Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
suliman

1024x resulution worth it?

This topic is 4667 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Hi My previous games where in 800x600 as standard, but im thinking of having my new one in 1024x. Is it worth it? It cost me CPU and larger pixel graphics (its not in 3d) but thats it right? I dont think this game's mechanics will be extremely heavy on the cpu so maybe its gonna be ok? I know this is a extremely generic q but feel free to drop your 5cents. Im thinking of having my world map (think rome:total war) as a space photo. But he one i found that is large enough is 50megs in uncompressed format. Does this mean it will prefer to eat that much of my videocard-memory (i use a directx based engine)? Thx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
if you can support multiple resolutions do that. the best of both. if it's a 2d game, I'd suggest drawing at the maximum supported resolution. it's easier to shrink then to expand. but unless you have extremely detailed sprites you might not notice a difference. if you're having memory problems you'll have to load up chunks of the map at a time. if your code is tile based it should be easy. I'm no expert on 2d games. I'd just first see what my artist can pull off. if it really looks better with higher resolution sprites(ie the chars have enough detail to make it matter) then do it. in any event making a 2d game work for any resolution is easy but I assume your question is whether or not to draw(from an artist perspective) the sprites larger or smaller. right?

Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Hi

I think you should use the highest available resoulution,
unless the user says: "I want something smaller".

I have a LCD Screen and Games not supporting it's natural resolution
are often looking ugly.
For example Diablo2 upscaled from 800x600 to 1280x1024 is very bad for the eyes ;)

Bye,

Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most people (and I) play games at 1024*768. Unless you're LCD or TFT, this is the resolution to go for if you are willing to turn on a bit of AA that is. It provides the best spec's on most monitors and you're font will be at least readable. (not tinywinnysmall)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I might be sick, but back then when I had a CRT I used 1600 x 1200 for games when possible.
I´d say you are safe assuming 1024 x 768 to be something of the standard 'lowest' resolution, 800 x 600 should only be a fallback for some really really low-end computers. And support for multiple resolutions should definitely be on your task list, I don´t like these fixed resolution games too much.

For your world map:
With a texture that large I´d definitely try to split it up in 4 or more parts, so you´ll have the possibility to only use that part of the map you actually see, just as timw suggested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Definitely support higher resolutions. 800x600 is not a pretty sight on a 19" (or bigger) monitor.

Of course, with 2d games, you're a bit limited, but you should definitely allow at least some higher resolutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
Please think of everyone using TFT's, everyone I know which owns a computer has one.
I know that we're often a little bit a head here (scandinavia), but I think that the CRT isn't far from beeing dead :)
Games DO look terrible on LCD's unless they are rendered in there native resoultion (or half the resolution, i.e running an 800x600 game on a 1600x1200 monitor looks quite ok).
There are many strange resoultions to watch out for: 1280x720, 1355x768, 1680x1050, 1024x1024 (common for plasmas), 848x480 (common on 7-9" inch LCD's, used often cars and HTPC's).
If you can't support all resolution at least give the user an option to render in a window smaller than screen (i.e a 1024x768 window on a 1600x1200 desktop).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thx ya all

I think i will do it in 1024x as default. Window mode is easily added and maybe higher res will also be supported, depends on how difficult it will be to implement.

I though many would say that 800x is a bit to careful...

Next desition is weather to increase pixel-size of all stuff or to just show a larger portion of the screen.

Suli
Sweden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For fonts and stuff, you probably want to scale the size up - it's just uncomfortable trying to play a game where you have to squint to see what text it's putting out.

Other things, like the map or the player models, that's up to you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
Please think of everyone using TFT's, everyone I know which owns a computer has one.

Whats with all these people whining about their TFTs all of a sudden? You knew what you were getting when you bought it - you forfit your right to complain about non-native resolutions looking like ass.

IMHO, for a 2d game anything over 800x600 is slightly silly. 800x600 is a nice compromise between sharp graphics and having lots of fillrate to play with for snazzy effects (remember that maintaining a good framerate is much more important for a 2d game).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!