640*480 or 640*400?

[Llama Val]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum, but it didn't seem to fit in the beginners technical questions forum.

I am just a little bit confused about what screen resolution I want for my game. What is the standard used? How will presentation of the game be affected by choosing one over the other of these different resolutions? I get the impression that most games (that use this resolution) use 640*400. Am I correct? And what is the reasoning for this?

Thanks.

[GarageGothic]

Go with 640x400 - that way your game won't stretch on widescreen monitors and can be letterboxed on regular 4:3 monitors.

[Ubel]

I think 640x400 is used mostly because adventure game players are used to the widescreen resolution, as it was used in the old classic games. Also, as GG mentioned, it's useful for those players who have widescreen monitors.

[Snarky]

Back in the day, Pablo, 640x400 (or actually 320x200) wasn't a "widescreen" resolution. It was meant to fill the whole of the 4:3 screen, with pixels that were slightly vertically stretched. That's why ScummVM has an aspect ratio correction setting. (The reason why it's off in the first place is that 320*200=64,000, which fits nicely in 64K of memory, while the more correct 320x240 would require another memory chip in the video card.)

Nowadays, it would be silly to design the graphics that way (since people on LCD screens can't even perform the stretch, among other things).

[Pumaman]

Nowadays, it would be silly to design the graphics that way (since people on LCD screens can't even perform the stretch, among other things).

Actually, nowadays with the spread of widescreen monitors it makes sense to go back to the 640x400 resolution, since it's a native widescreen resolution. Yes, this wasn't the original intention behind the resolution's existance, but it's quite a good idea since it provides a good aspect ratio for widescreen monitors, and can be easily letterboxed on 4:3 monitors.

[Snarky]

Yeah, nothing against the resolution as a widescreen resolution. I just meant that it would be silly to design the graphics to be stretched to a non-square pixel aspect-ratio.

[Snake]

Hm, I'm glad this was brought up.

I'm a fan of 320x200, myself, and I'm designing LE for 320x240 resolution. The sole reason behind choosing this is so the backgrounds don't get clogged with GUIs. The extra 40 pixels on bottom give me enough room for the main GUI in the game (hence the red line and blackbox in the screenies).

I'm sure there are more and more widescreen monitor's being used now days, so, with this whole "widescreen" thing being discussed, should I be concerned, or should everything be fine?

[Layabout]

I don't think it matters. A lot of people on displays larger than 15.4 inch will play your games in a window instead of full screen, since it allows the easy flippage of windows. Duel-displayers like myself can have porn open on one screen and your game in the other. I knew multitasking in OS's had a reason for its existence.

I like widescreen, but I also like your idea Snake.

Just remember, with most screens you can force windows to have fixed aspect ratios, so 320x240 (4:3) games will maintain square aspect ratios (with black bars at the sides) on 16:10 screens.

[Anian]

Damn you widescreen, that's just not made for pc games, grrr. That's why AGS has that handydandy windowed option.

Vertically bigger screen leaves more room for an inventory and still you can make a 16:9 scene....if that's what you're going for.

[Ponch]

Duel-displayers like myself can have porn open on one screen and your game in the other.

But that's how you're supposed to run every application, right? MS Word on one screen, Barely Legal Japan on the other. Editing the Wikipedia entry on 8 Track tapes on one screen, hard core barnyard s/m on the other. Hell, I can't conceive of how I could put together a Barn Runner game if I didn't have mud wrestling midgets on the screen next to it!

[Llama Val]

Interesting, I didn't know the reasons why any particular resolution were ever chosen. Nor had I yet thought about the fact that many people play in a window (I can't focus on just a small window, with other things happening on the rest of the screen), or that most screens these days are widescreen.

Thank you greatly for the help.

[Layabout]

Generally if you can't draw, probably best to stick to 320x2xx resolutions, as it shows more the higher the resolution you choose.

[Hudders]

Generally if you can't draw, probably best to stick to 320x2xx resolutions, as it shows more the higher the resolution you choose.

That's a bit misleading. I hope you're not saying that all 320x200 games are badly drawn. 

Personally I think it's far more difficult to make something look good at lower resolutions. Small flaws are hidden in higher resolutions but become more obvious the lower you go, (because the flaw then takes up more of the image).

[Snake]

I agree with Hudders, Lay. I think it's just a personal taste with choosing a low resolution like 320x2xx. I choose low res only because I love it. I think the graphics look richer, more atmospheric. Although, you're not mistaken that lots of people have chosen low res (I'm sure) because they lack the ability to draw (without making it look like they did it on purpose anyway).

And thanks for liking my idea.

It may be just me, but I can't stand people playing low res games in a window (if they don't have to, that is). I think they are missing so much of the immersion part of it. Story put aside, like NotTheRealVal said, it's too distracting while in windowed mode - too many things in the background to steal the players' attention.

I like full-screen since it feels more like you are more involved and are really there looking at the particular scene..