What resolution would you like to see a pc shmup in?

Ozymandiaz1260 · Post by **Ozymandiaz1260** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:39 pm

Can't you make it 4:3 and include a wide screen option that will just show more of the vertical play field as opposed to stretching it out?

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:56 pm

Ozymandiaz1260 wrote:Can't you make it 4:3 and include a wide screen option that will just show more of the vertical play field as opposed to stretching it out?

That is a possibility. It would of course reveal enemies coming down from the top of the screen earlier but there are ways around that. Enemies could rise out of the water/crawl out of the sand etc. Most enemy patterns that I have made so far starts from one of the sides of the playing area anyway.

Gwyrgyn Blood · Post by **Gwyrgyn Blood** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:58 pm

How about regardless of what resolution the game actually operates at, you let the game run in any resolution and just stretch to fill the screen and maintain the aspect ratio? That's what MAME can do and it's really the best way, as people with LCDs can run in their native resolution so the game doesn't look like crap.

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:10 pm

Gwyrgyn Blood wrote:How about regardless of what resolution the game actually operates at, you let the game run in any resolution and just stretch to fill the screen and maintain the aspect ratio? That's what MAME can do and it's really the best way, as people with LCDs can run in their native resolution so the game doesn't look like crap.

That is already implemented, but even a little stretching will blur the graphics. Only at the games original resolution will the graphics apppear crystal clear and that is why I'm so 'concerned' about the resolution.

Taylor · Post by **Taylor** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:55 pm

You keep mentioning 1024x1280, but it should be 960x1280 if you want to retain a 3:4 aspect.

nimitz · Post by **nimitz** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:00 pm

To indstr:
First of all you are assuming that people will use bigger screens. If you take a screen with the same diagonal lenght (say 19inch screen) then the width will be smaller. Not in pixels but in term of actual size.

Darius is a great example: you had much more space to move around but it was simply because the sprites were the size of a one screen shmup that was actually using 3 screens. It was designed to be used on a bigger viewing area (3 screens) If you play Darius on a 4:3 screen the vertical space "feels insanely small".

Its like saying that playing a shmup in 1024x768 (as opposed to 320x240) would give you "extra space". It only gives you extra space if the game is designed to be used on a bigger monitor Example: a 40" screen with sprites the size they would be on a 20" screen

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:15 am

320x240 wrote:That is already implemented, but even a little stretching will blur the graphics. Only at the games original resolution will the graphics apppear crystal clear and that is why I'm so 'concerned' about the resolution.

Aware we are of how MAME does things? Find an average pixel size by dividing in the resolution and add (or remove) a line of vertical and horizontal pixels as needed to pad it out (not guaranteed to be an optimal solution, I has head ache).

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:19 am

nimitz wrote:[A shmup] only gives you extra space if the game is designed to be used on a bigger monitor

That is why your side discussion is irrelevant. Let him choose the resolution yet, the rest will follow.

For the reasons mentioned in this side discussion, it might theoretically be nice to have advanced letterboxing capabilities if you wanted to play the game sitting right in front of a 50" television - but nobody's going to do that. I imagine this game will be played on a computer screen and if the player doesn't have the sense to sit a comfortable distance from it so they can see a lo-res arcade style game (which is lower res than the Forum we're using right now), then they have bigger problems than we can solve.

nimitz · Post by **nimitz** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:17 am

If you want to use my quote out of context it would be something like
"[A shmup] only gives you extra space if the game is designed to be used on a larger viewing area relative to the size of the main sprites"

That is why your side discussion is irrelevant. Let him choose the resolution yet, the rest will follow.

not sure what you are trying to say,

but if you are talking about letting the user choose the resolution in a fully 3d shmup then its obviously because the size of the objects wont really change depending on the resolution (like any fully 3d rendered game). Then again 320x240 on a 60inch screen will look like shit.

for raster graphics the resolution should not be changed at will obviously...

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:36 am

The point is that I think we can trust the d00d to design his game properly. Words words words.

moozooh · Post by **moozooh** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:05 am

indstr wrote:No, there would be the same amount of space horizontally.

That's because in your example, you decided to compare the screens by their vertical resolution in tate mode — while by looking at the poll, you see (*gasp!*) that they have the same vertical resolution, but different horizontal! As such, when tate'd, 1280x720 will not give you inherently more vertical room than 1280x960, because it's 1280 pixels either way. In your example with PSP, you're basically presented with two choices, if done correctly: 480x272 for 16:9, and 480x360 for 4:3. Which has more freedom?

You can still pad it (letterboxing will do) to create the wide/tall playing area (or even square, like CRS68k), but that is usually done when you still have something to cut off, which 4:3/5:4 displays are best for.

Ed Oscuro wrote:Let him choose the resolution yet, the rest will follow.

Which is funny because this particular thread exists for that sole purpose: helping the d00d™ choose the resolution!

pieslice · Post by **pieslice** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:15 pm

Why don't you make the game fit to the desktop resolution? For instance if your game runs in 512x384 window, doublepixeling it will make it fit to 1024x768.

For 800x600 you just put a 512x384 window in the center of the screen, with black borders.
For widescreen displays you can use the doublepixeled window in center of the screen and black borders around it.

For 3d you can just scale the view window and use black borders to get the wanted aspect rate.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:32 pm

moozooh wrote:
Ed Oscuro wrote:Let him choose the resolution yet, the rest will follow.
Which is funny because this particular thread exists for that sole purpose: helping the d00d™ choose the resolution!

Argh, broken grammar.

Yes, that's what the discussion is about. Once he selects his resolution he'll figure out how big he needs to make the graphics because he's not making Metal Slug 6 here. We'll cross that bridge once we get to it.

louisg · Post by **louisg** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:57 pm

Remember how after Descent was patched you could run it in 124x76 or something resolution? That's what I want to see a shooter in.

bkk · Post by **bkk** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:10 pm

louisg wrote:Remember how after Descent was patched you could run it in 124x76 or something resolution? That's what I want to see a shooter in.

You should check out Fuck Space then, 80x60 resolution.

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?t=19812

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:37 pm

I have finally decided for an aspect ratio of 4:3 and a resolution of 1280x960. Tate is gone, since, gameplay-wise, the game is better suited with a Yoko display. Think Knightmare, Firebird, Undead Line, Elemental Master and the like.

I'm stuck with Gamemaker so expect tearing and the occasional hick-up.

Here's an image of some graphics I have made. Since I'm doing this by myself and wants to get done by the end of the year, each level will feature lot's of repeated graphics, tile style, but at least it will play well...

Pictured is part of a bridge that is suspended between two mountains. All action will take place in a mountain setting. More games should, you know.

[img][img]http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/1392/level11hv2.th.png[/img][/img]

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:24 pm

1280x960...who uses this resolution?

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:32 pm

It used to be a fairly standard resolution, especially back when CRT's where more common. I know it's missing from a lot of modern graphics cards, including my own, but this way those who insist on playing their games on CRT's can still enjoy the game in it's native resolution.

moozooh · Post by **moozooh** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 8:33 pm

Ed Oscuro wrote:1280x960...who uses this resolution?

I am. :D

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:14 pm

320x240 wrote:It used to be a fairly standard resolution, especially back when CRT's where more common. I know it's missing from a lot of modern graphics cards, including my own, but this way those who insist on playing their games on CRT's can still enjoy the game in it's native resolution.

Yep, back at the turn of the decade when CRT's were king, pushing the highest resolution you could was the big thing. People bragging about running 1600x1200, etc .... then about 5 years ago when LCD's became more affordable and mainstream, the resolution wars changed and suddently everybody was running 1024 again .....
But of course now it's back on what with 30" widescreen 2480billionx1500zillion or whatever the crap weird widescreen shit

Give me a tabletop full of CRT's any day

kemical · Post by **kemical** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:21 pm

if you're doing a game native to a high resolution like 1280x960, just be sure that you are making use of the resolution and not just scaling stuff up to fill it, otherwise you might as well just pick a lower res that doesn't require individual assets to be scaled.
You're also causing more work for yourself and filesize, depending on the art style.

And keep in mind people may not be able to run 1280x960, I cna't remember if gamemaker supports resolution independent stuff, like scaling 1280x960 down to 800x600... keep in mind you will lose detail and text may lose legibility.
There may also be shimmering depending on how gamemaker works, subpixel movement maybe

my opinion leans towards 16:9 / 16:10 formats, because it is becoming the standard.. and you can run a 16:9 game letterboxed in 4:3 if you wanted. Personally I've tried doing stuff in 640x360, graphics can stay dense, and then just letting that be scaled up to HD resolutions or letterboxed. And it works nicely in 640x480 too on arcade monitors/tv's supporting that.

as for the image, I like the clean and smooth gradient look that it has

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:59 pm

[quote="kemicaljust be sure that you are making use of the resolution [/quote]
be read of topic, ffs

anyway I'd like a border around the playfield or MAME-style line doubling (as needed)

kemical · Post by **kemical** » Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:16 pm

Ed Oscuro wrote:[quote="kemicaljust be sure that you are making use of the resolution
be read of topic, ffs

???
all im saying is make use of the resolution, make good use of it. for example place cave sprites in a 1280x960 playfield, it wouldn't feel right and they'd look tiny on average sized screens... unless it was artistic intent, but then you might have shmup fans thinking it felt a bit off. So you'd probably need large sprites with nice detail to make use of the high resolution... which could be more work, and memory costs.

Just trying to give a bit of thoughts on it since resolution issues have caused me trouble in the past related to things that weren't expected or considered at the time...

Stormwatch · Post by **Stormwatch** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 1:52 am

Use the "everyone can use it" resolution... 800x600 or 1024x768.

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:57 pm

kemical wrote:Just trying to give a bit of thoughts on it since resolution issues have caused me trouble in the past related to things that weren't expected or considered at the time...

I know what you mean. I've been spending the better part of the year experimenting with different resolutions and ratios. The reason I decided to go with such a high resolution is simply because of the challenge involved and the fact that no one seems to be interested in doing it - so I simply decided to do it myself. It's a path I've been wanting to follow for a long time

As you say, the challenge lies in making objects that take advantage of the added resolution, meaning more work on the part of the developer. The two images I posted further up in the thread shows how it shouldn't be done. The rock image was designed to be shown in a resolution of 640x480 and consequently comes across as anemic and less convincing when displayed in a higher resolution. I'm using 80x80 pixels as the base for all the sprites and 'tiles' in the game (80x160 for humanoids), which converted to a resolution of 320x240 gives 20x20 - slightly higher than the classic 8-bit 16x16. This is very important for the feel of the game - I'd go as far as to say it makes or breaks it. All to often homebrew developers forget to increase the size of single objects as they increase the resolution.

Of course, when making pixel graphics, detail is king and the artist strives to have as few empty spots as possible. This is where the real challenge lies and it takes time to do it right. Part of why I started this thread was so that I had an incentive to work 'hard'.

gs68 · Post by **gs68** » Sun Jul 27, 2008 9:45 am

4:3, with options for 16:10 and 16:9 monitors that puts black bars on the sides.

I have to play every freaking game on my PC in windowed form, or it looks like poo.