[Discussion] best way to fake-downscale your game.

Started by Monsieur OUXX, Wed 12/02/2020 10:03:59

Previous topic - Next topic

InCreator

320x200 is pretty arbitrary thing to follow. I mean, why care, unless you go super duper retro?

I'm making Born Punk in 384x216 -- strictly because it scales well with 1:1 pixel aspect ratio and integer scale.

5X for 1920x1080, 6x for 4K. Resolutions heavy majority of players will have. And original size is still pretty close to 320x200.




Snarky

Quote from: InCreator on Wed 25/03/2020 03:28:09
5X for 1920x1080, 6x for 4K. Resolutions heavy majority of players will have.

If by "heavy majority" you mean just above 20%.

Danvzare

#22
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 25/03/2020 11:05:32
Quote from: InCreator on Wed 25/03/2020 03:28:09
5X for 1920x1080, 6x for 4K. Resolutions heavy majority of players will have.

If by "heavy majority" you mean just above 20%.
Will someone please tell me how on earth 1536x864 is fourth place?
I've never even heard of that resolution until today!

Ok... moving along from that surprise.
Hmm... if I had to take an educated guess, I'd say that 1366x768 is number 1, simply because people prefer laptop computers over desktop computers.
1920x1080 is a close enough second though, so it would makes sense to have that be your target resolution. But I guess it depends on who you expect to be your audience. If you consider that the number 1 most common resolution for mobiles is 360x640, and that is perfectly scalable to 1920x1080 (when in landscape mode). I think it's safe to say that the best resolution for a modern pixel art game would be half the phone one at 320x180. A resolution I've actually heard a few people use.

Personally, I'm more of a fan of 320x200, simply out of a sense of tradition more than practicality.

384x216... uh... yeah, sure. If you love it, keep it.  (nod)
Don't ever let anyone tell you otherwise.

morganw

Quote from: Danvzare on Wed 25/03/2020 17:30:05
Will someone please tell me how on earth 1536x864 is fourth place?
It is 1920x1080 with scaling set to 125% for a high DPI screen. Game engines generally don't use the OS level display scaling, it is more a compatibility shim for applications that aren't DPI aware. So given that wherever this data is coming from is likely giving inconsistent results (at very the least not giving the actual screen resolution in some cases, and "other" is apparently a very significant resolution too) you are probably better to look at sales figures for screen sizes, rather than what is detected by passive means.

Snarky

Quote from: morganw on Wed 25/03/2020 19:34:02
It is 1920x1080 with scaling set to 125% for a high DPI screen. Game engines generally don't use the OS level display scaling, it is more a compatibility shim for applications that aren't DPI aware. So given that wherever this data is coming from is likely giving inconsistent results (at very the least not giving the actual screen resolution in some cases, and "other" is apparently a very significant resolution too) you are probably better to look at sales figures for screen sizes, rather than what is detected by passive means.

The problem with looking at sales numbers is that a large (but hard to estimate) proportion of users are using older screens/devices. For example, I'm typing this on a laptop from 2013 (resolution: 2560x1600), which I see absolutely no reason to upgrade for probably at least another couple of years, as long as it doesn't break.

Good catch on the scaling, but it should be pretty easy to tell in most cases which of the entries are actual monitor resolutions and which are scaled versions. And yeah, there's a large "other" category (which includes every monitor I have had since at least 2004), but if those aren't each individually much more than the 3â€"4% of the lower-ranked resolutions here they're probably not worth targeting.

Danvzare

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 26/03/2020 07:13:24
The problem with looking at sales numbers is that a large (but hard to estimate) proportion of users are using older screens/devices. For example, I'm typing this on a laptop from 2013 (resolution: 2560x1600), which I see absolutely no reason to upgrade for probably at least another couple of years, as long as it doesn't break.
My monitor is from 2009 I think. It runs at a maximum of 1440x900 resolution, but it sometimes bugs out on some games when I run it at that resolution, with the monitor saying "frequency out of range". It seems to be random on whether or not it'll bug out, and it's only a very small subset of games that does it. Prison Architect and ZDoom are the only ones that currently come to mind.

But yeah, I've been using this monitor for years, and I've got no intention of changing it. The picture is clear and it works. It'll likely continue working for several more decades as well.
And don't get me started on the monitor from the 90s I have in the attic. Because I'll gladly switch to that thing if this monitor breaks. I think that monitor has a maximum resolution of 1280x1024.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk