Insane Difficulty: Downloads Section Revamp/Update Needed - Insane Difficulty

Many of the files have not been updated for years, despite newer/better versions and alternate downloads becoming available.

Indie Games
So why do we have two demo versions of games? There are plenty of freeware and full-version game releases out there. Why does this section even exist at all though? Just curious.

Emulators
These are all outdated or obsolete emulator versions. Things have changed quite a bit in the past several years.
Most of the newer emulator builds are either compiled from source code or precompiled via EmuCR.

ZSNES is noticeably and objectively worse in emulation accuracy (audio and video) compared to SNES9X; it is also no longer being actively developed. Last I heard they have been giving out updates only to their small circle of followers exclusively via the ZSNES forums. No actual updates on a planned 'version 2.0' for years now; not even a public alpha/beta version. I'd personally request to remove the download altogether but that is up to the site admins. ZSNES needs to be retired from general use just like NESticle and other popular-but-obsolete emulators.

SNES9X has a GitHub with updated source code for a while now.

Higan beats them both but has that stupid folder system. The RetroArch fork of Higan gets rid of the folder system while keeping the high accuracy of Higan; unfortunately it won't load certain games that use the SPC7110 chip. I haven't used the RetroArch fork myself.

Missing PSP Emulator - PPSSPP
Missing PS2 Emulator - PCSX2
Missing most-accurate NES Emulator - puNES (no website) GitHub

Patching Tools
Missing BPS Patcher called FloatingIPS that is superior to and supercedes LunarIPS in every way. It supports both the BPS format and IPS format. The BPS format is an error-correcting format that mitigates potential issues with incorrect ROM versions and so on. It also supports the legacy IPS format but in a way that allows for larger file sizes and ROM sizes beyond the typical IPS limitations from LunarIPS.

The 'Game Editors' and 'Memory Editors' sections are woefully underpopulated compared to other websites. Might be worthwhile to start updating these sections to mirror publically-released files.

I won't switch from ZSNES to another emulator unless it has a rewind feature. I care more about that than emulation accuracy, except in extreme cases (such as Parodius, which didn't play at all on my ZSNES emulator).

Lockirby2, on 09 February 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

Well it took me all of a few minutes to do a quick internet search.
SNES9X has a Build (and in x64) with Rewind Support as well as a stable version with Rewind Support as part of RetroArch/LibRetro.

Hope you consider giving it a go

There's also a beta build compiled from the GitHub source code by EmuCR if you want to give that a go (but 32-bit version only unfortunately). That's the version that I am using and I can confirm it has full rewind support.

Indie Games

I don't see a problem here, there are demos because there are demos? I guess that sounded condescending, didn't mean it to. Personally it doesn't bother me as demos seem perfectly acceptable. There could be other factors but I don't think its that important in the end.

Emulators

There is something to be said about keeping versions up to date but as far as different choices go I guess it depends on what you are looking for. Looking at ZNES vs SNES9X, its mostly up to preference from what I have seen. Different people like different ones. I think talking about all of the technical details is really overcomplicating things. Most people will try different ones out and decide which they like the best.

Patching Tools

I'm sure there are alot of great IPS patching programs out there but at least for me LunarIPS serves its purpose just fine. Most people just need the simple, basic feature of patching a ROM and Lunar does that well. I can't really comment on the other as I don't know anything about it but at least for my needs I don't need to.

As far as game editors go, its something we are working on, see this thread.

With all that being said(just my opinion), there isn't anything wrong with your suggestions, but you would have to speak more with the mods about what they want to do or what the priority list is as far as what gets changed, and what the candidates are for that change. Personally speaking I don't come to ID looking for many of those things because they exist in other places that I can easily google but I understand why those things may be helpful to others, so why not?

It would be a good idea to get lists updated and figure out what we want on all the lists which I believe is being done slowly but surely. Although in all honestly it may only be Arch or FFTA who can change the contents of those lists. I don't know how much the mods can do in that area.

Denton, on 11 February 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

To be fair, if it had crossed my mind that SNES9x might have a build with rewinds, I could have found it fairly easily. But to be honest, I haven't really been searching too hard. I feel that to some extent you're more eager to convert me to SNES9x than I am to convert to it (you're not the first). I have rarely had too much of a problem with ZSNES' emulation inaccuracies, so I'm 90% indifferent to the differences.

Denton, on 11 February 2016 - 10:26 PM, said:

That being said, I'll probably use it if everything else checks out. It probably will, I've used SNES9x before and that was the only feature I use that it seemed to lack.

Denton, on 09 February 2016 - 02:33 AM, said:

The reason why is simple. Every now and again, an indie dev of a game that's usually on Greenlight will come here, introduce themselves, and try to promote their game. As long as they're cool and respectful, and not just trying to use us to further their game's reputation, this is fine.

Hell, sometimes they just PM Archael and ask if their game can be hosted here, and throw some keys at him, and he puts it up to kind of help get the word out.

Denton, on 09 February 2016 - 02:33 AM, said:

I can agree with this part.

Denton, on 09 February 2016 - 02:33 AM, said:

This is where I start to have a problem. While I personally prefer 9x to zSNES, emulation accuracy really isn't all that serious as long as the game is reasonably playable.

Denton, on 09 February 2016 - 02:33 AM, said:

I think this is the part where I say we should probably ask for their permission before just throwing shit up on the Downloads page. As a programmer, I'd be pretty upset if someone took my work and threw it on their site without at the very least letting me know.

Denton, on 09 February 2016 - 02:33 AM, said:

See above, but these would be nice to add.

Denton, on 09 February 2016 - 02:33 AM, said:

I think you can refer to my post in that other thread of yours to see my thoughts on this matter.

Denton, on 09 February 2016 - 02:33 AM, said:

I'd like to point you to my game editor megathread on this one. The reason it's underpopulated really depends on what kind of memory editors you're talking about. If it's save state editors, just look at the site name. If it's something like a RAM editor for use in modding, it's because we don't have a whole lot of use for those due to a very limited selection of people who can take advantage of it.

Our downloads list is by no means comprehensive, but it is what it is.

Advent, on 12 February 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

SNES9X, ZSNES, PCSX2 and PPSSPP are all open-source and licensed under the GPL.
Anyone is permitted to mirror the downloads (whether for free or for profit) for any reason or no reason with or without the author's permission. These rights are irrevokable by the author once granted. That's how the GPL works.

Considering we already have downloads of SNES9X and ZSNES on the website, updating them wouldn't hurt (and perhaps linking to the GitHubs for each respective project would be a nice gesture).

Just because someone doesn't have an issue with emulation accuracy doesn't mean that it isn't something to consider on an objective/technical basis when comparing emulators. In the BPS thread I go into more detail on the objective vs subjective arguments and how they relate to good debating and discussion.

Denton, on 14 February 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

For whatever reason, the GPL never really crossed my mind.

Denton, on 14 February 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

I wonder if I have the permissions to do that... One way to find out, I suppose.

Denton, on 14 February 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

Not enough, really.

The problem is your arguments hinge on the idea that technologically better is better. Which, in and of itself, is correct. However, better doesn't necessarily mean it's enough to make the change to something you're not familiar with. This applies to BPS vs IPS, zSNES vs whatever emulator you use, etc.

As someone who (I think you said in that other thread) works in IT, this is something that you're probably already acutely aware of, but there it is.

Advent, on 14 February 2016 - 02:45 PM, said:

You seem to misread what I post. So let me clarify.
When I state that a program is objectively better on a technical/coding level, there is little that people can say to dispute that fact without doing detailed side by side counteranalysis of the source code of the respective items being compared.

My arguments are 'this new thing I'm talking about is factually better in every technical way compared to the thing you are used to using so I suggest you use it'. In the case of FloatingIPS vs LunarIPS, using technical objective analysis allows me to state facts and to back them up with links to the full source code for analysis by those who desire to do so.

FloatingIPS is objectively better on a technical level because it is a modified version of LunarIPS with additional features, bugfixes, and removed limitations without any drawbacks in backwards compatability or use of the IPS format.

I don't tend to go by subjective arguments such as 'the UI is better' or 'it doesn't matter'. Of course it matters, but it doesn't objectively apply.
Objective analysis allows for comparing two products in a non-biased and factual manner. Technical and programmatic/coding analysis is considered objective analysis in this regard. Comparing two video cards and their specs and saying one has better specs than the other in specific areas is an objective analysis. It is factual without dispute (unless the specs were incorrect).

I can say objectively that an Nvidia 980Ti is objectively superior to an Nvidia 560Ti in every single aspect. There is no disputing that because it is a fact. That's what objective analysis entails.

I can objectively state that 60 FPS is a smoother framerate than 30 FPS.
I can subjectively state that 60 FPS provides a superior gaming experience for me.
I can objectively state that the number 60 is higher than the number 30.

See how that works? Hopefully so.

Sometimes I feel like I'm trying to talk about free open-spec zero-maintenance zero-cost vacuum cleaners to people who are happy with brooms and nothing else matters to them. >_>

I like brooms.

Stann, on 14 February 2016 - 05:07 PM, said:

Welcome to Corneria.

You should go to VacuumLand.

Denton, on 14 February 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

You don't need to spend time convincing us that BPS is better on a technical/programming level. Nobody is disputing that.

Denton, on 14 February 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

We all understand the differences between objective and subjective reasoning. But it is impossible to compare BPS and IPS entirely on an objective level. Comparing two products on objective terms is worthless if a consumer cares more about something subjective. FF8 is objectively superior to FF6 on most objective criteria that I can think of. I could apply many of your same arguments here. I could say something like:

"I don't tend to go by subjective arguments such as 'the gameplay is better' or 'the story is better'. Of course it matters, but it doesn't objectively apply. FF8 has superior graphical specs and is run on more modern hardware so it is an objectively better game."

It's less pronounced with IPS vs. BPS, but it's the same issue with your reasoning. You can't objectively compare the formats any more than you could objectively compare the two games. There are more objective criteria to look at, and less subjective criteria, but you can't objectively say either is better as long as there is a non-zero amount of subjective criteria.

Denton, on 14 February 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

The example doesn't apply, because there are no subjective points to be made here (or at least none that I'm aware of). So an objective analysis really does cover everything that matters here, which prevents it from being analogous at all.

Denton, on 14 February 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

And sometimes we feel like you're trying to talk about a broom with a slightly different handle when we're happy with brooms that have the handle we normally use.

Lockirby's got this on lock ( ), so I won't waste my time replying to the whole thing, just a few points.

Denton, on 14 February 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

This is a really awful analogy because you're comparing hardware to software. Software is way different, and I really shouldn't need to explain why.

See how that works? Hopefully so.

Advent, on 12 February 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

Makes me think we should have "links" portion of the downloads area to stuff like this that isn't officially hosted here.