Why? it's part of the recomended
Doesn't matter. Read the Editing guide please. Duplicating entries is useless.
I believe you are not correct, following your logic then all games system requirements wouldn't have a recommended section in them if it was the same as the minimum. So i'll have to write something on the recommended. And yes if this keeps up we'll have to call a staff member.
all games system requirements wouldn't have a recommended section in them if it was the same as the minimum
And they don't. Plenty of games such as 18_Wheels_of_Steel:_Across_America only have minimum section.
And yes if this keeps up we'll have to call a staff member.
Why are you being so childish? I'm trying to help you understand PCGW's editing rules. There is not single well-kept page that does what you do. Is that not telling you something?
Requirements section came through multiple versions over the last 2 years, current consensus that we agreed that we should only feature recommended settings, if they are different than base settings. Please try to keep it this way. Repeating the same information, just because publisher does it really makes no sense.
Calm down. This isn't that major thing to get up in arms.
As with everything else, as long as information is in the article and correct, it's usually fine, but what Blackbird is saying is that formatting the stuff according to guidelines lessens workload others have to do to format the stuff according to guidelines later on. Especially indie titles are usually listing same information as minimum and recommended or do not have recommended at all. With requirements it has been practice to leave recommended blank if it's the same with minimum, to make it visually easier to read.
"Staff member" checking in :)
Blackbird is correct here. As specified at the end of the sample article and in the editing guide, we never duplicate entries for the recommended section. This has long been the case for the wiki. When a game doesn't have recommended requirements - we don't duplicate them. When the requirements are only slightly changed for recommended hardware - that is the only part mentioned in the recommended column.
In the future, if you're unsure, please consult the editing guide. Additionally, you may also find some help and explanations if you ask on the forums or in IRC. And well, if a long-time editor points out something, it is likely they are right :)
A note on reverting reverted wiki edits without a reason or discussion
I've recently noted you reverted changes made by a reversion by BONKERS regarding your note that Tales of Zestiria is known to a "great port" on a GeForce GTX970. This is unusual, but it might have been acceptable had the reasoning been discussed prior on either BONKERS' talk page or in a discussion thread on the Tales of Zestiria talk page on this wiki - or even simply added an edit summary to your edit; instead, you simply reverted the reversion. Without an explanation, no one knows why you reverted the change or for what purpose and will have every reason to undo your reversion.
Please don't take this too harshly, though - I know you're new to PCGamingWiki, so a lot of this is new to you. I'm only pointing all this out so you don't get caught in a back-and-forth edit of the same part of a wiki article (known as an "edit war"). If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me or one of the regular editors, such as Garrett or Soeb, either on our talk pages or on the IRC (just click on the "IRC" button on the top-left of any PCGamingWiki page to use the IRC), and we'll be happy to help you as best we can.
hello, i am not new to this amazing wiki but i am putting "at least for a gtx970" because that is what durante used while testing and for my case, the port is fairly optimized for gt635m and why you ask? when i run gta V i have 30fps on medium-high settings and in mgs V in high settings i always have above 30fps. what i am trying to say is that tales of zestiria (in max settings except for aa) has almost the same framerate (sometimes reaching to 25fps) as those 2 other games and comparing the detail of the graphics, clearly tales of zestiria has less detail and shouldn't push the system the same way. what i am doing is right because i am warning the readers that at least it runs great on a gtx970 and not misleading them as the software runs great on any other graphics card. thanks for telling me the term "edit war" it is quite fun. so can you please have that information posted at least in another place? thank you.
I ask because no one could really know what your reasoning was from your changes alone. Had you put that in the summary of either your original edit or when you reverted BONKERS' reversion of that original edit, or even discussed the change, we would be having a very different conversation - if one would even be necessary at all. It doesn't matter how correct you actually are - you do not revert a reversion without a given reason.
Also, if, as you say, the game runs fine on hardware which falls within the system requirements, that's not noteworthy in the slightest - it's what readers will expect and normally isn't a key point. Things like any framerate drops literally slowing down the game are noteworthy and should be key points; such reasons are why RaTcHeT302, a staff editor on this very wiki, has removed the "great port" key point altogether (due to the "great" part conflicting "framerate drop" key point) and kept and refined the "framerate drop" key point.
Indeed, I guess both you and Durante forgot in which year you are living.
First, we are no longer in the 2000s when max settings actually meant something.
Take Far Cry for example. From low, to ultra, graphics improves almost linearly with "horsepower requirement".
Now already take even Crysis: can you actually notice any difference between "high" and "very high" settings?
Except for the performance hit and your ego screaming: "I'm not cool", of course.
So, it's not all this dare to compare GTA5 medium settings to this other game highest one, even though yes, I get what you are saying.
You at least seems to acknowledge that it's not the "relative preset name" to matter, but the absolute [image] quality you get in the end.
And indeed I don't understand why 50% gpu utilization (in 4K, sure, but @30FPS) with that monster GPU (because it is, right? I'm not so into the hardware market lately) would be all that of an accomplishment.
Though, couldn't it just be you are CPU limited sometimes? Because Durante perhaps wasn't with his i7 3820k, but it's a pretty common case on a laptop.
If you want to further discuss the dissimilarities between "optimized", "lightweight", "heavy", "smooth" and other words in this semantical field then, we already had a thread
oh yes sorry i i know this wikia for more than a year but i only created an account some days ago