Small screenshots don't help.

[Miez]

1400x1050, baby!

What kind of whacked-up weirdo rez is that?

[remixor]

It's the one I use.

[Ishmael]

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!

[scotch]

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.

[Ytterbium]

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.

Well, I'm sorry if nobody plays your game.

You mean every AGS user besides me has a 200 Mhz Processor?

[Privateer Puddin']

no, but think of the children! someone think of the children!

[Inkoddi]

1600x1200

[Scavenger]

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 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.

[Evil]

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.

[Inkoddi]

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...

[Wattshout]

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.

[Inkoddi]

52" :o :o :o What kind of screen is that?? How far from it do you sit??

[Shattered Sponge]

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.

[jannar85]

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

[Captain Mostly]

I don't understand the advantage of using 800x600 resolution... what am I missing here?

[TheYak]

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.  

[LGM]

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.

[Pessi]

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?

[Raggit]

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!  

[Do0kie]

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)