The Resolution Rant

[CrazyBernie]

I can rant sometimes, can't I??

So here's the scoop. It's been harped on about pretty much ever since Book I was released. People griped about the 800x600 resolution not being high enough. I seem to remember a poll that BW put out which everyone jumped on board to cheer for a modified Book I engine with a higher resolution. In a not so "Voila!" move, BW re-wrote the code to support 1024x768. Part of this involved having all of the artwork re-done to support said resolution increase.

When Book II was first released, there were actually some people who complained about the resolution increase. What!?!? Why would they complain about this "ten year old" resolution (BTW, 10 years ago I had a 24" Widescreen Compaq CRT that could do 1920x1200... resolutions haven't really changed much)? It was because their brand new netbook was not capable of properly displaying that resolution! 1024x600 was the highest their little 10" screens could display. OR, they had a machine that was just powerful enough to run Book I, but the increased resolution of Book II was just enough to choke their machine, even though in some aspects Book II had the more performance optimized engine.

I've seen quite a few comments that follow the formula: "I want the next game to support "X" resolution. There's no reason you can't do it." Even the "programmers" have chimed in, claiming that "it's really easy to implement... all you do is blah blah blah." To all those types of comments, I'll say this: You don't know. I'd say some other stuff, but this is a rant, not an invitation to a flame war...

BW made some design decisions based on factors that would fit the best into the game he was trying to create, based on the choice of programming language, and I'm sure in part based on his skill level. Therefore only BW can determine how easy or difficult it would be to change something like the game's graphics engine.

I can tell you with 99.99% certainty that the resolution in Book III will be 1024x768. Asking for higher will yield no fruit. It's just too much to ask for at this point for him to re-write the graphics engine a third time to accommodate. Honestly I don't see a problem with it... it plays/looks fine on my 20" widescreen monitor with a scaled aspect ratio. I think people have been far too spoiled with the lesser quality of LCDs. Yes, I said lesser quality. CRT monitors might be old, huge, heavy, and cancer inducing, but they scaled resolutions like no other. It's a shame that we have to settle for less with the current technology, and amazing that people can actually become spoiled by it.

Eh, I guess the ADHD is kicking in, 'cause I'm already bored with ranting. It requires far too much energy.

TL;DR version: 1024x768 isn't going anywhere. Get over it.

I'm going to go back to surfing the webz for Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals.

[King_ov_Death]

Well, being able to choose between several resolutions would be useless, because 2D games are based on sprites, not models, so higher resolutions would only mean higher (and more pixilated) sprites, unless BW does what Maxis did in The Sims (drawing a bigger game area); but in both cases the HUD would look bad or wouldn't fill the entire width of the screen.

I stick to 1024x768, my monitor's maximum resolution.

[BasiliskWrangler]

I can tell you with 99.99% certainty that the resolution in Book III will be 1024x768. Asking for higher will yield no fruit.

Though begging for higher resolution is always pleasing to my ears!

I will confirm with what CB has said, with one small possible change: I am going to look into supporting widescreen monitors. The default resolution is 1024x768 ... if I keep the vertical resolution, the widescreen (16:9) equivalent is 1360x768 (WXGA display mode). I would essentially just pin the GUI on the right, then expand the game window and text box to the left.

Drawing the extra tiles to fill up the bigger window is going to push the requirements higher, but good old 1024x768 will still be there to fall back on.

The big question is: how many adapters can successfully run 1360x768? I might have to write a small test application and have some of you run it to let me know if you can.

[King_ov_Death]

Maybe you can allow ultra-high resolutions for screen projectors or 6/12-monitor setups. We'll be able to see the entire map sector at once!

[CrazyBernie]

The big question is: how many adapters can successfully run 1360x768? I might have to write a small test application and have some of you run it to let me know if you can.

Hmmm... well 1366x768 is a fairly common resolution on smaller widescreen notebooks, netbooks, and LCD monitors, so I'd say 1360x768 shouldn't be much of an issue for the vast majority of adapters that run them. Well... the majority of discrete adapters. I'd say you really only need to check with the intel chips to verify mass-market compatability.

This is speaking from a strictly Windows perspective, of course.

[Evnissyen]

Methinks people would be more agreeable to the 1024x768 if you economized the interface and gave us more playing space, as, for example, ToEE does. For those who prefer the aesthetic of that voluminous interface and the boxed-in game area... I'm thinking you can always offer an option to switch interfaces, can't you?

Having an optionally broader window sounds good, too.

But I'll say again one of the things I always say, in regard to the visuals... More animation!!!! (Please?)

...I mean... I like seeing things move.

EDIT: I posted this before seeing the locked thread. I remember the interface Kxmode proposed, which was really nice, and KoD referred to this in the locked thread... but I'd've gone even further with Kx's interface and made the controls invisible until you moused down to the edge of the screen... .

Anyhow, subject moot. It's up to BW what the interface looks like. I won't complain. [Taps fingers, bites lip.]