Hello,
I work on a really decay game. AGS seems to be for it the perfect programm, but unfortunately with a small problem: I find it good, which now is possible it in your pin to adjust 32Bit. It is only unfortunate, which one cannot adjust dissolution of 1024x768. Couldn't be built in the next version? That would genuinly be perfect.
Bye, Daniel.
hmm? maybe you are talking about resolution?
1024x768 support is not planned for the foreseeable future, I'm afraid.
Nor should it ever be implemented. Quite useless if you ask me. 800x600 was stretching it. :)
Please don't poison an otherwise harmless thread with opinions. :P
Quote from: terranRICH on Tue 11/11/2003 22:33:58
Nor should it ever be implemented. Quite useless if you ask me. 800x600 was stretching it. :)
hmmm... clearer, crisper picture... yep totally useless
The point is that it doesn't improve the crispness and clarity enough to justify the size increased and technical demands it places on the PC.
Quote from: remixor on Thu 13/11/2003 14:49:20
The point is that it doesn't improve the crispness and clarity enough to justify the size increased and technical demands it places on the PC.
I agree, at this current time... perhaps, AGS would need a great revamp in order to play 1024x768 rooms at a decent fps on low end machines.
I was simply replying to the "Nor should it ever be implemented." quote.
I mean c'mon, lets be a little open minded about the future of AGS.
If we all want AGS to evolve into something other than what it was originally meant for, then sure by all means it should be implemented.
Wasn't AGS originally developed to let users create games in the style of LEC/Sierra 1990's adventure games? None of them at that time had 1024x768 resolution. And not too many of them had 800x600 res either. In fact, 640x480 was considered high-res in 1996/97 I believe.
I was only half-serios with the "nor should it ever be implemented" part. It would be a nice addition, but useless to 90% of us. :)
AGS's architecture is currently not really up to the job of 1024x768, it would run rather slowly I imagine. It's not something that we should rule out though because anything's possible.
Remember back when AGS first came out? It only supported 320x200 at 256 colours, and I'm sure back then some people said "that's fine, it's the classic resolution, we don't need any higher res or colour depth" :)
Of course, the other factor being that my monitor's maximum resolution is 800x600 so there's no way I'd be able to test 1024x768 support anyway :P
The notation that AGS is suitable for LEC style late 80's early 90's sierra/lucus games has obviously changed and evolved over the past couple of years as you stated.
As you may or may not know im currently rooting for 24bit support, my game is dependant on it... i'll soon be posting some screens in the game dev forum and you'll see why.
I see AGS being the difinitive adventure game creator, from LEC style to the present (runaway: a rode adventure...) and who knows down the track maybe even 3D (here comes the hate mail).
And don't get me wrong... i adore the classics more than most.
I think it was bill gates who once said "no one will ever need more than 1 meg of RAM"
:P
Just think if adventure games made a mass comeback on the mainstream market, developers might even use AGS?? think of the licensing fee's CJ, you could buy yourself a brand spanking new monitor!
Quote from: Nixxon (IbeX) on Thu 13/11/2003 15:54:49I see AGS being the difinitive adventure game creator, from LEC style to the present (runaway: a rode adventure...) and who knows down the track maybe even 3D (here comes the hate mail).
Well, no offense, but your view isn't really the commonly held one or from what I can tell the one held by the author of the engine himself. If he isn't even feasably ABLE to add higher resolution support (such as that used in Runaway), it's not even a option. And as far as I'm aware, Runaway IS the only adventure game (ever) to use such a high resolution, so it's not as if there's even any standard there to live up to. And far as 3d goes, I'm not going to send you hate mail, but you do realize that the AGS architecture would have to be essentially rewritten from the ground up, right? I mean, it wouldn't make sense. It would be much more practical just to create a whole new program, or use an existing one.
Yeh i'm sorry, twas a bit extreme I know.
Quite silly really, just trying to enthuse certain aspects of AGS development.
BTW my apple core is still on offer for the 24bit addition.
Well, I could add 1024x768 support but it would probably require a monster system to run at a decent speed. I may be wrong there, but I suspect that would be the case.
The most important consideration is file size - most people distribute their AGS games over the internet, and using 1024x768 would lead to a huge file size for even a short game.
Oh, and IbeX, you might want to check out the latest beta.
WoooO!!! I'm there!
Personally I don't think i'd use 1024x768 in any case, it shouldn't be treated as an immediate "to do" entity.
Was simply defending the notation of graphical progress.
Runs off to grab beta...
EDIT -
OH MY GOD CJ, i want to have your child!
*Presents apple core of gratification*
Amazing stuff, I am now at eternal peace.
"Of course, the other factor being that my monitor's maximum resolution is 800x600 so there's no way I'd be able to test 1024x768 support anyway "
Dude, I willl like, buy you a monitor if we can get 1024x768, and I would so pay to license AGS if it was capable of higher resolutions.
And i'm sure I'm not the only one, I bet more than half of us would be willing to chip in to buy you a monitor.
I think that AGS is up to the standards where a commercial game can be created with it. 1024*768 is good, but not necessary and it isn't worth the effort yet imo.
I haven't yet been convinced of the need for 1024x768. If someone can demonstrate a game that would look noticably better at 1024x768 than 800x600, I might consider looking into it. But for now, it's really a non-essential feature in my mind I'm afraid.
I could demonstrate it looked better.. if you could play a game at that res on your monitor :P
But I don't think it's really a viable option to have graphics that high res in ags, unless in the future it uses a more compressed graphics format internally. File sizes would be just too big imo.
But for most people who really really want it right now!! I'd say use 800x600, on a 15 inch monitor there is little difference, spend more time on the graphics you're doing at that res and it could look great, it's higher than anything you'd see on a DVD or a console game, so don't think it's bad just because you can play 3d games at 1600x1200.
Let's take an example and apply it: Myst.
Myst is beautiful. 800x600 is great for any adventure game. Even 100 years in the future, we will STILL be using 800x600... but it will probably be a clear 3-D sphere monitor... with holograms.
Yeah, Chris, when are we going to get the applet with the ability to do holographic figures. I mean, come on, I only asked for that back on the DOS versions.
And as for Myst, that adventured everyone out. It single handedly killed the very genre that we are trying to bring back, with this early-90's engine adventure creator. When Myst came in, it sold well over a million copies. Now then when everyone quit playing it after the 3rd hour, they figured, this was boring or I can't think this abstractly, and I'm never buying another adventure game again.
or something like that.
Quote800x600...[is] higher than anything you'd see on a DVD or a console game
Very true; DVDs have 748x512 resolution if I'm not mistaken, and I believe the 64-bit consoles used 640x480 resolution. So yeah, 800x600 should be good enough for most projects. There was a need for 32-bit (or at least 24-bit) because hi-color graphics in 16-bit would either be dithered or gradiented. Not having that better feature caused graphical problems. There are no problems with 800x600 IMHO, so it should be more than fine. :)