btw, when AGS is going to feature 1024x768 resolution?
(This thread was split from here (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=21373.0).)
why? are you making a Sims fangame? ;)
AGS was originally for reproducing 90's adventure games. there may be other game creators out there that support it, but for ags, not anytime in the near future. I also suggest searching the forums, as this has been discussed, and while im at it, I will remind people that the beta threads are for bug reports and CJ-I love you threads only, no suggestions, as stated at the beginning of the thread.
Quote from: Scummbuddy on Wed 20/07/2005 16:35:49
why? are you making a Sims fangame? ;)
AGS was originally for reproducing 90's adventure games. there may be other game creators out there that support it, but for ags, not anytime in the near future. I also suggest searching the forums, as this has been discussed, and while I'm at it, I will remind people that the beta threads are for bug reports and CJ-I love you threads only, no suggestions, as stated at the beginning of the thread.
well.. i knwo the rules (i'm admin on two forums and host 3 forums myself, so i know how this could be undesarable), but i just wondered. If you can point me to that thread, i want to discuss this issue again there without spaming this thread. I think that AGS is losing plenty of game developers, that want to work for high-res. I know oldscool quests and retro games. But noone says retro game can't be made in hi-res. It's just the way you implement the game's technique. Not the type of screen resolution you have.
Scummbuddy, I'm also interested in this discussion and did a search but couldn't find the thread... could you linky-link? I know I could have PMd you, but I figure it's community service this way. Everyone gets to see it, and all.
Quote from: strazer on Thu 21/07/2005 01:23:15
Is there a reason why the room interactions are called "Player enters screen (before fadein)" and so on?
I imagine it would be a little less confusing for beginners if these would be called "Player enters room (before fadein)".
Actually I had wondered about that also, for years. I just didn't care to ask. :=
Quote from: Cyberion on Wed 20/07/2005 16:27:58
btw, when AGS is going to feature 1024x768 resolution?
Well, AGS
did support 1024x768 in some ancient versions (900x600 displayed area actually), later removed since few games really
need it and it was real slow (AGS wasn't very optimized at that time).
But we have 800x600 now, and I don't see how that's not enough. Remember, 320x2*0 is hi-resolution, 640x4*0 is super hi-resolution, 800x600 is ultra hi-resolution...
800x600 is fairly low res to me... Most 2d adventures today are released for 1024x768... I'd like it because I draw by graphics high res, and they do look quite a lot blurrier at 800x600.
Wintermute does high resolutions though, and if only a few people want high res there's no reason to stick it in AGS. Give Wintermute a go if resolution is a problem for you.
Ok, since the discussion found it's way here, here are my two cents. I'd like to be able to use 1024x768 graphics. Not right now, mind you, and maybe not even me, but I might use it some day. That's what I like about AGS - we can actually dream it first and do it later, because everything we need to make it is there. So the less limitations the better. And this is such a pithy limitation - surely it would not be that non-trivial to add that resolution? And the "change engines if you need more" argument, while essentially good, is flawed in this way: most of us have gotten used to AGS, and love it. I tried WinterMute for one minute, then deleted it. I just can't work on it, I'm too used to AGS. And isn't it reasonable to ask for AGS improvements instead of switching engines? Plus, I get the opinion that AGS is considered a "retro game" maker, and WinterMute is considered a "more modern game maker". And that's usually said in an unfavourable light towards AGS. And what's more, the main reason for that is not even the fact that WinterMute allows 2.5D games, but the fact that it allows for higher resolutions and makes use of 3D hardware for 2D adventures (which is a bit silly, but that's just IMHO). I really dislike people disliking AGS on principle and just because that very reason.
Besides, AGS has been pretty optimized since the 900x600 days, as Gilbot hinted at. I mean, it even supports 32bit color now. It's such a small issue, really, that could be quite good for AGS' image in the long run. Looks much better in the feature list than "320x240, 640x480, 800x600".
One more thing, and this regards Scummbuddy's "sims fan game" comment, but not exclusively (there have been many of that kind of arguments) - ain't versatility the beauty of AGS? Not everyone uses it to make adventure games or a "classic-style adventure", and a much more modern style adventure is very, very much possible. That's what we love about it. Mind you, I don't see how a smaller resolution can stop anyone from doing it anyway and so fail to see the connection, but there you go.
I'd love to have 1024x768 resolution. Right now I just use alpha channel to try to fake it. 640x480 is nice and all, but still, I'd love to have something higher, especially with all these LCD monitors that really only display high resolutions the best. (Apprentice is sorta blurry on my monitor in full-screen mode)
/me is working with a 14" moniter, which can render him blind if he runs a 1024*768 game.
I'll be needing 1280x1024 then as that's what my LCD likes ;)
be quite interesting to see who asked for 800x600 and how many of them are making a game with it / completed a game with it
also my laptop is only 800x600 and i play a fair few games on that ¬¬
the question isn't "what's monitor's resolution you have". The question is to give AGS a feature for 1024x768 graphics.
AGS loses some advanced game developers just cause of it's limitation on 1024x768 res. If a team can draw and make nice backgrounds and chars for 1024x768 and they make... than they have no other option than resize their game to 800x600 or to switch to another engine. Wintermute is an option for them.
But guys, AGS much better for me for example. Why it can't support this modern resolution? Just cause AGS for pixilized games? or 1024x768 is for freaks, we hate it and thus won't implement? It's a silly question actualy.
800x600 has no use for the game making. Cause actualy they games vary from 320x200 (240) 640x400 (480) and 1024x768.
Game developers rarely used 800x600 cause it gives almost unnoticable sharpness to the image but requires much more space than 640x480 images. Thus if they aimed for very detailed graphics they used 1024x768.
That's really a stupid question if AGS should have or not that res. IT MUST HAVE! simply just to compite with other engine and attaract more developers to AGS community.
The only question that may arise (and thus we need Puma here to give us some info) is engine optimised enough and is it code-wise (without making it unstable) to implement 1024x768 resolution?
I think you'd lost some of the points here.
AGS began more like a hobby project I suppose, it's not going to compete with other engines, and it's not of major importance if it'll attract more users, people will just join and use it if they want to.
Having 1024x768 is a nice feature, but not mandatory, just give Cj his own time, I'm sure he'll implement just anything if he sees fit and have the time to do so.
Quote from: Cyberion on Thu 21/07/2005 13:01:41
the question isn't "what's monitor's resolution you have". The question is to give AGS a feature for 1024x768 graphics.
Ah yes, but the moment this is added we will have someone 'needing' higher res.
Quote
AGS loses some advanced game developers just cause of it's limitation on 1024x768 res. If a team can draw and make nice backgrounds and chars for 1024x768 and they make... than they have no other option than resize their game to 800x600 or to switch to another engine. Wintermute is an option for them.
We're not in competition with other engines, so it doesn't matter really if we 'lose' some developers, we don't crave to have everyone using AGS.
Personally, i want CJ to do a lot of the tracker stuff that ags needs before even considering higher resolutions.
I would also like 1024x768, but I do respect the resistance. AGS is a retro game engine and that's fine. Wintermute offers more effects that are modern game related. The thing is I would really want to work with high resolution, but I wouldn't want to switch engines and communities. The Wintermute community in my opinion doesn't compare to the AGS community in any way. This place seems to be more popular, professional and organized. And if there's this silent disagreement between the two communities, I really wouldn't want to be in both equally.
Wintermute has had hardware acceleration from the start, and that is something that AGS lacks. Because of this WME can handle higher resolutions without the same speed issues that might arise with AGS... if you want to make an adventure game in a higher resolution than 800x600 then use Wintermute. It makes sense.
Anyone doing a non-commercial game in high res needs to be aware of the very large file sizes that will arise too. Higher resolutions are not always better!
1024x768 has two major problems:
1. Performance. AGS does not use 3D acceleration and so it would require quite a fast system to work well at that resolution. There's also no half-size resolution (512x384 is supported on some monitors/gfx cards, but not many) to enable people with slower PC's to play it downsized.
2. File size. The vast majority of AGS games are distributed on the internet. At 1024x768 the file size of the graphics gets even larger and starts to get difficult to distribute.
Technically speaking, adding support for 1024x768 wouldn't be particularly difficult. But has anyone actually made a game at 800x600 yet? The simple fact is that the vast majority of people don't have the artistic skills to need the higher resolution, and the vast majority of players have a 15/17" monitor on which you can hardly tell the difference anyway.
Anyway it's possible, but I'm just concerned that if it was added it would be followed up by "1024x768 is too slow" complaints which may not be easy to rectify.
Well, if 800x600 would have been available when I started developing on AGS, I'd use it. The same with 1024x768... :-[
I'm not really sure that AGS should be considered "a retro game engine". AGS can be used to make games that are excellent even by today's standards. Just because it started off as a way for people to make games like the old Sierra & LucasArts games doesn't by any means make this a "retro game engine". To define it as such would be a derrogatory statement. It is true that AGS can be used to make "retro" games, but that does not mean that AGS is designed nor capable of making soley retro games. Just because it cannot support resolutions above 800x600 does not make it a bad engine. At home my parents won't let me set the screen resolution to above 800x600 because the size of our monitor. This does not necessarily mean that I am using a "retro" monitor. No more than AGS is a retro engine. In fact, AGS is designed more around the amateur game maker than the professional game designer, and many of said amateur game makers do not have the skills, resources, and/or time to create such large graphics. But this does not mean that they are making a retro game simply because they fail to use a larger resolution.
Well...I'm done for tonight. I could go on, but I won't.
Quote
1. Performance
2. File size
CJ, I can appreciate your first point about peformance but I disagree with you about file size. Although what you say is true for typical adventure game situations it is not necessarily true for game projects that are not typical adventure games. For example, file size would hardly be a consideration and would be of benefit in one or two room games, in non-adventure type games such as puzzles or in non-games such as my EventTimer (http://gaia-spa.com/blusoft/Projects/EventTimer/eventtimer.html).
So if you ever see your way clear of the performance issue (and since you say that it's not a technical problem for you) then by all means please allows us the flexibility. As always I trust your good sense in this matter. ;)
Is this thread too old for us to talk about this manner?
I don't actually care much about that high res, I'll never probably end up using anything above 640x480. I like making pixel art from 320x240, and I do what I like doing. I might try a hi-res pixel arty project, dunno... but I'll never go over that, unless I for some reason get into 3D modeling or something to that effect...
Quote from: Alias on Mon 25/07/2005 11:36:05
Is this thread too old for us to talk about this manner?
'scusemoi?
I think AGS is at the level where commercial games can be created. 1024x768 resolution isn't an unusually high resolution at all compared to what's out there. A lot of people use LCD monitors, and those generally support higher resolutions better -- for example if I run a 320x200 game on my computer it's all blurry.
I think people (including me) would use 1024x768, resolutions shouldn't be limited because the higher resolutions aren't "retro."
Anyways, ultimately it's CJ's call. I do feel rather unfair making demands. :)
Quote from: Geoffkhan on Mon 25/07/2005 23:58:27
I think people (including me) would use 1024x768, resolutions shouldn't be limited because the higher resolutions aren't "retro.''
Thats my point, Wintermute supports 1024x768 and higher & lower resolutions, the only thing that prevents me from moving towards Wintermute is that Wintermute programming is more difficult than AGS.
CJ, will there ever be a higher resolution such as 1024x768, most people in this world use 1024x768 as a default resolution unless you're running a old PC, but the point is to make a high res game for the people with the hi res capacity.
The main reason I want the new resolution 1024x768, is because my latest game has some rather cool and unique Guis that work at 1024x768, if I were to sizze them down they would look a bit horrid, although its possible but I really want the game to look decent, not pixelized guis.
Pretty please with a cherry on top? I'll even mail you a cherry. :P
It's a logical suggestion, but I've yet to see people use 800x600...
Quote from: Edmundo on Tue 26/07/2005 20:29:32
It's a logical suggestion, but I've yet to see people use 800x600...
I've considered using 800x600, but it's a rather 'odd' resolution, if you know what I mean. I rarely see it in use, most people just go to 1024x768.
I'm currently using a 800x600 screen resolution on windows, and not by choice :P
I don't see 800x600 as an 'odd' resolution, iirc it was the most common desktop res a few years ago, and it's a square pixel resolution with nice round numbers for dimensions, a litle higher than dvd resolution and not very pixelly looking on a small-medium monitor. But 1024x768 is standard these days... if it's little effort to support it then I don't think there is any harm in doing so... limiting the choice of resolution articifially doesn't make much sense to me, there hasn't been a big problem with people using 800x600 when they don't need to so far, and I don't think there would be for 1024x768.
Then again, it probably would only be used for a handful of games, if it's more than a few hours work then I don't think it's worth it...
512x384 is supported on all the graphics cards I've had recently.. but support for that's not a big issue really, people developing for 1024x268 aren't going to be the kind of people targetting the lower end.
Yeah, I guess there's no harm in supporting it as an option. I'll bear it in mind, but obviously it's not going to be a high priority task.
If 1024x768 were implemented, I promise to you CJ that By the Sword would utilize it to its fullest. I was originally planning on releasing BTS on CDs anyway, but with sprite compression and all that jazz, that may not be necessary. ;)