[Laser Eyes]

I'd like to send a request to all those adventure game developers who might stop by these forums. Now that widescreen monitors are becoming more common please try to ensure that adventure games released in the future support widescreen resolutions. Adventure games seem to be lagging behind the rest of the industry in this respect.

Just about every fps, rpg, mmog, rts released nowadays all support widescreen resolutions. Come on adventure game devs, more and more of your customers are switching to widescreen monitors. If you want to keep them as customers your games need to support widescreen resolutions.

I give credit to Microsoft for recognising the increasing use of widescreen monitors by PC gamers. One of the requirements to label your game with the Games for Windows brand is that it must support normal 4:3 and also 16:9 and 16:10 widescreen resolutions.

See the GfW technical requirements:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb173456.aspx

[Steve Ince]

Not so easily done if the game has 2D painted backgrounds or ones that have been pre-rendered.

[Enter the Story]

Originally Posted by Laser Eyes

Now that widescreen monitors are becoming more common please try to ensure that adventure games released in the future support widescreen resolutions.... See the GfW technical requirements:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb173456.aspx

Support widescreen? Most AGS games haven't even got beyond 320 x 200 resolution yet. They're still waiting to see if these newfangled VGA cards catch on.

It's an valid point though. My own game already uses wide scrolling scenes on 80% of backgrounds, so it should be possible to just say "show a wider portion of the screen." But many adventure games (including my own) prefer to set the screen resolution to 640 x 480. Can Windows just as easily switch to 800 x 480 on a wide screen?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Cripeys, are these kinds of AGs that far behind in their technology?!

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by tolworthy

But many adventure games (including my own) prefer to set the screen resolution to 640 x 480. Can Windows just as easily switch to 800 x 480 on a wide screen?

It wouldn't be a Windows thing, it would have to be the game engine that handled this.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by tolworthy

Support widescreen? Most AGS games haven't even got beyond 320 x 200 resolution yet. They're still waiting to see if these newfangled VGA cards catch on.

To be nitpicky, 320x200x256 colors was a VGA resolution. VGA could only do 640x480 in 16 color mode, and mos game makers preferred the color depth to the higher resolution. In fact, most AGS games run in 16-bit or 32-bit color depth, so they go beyond the capabilities of VGA.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Cripeys, are these kinds of AGs that far behind in their technology?!

It's not a matter of technology. It's a matter of (1) retro-aesthetics, and (2) cost of art production. When you double the resolution, you end up with four times as many pixels to paint. The work required to create backgrounds increases by almost as much. Also, in higher resolutions you need more detailed animations to keep fooling the eye, so if your sprites are twice as big and you need twice as many frames, that's eight times as much painting to do. It's just not worth it.

The technology is really quite advanced (not just AGS, but Wintermute and the other engines as well), and for 2D adventure game purposes not at all primitive.

[jacog]

When you double the resolution, you end up with four times as many pixels to paint.

Bollocks. I have heard the very same argument spoken by another AGS advocate not so long ago. Seems to be the standard excuse for the shortcomings of the engine. Perhaps it is true if you are plotting the graphic pixel by pixel, but not if you are doing it the correct way. Just because there are 4x the amount of pixels, it doesn't mean you have to spend 4x the amount of time to fill them. Whether you are drawing a 1 inch long straight line, or one that goes across your entire canvas... it makes no difference to how much work goes into it.

When you are doing proper painting you are using brush strokes, your fill tool, your filter effects. You draw, you colour, you paint, you airbrush... not a pixel by pixel plotting. That's just daft.

And if you want really decent art... you hand paint it and then touch up the scan in your image processing tool. Doing Beneath a Steel Sky in 1280x1024 resolution would have been no more work than doing it in the original 320x240 (or thereabouts) it originally came in. If anything, it's easier in a higher res since you don't have to stress so much about if edges are anti-aliased enough to look smooth and other such details.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by jacog

Bollocks. I have heard the very same argument spoken by another AGS advocate not so long ago. Seems to be the standard excuse for the shortcomings of the engine.

Given that AGS supports higher resolutions as well... no, it doesn't have anything to do with that.

And I just said that you get four times as many pixels to paint, not that you had to paint them individually. However, it is true that the work to do backgrounds also increases. For one thing, when you get down to resolutions like 320x200 and (to a lesser extent) 640x480, pixel-pushing does become relevant, you can't just deal with paintbrushes, fills and filters any more if you want good results. Then you have stuff like objects to be picked up, which need to be painted in more detail.

Or, as Dave Gilbert put it on the AGS Forums:

Low res graphics. Costs less, quicker to make, and the right artist can make them look fantastic despite the pixels. High res graphics take longer to make, require much more time and care, and are much harder and much more expensive. If I had the luxery of time/money, I'd go high-res, but until that happy day arrives... low res it is.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Gilbert also stated this:

Regarding the commercial viability of AGS games, think of it this way.

There are movies out there that cost several hundred million dollars to make. They have the latest effects, the hottest stars, and immense marketing power.

There are also movies that cost a few thousand dollars to make. They can only hire smalltime actors, and can only afford basic lighting and equipment.

Is one film more commercially viable than the other? Becaues the indie film costs less to make, and isn't as "professional" as the high-budget one, does that mean it is worth less?

You'll still pay the same $9 to see both movies.

Why should games be any different? Just because my games cost around $5000 to make, versus the mega billion budgets of the high-end titles, does that mean I shouldn't bother?

I'm not exactly sure if the comparison to films is entirely spot on, but I can see some points when putting it in a certain context.

Commercial viability also depends a great deal on consumers' perceptions of a product of service, however informed or uninformed those perceptions may be. That many (mainstream? pop?) consumers' judgment of a film may be commensurate to that film's budget, popularity and reputation of acting cast and director, and ubiquity (advertisement and marketing), and to a lesser extent on the very wealthy studio that produced it, would naturally affect how successful that film could be critically and commercially.

An indie film, one that cost $100,000 or less to make, most likely doesn't have the advantages that a multimillion dollar production with all the trimmings has and, of particular importance, can't afford the marketing, advertising, and media ubiquity, no matter how better it is than a blockbuster in some areas. Naturally it simply can't reach a wider potential audience than a blockbuster can. The audience that this indie film can reach most likely already knows about it, and that audience is decidedly tapped into the market already for this kind of film.

Another important factor is the content. Many indie films tend to explore subject matter that is not necessarily palatable to those who'd rather see The Matrix or Harry Potter, with their respective popular narratives and technology fueled special effects. It's simply a difference in perception, taste, and thus, market.

So to swing it over to games, it's possible that many people may associate a game with a 320x240 resolution - no matter how much love and care went into it - with lesser quality, simply on the grounds that it fails to keep up with current technology, especially in light of all these advances and the products that feature them - widescreen, high definition, 5.1 sound, etc. It's like trying to sell them an awesome AM transistor radio when they'd rather peruse all the MP3 players and video iPods.

Not trying to put indies down, but just to put it in the light of reality.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Another important factor is the content. Many indie films tend to explore subject matter that is not necessarily palatable to those who'd rather see The Matrix or Harry Potter, with their respective popular narratives and technology fueled special effects. It's simply a difference in perception, taste, and thus, market.

Same goes for quite a few amateur adventures I've played, I have to say. The subject matter of Richard Longhurst and the Box That Ate Time definitely wouldn't have a place in mainstream gaming.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

So to swing it over to games, it's possible that many people may associate a game with a 320x240 resolution - no matter how much love and care went into it - with lesser quality, simply on the grounds that it fails to keep up with current technology, especially in light of all these advances and the products that feature them - widescreen, high definition, 5.1 sound, etc. It's like trying to sell them an awesome AM transistor radio when they'd rather peruse all the MP3 players and video iPods.

Not trying to put indies down, but just to put it in the light of reality.

It is possible, but such games obviously aren't targeted toward such people. You may claim to "put it in the light of reality", but it's a damn subjective reality, if you ask me. (But then, so is pretty much every opinion. *shrugs*)

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Squinky

It is possible, but such games obviously aren't targeted toward such people. You may claim to "put it in the light of reality", but it's a damn subjective reality, if you ask me. (But then, so is pretty much every opinion. *shrugs*)

No, it's reality alright. Indie developers like Dave Gilbert know this. Naturally they would love to see their games being bought and enjoyed by a larger number of people, but naturally that is also tied in to such factors as updated technology, investment in marketing and advertising, and media coverage outside the small online community of gamers who love 'homegrown' games.

I mean, wouldn't you love it if suddenly The New York Times and a couple other high profile sources reviewed your indie game favourably and, because of that, a leading publisher offered to fund you and provide better technology as long as you kept intact your quality for which the media noticed your game in the first place?

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by jacog

And if you want really decent art... you hand paint it and then touch up the scan in your image processing tool. Doing Beneath a Steel Sky in 1280x1024 resolution would have been no more work than doing it in the original 320x240 (or thereabouts) it originally came in. If anything, it's easier in a higher res since you don't have to stress so much about if edges are anti-aliased enough to look smooth and other such details.

That's not really true, I'm afraid. As the paintings were done on paper and scanned in, the artist wasn't thinking about anti-aliasing of lines. However, the level of detail was in keeping with a low-res screen and what looked great at 320x240 would have been seriously lacking in detail at 1280x1024. Putting in that detail would have been a lot more work.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

No, it's reality alright. Indie developers like Dave Gilbert know this. Naturally they would love to see their games being bought and enjoyed by a larger number of people, but naturally that is also tied in to such factors as updated technology, investment in marketing and advertising, and media coverage outside the small online community of gamers who love 'homegrown' games.

Although I really like and respect Dave Gilbert, I still think that's only one opinion. The overwhelming majority of 320x200 AGS game developers (who are usually just hobbyists) don't seem to give a shit about mainstream success. And quite frankly, despite the fact that I'm not really interested in most of the games out there, I'm still quite happy that they exist.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I mean, wouldn't you love it if suddenly The New York Times and a couple other high profile sources reviewed your indie game favourably and, because of that, a leading publisher offered to fund you and provide better technology as long as you kept intact your quality for which the media noticed your game in the first place?

Isn't this a bit of a circular argument? Indie games, as you imply, are low in quality by default (and you've argued before that technology is a factor), so why would the media even bother to fund the developers on the basis that they would maintain such (low) quality in the first place?

[Orange Brat]

Low technology isn't really a good argument anymore. There are plenty of free tools that are on par with the big boys, and the free engines like Wintermute provide you with everything you need to make a solid adv. game. So, with the exception of your time and possible contract outsourcing, you can make a game for nothing if you use all free tools (the good ones, not just any old piece of open source crap floating around).

Engine: Wintermute or any of the other free engines (I'm partial to WME because of the 3D support)
Paint programs and 3D: Paint.NET, The GIMP, Wood Workshop, Blender, Wings3D, fragMotion (this is $20 but contains many IMHO vital features), Inkscape (a program like Illustrator), Art Rage 2 (another $20 program..kind of like Dogwaffle only without the animation features and much cheaper...Dogwaffle is a great tool, though)
Other: Inno Setup (installation program), Audacity (sound editor), Kristal Engine (sound editor), Virtualdub (video editor), Open Office (like MS Office)

That's an entire production studio and if you got all of it, you'd be out $40 US. Lots more here: http://forum.dead-code.org/index.php?topic=998.0

[TheTwelve]

Originally Posted by Orange Brat

Low technology isn't really a good argument anymore. There are plenty of free tools that are on par with the big boys, and the free engines like Wintermute provide you with everything you need to make a solid adv. game.

Except talent...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Although I really like and respect Dave Gilbert, I still think that's only one opinion. The overwhelming majority of 320x200 AGS game developers (who are usually just hobbyists) don't seem to give a shit about mainstream success. And quite frankly, despite the fact that I'm not really interested in most of the games out there, I'm still quite happy that they exist.

Oh, I'm happy too, despite the fact that, whenever I check up on them, find that most of them are pretty much clones of clones of commercial games those designers have played. It seems they have no reference other than those games, save for a few truly talented and very creative ones who are inspired elsewhere and have a unique vision.

Isn't this a bit of a circular argument? Indie games, as you imply, are low in quality by default (and you've argued before that technology is a factor), so why would the media even bother to fund the developers on the basis that they would maintain such (low) quality in the first place?

Why? It's not so much that, really, but a matter of 'how'? Perchance the review happened to stumble upon a garage or indie game and was thoroughly impressed by it that s/he felt compelled to write about it, whether or not the technology was current. This indie dev then receives a ton of interested customers, word gets to some big publisher that there is this unique game, and the next thing you know the little dev gets an offer to work with the publisher, who offers him/her such a chance but on stipulation that s/he use better technology which, to that publisher, means a better chance at marketing such a game. It can - and has - happened in any industry.

You need to think more about what I said, you know. Or is your 'counterpoint' a by-product of your own psychology?

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Squinky

(and you've argued before that technology is a factor)

Sure it's a factor. Video games have always been a product of the times they've been made in, some more, some less. Depending on how much a designer's vision was held back by either budget, talent, raw man power, time or well, indeed the technology available.

I think most developers, even those working on commercial games save for maybe the lucky ones at Valve and Blizzard have to work around some constraints of sorts. To figure out what these are and how to live with them, or better yet how to take advantage and do the best they can do *within* them. Trying to do the Peter Jackson* (his latter works that is) using a cheapo VHS camera and an epic set consisting of your granny's tulip garden seems a pretty ambitious thing to try. Likewise, knowing that you have to do good with 320x200 resolutions might also give ideas as to what you can do. And most of all: What you can't do. As for awesome retro esthetics (lowest poly count ever since "Quake", and it still looks AWESOME), check this.

Ultimately, technology's a tool, no more, no less. It can severe limit what one can do, though... and a resolution of 320x200 pixels does limit what quality work you can do. But then, so does everything.


* This is the last damn movie-games analogy I've ever used. Hopefully...


edit: There are widescreen monitors?

[jacog]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

That's not really true, I'm afraid. As the paintings were done on paper and scanned in, the artist wasn't thinking about anti-aliasing of lines. However, the level of detail was in keeping with a low-res screen and what looked great at 320x240 would have been seriously lacking in detail at 1280x1024. Putting in that detail would have been a lot more work.

But would that have mattered at all? I mean, it's a comicy game after all. I think you are guessing right now as much as I am guessing. Perhaps a 320x240 to 640x480, or even to 800x600 leap would have been a better example. And the paper artist does not need to think about anti-aliasing... when the analogue medium becomes scanned into digital format, that's taken care of, as is dithering etc.

I remember pixel-painting in Deluxe Paint on my Amiga, and having to manually anti-alias lines etc. but the era that followed that one basically made it quite irrelivant to the artist. You just paint.

[jacog]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

For one thing, when you get down to resolutions like 320x200 and (to a lesser extent) 640x480, pixel-pushing does become relevant, you can't just deal with paintbrushes, fills and filters any more if you want good results.

You just argued my point for me.

EDIT:

Here's some concept artwork from our game. Hand painted, took the artist about 8 hours to do. I made up two versions... both are the same physical size, but one used 640x480 pixels, the other is a simulated 320x240, scaled up to be 640x480 for proper comparison. Why on earth would one want to use the smaller resolution? I can think of no good reason. They look even better at a higher res.

Low res:



Higher res:

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

As for awesome retro esthetics (lowest poly count ever since "Quake", and it still looks AWESOME), check this.

I LOVE the art direction of this game! But really, I don't think this is the best example for this argument in terms of technology unless you're talking only about resolutions (and then if all you have to enjoy this game is a 320x240 screen you're probably the most belligerently cheapest sonuvabitch in the world to upgrade your pathetic monitor). Darwinia is a real time strategy game, after all, and whatever may not be demanded by an of-the-minute graphics card would certain be made up for in processing power for everything else the game features.

Ultimately, technology's a tool, no more, no less. It can severe limit what one can do, though... and a resolution of 320x200 pixels does limit what quality work you can do. But then, so does everything.

Right. For someone who wants to create a game that uses a more lifelike scenery, I'm not sure how far that stingy resolution will get them, either with the game or with potential customers.