Why do We still use lower reselutions?

joelphilippage · Sat 22/12/2007 02:23:31

I was thinking, why do people that use ags still use 320 by 200

You could argue saying that It takes down game size but using 640 by 400 dosin't take that much more. Espessially if you lower the colors. I think it creates such a better look for a game to use just one resulution higher. Just look at Monkey Island:

Monkey Island 2

Monkey Island 3
Now I know that graphics don't make a game. But they do make it much better.

Radiant · Sat 22/12/2007 02:33:54

Because it's a completely different style. 320x200 tends towards the photographic or landscape art, 640x400 tends towards the cartoonish. Indeed, nearly every adventure game developed for "high" resolution is either cartoon-styled, or faux-3D. This also means that most artists work best in one style but not the other.

Gilbert · Sat 22/12/2007 02:34:38

My question is, why should a higher resolution used when it's not needed?

Granted, you can do more sometimes in higher resolution, but there's no point to say people cannot make a low res. game. In fact, to some extend, it requires more skills to make good graphics in low res.; on the other hand, not many people have the skills to put high res. to good use.

There're many reasons based on which you may use low res., like:
1. Wastes less HDD space
2. Less CPU extensive
3. Nostalgic Pixelly Graphics (TM)
4. Maybe save more time in creation
5. Don't have the skills to put high res. to good use
6. Have the skills to put low res. to good use

On the other hand, there're also reasons for using high res.:
1. HDD space are less concerned nowadays
2. CPUs are fast enough nowadays
3. More detailed and smooth graphics
4. I have time
5. Don't have the skills to put low res. to good use
6. Have the skills to put high res. to good use

Either way, I think there're enough reasons to make games in high res. or low res., it's just a decision made by the game creators themselves, I don't see the reason why people should not create low res. games.

lo_res_man · Sat 22/12/2007 02:37:16

Well I think the main reason is... we are lazy . Most of the time we are one man (or woman) teams. Making hi res art that animates remotely smoothly is a much more time consuming. There is probably more then a little nostalgia thrown in as well. Yes CMI is vuunder bar, but it was one of the last traditional 2d adventure games. Most of us have more happy memories with older games. Now I love CMI, its wonderful, I love it, but imagine your making a 2d game by yourself? Ouch. AN great example of not the worlds best graphics, still making a wonderful game is Pleurgburg.

ildu · Sat 22/12/2007 02:40:35

1. Love of the specific art styles we remember as kids.
2. Love of pixel art.
3. Pixel art, let's say, allows for more mistakes. Not to say one is better than the other, pixel art just doesn't require the same level of skill to make something representative of real objects.
4. High resolution art, meaning painted rather than pixelled, nevermind which final resolution, can be a huge drag to produce. And you usually need to know more about traditional art to produce it, which can sometimes be a rarity in the computer domain.
5. Realistic high resolution art is actually very difficult to produce. Stylized or cartoony graphics allow for personal quirks and style, whereas realistic art is always compared to realism. In this aspect, pixel art can be a very efficient way to compromise.
6. Even if the design is identical, some things just don't look as cool in high-res as they do in pixelling (compare original DoTT/S&M/CMI pixel characters to vectorized versions of them).
7. Pixel art can be quicker/easier/cheaper to produce.

scotch · Sat 22/12/2007 02:49:17

The biggest problem we face in high res is animation. It's something a lot of people don't like to do in low res too, but when you go high res, especially when it's higher than 640x480, you can no longer push a few pixels this way or that and patch things up afterwards. You need either a traditional animation approach, which requires genuine and consistent drawing skills, or you go for the 3D pre rendered approach, which many people find relatively unattractive. Good 3D animation is at least as hard as good 2D.

I don't strongly agree with any of the arguments from size or speed. It may apply to some people, such as those in developing countries with poor internet connections, but generally I think higher resolutions work better for most people these days, especially those on LCDs and graphics cards that do blurry upscaling.

I fully intend to do high res stuff if I start another adventure game, but I will sidestep the 2D animation issue by going partly realtime 3D. It would be too much work to 2D high res characters.

joelphilippage · Sat 22/12/2007 03:02:47

I can see your point that people that aren't very good at art, but what about the games made by people who can make great art. Just look at Dave Gilbert's Blackwell games. The artist is very good and I'm sure They could do just as well with higher resolutions and if they couldn't, he could just have someone that works better in higher resolutions. As for using the pixel art style, I think Game makers would be better to make there own style instead. Also, when I am drawing background for my games, I work much faster drawing the backgrounds out on paper, scanning them onto my computer, then coloring them then making it all on my computer.

scotch · Sat 22/12/2007 03:08:52

I'm sure we've talked to Dave about it before, he would like to go high res, I know that. It makes a lot of commercial sense. But it would cost him a great deal more, because of the increased amount of work. I think the artists he works with currently are generally pixel artists, and even if they were happy to work higher res, it'd still be a bigger investment of time.

As I say, backgrounds really aren't the problem as much as animation. I could paint a decent 1024x768 background in a similar amount of time to painting a 320x240 one, perhaps a little longer. Characters though... that's another thing entirely.

joelphilippage · Sat 22/12/2007 03:14:55

I guess I agree. Characters do take much longer to animate in a higher resolution and take longer.

Vince Twelve · Sat 22/12/2007 04:40:08

Characters is right. That is precisely the reason my next game is in 320x240. Bumping the resolution up to 640x480 multiplies the number of pixels required to make a character with the same size in proportion to the screen by four. In addition, while a 320x240 sprite can look perfectly smooth with, say, a six frame walk cycle, a higher-resolution character will likely require more frames to look as smooth.

So, the size increase alone is around 4x the pixels to push, the increase in frames required for each animation bumps up the work even further to 5 or 6 times the original amount.

When you're paying the pixel artist, like Dave is and I am, you have to wonder if the much higher costs of producing higher resolution art is worth the amount of extra business that you'd get selling your game in the higher (but still archaic) resolution. In my estimation, the kind of people who would buy a 640x480 adventure game is pretty much the same set of people who would buy a 320x240 adventure game. I don't think I'm losing much of the potential market.

For a freeware author of course, you just have to decide if it's worth your time and effort.

Of course, there are other ways of creating art that wouldn't be terribly impacted, effort wise, by a higher resolution, such as using vector art. In which case, I would definitely go with higher res (and have with my last two games). Nostalgia doesn't enter into it for me.

scotch · Sat 22/12/2007 05:00:21

I do think there's a bigger market for high res games, if you're going to try selling outside the typical indie gamer scene, which is the only sensible thing to do if you want a profit. When you're putting your stuff on casual portals you're competing with things that are at a minimum 640x480, and people do notice, at least going by the forums. Retro isn't generally seen as a positive thing among people that didn't grow up playing games.

Not many indie developers have a lot to invest, but if we could afford it I think the returns would be worth it.

Kweepa · Sat 22/12/2007 06:21:14

Quote from: joelphilippage on Sat 22/12/2007 02:23:31
Just look at Monkey Island:

I like Monkey Island 2's look more than 3's. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Gilbert · Sat 22/12/2007 08:16:14

Actually I like MI1 graphics much more than MI2.
Never played MI3, but I don't like it very much looking at the screenshots.

But that's all personal preference.

lo_res_man · Sat 22/12/2007 10:06:17

I have played all of them, and I would have to go with MI2. I really liked the graphics in CMI, but they didn't require quite the same imagination. I mean, if graphics are the only thing, whats the fun of IF, ya know?

InCreator · Sat 22/12/2007 10:13:04

QuoteThe artist is very good and I'm sure They could do just as well with higher resolutions and if they couldn't, he could just have someone that works better in higher resolutions. As for using the pixel art style, I think Game makers would be better to make there own style instead.

It doesn't really work that way. Being a good artist at low-res graphics doesn't make you decent one in hi-res. That's totally another story. Low res is about pixel placing: How you use every one of those 64000 pixels you have. With only 20-30 pixels, you can add something new, or make a drastic change in your art.

With high resolution, individual pixels lose their importance, and pixeling becomes painting. Now you have big canvas, and longer strokes to work with. You have to focus on whole image now, instead of building it from tiny chunks. Try this yourself, and you'll understand better.

QuoteAlso, when I am drawing background for my games, I work much faster drawing the backgrounds out on paper, scanning them onto my computer, then coloring them then making it all on my computer.

Paper-drawn and scanned graphics is a specific style. To be honest, without heavy retouching, a lazy one. For me, it sounds like a graphics factory. When I compare paper-drawn-scanned image against one that has born and finished entirely on computer, I'd say latter is at most times better. But if you edit your drawing so heavily that it comes as good as computer-drawn, why use paper after all? Working "faster" doesn't mean "better" here.

Your comparasion in your first post isn't fair: Monkey Island 2 has limited (and ugly) palette and doesn't use antialiasing. I'm sure that if color and style choices were equal, the difference between those 2 images would be MUCH smaller.

Think AGAIN:

versus

What about low-res now? I'm sure that very many people would agree that despite lost detail, lower one is still very cute

Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens · Sat 22/12/2007 14:14:32

Yeah, why not compare some games with really striking low-res backgrounds, like Kyrandia or Simon the Sorcerer? You can knock either series as much as you like, but they had some fantastic backgrounds.

http://www.abandonia.com/games/pt/356/images/games/Simon%20the%20Sorcerer2.png

Galen · Sat 22/12/2007 14:25:04

Except the gigantic garden part, the art on that was horribly lacking in proper contrast.

joelphilippage · Sat 22/12/2007 14:49:59

I'm not saying low-res games are bad. I think there still great. Maybe It's just that I like high-res styles because I grew up with later games like CMI and King's Quest VII since those were some of the only ones out. If I had started playing low-res games, I might have liked them better. But with speed, It's probably just which way you like better. If I draw a picture without lines to follow, It takes me about twice as long as without them. This may change with a different artist. As for animations, you could always use a 3d program like I did for raven which didn't take that long at all. I think Ali used this same technique for Nelly Cootalot and I thought those animations looked really smooth.

Renal Shutdown · Sat 22/12/2007 19:29:13

I've had various 3d programs for years. I'm yet to figure out how to make an odd-shaped box. Truth is, the things baffle the hell out of me.

As for speed of making artwork, I'm currently attempting to experiment with vectored, cartoon sprites for a hi-res game. It's not going as easy as I expected it would. Walkcycles that would've been simpler in lo-res are just becoming a painful process. It's taken me about 8 attempts over 3 days so far to figure out the basic sketch-work for left and down walks. The character's using a deformed and exagerated structure, so everything has to be in the right places or it will look like it will topple over at any moment.

If I was using lo-res, I could fudge together the basics and nudge some pixels here and there until it worked. Hi-res, and it means I'm redrawing whole frames, just to decide at the end that it doesn't look right. However, with pixel-pushing, I'm a fuss pot, and would spend days working on the shading and features of a 1 frame sprite pose, only to find that it's a bit too big or small, and looks horrid on a background.

Personally, I'm going with the hi-res option as I can probably churn out things faster in the long run (each attempt is getting better, and I'm getting better at the actual drawing part of it too). Truth is, I prefer the look of lo-res, but it'd take me forever to do anything. That said, when it comes to shading the sprites I might make another U'turn. Then several more when it comes to backgrounds. I'm still not sure whether to use MIDI or ogg files for the music, either. Both of those have their own advantages and disadvantages, too.

Hm.. when I started this reply, I had a specific point to make, but I seem to have lost my train of thought. Er.. Bye, I think.

ManicMatt · Sat 22/12/2007 21:06:08

I like MI2 graphics AND MI3 graphics! MI2 has charm and MI3 looks lovely.