the window as it does make a difference when recording times. For example - many items in the Playstation Store are sold by platform - as in, you buy whatever platform you want the game for PS3/PS4/Vita/etc. A lot of the time the game doesn't get released for every platform, but gets ported at a later date, especially with Vita titles. So would an originally Vita game played on PS4 be recorded as Vita or PS4? Even though you have to select the specific PS4 version and purchase that instead of the original Vita version?

Also, what about load times that are inherently different between platforms. For example - I'm about to sit down with my original SNES and play through something like a Final Fantasy game. I look at the site to see how long it will take me and there's a discrepancy of 10hrs, simply because a bunch of people emulated the game on PC and load times were non-existent. The same is true for the reverse - maybe I sit down to play an emulated title on my PC - or simply an older PC title, on a newer PC - the load times and a bunch of other stuff is going to benefit from my faster hardware, so my times will not reflect those of the original release.

Basically my point is that if a bunch of data is ignored from game pages and not used to calculate times - it kind of makes the whole "how long to beat" part of the site useless. Just as I'm sure that people think the same thing about their version of incorrectly logged platforms. It's why I think that having all the information available for anyone interested is a good way to keep the data useful, but also to allow for differences of opinion.

Last example - let's say I care a lot about Stunt Race FX, but I don't want those pesky emulated times to truncate the actual times from original hardware. Sure I could ban anything other than the original hardware, but that's not really fair for those folks who are mad keen on racing on their emulated version on PC. Instead perhaps I can take a closer look at the game page and even sort by platform, or show times only for a certain platform, that way I can keep my precious original platform times and also let others see what they might be looking for.

Anyway, at the end of the day this is just one perspective, but I think it's worth putting forward. I do think it's cool to limit games to only the platforms they're -available- because there's no doubt that anything else is an error, but if I look up a time for how long it will take me to beat X game on Y platform, only to find that Y platform isn't listed - the site becomes pretty useless for that function.

Edit: Oh and fair warning - let's not get into a debate about it - I know we might disagree, but that's the whole reason it's worth voicing different opinions =)

So would an originally Vita game played on PS4 be recorded as Vita or PS4? Even though you have to select the specific PS4 version and purchase that instead of the original Vita version?

Yes. You've said yourself, it is a PS3 game, a PS4 game, or a PS Vita game.

so my times will not reflect those of the original release

Hence not counting "emulated" times into the stats.

Alternatively, one possible "compromise" would be to display the platforms separately. I'm not sure what you'd label the groups, but do something like "Official Platforms" for the platforms checked, and "Emulated Platforms" for everything else. Track the times for those "emulated" platforms individually but don't include them in the main counter. And, obviously, the game's details would only display the "official" platforms, not the miscellaneous user-preference ones. If a user wants to record a game that way for their own records, sure, whatever. But it's also misleading to list a platform that the game was never natively ported to.

(And I will again remind the dissenters that the Virtual Console, Playstation Network and other platforms explicitly declare what platform the game has been natively ported to. There's no ambiguity to this.)

I took "original platform" as plural (because a lot of the time it will be) and to mean any official release which isn't in an emulation wrapper or as part of a streaming service.

Therefore if we take say Metal Slug, it is an Arcade Game (as MVS is just a type of arcade board), a Neo Geo (AES) game, and had proper ports to Playstation and Saturn. But then basically every version after is essentially emulation (Japanese PS2 compilation releases may be an exception, i'm not entirely 100%, the western releases certainly are emulated).

Metal Slug is also on PSN for PSP/PS3/Vita, but it's just the PS1 version. The ACA Neo Geo games are all identical emulator packages. So it doesn't make sense to call these PS4/Xbox One/Switch games because they are functionally identical to the arcade version. But this isn't a detail most people will be concerned with.

So really the big question for me is how we would handle these types of releases. They are valid as Switch/PS4/Xbox One titles, but the actual game is Arcade. Same with Sega Ages or any Hamster (Arcade Archives, ACA) release. It might be simpler to just allow all officially released versions of titles like that where the platform spread is quite big. Then something like a PS1 games sold on PSN as PS3 compatible is still regarded as a PS1 game because it's quite simple to deduce this, just like using a PS3 to play a ps1 or two game doesn't change the fact it's a ps1 or 2 game. That sort of compromise might just be necessary.

In the case of streaming services, sticking to the original platform is easy and sensible.

For the sake of clarity as I feel like it's been overlooked - the definition of original platform doesn't matter so much to me as the usefulness of times being recorded. As in, even if I play a X360 game on my Xbox One, I will potentially log a shorter time than if I played on a X360. The newer hardware means that I will be getting through things faster, so that data is relevant and if it were recorded as X360, it would be misleading for anyone actually playing on X360 (as the older hardware will load slower/etc). Even if I acquire the game through GamePass/whatever, the fact remains that I'm playing an old game on new hardware. Just because it wasn't officially "released" for that hardware doesn't mean that it doesn't make a difference. For data integrity, it seems that there is a relevant case for logging the platform you played on instead of the "intended" platform - simply because hardware matters.

Ultimately the site's time data will be useless to a user like me if I can't trust that the platform listed is the platform used to play the game. I know that there are already submissions that may be logging one or the other - personally I think if you play a X360 game on XBO and log it as X360, then you're wrong. Clearly this is a difference of opinion and I can see why neither is incorrect. My point is to simply make the argument for not locking it down to one thing or the other. I feel like the open nature of the site is still one of its strongest features and it would be a shame to throw it all away by deciding that one albeit valid perspective is any more "correct" than another.

For the sake of clarity as I feel like it's been overlooked - the definition of original platform doesn't matter so much to me as the usefulness of times being recorded. As in, even if I play a X360 game on my Xbox One, I will potentially log a shorter time than if I played on a X360. The newer hardware means that I will be getting through things faster, so that data is relevant and if it were recorded as X360, it would be misleading for anyone actually playing on X360 (as the older hardware will load slower/etc). Even if I acquire the game through GamePass/whatever, the fact remains that I'm playing an old game on new hardware. Just because it wasn't officially "released" for that hardware doesn't mean that it doesn't make a difference. For data integrity, it seems that there is a relevant case for logging the platform you played on instead of the "intended" platform - simply because hardware matters.

Ultimately the site's time data will be useless to a user like me if I can't trust that the platform listed is the platform used to play the game. I know that there are already submissions that may be logging one or the other - personally I think if you play a X360 game on XBO and log it as X360, then you're wrong. Clearly this is a difference of opinion and I can see why neither is incorrect. My point is to simply make the argument for not locking it down to one thing or the other. I feel like the open nature of the site is still one of its strongest features and it would be a shame to throw it all away by deciding that one albeit valid perspective is any more "correct" than another.

The time saved isn’t as meaningful as people think it is. If you play a game for 40 hours on a system with faster loading, it’s going to make something like 15 minutes difference on the total time (assuming optical media vs anything else), which is well within acceptable deviation. Playing a ps1 game on a vita would be a couple of minutes on average due to the size of the data . Especially when you can also lose that time playing on the original system if you compare time recorded by the game (where available) versus manually timed by the player.

Between the time range and volume of players it should all average out. It’s not crucial to the integrity and reliability of the data. I would argue we want approximate times, in which case the variance is expected. I know I sometimes round up 5/10min depending on the game assuming it’s not a very short one.

Even with original hardware you can have load time differences, ps2’s for example got faster drives in later models. The hard drive in a ps3/4 will have different speeds depending on model of drive used, especially if replaced with an aftermarket drive. A PSP will load digital games faster than UMD’s. A 360 might run a downloaded game faster than the DVD version. Mechanical HD vs SSD, SD/CF used on a 8bit micro or Amiga. Etc.

I don’t see the sense in worrying about these deviations when you can’t always accommodate for them in the first place on the original platform.

The time saved isn’t as meaningful as people think it is. If you play a game for 40 hours on a system with faster loading, it’s going to make something like 15 minutes difference on the total time (assuming optical media vs anything else), which is well within acceptable deviation. Playing a ps1 game on a vita would be a couple of minutes on average due to the size of the data . Especially when you can also lose that time playing on the original system if you compare time recorded by the game (where available) versus manually timed by the player.

Between the time range and volume of players it should all average out. It’s not crucial to the integrity and reliability of the data. I would argue we want approximate times, in which case the variance is expected. I know I sometimes round up 5/10min depending on the game assuming it’s not a very short one.

Even with original hardware you can have load time differences, ps2’s for example got faster drives in later models. The hard drive in a ps3/4 will have different speeds depending on model of drive used, especially if replaced with an aftermarket drive. A PSP will load digital games faster than UMD’s. A 360 might run a downloaded game faster than the DVD version. Mechanical HD vs SSD, SD/CF used on a 8bit micro or Amiga. Etc.

I don’t see the sense in worrying about these deviations when you can’t always accommodate for them in the first place on the original platform.

I agree - and by the same token I would argue that the platform variance also just evens itself out over time - and the whole thing isn't as important as people think it is.

It's why I'm in favour of leaving it open like it is - maybe only restricting platforms to ones that a game is available on, rather than original releases or the like. Ultimately if you can play it on a platform, then that platform should be available to select for the game - otherwise I know users like me won't even bother because it's too much hassle to try and get the one I want added to the list.

I'm not smart enough to come up with a way to achieve something that will keep everyone happy - other than staying with the system as it already is. The only thing I can think of that might be an improvement is to allow sorting by platform on a game's page so that if you don't want to see certain times, you can filter them out. However, I also think that would be way more work than it's worth and I doubt many people would actually use it very much!

Ultimately though - if the site changes to show a "filtered" or "edited" aggregate of times for a game, it ceases to be useful for determining a game's length IMO. Instead it just becomes an approximate length for a certain set of systems which are arbitrarily selected.

It might seem acceptable deviation, but I would argue that logging a X360 game as XBO if you played on XBO is also acceptable deviation. I understand that we all have our own ideas about this, but I will always support keeping things more open than not. Anyway, I think I've said my point more than I intended to anyway so the info/perspective is there for Everdred to consider. =)

I agree - and by the same token I would argue that the platform variance also just evens itself out over time - and the whole thing isn't as important as people think it is.

It's why I'm in favour of leaving it open like it is - maybe only restricting platforms to ones that a game is available on, rather than original releases or the like. Ultimately if you can play it on a platform, then that platform should be available to select for the game - otherwise I know users like me won't even bother because it's too much hassle to try and get the one I want added to the list.

I'm not smart enough to come up with a way to achieve something that will keep everyone happy - other than staying with the system as it already is. The only thing I can think of that might be an improvement is to allow sorting by platform on a game's page so that if you don't want to see certain times, you can filter them out. However, I also think that would be way more work than it's worth and I doubt many people would actually use it very much!

Ultimately though - if the site changes to show a "filtered" or "edited" aggregate of times for a game, it ceases to be useful for determining a game's length IMO. Instead it just becomes an approximate length for a certain set of systems which are arbitrarily selected.

It might seem acceptable deviation, but I would argue that logging a X360 game as XBO if you played on XBO is also acceptable deviation. I understand that we all have our own ideas about this, but I will always support keeping things more open than not. Anyway, I think I've said my point more than I intended to anyway so the info/perspective is there for Everdred to consider. =)

I agree - and by the same token I would argue that the platform variance also just evens itself out over time - and the whole thing isn't as important as people think it is.

Platform handling is the single major flaw in how the site works imo. It’s not just limited to how times are collected and compared, Due to the way the site evolved over time and the user base has expanded, it’s caused a lot of unseen issues as a knock on effect because several of the sites functions are directly tied to how the platforms are currently working.

Platform variance itself isn’t such a big deal for modern games sure. For older games where there would frequently by big differences between platforms it matters a lot more.

Coming soon...

Soon, each title will have their platforms hard selected instead of community based.

This means more accurate platform list but it also means a lot of updating to the database.

Once the change over happens, it will pre-fill the platform with the current state. This will enable some features in the future, like having the platform select list be limited to the actual platforms of the title. This will eliminate confusion on "which platform to select".

Things to consider/discuss are handling backwards compatible games, streaming services (xCloud, Playstation Now), download services (Game Pass, etc.) and emulated games.

My thoughts are that all titles will be categorized with their original platforms, not backwards compatible platforms or streamed on platforms. Basically, which version of the game are you playing? This makes sorting previously submitted titles tricky and I'm still considering ways to handle that.

I've got a few things to sort out before I push the update but I wanted to give the community a heads up in case they had some considerations I didn't think of.

Just to clarify, will the platform lists be automatically populated with compatible games or will you still use the “sanity check” of requiring two completions per platform?

I’m assuming and hoping it’s the former

I took "original platform" as plural (because a lot of the time it will be) and to mean any official release which isn't in an emulation wrapper or as part of a streaming service.

Therefore if we take say Metal Slug, it is an Arcade Game (as MVS is just a type of arcade board), a Neo Geo (AES) game, and had proper ports to Playstation and Saturn. But then basically every version after is essentially emulation (Japanese PS2 compilation releases may be an exception, i'm not entirely 100%, the western releases certainly are emulated).

Metal Slug is also on PSN for PSP/PS3/Vita, but it's just the PS1 version. The ACA Neo Geo games are all identical emulator packages. So it doesn't make sense to call these PS4/Xbox One/Switch games because they are functionally identical to the arcade version. But this isn't a detail most people will be concerned with.

So really the big question for me is how we would handle these types of releases. They are valid as Switch/PS4/Xbox One titles, but the actual game is Arcade. Same with Sega Ages or any Hamster (Arcade Archives, ACA) release. It might be simpler to just allow all officially released versions of titles like that where the platform spread is quite big. Then something like a PS1 games sold on PSN as PS3 compatible is still regarded as a PS1 game because it's quite simple to deduce this, just like using a PS3 to play a ps1 or two game doesn't change the fact it's a ps1 or 2 game. That sort of compromise might just be necessary.

In the case of streaming services, sticking to the original platform is easy and sensible.

Do the Metal Slug ports on Xbox 360, et al. have (modified) button prompts outside of the collection menu (assuming there is one)? Just curious.

Either way, I think it would be fair to log the completion itself as an Xbox 360, et al. game.

I agree - and by the same token I would argue that the platform variance also just evens itself out over time - and the whole thing isn't as important as people think it is.

It's why I'm in favour of leaving it open like it is - maybe only restricting platforms to ones that a game is available on, rather than original releases or the like. Ultimately if you can play it on a platform, then that platform should be available to select for the game - otherwise I know users like me won't even bother because it's too much hassle to try and get the one I want added to the list.

I'm not smart enough to come up with a way to achieve something that will keep everyone happy - other than staying with the system as it already is. The only thing I can think of that might be an improvement is to allow sorting by platform on a game's page so that if you don't want to see certain times, you can filter them out. However, I also think that would be way more work than it's worth and I doubt many people would actually use it very much!

Ultimately though - if the site changes to show a "filtered" or "edited" aggregate of times for a game, it ceases to be useful for determining a game's length IMO. Instead it just becomes an approximate length for a certain set of systems which are arbitrarily selected.

It might seem acceptable deviation, but I would argue that logging a X360 game as XBO if you played on XBO is also acceptable deviation. I understand that we all have our own ideas about this, but I will always support keeping things more open than not. Anyway, I think I've said my point more than I intended to anyway so the info/perspective is there for Everdred to consider. =)

I largely disagree, so I won't go into detail on that, but I WILL say that there is an interesting case where some Xbox 360 games (e.g. Oblivion) were actually repackaged in retail with box covers that promote Xbox 360/Xbox One dual support. I would still personally consider it an Xbox 360 game, and some people even think that it's false advertising (though I largely disagree with their reasoning), but there you have it.

This is where the details need to be sorted out. Re-releases are so common these days. Take the Final Fantasy titles.

Final Fantasy 7 was an exclusive PS1 game, but has since been released on:
Android
iOS
Nintendo Switch
PC
PlayStation 4
Xbox One

I would consider all of those platforms valid.

Virtual console titles are tricky because it's right in the name, they are emulated versions of old titles but they are officially released on new platforms.
Same with the SNK releases. They are officially released on newer platforms.

Backwards compatibility is tricky too.
I would generally agree that the time difference has been minor in the past. I crunched some numbers to see the difference an SSD could make based on this video:

53s vs 12s for Outer Worlds.

41 seconds over a 12 to 35 hour game is impactful but not huge:
((25 Hours X Load Screen every 15 minutes) X 41 Seconds) / 60 Seconds = 1 hour 8 minutes.
((25 X 4) X 41) / 60 = 68.33
That's a 4.5% difference in time.
Size that up for Skyrim which is a 200 hour game, that's 9 hours of added time.

The main goal is to eliminate platforms that are simply not true. Games like GTAV being listed as just "Xbox" or just "PlayStation". And obvious console exclusives being listed on other platforms. I get a lot of game edits where the comments say "Game is also available on { INSERT HERE }". Majority of users are not aware of how the systems work.

Either way this system will offer more accurate and consistent platforms but which route we take is up for discussion. I have personally logged 360 games played on Xbox One as Xbox One but I've also done it the other way too. In my opinion there are 3 paths to choose from:

1. Platforms listed are... Any platform where the game can be officially purchased and played on. (Backwards compatible platforms included.)
2. Platforms listed are... Any platform where the game has been officially released for that platform. (Backwards compatible platforms NOT included.)
3. Platforms listed are... Reflecting the "Version" of the game being played. (Would not included re-released emulated versions)

EDIT: To clarify, my original post was pointing towards option 2 but there is validity in option 1 too. I can see both options being viable.

What is most important to me is that the platform reflects official ways of acceess that title so that HLTB times are accurate and categorized correctly. I'm OK with option 1 or 2, it's about picking a path. Emulated can be displayed in the platform breakdown and maybe not included in the main HLTB times.

IIRC Outer Worlds has some really bad load times compared to what I would expect so it's probably an extreme example. But I guess most third party open worlds have long load times. Horizon's are pretty short considering the size and detail fo the world but its also optimised for a single platform.

I would argue for platforms supported for all official versions (option 2). Changing the system but keeping BC titles seems rather counter productive, it doesn't really fix the issues of miscategorising because the PS3 list will still be full of PS1 games, the PS5 list will be full of PS4 games etc. It makes navigating those platform lists a massive pain, and doesn't help the "discovery" aspect of this site that the change will give a much needed improvement to.

I'm mostly logging my games based on the system on which it was released already. Like GoW2, I played it on emulator but logged it as a PS2 game. When I played Medal of Honor, i emulated it but logged it as a PS1 game.

I might have to revisit my logs since I have played a few Wii U VC games that were logged as Wii U games (Metroid, SMB3, Metroid Fusion, etc). I might go back and change them to their original system before changed are made to the site.

Do the Metal Slug ports on Xbox 360, et al. have (modified) button prompts outside of the collection menu (assuming there is one)? Just curious.

Either way, I think it would be fair to log the completion itself as an Xbox 360, et al. game.

I don't recall.

However I can tell you that a while ago I converted all my 360 games which were emulations to the original platforms to match how I categorise them now. When I retroactively added my ps3+xbox completions from their respective trochievements it was before I had established a method of categorising them by their original platform.

I don't recall.

However I can tell you that a while ago I converted all my 360 games which were emulations to the original platforms to match how I categorise them now. When I retroactively added my ps3+xbox completions from their respective trochievements it was before I had established a method of categorising them by their original platform.

Here is the Xbox One version. Looks like they are arcade emulated versions with multiple version included. If you are playing it on Xbox One your time may include times to beat one mode, multiple or getting all the achievements (For 100%).

This is where the details need to be sorted out. Re-releases are so common these days. Take the Final Fantasy titles.

Final Fantasy 7 was an exclusive PS1 game, but has since been released on:
Android
iOS
Nintendo Switch
PC
PlayStation 4
Xbox One

I would consider all of those platforms valid.

Virtual console titles are tricky because it's right in the name, they are emulated versions of old titles but they are officially released on new platforms.
Same with the SNK releases. They are officially released on newer platforms.

Backwards compatibility is tricky too.
I would generally agree that the time difference has been minor in the past. I crunched some numbers to see the difference an SSD could make based on this video:

53s vs 12s for Outer Worlds.

41 seconds over a 12 to 35 hour game is impactful but not huge:
((25 Hours X Load Screen every 15 minutes) X 41 Seconds) / 60 Seconds = 1 hour 8 minutes.
((25 X 4) X 41) / 60 = 68.33
That's a 4.5% difference in time.
Size that up for Skyrim which is a 200 hour game, that's 9 hours of added time.

The main goal is to eliminate platforms that are simply not true. Games like GTAV being listed as just "Xbox" or just "PlayStation". And obvious console exclusives being listed on other platforms. I get a lot of game edits where the comments say "Game is also available on { INSERT HERE }". Majority of users are not aware of how the systems work.

Either way this system will offer more accurate and consistent platforms but which route we take is up for discussion. I have personally logged 360 games played on Xbox One as Xbox One but I've also done it the other way too. In my opinion there are 3 paths to choose from:

1. Platforms listed are... Any platform where the game can be officially purchased and played on. (Backwards compatible platforms included.)
2. Platforms listed are... Any platform where the game has been officially released for that platform. (Backwards compatible platforms NOT included.)
3. Platforms listed are... Reflecting the "Version" of the game being played. (Would not included re-released emulated versions)

EDIT: To clarify, my original post was pointing towards option 2 but there is validity in option 1 too. I can see both options being viable.

What is most important to me is that the platform reflects official ways of acceess that title so that HLTB times are accurate and categorized correctly. I'm OK with option 1 or 2, it's about picking a path. Emulated can be displayed in the platform breakdown and maybe not included in the main HLTB times.

For my money I would vote for the first option.

I completely agree that listing a platform that a game doesn't even exist on is waste of time - like, Super Mario Bros should never be logged as Playstation, simply because it doesn't exist on there and will never be an issue. By leaving Playstation out of the list, it prevent accidental clicks on the wrong platform.

On the other hand though, I log my games based on the platform I played on because as already stated, I believe that hardware does matter and does make a difference. Yes most of it would come out in the wash, but everything kind of comes out in the wash, even if people log on the "wrong" platform. For accuracy's sake though, I prefer to log what I played on... simply because that makes the most logical sense to me.

As it's clear that some of us have different opinions, I think accommodating both is a better solution and limiting options should be kept to a minimum. Hence why I prefer the first option where the platforms are only limited to ones where a game is actually playable, as opposed to the other options, which would remove platforms where games can be played.

Those are my thoughts anyway =)

For my money I would vote for the first option.

I completely agree that listing a platform that a game doesn't even exist on is waste of time - like, Super Mario Bros should never be logged as Playstation, simply because it doesn't exist on there and will never be an issue. By leaving Playstation out of the list, it prevent accidental clicks on the wrong platform.

On the other hand though, I log my games based on the platform I played on because as already stated, I believe that hardware does matter and does make a difference. Yes most of it would come out in the wash, but everything kind of comes out in the wash, even if people log on the "wrong" platform. For accuracy's sake though, I prefer to log what I played on... simply because that makes the most logical sense to me.

As it's clear that some of us have different opinions, I think accommodating both is a better solution and limiting options should be kept to a minimum. Hence why I prefer the first option where the platforms are only limited to ones where a game is actually playable, as opposed to the other options, which would remove platforms where games can be played.

Those are my thoughts anyway =)

It's obvious that flexibility is at the forefront of my decisions.

I want every user to have the flexibility to manage and log their playthroughs and collections as they wish. Now, whatever they do on their profile, may not be accepted by the global pages but I will continue to allow people to do as they wish on their own. When the updates launch, the platform list on submissions page will be the same. Allowing users to submit however they'd like. However, depending on the option chosen, only approved platforms will show up on game pages.

As I continue to digest these discussions, I too lean towards option 1.

EDIT: I could also take some time develop a system that mixes the 2. Where we set the platforms with option 2 considerations but build out which backwards compatible systems play which titles. So that submissions are allowed for BC platforms but platforms listed are original platforms. If that makes sense...