640x400 or 320x200 resolution?

Message

JLM5 · #1 Post by **JLM5** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:34 pm

Would you rather see my great, exciting upcoming game in 640x400-resolution (which I myself prefer) or in 320x200?

(Both of these screenshots are actually in 640x400, but the second picture is pixelated, and if I decide to select 320x200, the final picture in the game will look very much like this picture here.)

Actually I hope that as many as possible would vote "640x400", because it would be a step backward at this time if I'd decrease resolution to 320x200.

640x400:

320x200:

#2 Post by **Erpy** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 8:32 am

Umm...isn't this something to be put in your thread in the game making forum?

JLM5 · #3 Post by **JLM5** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:23 am

Erpy wrote:Umm...isn't this something to be put in your thread in the game making forum?

Perhaps, but is it really possible to make polls in game making forum?

Alias · #4 Post by **Alias** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:55 am

320x200 looks crap. You have more than enough detail for a high res.

Peter Swinkels · #5 Post by **Peter Swinkels** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 2:22 pm

As long as it doesn't have too much impact on the peformance I would say: the higher the resolution, the better, so I voted for 640 x 400.

Jackhomer · #6 Post by **Jackhomer** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:01 pm

NO! fight the urge to always up the resolution!

1) I think that your 320X240 res picture does not look like crap. In fact, I think it looks better than the 640X480 because it better mimics the style of classic adventure games.

2) Your sprite is better suited to the 320X200 resolution. He looks much more natural in the lower resolution picture. Furthermore, the low res version has a better feel to it. The high res picture doesn't have as much 'character' and seems much more santitized.

3) Animating low res sprites is a daunting task. When you double the resolution, that doubles the amount of pixels that you have to worry about.. Consequently, you double your workload. Every frame in an animation will have twice the detail -which is ok- but extremely time consuming.

4) The feel of your scenes remind me of the Legend of Kyrandia Games (1&2)... Go to Mobygames.com and look over the Legend of Kyrandia 1 and 2 screenshots. Look at how they did the trees, ground, and sprites.

5) All in all, I dig your stuff.

#7 Post by **navynuke04** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:47 pm

All the points Jackhomer made are valid. And from a programming aspect, the lower res screens will take up less disk space, thus making your overall game a much smaller download.

Blackthorne519 · #8 Post by **Blackthorne519** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 5:48 pm

320x200. Always.

It's just not worth it with high-res screens. Just not.

Bt

Gronagor · #9 Post by **Gronagor** » Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:47 am

Nice thing about lower res is that you can hide inconsistencies. In other words style problems. I know the two of you have been the only ones working on these, but everytime one works on a pic one's skills improve. Even if you're trying to prevent it, the newer screens will be better than the older screen 99% of the time. So... unless you have no problem going back and editing the older versions, I'd suggest going with 320x200...

Gav · #10 Post by **Gav** » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:30 pm

I prefer the higher res ones, personally.

I do agree with the detractors about the time to produce them and the disk space, though.

However, the argument that high res looks less like classic adventure games does not really sway me. It's not exactly to the game's detriment to have a look that is slightly different.

Don_Piso · #11 Post by **Don_Piso** » Sun Oct 24, 2004 1:53 pm

Hey, are you joking? Where is the difference? $:\$

640x400 or 320x200 resolution?

Which one resolution you prefer?

640x400 or 320x200 resolution?