Preferred Resolutions

[STGIntervention]

I'm struggling a little bit with this one, and I figure there's no better place to ask: Is there a preferred resolution/aspect ratio for you more hardcore shmup folks?

I'm aiming in particular for iPhone/Android devices at the moment, and I'm using 224x360, while providing integer and ratio-based scaling modes. We're talking pixel art here, so I don't have the possibility of scaling up too smoothly like I would with 3d/vector art.

[ptoing]

To me personally 240x320 still feels best, or anything that falls into that 3:4 ratio, as far as verts go. So I guess anything that is closest to that and accomodates the resolution of your target device is good.

[laxa88]

I'm sure I'm the odd one out -- I've always felt tate shmups give me tunnel vision, so I prefer horizontal or wide-screen shmups (like deathsmiles, and jamestown)... that means 512x320 for me.

[BPzeBanshee]

512x320 is a bit odd aspect ratio there, good horis go by well, normal res, 4:3 (320x240) and so forth. I prefer to design 240x320 and go up from there.

One of my pet hates regarding people's preferred resolutions is the mentality that things need to be 1080p or anything over 800x600 purely for the sake of the art. You have to be a DAMN amazing artist to warrant anything above 800x600, and frankly most things (space scenes, movies, character portraits) can be drawn at a lower res and still get the message across especially if you're not going full 3D. Besides making solid base art and upscaling is easier and performance-efficient in the long run than making hi-res and then trying to tone it down later on, and ignoring people without 1080p screens (AKA people right now with currently sold laptops that only go as far as 1280x720) is just going to piss off your target audience.

[STGIntervention]

Just wanted to say thanks for the responses, it's absolutely helpful.

To me personally 240x320 still feels best, or anything that falls into that 3:4 ratio, as far as verts go. So I guess anything that is closest to that and accomodates the resolution of your target device is good.

I was trying to stick to this for a while, but the current sprites are just *slightly* too big to be comfortable at that size, so I added an extra 60px to the vertical resolution, which seemed to alleviate it quite a lot. The reason I went with 224 width was simply because it seemed to be the standard, and nicely fit scaling up to 480x800 (and to avoid having to go 512 width for the stage map textures).

I'm sure I'm the odd one out -- I've always felt tate shmups give me tunnel vision, so I prefer horizontal or wide-screen shmups (like deathsmiles, and jamestown)... that means 512x320 for me.

I really wanted to try 320x512, but it seems to pretty much be giving up support for everything else when it comes to mobiles, since most of them will either be tiny at 1x scaling and a few pixels off the 2x scaling, and 400-480x800 still seems quite common as a resolution. I'm feeling a mite bit stuck between aiming for that crowd and the iPhone 4 at present, since those seem to be pretty much the standard.

One of my pet hates regarding people's preferred resolutions is the mentality that things need to be 1080p or anything over 800x600 purely for the sake of the art. You have to be a DAMN amazing artist to warrant anything above 800x600, and frankly most things (space scenes, movies, character portraits) can be drawn at a lower res and still get the message across especially if you're not going full 3D.

I'm too much of a pixel fan to go for the 3D stuff, though I make 3D reference models for the units which are given a pixel-loving. The only reason I've ever pondered using a remotely high (for a shmup) resolution was for the smoothness of the touch input, which you don't quite get from a directly scaled game.

[BPzeBanshee]

I'm too much of a pixel fan to go for the 3D stuff, though I make 3D reference models for the units which are given a pixel-loving. The only reason I've ever pondered using a remotely high (for a shmup) resolution was for the smoothness of the touch input, which you don't quite get from a directly scaled game.

An interesting point you make about touch input smoothness. Ideally touch input to pointer position should be resolution-agnostic (ie the rate that it adjusts to is adjusted depending on the resolution thus making such behaviour consistent no matter what resolution device you use), but I confess I've not exactly seen anyone get that absolutely nailed.

Benefits like that without going stupidly hi-res I feel are considerably more justified but I still feel there must be a better solution rather than just increasing the size of the pad, you know?

[mice]

I've been doing 192x352 or 352x192 for my latest batch of games. 16:9.
(yeah, I know, should have been 198 and not 192, but 198 isn't dividable with 8, 16 or 32 so I...ok, I screwed up...)

[emphatic]

Best case (IMHO), the part of the screen that has enemies, player ship and bullets should be 4:3. If someone plays the game on a 16:9 screen, the score counter, high score counter and any other elements that provide info on scoring etc should be placed above this area. On the 4:3 screen, this information is placed on top of the playable area. In the screen settings options, the player sets the screen to either 4:3 or 16:9.

Regarding resolution, 320x240 for the playable area, and use nearest neighbor to upscale the graphics so it's sharp. Add a scanline option (that is resolution sensitive) and you're done!

[STGIntervention]

An interesting point you make about touch input smoothness. Ideally touch input to pointer position should be resolution-agnostic (ie the rate that it adjusts to is adjusted depending on the resolution thus making such behaviour consistent no matter what resolution device you use), but I confess I've not exactly seen anyone get that absolutely nailed.

I initially tried scaling every asset up, as you would with a more typical modern game, but realised pretty soon that it creates 'safe spots' that aren't present on lower-resolution scaling; I didn't really want to introduce issues like that, so I'm scaling the game up after the draw pass now. The movement input has been a pretty big issue, and I'm currently trying a multitude of smoothing types; having the input feel like Raiden's mobile port would be awful.

Best case (IMHO), the part of the screen that has enemies, player ship and bullets should be 4:3. If someone plays the game on a 16:9 screen, the score counter, high score counter and any other elements that provide info on scoring etc should be placed above this area. On the 4:3 screen, this information is placed on top of the playable area. In the screen settings options, the player sets the screen to either 4:3 or 16:9.

Regarding resolution, 320x240 for the playable area, and use nearest neighbor to upscale the graphics so it's sharp. Add a scanline option (that is resolution sensitive) and you're done!

That's a very good point about relocating the UI for a widescreen game - I think it's definitely something I'll look at supporting, though as the game is bound to the top of the screen (as mobile users tend to use the lower side for touch control, to avoid covering the game), it might be a tiny bit tricky. Definitely doable, though.

While I know about scanlines, I didn't actually know it was something still used too commonly. I'll have to read up on it a bit.

[emphatic]

While I know about scanlines, I didn't actually know it was something still used too commonly. I'll have to read up on it a bit.

Scanlines are only ever needed if your assets are low res.

[nasty_wolverine]

any 3:4 (4:3) resolution thats is widely supported, 800x600 comes to mind, that is practically the doujin standard.

[DJ Incompetent]

Do people adjust their resolutions to anticipate overscan offsets on televisions?

[trap15]

No, they generally avoid putting important info in the very edges for that reason. Which is why if you play a game on an emulator or whatever, you usually see a blank line above the score or lives or whatever.