Remake and small size matter...

Sektor 13 · Sat 17/02/2007 18:28:32

Juhu

I was thinking two things.

First one was, should i remake my first game, called Project Xenophobe, it was released in Dec 2004.
As this was my first game and was was very fresh at AGS than.
Game has some flaws, like it is in 640x480 (althou it was drawn in 320x240 and than resized to 640x480), poor animation etc.
So I was thinking to remake it to be 320x240, new improved animations, maybe few added thingies, improved backgrounds and in 256 colors, so that the game would be easier to download for people with low bandwith .
And my second thingy.
Should it be good to make the game as small as AGS possibly, like, fewer colors, less sounds. I was thinking for my current project Infinity String to make two version, first would be normal in 32-bit with full sound and music and full animations, second would be released maybe a month later, but in 256 colors, with only basic sound and midi music so it would be very small in size (MB) and easier to download. Like first one would be around 35 MBs (or larger), second would be only 5 to 6 MBs.

What do you think ?

Mr Flibble · Sat 17/02/2007 18:46:02

I think the downgrade to 16bit might be sufficient, but I suppose 256 would help to get it mega small.

If I were downloading the smaller version I would worry that I was missing out on something, or perhaps not getting the full effect of the game?

Although I do think this is a nice idea, I remember when I was on dial-up that any file above 10mb was literally out of the question. I'm not sure how many people still have slow connections, but I think this would be a nice thing to do for them.

A while ago I was toying with the idea of releasing a dos version of any game I make. You know, no real reason behind it seeing how newer AGS works fine in Windows 95 and stuff and nobody plays games from pure DOS... but you know, I thought it might be a nice idea. You know, pack it with Adlib-alike music and stuff.

jetxl · Sat 17/02/2007 18:51:36

With so many games never released, I think it's better to put your energy in something original.

GarageGothic · Sat 17/02/2007 19:18:19

256 color mode is a bitch to work with. Even the KQ remakes use 16-bit color even though the original Sierra VGA games only used 256. Seeing as you game has been out for two years, I think most of the core AGS game audience have already played it. And I think it would be a waste of time to change it too much. Even if the backgrounds could be rescaled, I think all regions and walkbehinds would have to be redrawn. If you want to release a new, slightly upgraded version (i.e. animations, additional puzzles) , I think it's fine. But don't obsess too much about size.

For your other game, Infinity String, I think 16-bit would also be fine for the alternate version. That way you could just export all sprites to folders (from AGS sprite editor), change game palette to 16-bit, and reimport the folders. Each background would have to be exported/imported manually, but the overall work wouldn't be more than a couple of hours. And since there would be no resizing, all regions/walkbehinds would remain.

Sektor 13 · Sat 17/02/2007 19:45:22

Problem is that in 16 bit some backgrounds look worse than 256 fitted backgrounds, as 16 uses predefine colors, so i would have to mess with image palette long time before i would figure right one too look good in 16 bit, so if i'll do it it will surely be in 256 col.

So i should release Infinity String in "small" version too, but no remake of PX ?

MrColossal · Sat 17/02/2007 20:20:57

I don't think you should do any of this. Just work on your game in one version and get it done and release it. If you're worried about not getting the maximum amount of people playing by having a large download size, think about that for your next game.

In my opinion.

Nikolas · Sat 17/02/2007 21:35:39

I have to admit that nowadays 35 Mb is not really large... Most of the games I've worked on are larger than that (here in AGS I mean)... And judging from your excellent previous games, I'd say that no one would not want to play the next one.

I am also against 2 different versions.

Snarky · Sun 18/02/2007 01:44:26

Quote from: Sektor 13 on Sat 17/02/2007 19:45:22
Problem is that in 16 bit some backgrounds look worse than 256 fitted backgrounds, as 16 uses predefine colors, so i would have to mess with image palette long time before i would figure right one too look good in 16 bit, so if i'll do it it will surely be in 256 col.

Sorry? 256 colors (=8 bit) allows/requires you to configure the palette. 16 bit doesn't. (8 bit is index mapped, 16 bit is direct mapped. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth)

While you can sometimes see the quantization errors in 16 bit images (banding in gradients is probably the most noticeable artifact), I don't think most of those screens would look very good in 256-color, either, even with an optimized palette. And you can still use dithering etc. to make 16 bit look OK. Really, 16 bit is easily good enough.

Helm · Sun 18/02/2007 07:45:29

Correct. If you're set on having a 16-bit version, do the conversions in a good program which will give you ordered dithering options and such, don't let AGS do it.

But I have to echo eric here eric here ric here here ere e don't worry, people will download your new game even if it's 50 megabytes.

Sektor 13 · Sun 18/02/2007 08:24:29

I am not worriying about my game not being downloaded

, just i was thinking to make small game, like in old days when all adventures could be fitted in couple of floopies.

Here is some comparison
this image has 21000 colors in 32-bit.

First one is downgraded to 200colors, second one is in 32 bit.

Helm · Sun 18/02/2007 09:38:38

Yes I see how you could be thinking 'why don't I just use 256 colors?' since the way you're rendering these pretty much doesn't need more than that amount. There's practically no information loss between the two screenshots.

But still the 'old days when a game could be fitted in a couple of floppies' are gone, nobody even uses floppies much anymore. I'm all for keeping things to essentials and not abandoning good practises just because we can bloat nowdays, though. I dunno... if it's not a huge hassle (which I remember it being) I'd probably.. I'd probably stick to 256 colors.

Akatosh · Sun 18/02/2007 09:47:50

Heh... I always use 32 Bit, no matter if I need it or not, just because I'm waaay too lazy to mess around with palettes

Snarky · Sun 18/02/2007 17:44:49

The 200 color version certainly doesn't look too bad, but there's still some noticeable information loss when you put them side by side (look at the mountains, for example).

I'm just saying that almost every image will look better in 16-bit than in 8-bit, or at least just as good. Unless you're planning to do funky palette effects, like day-night cycles, I don't think there's much reason to go with 8-bit. 16-bit images are only about twice as big, so it doesn't really make much of a difference anyway.

Gilbert · Sun 18/02/2007 18:24:49

Not always, since the base palette for 8-bit VGA (262,144 colours) is larger than the 16-bit palette (65,536 colours), it just depends on the image alone whether which is better.

For images with more different shades of the same colours but less distinct colour range 8-bit modes can be better than 16-bit sometimes. Things depends.

For example, a grayscale gradient in 8-bit mode can have at most 64 distinct shades of gray (provided 64 slots are sacrificed), while at 16-bit you can have at most 32 shades (that doesn't mean you can't simulate smoother gradients by use of dithering though).

GarageGothic · Sun 18/02/2007 18:31:42

Another way of making your game smaller is to reduce the number of colors in the image before importing to a 32 bit game. I did a quick test where this halved the size of the room file (and the difference was even bigger after compressing the files). In most cases, 16 bit will still be smaller though.

Nikolas · Sun 18/02/2007 19:05:24

Size issues:

The other thing that really matters in size is audio. Generally 1 min of music or voice is 1 Mb... Considering that games could have around 20-30 min of music, and if there is voice acting then... a lot more, midi some times feels lovely... I mean you can have hours literally of music with less than 1 Mb. Isn't this a miracle?

But yes, audio takes half the size of all games I've played, except in midi cases. Something to consider I guess...

Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens · Sun 18/02/2007 20:33:03

Why not just make a sequel? Retreading your own game (unless you plan to sell it) doesn't make much sense to me.

ciborium · Wed 21/02/2007 01:42:56

I, for one, vote for a lower res version, but not for the smaller file size. I have a high speed connection, so I don't really care if it is 50 or 100 Mb. I just haven't yet aquired a PC that has 32bit capabilities.
(Maybe I should look for a PC that doesn't have a coal shute on the side.)

MrColossal · Wed 21/02/2007 03:54:18

Doesn't AGS let you force the game to downgrade to 16 bit? I haven't used the hi-res since Spellbound and back then 32 bit was just added to AGS

ciborium · Fri 23/02/2007 05:17:32

I think it does now in the latest version.
But I couldn't play the demo of Al Emmo because it didn't give me the option to downgrade to 16-bit (although the error message that I got said to make sure the box was unchecked.)

EDIT: Problem is now solved! I just came home with a 2.8GHz P4 with a 32 bit graphics card. I now have no opinion on the matter of making the game with fewer colors or in a smaller download.