Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

1920x1050 or above

23 (35.9%)

1680x1050

15 (23.4%)

1280x1024

18 (28.1%)

1024x768

7 (10.9%)

800x600

1 (1.6%)

640x400 or less (ouch)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 64

Voting closed: August 17, 2012, 11:38:11 pm

[Dramier]

I'm working on developing a game at the moment, and I'm curious as to what the standard DF lurker/player typically runs games at.  Basically with this poll, simply answer what the maximum playable resolution is that you normally run.

So if you can go up to 1920x1050, but your particular computer really can only play games at a decent framerate at 1680x1050, then you would answer 1680x1050.   

If your particular resolution is not in the list, please post it if you don't mind.

The reason I am doing this is I am developing a graphical user interface game, and I'm trying to get an idea of what resolutions are "standard".   Since it's a game similiar in some concepts to Rogue-like's and Dwarf Fortress, this makes input here relevant.   I'm shooting for graphics on par with somewhere between 8-bit Nintendo RPG's and 16-bit.  Basically think graphically on par with Battle For Wesnoth but with far more complexity and detail making up for the graphical simplicity. 

I've been in development for a month and a half now, and I've got somewhere in the neighborhood of 18,000 lines of code.   It's about 50% of the way to alpha at this point.   I'm not posting any more details or any screenshots at the moment because I prefer to actually have something to deliver rather than an unplayable pre-alpha tease.   Thanks for taking the time to participate!   (Otherwise I would have had to resort to using magma.   And we know how that works out don't we?)

-This thread menaces with spikes-

[Phantom of The Library]

I have 1280x800, since my laptop's odd like that.

[Lectorog]

Do you want to know the maximum resolution, or the commonly used resolution for a type of game? I have a 1920x1080 monitor, and I can run games full-screen on it, but I generally play DF, ASCII / tile-based games, and the like in windows.

If the game is graphically simplistic, I wouldn't run it at full-screen. Thus, answering as to my maximum resolution is wouldn't help you much. Unless you think it would?

You might get more results in the Other Games board, and I think it would be OK to put this there (as it's not about a specific game, but it is about games). Not an issue here, though.

[kaijyuu]

1920x1080.


My suggestion would be scaling, rather than higher resolutions giving you a larger view of the terrain or whatever. Have a minimum resolution (I went with 1024x576 in my game), and higher resolutions would just add detail (sharper pixels in your case, I guess).

[Frumple]

Chiming in a little, I can usually run 12xx by 10xx without much problem, but have a strong preferance for being able to go lower, at least to 800x600. Sometimes as a just-in-case, sometimes because it tends to make things a bit bigger (larger text, etc.), so to speak.

Anyway, lower res seems to (surprise surprise) tend toward being a bit more forgiving about weaker video cards -- which seem to be one of the more common 'dump stat' choices for lower-end computers. If you're looking to maximize audience, I'd probably suggest giving more attention to lower resolutions than higher.

Of course, having something that can just scale kind of to whatever degree is most ideal. I always love the graphics option menus that just offer a pair of boxes to stick numbers in, and damn the presets (Seriously, damn them. 1400x900 can blow meeeee.)

[Dramier]

Do you want to know the maximum resolution, or the commonly used resolution for a type of game? I have a 1920x1080 monitor, and I can run games full-screen on it, but I generally play DF, ASCII / tile-based games, and the like in windows.

If the game is graphically simplistic, I wouldn't run it at full-screen. Thus, answering as to my maximum resolution is wouldn't help you much. Unless you think it would?

You might get more results in the Other Games board, and I think it would be OK to put this there (as it's not about a specific game, but it is about games). Not an issue here, though.

Basically, if you are going to play a graphically simplistic game, such as Dwarf Fortress with a graphics pack, what resolution do you prefer to run it at?   For myself, I prefer higher resolutions so I have more in-game real estate to deal with so to speak.   

Chiming in a little, I can usually run 12xx by 10xx without much problem, but have a strong preferance for being able to go lower, at least to 800x600. Sometimes as a just-in-case, sometimes because it tends to make things a bit bigger (larger text, etc.), so to speak.

Anyway, lower res seems to (surprise surprise) tend toward being a bit more forgiving about weaker video cards -- which seem to be one of the more common 'dump stat' choices for lower-end computers. If you're looking to maximize audience, I'd probably suggest giving more attention to lower resolutions than higher.

Of course, having something that can just scale kind of to whatever degree is most ideal. I always love the graphics option menus that just offer a pair of boxes to stick numbers in, and damn the presets (Seriously, damn them. 1400x900 can blow meeeee.)

I'm definitely wanting to maximize audience, and since the game is graphically simplistic, I'm wanting to go as low as possible but stay high enough to maximize visible features.  As it stands right now, I'm creating the game in 1680x1050 resolution, and I think I can scale it down as far as 1280x1024 and still have everything be visible.  Mostly it's a problem with text visibility, as was mentioned.   I can definitely make it custom resolution viable since it's designed to be played "windowed" since it will probably involve alot of alt-tabbing out to the wiki if the game catches on.   

1920x1080.
My suggestion would be scaling, rather than higher resolutions giving you a larger view of the terrain or whatever. Have a minimum resolution (I went with 1024x576 in my game), and higher resolutions would just add detail (sharper pixels in your case, I guess).

So you decided to design your game at the 1024x576 level, and then you scale it up for higher resolutions?   How did you deal with the issue of pixelation?   I deliberately am keeping my tilesets at 32x32 and larger to ensure they can be shrunk better than blown up, and as it runs right now higher resolutions get more visible terrain on screen than lower ones.   You are suggesting standardizing the viewport and just changing the quality of the display instead, right?

This is great input so far, exactly what I was hoping for.   My game is mouse-driven, with keyboard shortcuts available.   It won't feature nearly as heavy building concepts as DF does, but will have basic building functionality.   Hence the need for keyboard shortcuts.   I don't have to worry about framerate at all, even at high resolutions, just more worried about making sure it is graphically feasible on the majority of machines.

[Lectorog]

Basically, if you are going to play a graphically simplistic game, such as Dwarf Fortress with a graphics pack, what resolution do you prefer to run it at?   For myself, I prefer higher resolutions so I have more in-game real estate to deal with so to speak.   

My screen is kind of big, so I can't really take in the entire thing at once. Thus, I prefer smaller tiles to larger ones filling the screen. Voted for 1024x768, because it's close to what I run DF at.

[Frumple]

Sudden thought, actually. You might want to check out how ToME 4 does things. It seems pretty flexible, iirc, but I'm not sure how far up it scales (and can't check right now). Similarly, the old *band standby of multiple sized fonts/graphic sets might be a possibility (albeit one that increases time investment, especially the latter).

Definitely, at least, the option of an easy method to scroll around for lower resolutions might let you keep your screen real estate and eat it too... or something.

Alternately, dockable mfookin' windows. *band's term windows are frankly one of the most g'damn  brilliant bloody UI design decisions I have ever bloody seen, and can help deal with a lot of resolution issues.

[kaijyuu]

So you decided to design your game at the 1024x576 level, and then you scale it up for higher resolutions?   How did you deal with the issue of pixelation?   I deliberately am keeping my tilesets at 32x32 and larger to ensure they can be shrunk better than blown up, and as it runs right now higher resolutions get more visible terrain on screen than lower ones.   You are suggesting standardizing the viewport and just changing the quality of the display instead, right?

Yup, that's exactly what I do.

And since I use OpenGL for graphics rendering, I fix the pixelation problem by using its blending setting. Things that are scaled up are blurred. Works well enough for me, except for a select few things (life bars look much better scaled linearly). And if I really wanted to, I could use more detailed graphics than are actually displayed on the normal resolution, and as the user scales up it gets more detailed. (so a 100x100 sprite would be scaled down to 50x50 normally, and if the user doubled the resolution the sprite would appear at its native 100x100 resolution at full detail)

[Dramier]

Basically, if you are going to play a graphically simplistic game, such as Dwarf Fortress with a graphics pack, what resolution do you prefer to run it at?   For myself, I prefer higher resolutions so I have more in-game real estate to deal with so to speak.   

My screen is kind of big, so I can't really take in the entire thing at once. Thus, I prefer smaller tiles to larger ones filling the screen. Voted for 1024x768, because it's close to what I run DF at.

Great, so in your case, even if the game offered a 1920 option, you would be more likely to go for a smaller resolution if it were available, right?   I will make sure I scale down as far as possible.

Sudden thought, actually. You might want to check out how ToME 4 does things. It seems pretty flexible, iirc, but I'm not sure how far up it scales (and can't check right now). Similarly, the old *band standby of multiple sized fonts/graphic sets might be a possibility (albeit one that increases time investment, especially the latter).

Definitely, at least, the option of an easy method to scroll around for lower resolutions might let you keep your screen real estate and eat it too... or something.

Alternately, dockable mfookin' windows. *band's term windows are frankly one of the most g'damn  brilliant bloody UI design decisions I have ever bloody seen, and can help deal with a lot of resolution issues.

I'm downloading it now to check it out.   Kind of ironic actually, it sounds from the description ALOT like what I am making.   Even shares a word in the title with mine, lol.   But yes, back to the subject, I am using scroll around at all resolutions since it is a turn-based game for the most part.   Therefore the player always has the option of scrolling around to look.  I have designed my GUI to be movable with dockable windows, and I have finally finished the majority of the basic windows that will be in the game, so hence why I needed to pin down what the average player uses for their resolution.  I am about to start either scaling the windows or limiting the resolution, whichever turns out to be more feasible.   Currently the windows are built in a 1680x1050 environment with the dimensions and positions "hard-coded" in.  I will be changing those to numbers scaled from the screen resolution instead.   They are already positioned from the window position, so moving the window is child's play from there.   I'm also designing it to be playable with minimal "open" windows blocking your view of what you're doing.   IMO, the single most defining aspect of a game is how easy it is to manipulate and accomplish what you want as a player.   I want my players spending maximum time -playing- and minimum time digging through inventory screens or the like.   Considering that the player can command thousands of NPC's in battle, digging through hundreds of inventory screens would be....   impossibly tedious.   

So you decided to design your game at the 1024x576 level, and then you scale it up for higher resolutions?   How did you deal with the issue of pixelation?   I deliberately am keeping my tilesets at 32x32 and larger to ensure they can be shrunk better than blown up, and as it runs right now higher resolutions get more visible terrain on screen than lower ones.   You are suggesting standardizing the viewport and just changing the quality of the display instead, right?

Yup, that's exactly what I do.

And since I use OpenGL for graphics rendering, I fix the pixelation problem by using its blending setting. Things that are scaled up are blurred. Works well enough for me, except for a select few things (life bars look much better scaled linearly).

Works sorta well scaled down too. I can go down to around 600x400 before the text gets unreadable.

So you are using a 3D engine setup then?   I'm using OpenGL, but mine is a tile engine, which is still easily scalable, but I don't have access to the same texture features since I'm not actually using 3D.   The major problem for me scaling down is simply having enough room on the screen for everything.  Manipulating an inventory screen at 1680x1050 is cake, but shrinking it down to 640x480 it becomes so tiny there's just no functionality left.   

[kaijyuu]

Yeah my game is 2d, despite using OpenGL. And by the way, there are no "3D only" features. OpenGL is always 3D. You can make a 2d game with it, but it's essentially just ignoring 1 axis. So I'm wondering what texture features you don't think you can use.



As for UIs... yeah, they're hell. I made a lot of progress by using icons rather than long names for things like items. The trick is figuring out how to display only information that is absolutely necessary, just to save space.

[Reudh]

My computer's monitor's native resolution is 1200 x 800. That one's broken. The CRT screen I have (pavilion mx50) is 1024 x 768. That's the highest it'll go.

The graphics card I have (Intel GMA) allows for the more intense games- oblivion for example, to only be played at the horrible levels of 640 x 480 or 800 x 600.

Sims 3 runs at 1024 x 768 fine though.

I'd say that I run most games that aren't exceptionally graphics heavy at 1024 x 768.

[Heron TSG]

1920x1050!? Holy crap, I thought my 1280x1024 monitor was big!

[Sensei]

My monitor is 1440x900, and I can run older games at that resolution. I do drop it to 1024x768 relatively often, but that's usually for games with a lot of 3D stuff going on -particles, reflections, etc- or that aren't very optimized.

[Dramier]

My monitor is 1440x900, and I can run older games at that resolution. I do drop it to 1024x768 relatively often, but that's usually for games with a lot of 3D stuff going on -particles, reflections, etc- or that aren't very optimized.

So given the choice, you would prefer to run at higher resolution?   Alot of laptops feature resolutions at that size, so I've been carefully considering ensuring I can run in the odd 1400x resolutions. 

Yeah my game is 2d, despite using OpenGL. And by the way, there are no "3D only" features. OpenGL is always 3D. You can make a 2d game with it, but it's essentially just ignoring 1 axis. So I'm wondering what texture features you don't think you can use.

As for UIs... yeah, they're hell. I made a lot of progress by using icons rather than long names for things like items. The trick is figuring out how to display only information that is absolutely necessary, just to save space.

I don't use the rendering process of a 3D engine.  I stick to straight forward memory blits rather than rendering using primitives and textures.   That's what I mean by not using the 3D features.   Basically instead of drawing a flat square on a 2D axis and texturing it with a tileset, I'm copying straight from the tileset to the screen buffer in old school 2D methodology.   I did it that way because I felt it maximizes compabitility with older machines.   My test machine is my gf's old Dell Intel with integrated Intel Express graphics card.   If it can run it, almost anything should be able to.   My IPhone is faster than her desktop, lol. 

For the UI's, I found that making the initial one was a PITA, but after that, it was just copy and paste whatever components I needed.   I built mine using a structured format, so I pass the GUI builder things like how many buttons, what they say on them, etc, and it builds them to suit.   Then I assign a controller object to the GUI it just built with toggles for the buttons and the rest is cake.   But I'd rather floss with razor blades than ever make GUI's for a living.. lol.

My computer's monitor's native resolution is 1200 x 800. That one's broken. The CRT screen I have (pavilion mx50) is 1024 x 768. That's the highest it'll go.

The graphics card I have (Intel GMA) allows for the more intense games- oblivion for example, to only be played at the horrible levels of 640 x 480 or 800 x 600.

Sims 3 runs at 1024 x 768 fine though.

I'd say that I run most games that aren't exceptionally graphics heavy at 1024 x 768.

Based on my menu designs, I'm guessing 1024x768 will probably be the absolute lowest I can do.   I am planning on starting the process of scaling tomorrow and see how it goes.   

1920x1050!? Holy crap, I thought my 1280x1024 monitor was big!

Heh, I'm actually running a dual monitor setup of two 1680x1050 monitors side by side.   I'm hoping later on to possibly expand my game to allow for dual monitor setups...   perhaps a map and inventory/stats screens on one side and the game world on the other or something along those lines.   It's surprisingly easy to eat up that kind of resolution when you're designing menus and such.   I constantly find myself wishing I had more space.   

This is really helpful responses, I had no idea the variety of resolutions out there.   Most of my game playing friends are running high-end rigs with dual monitors, and I always felt like the "little" guy only having dual 1680's when most of them are running 1920 at a minimum.   Had I not decided to post this poll, I might have ended up making the minimum resolution WAY too high.   Please keep the opinions and personal setups coming in, it is NOT going to waste!