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

[MarcAFK]

This laptop hits 1366x768, but my old one could do Something higher, maybe 1440x1024 or something.

[Sensei]

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!

Yeah, I wouldn't say enormous monitors/dual monitors are standard at all- especially among indie gamers, many of whom are cheapasses as well. I even once used a netbook with some godawful resolution like 1024x600, or something. There were a few games that just didn't scale small enough along the vertical axis (such as I Wanna Be The Guy).

[Enzo]

1366 x 1024, oldish laptop. Seems fine to me, and is usually supported in the games I play.

[Dramier]

This laptop hits 1366x768, but my old one could do Something higher, maybe 1440x1024 or something.

Well so far I've had no problems going as low as 800 x 600, and even 640x480 looks fine as far as the graphics go.   The problem is the text.   I use a TTF, and transform down from 1680x1050, and everything looks great except the text becomes illegible below 800x600, although it's much better in full-screen than windowed.   Anything above 800x600 is fine.   640x480 is graphically playable, but the text is just a bunch of noise.   -sigh-    Working on it.  =P   

From what I can tell, unless a miracle sprouts, the minimum resolution will probably be 800x600, however all of the windows and such will be resizable.

Thoughts on inventory screens:   Do you as players prefer an inventory screen that fills up the whole screen, or a minimal screen that just gets the job done?    Currently if I enlarge the inventory screen to fill the entire screen rather than about 75% of it as it does now, it -might- enable 640x480 resolutions to have clear enough text to be playable.   

[Frumple]

Depends heavily on what the inventory screen is doing, and how detailed the items are. If the thing can be summed up as a sword icon with a +1 over it or a bottle with HP or MP, and that's the absolute most complicated they get, then minimal would work. Not as much information means not as much requisite screen coverage.

If you've got something more along the lines of balder's gate or ToME4 complexity, you need to give it (a lot) more room. Insofar as personal preference goes, I prefer fullscreen, so to speak, inventories... usually.

It also depends on now much the stuff in that inventory interacts with the playing field. Something like a belt slot (or the ability to designate inventory slots arbitrarily to go in a sort of "active inventory" window) can help if significant non-equipped utility items are being considered. Also hotkeys, of course. ToME 4 or Incursion is my go-to example of hotkeys done pretty damn right. Not perfect, but a lot better than a lot of games that could use them.

[MaximumZero]

Voted 1680x1050, but it's actually only 1600x900.

[Teneb]

Running on 1360x768, so I can't really pick any of the options above.

[SalmonGod]

My monitor's native resolution is 2560x1600.... but I'm the only person I know who can run that resolution.  I play things like DF windowed... but a window size that's probably as large as many of the full monitor resolutions listed so far in this thread.

[kaijyuu]

There's a point where it just gets ridiculous. If you can't see the entire screen without significant portions being in your peripheral vision, it's too big My 1920x1080 monitor is almost there already.

[Cthulhu]

My monitor is 1366x768.  I don't know how high my system could support, I doubt too high though.

[SalmonGod]

There's a point where it just gets ridiculous. If you can't see the entire screen without significant portions being in your peripheral vision, it's too big My 1920x1080 monitor is almost there already.

I kind of agree with this.  I don't actually care to have a physically large monitor.  While 30" isn't too bad after getting used to it (and sitting as far back from it as possible), I would never get anything larger.  I'm only after two things:  pixel density for a sharper picture, and more real estate.  More pixels = more stuff fits on your screen = doing more stuff more efficiently.  I think 24" is the perfect physical size, but it's near impossible to find even 1920x1200 in that size anymore.  I haaaaate 16:9 ratio for computing.

[Nadaka]

1920x1080, full HD. I have a gigahertz RADEON HD 7970, I run all games at max resolution, full detail and at least x2 anti-aliasing.

I should be upgrading to 2560x1600 sooner or later.

[cerapa]

My monitor is 1680x1024. My computer is pretty decent though, so I could run most stuff at a higher resolution.

[Dutchling]

Voted 1680x1050, but it's actually only 1600x900.

[GreatJustice]

My monitor is 1680x1024. My computer is pretty decent though, so I could run most stuff at a higher resolution.