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

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:16 pm

I have come to the point where I need to decide what resolution my game project will have and would like your input. The three possible resolutions to choose from are 1280x1024, 1280x800 or 1280x720. The game is a vertical for the pc and is meant to include a Tate-mode.

Here's a few points too consider. Feel free to disagree.

- Most hardcore players will already have a monitor with an aspect ratio of 4:3.

- Most widescreen computer monitors are 16:10.

- A 16:9 vertical would be a nice sight and would probably start a fad with people rotating their precious widescreen tv's

P_HAT · Post by **P_HAT** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:40 pm

1280x1024 is (5:4)
1280x960 (4:3)

fuck the stupid LCD shitt.

j^aws · Post by **j^aws** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:44 pm

I'd like to see 10:16/ 9:16; that makes use of the extra space for enemy formations/ bullet patterns/ weapon usage/ scoring etc, rather than just a 3:4 'mapped' to a larger play area...

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:05 pm

If I had to choose, I would say 960x1280, but really the best would be 768x1024

moozooh · Post by **moozooh** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:05 pm

1280x960 (…x1024) obviously has the largest area covered, so that.

j^aws · Post by **j^aws** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:47 pm

Just want to clarify my previous post:

If you are making a 9:16/ 10:16 game; the game should take advantage of the extra space offered by the aspect ratio foremost, rather than absolute space offered by pixel count...

In that sense: It wouldn't be the same game in 3:4 format because of inherent advantages of those aspect ratios (if any exist)...

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:48 pm

indstr wrote:If I had to choose, I would say 960x1280, but really the best would be 768x1024

Why is that?

moozooh · Post by **moozooh** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:53 pm

j^aws wrote:If you are making a 9:16/ 10:16 game; the game should take advantage of the extra space offered by the aspect ratio foremost, rather than absolute space offered by pixel count...

Um, I'm losing you here. In tate mode, the resulting vertical resolution will stay 1280 regardless. You only get to choose how cramped it will be from the sides, and I see no "extra space" offered by widescreen resolutions here, because they just make the screen slimmer.

j^aws · Post by **j^aws** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:11 pm

moozooh wrote:
j^aws wrote:If you are making a 9:16/ 10:16 game; the game should take advantage of the extra space offered by the aspect ratio foremost, rather than absolute space offered by pixel count...
Um, I'm losing you here. In tate mode, the resulting vertical resolution will stay 1280 regardless. You only get to choose how cramped it will be from the sides, and I see no "extra space" offered by widescreen resolutions here, because they just make the screen slimmer.

Ignoring resolution, you can get verts in these formats:

1:1
3:4
4:3
16:10 (?)

... Your game should take advantage of the aspect ratio first and foremost, is basically what I'm saying; not just designing a 3:4 game and 'scaling' it 9:16/ 10:16. You can still take advantage of extra space offered by pixel count.

E.g.

Would Mars Matrix be better in 3:4 instead of 4:3? Would it still be the same game? Varying degrees of how "slimmer" a screen is affects gameplay, and of course absolute resolution...

moozooh · Post by **moozooh** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:16 pm

Alright, good, but what advantages would a resolution other than 960x1280 have in this case?

j^aws · Post by **j^aws** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:25 pm

moozooh wrote:Alright, good, but what advantages would a resolution other than 960x1280 have in this case?

It sounds like the OP hasn't designed a game to take advantage of 10:16/ 9:16; and is just 'scaling' a 3:4 game, i.e. no advantage! I could be wrong though, and the OP could surprise us...

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:44 pm

320x240 wrote:
indstr wrote:If I had to choose, I would say 960x1280, but really the best would be 768x1024
Why is that?

Because my CRT's look best at 1024x768. Anything higher and they can no longer push 100hz refresh rate.

nimitz · Post by **nimitz** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:58 pm

4:3 is the way to go no matter what

but if your project is not in 3d lower resolution means better, something like 800x600 would be perfect. If its in full 3d then just let the users choose the resolution in the configs.

to j^aws:

I dont think a 9:16 TATE shmup has ever been made and I have no idea how could anyone "Take advantage of the extra space". Actually its not extra space its simply that the screen width will feel insanely small which means less space to dodge bullets horizontally (left to right)

moozooh · Post by **moozooh** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:04 pm

Well, there's also panning (like in most Cave games, for instance) as a possible remedy for insufficient width.

j^aws · Post by **j^aws** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:08 pm

nimitz wrote: ...
to j^aws:

I dont think a 9:16 TATE shmup has ever been made and I have no idea how could anyone "Take advantage of the extra space". Actually its not extra space its simply that the screen width will feel insanely small which means less space to dodge bullets horizontally (left to right)

Which means "less space"; aka "extra space" elsewhere. Lets not get into semantics.

Also, I have plenty of concepts in my head that could take advantage of this "extra space"...

Hence, I'd like to see someone take adavantage of this (if possible)...

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:32 pm

nimitz wrote: I dont think a 9:16 TATE shmup has ever been made and I have no idea how could anyone "Take advantage of the extra space". Actually its not extra space its simply that the screen width will feel insanely small which means less space to dodge bullets horizontally (left to right)

No, there would be the same amount of space horizontally. Maybe you don't understand the concept of not scaling.
Let's use the PSP as an example. 480x272 resolution. Assuming you use the full 272 pixels as the width (tated), not scaled, a 4:3 ratio would equal 362 pixels for the height.
16:9 would just use the the full height, 480 with the same 272 width. Horizontal scrolling would feel the same, but you would be utilizing the extra 118 pixels (480-362) vertically.

And in fact, star soldier on PSP does use this aspect ratio and I'm pretty sure it's not scaled.

Now let me give you another analogy. Let's say your penis is 3 inches in diameter (horizontal) and 6 inches long (vertical). What if it grew an extra inch long, now reaching 7 inches, while still remaining 3 inches diameter. Would your GF say that it was not as wide as it used to be?

No, she would not. She would thank you for filling her up further, while still filling her up widely too.

Now please stop talking about something you don't understand

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:36 pm

indstr wrote:
320x240 wrote:
indstr wrote:If I had to choose, I would say 960x1280, but really the best would be 768x1024
Why is that?
Because my CRT's look best at 1024x768. Anything higher and they can no longer push 100hz refresh rate.

That's something to take into consideration too I guess. Most people who have a tate setup probably use CRT's and not LCD's.

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:37 pm

320x240 wrote:
indstr wrote: Because my CRT's look best at 1024x768. Anything higher and they can no longer push 100hz refresh rate.
That's something to take into consideration too I guess. Most people who have a tate setup probably use CRT's and not LCD's.

I'm actually surprised you took me seriously. I get the feeling that most people don't care toomuch about refresh rate

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:51 pm

indstr wrote:
320x240 wrote:
indstr wrote: Because my CRT's look best at 1024x768. Anything higher and they can no longer push 100hz refresh rate.
That's something to take into consideration too I guess. Most people who have a tate setup probably use CRT's and not LCD's.
I'm actually surprised you took me seriously. I get the feeling that most people don't care toomuch about refresh rate

Looks are important, especially since the games graphics are 'old school' pixel graphics.

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:58 pm

Also for Nimitz, I took some time to draw some very HIGH QUALITY ARTIST'S rendering to compare

4:3 (362x272)

16:9 (480x272)

My work here is done.

lgb · Post by **lgb** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:59 pm

1024x1024...

Frederik · Post by **Frederik** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:01 pm

320x240

RGB · Post by **RGB** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:06 pm

FrederikJurk wrote:320x240

I second this !

4:3 seems the most optimum for me.

indstr · Post by **indstr** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:12 pm

LGB wrote:1024x1024...

I want your monitor. I'll buy it for $50. Pretty please???

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:15 pm

1920x1200 plz.

Make another Darius!

All I'm worried about is the aspect ratio of sprites changing, e.g. a 4:3 800x600 image being stretched to 16:10 on that 1920x1200 screen, and hardware stretch (e.g. how MAME always looks blurry and shitty when you have "hardware stretch" on).

indstr wrote:
LGB wrote:1024x1024...
I want your monitor. I'll buy it for $50. Pretty please???

Probably some ancient garbage and he's just using a nVidia control panel type deal to letterbox it. That or horrible stretching. Be careful what you wish for...

EDIT: 16:10, not 16:9 which is pretty rare actually...

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:22 pm

trick question

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:15 pm

Ed Oscuro wrote:1920x1200 plz. Make another Darius!

All I'm worried about is the aspect ratio of sprites changing, e.g. a 4:3 800x600 image being stretched to 16:10 on that 1920x1200 screen, and hardware stretch (e.g. how MAME always looks blurry and shitty when you have "hardware stretch" on).

This is one of the main reasons why I'm asking this question. Any stretching at all and the picture get's blurry. Playing a game in it's native resolution is usually the only way to avoid this.

trivial · Post by **trivial** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:49 pm

Still on CRT's here. If widescreen is a realistic option, 960 x 540 would be great (half of 1080i, no interlace flicker).

Unlimited framerate is always nice. Tearing's hard to see when framerate and refresh both exceed 120Hz. No need for sprites to move that fast, but lerped polys are easy. Texture them as though for 320 x 240 and they'll still look very cool.

stuntman · Post by **stuntman** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:39 pm

320x240 wrote:...That's something to take into consideration too I guess. Most people who have a tate setup probably use CRT's and not LCD's.

For many, that tate setup might be a cab, with the monitor unable to support the resolutions you're considering. OK, my selfish opinion is your shmup should be 480x640. If it's good enough for Under Defeat, Ikaruga etc...

320x240 · Post by **320x240** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:11 pm

It seems clear at least that a 4:3 aspect ratio is the way to go, even though a 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio would have been somewhat of a novelty at this point in time. The game will have a 'stretch to fullscreen' option for those that still want a widescreen experience in Tate-mode.

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that a resolution of 480x640 or 600x800 is the best options with regards to resolution. 800x600 will look better but 480x640 will retain more of that classic chunkiness of pixel graphics and, as stuntman says, is better for those with a cab. In the end it all comes down too which resolution can attract the most players. That is the reason for starting this thread after all.

For those interested I have included some simple mock-up pictures showing the same graphics at 480x640, 600x800 and 1024x1280 resolutions:

http://folk.uio.no/perel/480x640.png
http://folk.uio.no/perel/600x800.png
http://folk.uio.no/perel/1024x1280.png[/url]