I'd like to voice my opinion about the size of the screenshots people post for their games. They are small. I understand that they are the size of the game's resolution, but honestly...if my desktop res is 1152x864, and I have a 17-inch monitor, a 320x200 picture will not tell me what it will look like on my monitor. When I release screenshots for my game, I will scale them up so everyone can see what they truly look like in all their pixelated glory.
well 19" monitor and 1280 1024 and 320 200 is fine, you can always use operas zoom function :D
1. you can open the screenshots in your own graphics editor and zoom in
2. You can post and image on the forum and alter the size for example
(img width=800 height=600) thapicture (/img)
Also, not everyone has a res of 1152x864 -- most have a smaller res.
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 02/11/2003 14:50:32
Also, not everyone has a res of 1152x864 -- most have a smaller res.
Like 1024x768?
The only people I see who still use 800x600 are my barely computer literate grandparents.
I use 800x600 on this PC, so watch it.
8)
my laptop is 800 600 and i believe CJ uses 800 600 :P
Yes, I use 800x600 too. I agree that a 320x200 screenshot is a bit small - posting it at 640x480 is probably the best size, since it's not too big so that people like us have to scroll around it; but it's big enough that everyone can see it.
800x600 :P
I use 800x600.
Stone him!!
I use 800x600 whenever possible.
Maybe, since larger pics might look not too good sometimes, it would be a good idea to post the normal 320X200 and also a link to a bigger version. Or the other way around. :P
I use 800x600 on my laptop... the only computer I Work with.
The system from Dima's website is good ;D
First, click this to get language right:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/dima/setlang.php?lang=en
then go here:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/dima/projects.php?game=2&page=4
and click on one of the shots.
800x600, mostly because I am nearsighted, my monitor is 16" and weighs like 60 pounds, and I cant afford a new new one. My father just got a 22" liquid flat-screen and still uses 1024x768 which is still large. And if it upsets you so much go get Pixel-Zoom...
Okay, so more people use 800x600 than I think. Personally, I think it makes desktop icons way too big and makes antialiasing tough as hell, but some people don't mind. However, when I post screenshots, I will make them at least 800x600, even though my current project is 640x400. But I plan to take advantage of fast hardware with my games, so I'm sorry if my big five screen wide 3200x400 rooms slow your computer down.
I am using 800x600 now, it is already a very high resolution.
I use 1024x768
Good enough for me. Everything seems so damned big and in the way if I use anything smaller.
--Snake
Quote from: Ytterbium on Sun 02/11/2003 22:34:43But I plan to take advantage of fast hardware with my games, so I'm sorry if my big five screen wide 3200x400 rooms slow your computer down.
Well, I'm sorry if nobody plays your game.
1280 x 1024 here ... you're all so small ... I should move to the States ;)
1400x1050, baby!
Quote from: remixor on Mon 03/11/2003 10:04:29
1400x1050, baby!
What kind of whacked-up weirdo rez is that? :P
It's the one I use.
When I have nothing better to do, I set my desktop to 200x1430-2320+2x800, and play some old FPS... Like Doom. Great 3D effects! :D
I usually zoom in (in opera) to view low res screenshots so they are more or less actual size, that means at 1024x768 I zoom to 320% for 320x240 images and 160% for 640x480.
If I'm posting 320x240 res screens then I'll use width= and height= to scale it up 200% just so it's easily visible to most people, I don't think many people still use 640x480 so it shouldn't cause any problems.
Quote from: remixor on Mon 03/11/2003 05:44:42
Quote from: Ytterbium on Sun 02/11/2003 22:34:43But I plan to take advantage of fast hardware with my games, so I'm sorry if my big five screen wide 3200x400 rooms slow your computer down.
Well, I'm sorry if nobody plays your game.
You mean every AGS user besides me has a 200 Mhz Processor?
no, but think of the children! someone think of the children!
1600x1200 ;D
:P 800x600 16bit* here - how could anybody use a higher resolution? It's like, the pixels are so damned SMALL! I like to be able to see the pixels on my screen. Good for nice pixel art. Though, I must spend more time on this computer at 320x200 256col, due to DPaint and my adventure game hoard :). I believe, if you can make it fast, pretty, but blocky, it looks better than slow, sluggish, ugly but smooth graphics :P Like those people who make games that would look better in Lo-Res EGA in hi-colour 800x600.
Damn the lack of there not being a segmented AGS version! I need floppy disks to transfur it to my computer (the 666Mhz, as opposed to the 233Mhz I am using right now)!
Thats the end of my whining! Enjoy the rest of the thread!
*its either that or 640x480 24bit/ 1024x768 8bit. Hehe.
How the shit do you see? Damn my friend uses a projector on his 2 story garage sometimes and he still sets it to 1024x768.
I've got a kickass 19" monitor. As I said, I'm using 1600x1200@75hz 32bit;D...
...or maybe my eyesight is abnormally good...
...or maybe the fact that I have a GeForce 4 Ti4200...
6400x4800 on a 52" screen! Anyone using anything less doesn't deserve to live! ::)
Different people use different resolution, most of the time it's only a matter of need vs desire. I use 1024x764 when using AutoCAD because I wnat to have a lot of things on screen but still need them at a decent size. But on a FPS I'll take frame-rate over resolution anyday.
But as far as screenshot are concerned, many software will help zoom your screen or show images full screen.
52" :o :o :o What kind of screen is that?? How far from it do you sit??
Quote from: Inkoddi on Fri 21/11/2003 17:12:25
52" :o :o :o What kind of screen is that?? How far from it do you sit??
Don't quote me on this, but I think that he may have been joking.
Quote from: Shattered Sponge on Fri 21/11/2003 19:48:42
Quote from: Inkoddi on Fri 21/11/2003 17:12:25
52" :o :o :o What kind of screen is that?? How far from it do you sit??
Don't quote me on this, but I think that he may have been joking.
Nope, I think that might be Bill Gates....... that evil man, looking for a sourcecode to steal again...
Sorry for quoting you :P
I don't understand the advantage of using 800x600 resolution... what am I missing here?
I think you're underestimating how much of an impact high-res/hi-color can have on AGS games. 200 Mhz machines aside, my work PC is 500 Mhz and strains at 640x480x32b with games using the new 2.6 effects. Hell, I'd bet there'd be some jerkiness with a 733. Granted, quite a few of us run faster machines than that but why single out a percentage of users of an already small group?
As for the screenshot-issue, I don't think there's a lot of advantage to posting 800x600 shots. Most people here aren't so graphic-hungry that they need to know that a game's still going to look beautiful in full-screen vs a 640x480 screenshot. Of course, you're free to do as you choose. I just find that screenshots that large seem more like excessive clutter in the forums than anything.
Mostly, in which way do you mean that? 800x600 in games or as a Windows Res? In games, I haven't seen too many that would need that vs. 640x480 and the added slow-down isn't worth the trade-off IMO. As a win-res, some people just prefer it and it does give your system a slightly faster edge speed-wise due to decreased memory requirements.
Well.. 52 inches sounds like a TV. But I don't think that resolution exists..
I use 1024x768.. But I'm gonna try 800x600 to see what the whole fuss is about.
I think resolutions are overrated. I've seen too many people playing Counter-Strike at 1600x1200. Come on, the resolutions of the textures are probably like 256x256! In theory at least, the game looks worse at higher resolution - the edges of the polygons are more clearly visible. Lower resolution smooths out much of the edges.
As far as desktop resolutions go, I think it is reasonable to use something like 1280x1024 on 19" monitor for example (as I do :)). 1600x1200 on 21" monitor is also quite reasonable in my opinion. I, for example, got the idea of getting a bigger monitor with bigger resolution when I used 3D Studio MAX and Photoshop. They're both full of tools and the actual working space gets too small. With hi-poly models you need to be zooming constantly.
By the way, those who use Photoshop with low-resolution - check out what happens when you press tab or letter F.
To the point, finally! As far as the AGS homepage goes - I think 800x600 is still one of the resolutions that need to be considered when making a website. 320x200 size for the images isn't that unreasonable as they're probably the original resolutions of the screenshots plus they don't look too small at 800x600 resolution.
Is there a way to make the whole site (bitmaps included) scale according to the user's resolution?
Quote from: Ytterbium on Sun 02/11/2003 14:52:19
Quote from: DGMacphee on Sun 02/11/2003 14:50:32
Also, not everyone has a res of 1152x864 -- most have a smaller res.
Like 1024x768?
The only people I see who still use 800x600 are my barely computer literate grandparents.
I use 800x600, even though it can be set alot sharper and higher. In my opinion 800x600 is the perfect resolution! :)
I think you forgot about the screen size. I couldn't use 1024x768 on a 15" monitor because it would be a bit too small, and I couldn't use 800x600 on a 17" monitor, because everything would look too big. Using 1024x768 on 17" would make things look about the same size as 800x600 on a 15".
I'm using 1024x768 on 17" and I can't complain about images being too small. Resizing them to bigger resolutions would however also increase file size, and that bloody sucks! (for dial-up users like me)
hmm... im using 1024x768, wich is the maximum my 6 year old 14inch monitor can handle, and im happy with it. 800x600 is good too, but in some cases you need to scroll too much, or large pictures to show.
Anyway.. i'd like to have a higher res, sometimes because i have mostly more than 15 programs open, and need sometimes more space. I'm considering buying a 17inch monitor.
About the 320x200 screenshots.. they aren't too small, because avatars are 60x60 or 80x80 whatevahhh... and they aren't too small either... so just put your nose to the screen, grab some cookies with tasty chocolate on them, and watch the neat pictures!!!
Well, avatars are just there to identify people. You don't really look closely at the details like you would with a screenshot..
Pessi makes a good point about high resolutions in 3d games. What's the point of having a high resolution if the textures are too blurry to see details anyway? I'd much rether see anti-aliased lines and realistic lighting than having a huge screen size. What resolution are DVD movies in? 720 lines / frame? Why do our games have to be in 1280x1024 pixels? 800x600 is more than enough for most games, and I think most people would rahter have better graphical quality (the actual rendering and the production work that goes into it) than high resolution.. If your graphics don't have any detail, they're not going to look any better in a high resolution than they would on a cellphone screen..