Decisions, decisions - on game design

[Janik]

Hi everybody,

I am in the slow process of planning to make a "real" game - I've got a partial story in mind, characters are being fleshed out, etc. But I'm finding that I have a lot of trouble making even basic decisions for the game design  . Things like:


- Resolution: I know I want 32 bit color, and high resolution. But is 800x600 worth it? I get 100+ frames per second on my computer, but what about older ones?

- Speech views: Lucasarts-style, or Sierra portrait-style? I like the idea of the portraits to show changing expression.

- Scaling of the character sprites: I'm thinking something like 1/3 of the screen height at the chosen resolution... Too big bloats the game size; too small means possibly scaling UP a character which is usually ugly.

- Even the game engine to use! I really like AGS, but wintermute, with the hardware acceleration, gets much higher framerates (like 600 fps (!) for the demo, which runs in 800x600).


I know these decisions are ultimately personal ones, but I'd like to hear what your opinions are on the subject; say if you made a game with one resolution, did you end up wishing you had gone bigger/smaller?

Toughts? Comments?

[MrColossal]

- Resolution: I know I want 32 bit color, and high resolution. But is 800x600 worth it? I get 100+ frames per second on my computer, but what about older ones?


Can you do art that needs that high of a resolution?

That's really the only question I think I can answer that isn't personal.

[Kweepa]

It seems this is your first real game. (Apologies if that's not the case.)
Also, it seems you are working on a RON game, in which case I would definitely recommend 320x200.
Then again, I would nearly always recommend 320x200.

Perhaps if you post some example art we can help you decide. I had a quick look back through your posts but any artwork is now just little '?'s now. There wasn't much, so again I recommend 320x200.

[Gord10]

I recommend you not to use higher than 640*480. Because the file size would increase so much, and people who would download might reduce. So I use 320*240 for my own game.

- Speech views: Lucasarts-style, or Sierra portrait-style? I like the idea of the portraits to show changing expression.

If you like the portrait style, then you should use this.

And we could give more specifical suggestions about the scaling if you post some art.

[Adamski]

Yeah, be warned about 800x600x32, the file sizes skyrocket. It's not a question of speed anymore, certainly, more about practicallity. If I were making a commercial game that were to be distributed on CD or DVD then I'd certainly go for 800x600, but it's not worth it otherwise.

Art done right at 320x240x32 looks extremely impressive, so you might want to experiment there first. I also tend to find lower resolutions much more immersive - perhaps that's just a personal thing though. The higher resolution = better myth is a trap that many seem to fall into nowadays, what with all their fancy schamncy 3d graphics cards being able to render the hairs on an Ogre's arse 100 miles away

The answers to the rest of the questions are down to what your project vision requires though. I go for Lucasarts style because of the style of game and the atmosphere I want to create in my games, but if you like the Portrait style then go for that.

[Gord10]

Art done right at 320x240x32 looks extremely impressive, so you might want to experiment there first. I also tend to find lower resolutions much more immersive - perhaps that's just a personal thing though.

I think so. In my opinion, low res gives an odd, but good kind of atmosphere. Maybe it's because low res reminds the old games of some nostalgie.

[2ma2]

The lowres is not only nostalgia, but a style of abstraction itself. Well done, it's great. Badly done, it's crap. Just like everything else. IMO, choose your resolution based on personal preferences, but if you do bother to ask others about their oppinions, my guess is that your desire for 800x600 is not based on artistic reasons but an idea on how better that is. Which it isn't.

[Snarky]

These aren't really game design issues, are they? Most of them seem to be graphics questions.

For the speech view, you need to consider the consequences of your choice. What are you planning to do about feedback messages? The LucasArts style is well suited for first-person responses: "I can't pick that up." Games with the Sierra style have tended to adopt the third-person narrator (addressing the player/character in the second person): "You try to pick it up, but cannot." Narrator messages come in special boxes without a speaker portrait. In theory I guess you could have your character say it, but IMO that would be a bit odd.

Or you could attempt a hybrid form, or go in a different direction altogether.

[Janik]

Can you do art that needs that high of a resolution?

He he, good question. Art, hmmm, not my strong suit

However, I'm not convinced that 320x200 resolution makes things easier. The RON entry I'm working on is at 320x200 (to match all the other games and the available backgrounds). I'm finding that at the low resolutions, you need to be pretty creative to make 7 pixels look recognizable as a particular object. The Lucasarts artists sure did it well, but my thinking is that something bigger actually makes it easier. That said, 800x600 is probably pusing it . I think I'll go for 640x480, but I'll try drawing the same background at these 2 resolutions first to see what feels better.

These aren't really game design issues, are they? Most of them seem to be graphics questions.

For the speech view, you need to consider the consequences of your choice. What are you planning to do about feedback messages?

Or you could attempt a hybrid form, or go in a different direction altogether.

I also meant to ask about using a narrator versus having the player say everything - that has pretty significant effect on the way each description is written. I tend to like it when the player does the descriptions, but I like the speech portraits too... How would a hybrid form work?

[RickJ]

- Scaling of the character sprites: I'm thinking something like 1/3 of the screen height at the chosen resolution... Too big bloats the game size; too small means possibly scaling UP a character which is usually ugly.

You are qyuite rught about scaling up characters IMHO.  In the past I have used the following pixel scaling of characters:

• 640x400 - 40 pixels/ft
  
• 320x200 - 20 piexls/ft
  
  I am quite certain that everyone has their own preferences, these are mine. 

[Snarky]

A hybrid dialog style might use portraits for conversation, but LucasArts style text for simple statements and feedback. Not sure how well it would work. I think some games have tried it and it didn't feel quite right.

[Afflict]

Hi everybody,

- Resolution: I know I want 32 bit color, and high resolution. But is 800x600 worth it? I get 100+ frames per second on my computer, but what about older ones?

Toughts? Comments?

yeah heres mine

Rendering subsystem
Since 3D accelerated videocards are a standard today, WME is able to utilize 3D acceleration to provide fast 2D graphics in high resolutions, with advanced graphical effects such as transparency, alpha blending and antialiasing.
On old computers, WME is able to run in so called "compatibility mode", which doesn't require 3D accelerator, but all the advanced graphics effects are disabled.

If you use this engine then your high frame rates cant be achieved by the old computers you are worrying about anyway.

Further more I think most people have a semi decent system and nobody lives in the stoneage anymore.
The speech thing I would say ; look at Ben Jordan awesome portriat style, and then most games use the
lucas approach. You like Portriat cause you want detial use the detial, but only if your using it. Go for the 600*400
once again more detail...

[Janik]

Yes, portraits sound good to me. For one thing, I've been playing with voice lip synching, and I think it doesn't work in lucasarts-style speech. I don't know if I'd ever get to the point of actually recording voice, that seems so far away

If I do have speech, I would probably still keep the narration text-only. That would make for a LOT less of recording to do, and so the file size would be more manageable. But I do like the 'talkie' adventures - good voice acting makes a big difference. Take for instance the 3rd monkey island, having the characters voiced like that really helps the game.

[MillsJROSS]

Great voice acting is hard to come by. It does add tremendously to a game if done well, but it can also hurt a game incredibly if it's not done well. I think text games allow people to interject their own style in a character, which has a potential to make them enjoy the game even more.

I think everyone has covered resolution, so I won't go into it.

Narration versus the players response, it a personal choice. Both, if utilized correctly, will work. It also depends on your graphical ability. If you think you can help fill out a room with words better than graphics, narration is the way to go. But if your graphics are decent enough, then use the characters response.

With speech views, you can show expressions using either style. If you can show expression using a few pixels, it can be affective. However, if you feel you want a close up, that's fine, too. I'd look at Callihans Crosstime Saloon, I really enjoyed how they did speech. Though, the game was a bit buggy.

These topics do fall in the category of game design. Graphics of a game fall under the category of game design.

-MillsJROSS

[Ali]

- Even the game engine to use! I really like AGS, but wintermute, with the hardware acceleration, gets much higher framerates (like 600 fps (!) for the demo, which runs in 800x600).

Sorry if I'm being dim, but what is the advantage of a frame rate that high? Film is only 24fps and TV 50 or 60. Is a super-high frame rate particularly desirably for an adventure game?

[Janik]

Great voice acting is hard to come by. It does add tremendously to a game if done well, but it can also hurt a game incredibly if it's not done well. I think text games allow people to interject their own style in a character, which has a potential to make them enjoy the game even more.

True. That's why it's nice to provide an option to turn speech off - cycling between speech only, speech and text, and text only. With the commercial games I've played, I don't think I've ever disliked the voice acting. Except maybe Tim Curry's odd accent when he played Gabriel Knight in the 3rd game.

Sorry if I'm being dim, but what is the advantage of a frame rate that high? Film is only 24fps and TV 50 or 60. Is a super-high frame rate particularly desirably for an adventure game?

Well, that frame rate is on my computer, which I bought a couple of months ago. My reasoning is that if it runs really fast on my computer, then it will still run ok on an older computer. For AGS you'll need about 40 frames per second if you keep the standard game speed; which I do get on my computer even at 800x600, but it's a bit closer than I'd like.

[Snarky]

These topics do fall in the category of game design. Graphics of a game fall under the category of game design.

They are part of the game's design, but I don't think they're part of the game design. It's more an issue of the visual design or graphics design. Decisions like going with 2D or 3D graphics would clearly be part of the game design (or even the type of dialog style to use), but issues like the exact resolution is not something that would normally have much effect on the game design document.

[Janik]

In some cases choosing the resolution could have an impact on game design - not so much when pondering 640x480 vs 800x600, but comparing, say, 320x200 or less (like the 160x100 of the first sierra games) to the higher resolutions. At low resolution you need the narrator to fill in a lot of the gaps where the graphics can't show clearly what something is supposed to be. It would affect puzzles, etc.