My monitor at home has a native res of 2048x1152 -- a 1024x768 window only takes up 1/3rd of the screen.
If I was playing your game, in it's little "1/3rd of the screen" window and I press ALT+ENTER, I'd expect the window to expand to cover the whole screen, with the game taking up 1536*1152 (same aspect, scaled up to fill the screen), with 256px black columns on each side.
Likewise, if I'm playing in windowed mode and I decide to resize the window by dragging at the corners, I'd expect the content to get bigger (while maintaining aspect with black borders).
Basically, I want to be able to make use of my monitor. Resolution of the rendering doesn't matter to me (rendering at 1024 and upscaling to 1536 is perfectly fine), I just want to be able to say how big it is on my screen (in meaningful terms, like inches or centimetres).
To take this idea to the extreme, let's say that in 10 years time I've got a 20480x11520 monitor -- your game will then only take up 0.3% of my screen, making it unplayable.
would a fixed resolution make you not want to buy a game?
Not caring about windowed and fullscreen modes and varying screen resolution is a mark of shoddy and arrogant design.
Example: the recently released "indie" RTS Aurora fails to start on a dual display PC. Had I not previously run it successfully without the second monitor, it would have been uninstalled on the spot.
You should provide some combination of extended playfield (only if it's fair: unreachable scenery in tower defense is harmless, seeing further in a platformer or RTS is not), scaling by good looking factors, padding with supplemental graphics, alternate layouts (e.g. score moved from the top of the screen to a side panel in case of wide displays), plain old black bars.
If the game is fun, nobody will be angry for slightly suboptimal graphics; users with strange display resolution are going to be particularly tolerant of adaptations because they cannot reasonably expect the game to be optimized for them, while users with high resolution displays aren't going to forgive the uselessness of small and nonresizable windows.
Old games (like Civilization 3) got away with fixed arbitrary resolutions because CRTs supported them and they looked good; nowadays LCD and LED displays have fixed pixels and only their "natural" resolution looks good.
Example: the recently released "indie" RTS Aurora fails to start on a dual display PC. Had I not previously run it successfully without the second monitor, it would have been uninstalled on the spot.
You should provide some combination of extended playfield (only if it's fair: unreachable scenery in tower defense is harmless, seeing further in a platformer or RTS is not), scaling by good looking factors, padding with supplemental graphics, alternate layouts (e.g. score moved from the top of the screen to a side panel in case of wide displays), plain old black bars.
If the game is fun, nobody will be angry for slightly suboptimal graphics; users with strange display resolution are going to be particularly tolerant of adaptations because they cannot reasonably expect the game to be optimized for them, while users with high resolution displays aren't going to forgive the uselessness of small and nonresizable windows.
Old games (like Civilization 3) got away with fixed arbitrary resolutions because CRTs supported them and they looked good; nowadays LCD and LED displays have fixed pixels and only their "natural" resolution looks good.
Wait, I was assuming there would be a fullscreen mode. If we are talking about windowed mode then there is a completely different story. I would never, ever buy a game, even cheap and top best my favourite if it was only windowed and no resolution selection. I would simply be unable to play it without changing the resolution of my desktop which is no fun at all since I would be forced to rearrange my icons afterwards.
I was just curious about how people would react to having to run it windowed or be forced to play a stretched out game.
Stretched out is OK, as long as it is done automaticly and I don't need to resize and adjust the window myself.
Generally, I would be extremely hesitant to play games not in fullscreenmode (resolution is a secondary issue).
My question is how turned off would you be if when browsing through a download portal like steam or D2D, you saw a cool looking game, but in the requirements it stated "ONLY RUNS at 1024x768 RESOLUTION, WINDOWED or FULLSCREEN." ?
There is usually a right way to go about doing things but it is very much dependent on whether you are using sprite graphics or 3D. Also dependent on what your game world is like. Please tell about these things.
For example, a sprite-based strategy game where the viewport does not affect the mechanics can accommodate higher resolutions by simply showing more stuff on the screen at the same time, keeping the 1:1 pixel mapping. Not scaling, or scaling by integer factors, are key to retain perfect sprite graphic quality.
When considering a solution, you can consider how it would work (or not) on 600p netbook, 23" 16:9 1080p screen, 27" 16:9 1440p screen, 16:10 13" 900p screen.
I think fixed, fullscreen resolution is best... However... I think that fixed resolution should match the user's screen resolution... It not hard to implement GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSCREEN) and GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSCREEN) for example...
I think fixed, fullscreen resolution is best... However... I think that fixed resolution should match the user's screen resolution... It not hard to implement GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSCREEN) and GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSCREEN) for example...
Are you serious?
[quote name='forsandifs' timestamp='1297180662' post='4771383']
I think fixed, fullscreen resolution is best... However... I think that fixed resolution should match the user's screen resolution... It not hard to implement GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSCREEN) and GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSCREEN) for example...
Are you serious?
[/quote]
Absolutely. Games look terrible when stretched, and monitors can't handle higher than native resolutions. So there really is no point in a full screen implementation with customizable resolution. -> Full screen, native resolution only.
Ofc windowed mode is another story. But I'm not interested in windowed mode. Just wanted to make a point about full screen resolution.
[quote name='Stroppy Katamari' timestamp='1297185805' post='4771416']
[quote name='forsandifs' timestamp='1297180662' post='4771383']
I think fixed, fullscreen resolution is best... However... I think that fixed resolution should match the user's screen resolution... It not hard to implement GetSystemMetrics(SM_CXSCREEN) and GetSystemMetrics(SM_CYSCREEN) for example...
Are you serious?
[/quote]
Absolutely.[/quote]
I think the meaning of "fixed resolution" has escaped you. It refers to a game designed to only ever run at one resolution. One.
Games look terrible when stretched, and monitors can't handle higher than native resolutions. So there really is no point in a full screen implementation with customizable resolution. -> Full screen, native resolution only.
Ofc windowed mode is another story. But I'm not interested in windowed mode. Just wanted to make a point about full screen resolution.
[/quote]
A lot of this is true. It doesn't make "fixed resolution that matches the user's screen resolution" any less absurd.
You are apparently thinking about rendering resolutions. There are actually good reasons to render at a lower than native resolution, though.
1) Render your game to a texture at the 4:3 ratio
2) If the window is the same size, just draw the texture there as is.
3) If the window is bigger, center your game over a background image.
The above is only if you game is stuck at the 4:3 ratio for some reason. Like a port of an old game, or a game based around a small square playing field. Otherwise, its a case of just being stupid and lazy.
As for native resolution. Most off the shelf PCs can't render games at their native monitor resolutions at appropriate frame rates.
2) If the window is the same size, just draw the texture there as is.
3) If the window is bigger, center your game over a background image.
The above is only if you game is stuck at the 4:3 ratio for some reason. Like a port of an old game, or a game based around a small square playing field. Otherwise, its a case of just being stupid and lazy.
As for native resolution. Most off the shelf PCs can't render games at their native monitor resolutions at appropriate frame rates.
It is defiantly a turn off.
Remember every time you force some sort of system requirement you are losing part of the player base. The monitor I'm working on right now has a resolution of 900X1600. So I wouldn't be able to play your game unless I flipped my monitor over every time.
World of Goo may be fixed but it's a very safe resolution.
What's the reason behind feeling it would be best played at your desired resolution? Is it personal preference? Personal preference is generally a bad way to make a business decision.
Remember every time you force some sort of system requirement you are losing part of the player base. The monitor I'm working on right now has a resolution of 900X1600. So I wouldn't be able to play your game unless I flipped my monitor over every time.
World of Goo may be fixed but it's a very safe resolution.
What's the reason behind feeling it would be best played at your desired resolution? Is it personal preference? Personal preference is generally a bad way to make a business decision.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
