Game resolution. I guess it's always a current topic, especially when using AGS and it's dedication to retro graphical style.
But how low can we go? Are tiny screens like 320x200 still valid or is it a sign of clinging to something that shouldn't exist anymore?
The cheapest possible screen nowadays has way too many pixels to display 320x200 in a reasonable size. After a few minutes I get sore muscles around my eyes from all the squinting.
Making it fullscreen brings up other issues. Like text being so big, that all the head turning makes it feel like watching a tennis match.
I notice that I give up on those games after a few minutes. the small resolutions just takes too much of my energy to concentrate on the game.
An option like "Zoom 2x" in the winsetup.exe might do wonders (or changing the screen resolution itself).
What do you think about this? Is there still a place for those tiny resolutions? Where is your limit? Is it only used as a statement like "There! I'm using 320x200 to show you all how cool and retro I am!" or do you see good reasons for it?
the reason I post this is that I just gave up Annie Android (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/1128/) because of the resolution … and it seemed such a wonderful game!
that said: i love to play those tiny resolution AGS games on my psp (thanks JJS for giving that device new purpose (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=43998) in my home). So Annie … here I come!
Let's ask this in another fashion. Is there a good reason for hi resolution games?
Playing a game like Minecraft or something with very low polygon models, opposed to Crysis, is the same as what we're doing with low resolution games opposed to a hi res 2D equivalent. We want to create games with the blocky style.
Games like Minecraft or all the new "pixelly" style games are in a very strong position of popularity right now. Everyone is still craving those styles because of A: it leaves more for your imagination B: it's the nostalgic trip of remembering old-school games. Or whatever other reasons.
I don't think it's something that should die. It's just something that should be easier handled with AGS and the monitors of today.
QuoteAn option like "Zoom 2x" in the winsetup.exe might do wonders (or changing the screen resolution itself).
Is this a suggestion? AGS currently has this - unless you're playing an older AGS game which only has the 640x400 or 640x480 zoom.
LOL
There IS a 2x option in winsetup, and a 3x option, and there's even the newer 4x option. Annie Android in fact already has the 4x option, although it's already four years old. The option is called "Graphics filter".
I used to play games at 3x, but since I finally got a big flatscreen I always use 4x, which lets me play the lowres games @ 1280x800 / 1280x960.
Even very old games can be played with a 2x or 3x setting using the 2.72 acwin.exe.
Also: no. 320 is great.
The only thing that kind of worries/bugs me about most games made in AGS is the lack of 16:9 games that I can't play full screen without the black lines on the sides. Many may like the retro pixelated look (me included), but fact is you are not, most likely, even able to buy 4:3 monitors any more.
But 320x200 isn't 4:3, it's 16:10, which is pretty close. I have like 2cms black on each side when I play a 320x200 game fullscreen. Case in point, Annie Android is 16:10 / 320x200.
NO
Quote from: Snake on Thu 27/06/2013 00:57:19
NO
You tell'em Snake.
Personally I don't really care what res a game is in. I rarely look at the resolution before downloading (though I usually have some idea from the screenshots). Some games are pretty, some are not so pretty. That goes for games of all resolutions. Unlike many here, it was not the Monkey Islands and Fates of Atlantises that got me into adventures. It was probably the PlayStation demo of Broken Sword 2 which I believe was 640x480.
I definitely don't advocate abandoning 320x200. It's a design choice and some great games are still being made in it.
Yeah, I kind of prefer good pixel art over good higher-res art.
Here's an AHK script (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=48233.0) I'm working on to display low-res games optimally without changing resolution.
I wish AGS supported custom resolutions. Modern monitors could fit 455x256 at 3x or something like that, it might be interesting to do a low-res game with a somewhat bigger canvas.
Just imagine the games Ben304 would be making if he could do unusual perspectives like 100x400. I could see him doing it.
I could totally fake this by making a 640x400 game and putting black boxes over all but the middle 100 pixels...
The new 3.3.0 has even x8 zoom just in case :).
Also, I should perhaps remind that the new version of the engine can run old games of versions >= 2.50.
More info here: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=47966.0 (see "Backward Compatibility" section).
NO!
Any resolution shouldn't be banned. Developers should be free to use whatever resolution they like. Plus, its not very easy to create high-res backgrounds for many of us and that's where 320x200 resolution fits in nicely.
Its not about showing "How cool I am! I use 320x200!". Its just about showing that one feels comfortable in using this resolution.
I have also played Annie The Andriod and it displays good (no black sides) on my monitor.
Hence, once again... : NO!
Quote from: san.daniele on Thu 27/06/2013 00:20:01
But how low can we go? Are tiny screens like 320x200 still valid or is it a sign of clinging to something that shouldn't exist anymore?
Some of the most popular indie games, both within AGS and without, use 320x200.
Bearing in mind that AGS doesn't really support any high resolutions, taking away low resolutions would leave no resolutions at all.
If low-res was in some way hindering HD, then there might be an argument for dropping it. But in reality it would be a step backwards to lose low resolutions.
What, is 320x200 going out of fashion? Since this community is all about cutting edge technology and keeping up to date, and not at all about deliberately pursuing a style that we happen to find aesthetically appealing, we should immediately rectify this by making sure AGS can only produce stuff that looks good on 50" plasma screens, unfiltered.
We should also notify collectors of old stamps that we now have email, in case they're not aware of how backwards they are.
so that's what the "Graphic Filter" in the setup is for!
I'm not touching anything that has a "potential performance problem" warning label on it with a 10 foot pole, as this machine doesn't run natively on windows. Lesson learned (and once more made a fool out of myself).
I guess, "zoom" didn't fall under "filter" in my limited english vocabulary.
IMO that pretty much makes this topic redundant, as I completely agree with everyone about the charm of low res graphics. Hell, from ny own 320x200 will be the resolution I'm going to work with on every game.
Maybe there's a point in renaming "Graphic filter" to "Scaling filter"?
Generic "Graphic filter" gives thoughts about shaders and screen effects.
Maybe 'filter' is not particularly helpful either, from a player's perspective.
I agree that the label "graphic filter" always seemed to indicate something different than what it actually does.
Quote from: Ali on Thu 27/06/2013 13:54:37
Maybe 'filter' is not particularly helpful either, from a player's perspective.
Scaling mode?
Scaling?
Good idea with the question mark, Crimson. ;)
If possible, we could add a blue question mark like this: Scaling [?]
Which will popup a small description if you hover over it.
It's useful, but if you add question marks you should also consider adding them to different buttons.
Call me old fashioned geezer, but I actually like low-res graphics better than hi-res. And I think it's much easier to draw and animate with it. But I'm no expert :)
Pixels <3
On a more serious note, do we have a majority aversion to 320x240? I've always preferred having the square(ish) aspect ratio, backgrounds feel more cosy :=
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Thu 27/06/2013 16:15:38
If possible, we could add a blue question mark like this: Scaling [?]
Which will popup a small description if you hover over it.
But there IS a description, right under the option. :-\
We may advise the developers to "urge" the players to use Graphic Filter option in their readme.txt file but most of them do that already :-\
Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Thu 27/06/2013 23:19:31
But there IS a description, right under the option. :-\
when I checked random games I have here, I only found: "note: using a filter can …and-so-on… performance problems.".
Then I realized that new games have a real 'description'. looking at the file age it like the change happened at some point in 2012.
With that I don't see an immediate need to change the word 'filter' to 'scaling'.
Maybe change the wording slightly? (keep in mind that by no standard my English grammar is good)
this is how what it shows in 3.2.1:
QuoteGraphics filters can help you to get low-resolution games running well on high-resolution monitors.
the "running well" seems vague to me. And is the 'can help you' needed? how about this?
QuoteGraphics filters increase the (insert appropriate word here. size? screen size? window size?).
come to think of it: maybe a description isn't even needed. would renaming it to something like 'Window Scaling' be enough?
Quote from: san.daniele on Fri 28/06/2013 00:02:41
QuoteGraphics filters can help you to get low-resolution games running well on high-resolution monitors.
the "running well" seems vague to me. And is the 'can help you' needed? how about this?
I agree. I also never saw this text (and I actually looked at the setup before I posted that suggestion). Our minds can easily skim over things that aren't grouped together. I still agree with the idea the [?] hovering box and removing that cluttering text. The setup file needs to be reorganized really. It looks pretty clunky. Perhaps I'll look at making a Photoshop rework. Does the setup file easily allow for all form controls and such?
Quote from: san.daniele on Fri 28/06/2013 00:02:41
when I checked random games I have here, I only found: "note: using a filter can …and-so-on… performance problems.".
I don't suppose that's true any more on contemporary systems :)
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Fri 28/06/2013 00:44:26The setup file needs to be reorganized really. It looks pretty clunky. Perhaps I'll look at making a Photoshop rework. Does the setup file easily allow for all form controls and such?
Winsetup is integrated in the engine and is written with WinAPI using basic Windows controls.