[fabiopb]

It's amazing how many developers still release adventure games with obsolete maximum resolutions such as 800x600, even lower. I use 1280x1024 in my 17" lcd and everytime I run a 800x600 game I get this horrible interpolation.

(from an interview with Bernoit Sokal about 2007's Sinking Island:

[Sokal] "You will see that Sinking Island is quite innovative in fact. Here are some of the main innovations (...) we are now displaying high-res images (1024 X 768)"

Wow, Bernoit! That huge resolution was introduced in 1990! Unbelievable!)

It shouln't be too hard to create a game in, say, 1600x1200 and rescale it to many lower resolution as options. I mean, graphics are usually 3d rendered or hand painted, so rendering at a bigger resolution - or painting and scaning at a bigger resolution - shouldn't be big trouble. I think we deserve that.

It's also a shame that Adventure Gamers doesn't include the maximum resolution in each game's complete details. In fact I hardly read any comment about resolution in the previews and reviews. Reviewers should begin to criticize and give lower ratings for those low resolution games. Maybe this would make game creators finally open their eyes and stop making games for 15 years old computers.

I invite everyone who would like to play games at decent resolutions to leave a message here.

I vote for higher resolutions!

[Keregioz]

Like it or not adventure games are not about good graphics. There are things far more important. Also, high resolutions do not translate to good graphics so I don't see why it should lower the score in a game review.

Personally I would honestly prefer games at 320x200 resolution if that meant that they would start putting some effort in the story, dialogue, puzzles and gameplay instead.

Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy good graphics but I don't find them necessary in adventure games in particular. In first person shooters on the other hand for example it plays a very big part in making the game good.

[MoriartyL]

Something which is designed for a high resolution will not necessarily be playable on lower resolutions. A lot of little details become hard to make out, and the overall picture suffers enormously. But if something is designed for a low resolution, it can be run on higher resolutions without losing anything. If there's a problem with displaying low resolutions on certain monitors, a good fix would be to present the original low-resolution graphics in high-resolution so that the screen doesn't cause trouble while you still get the whole picture as it was meant to be seen.

[heodox]

Originally Posted by Keregioz

Personally I would honestly prefer games at 320x200 resolution if that meant that they would start putting some effort in the story, dialogue, puzzles and gameplay instead.

That is all true, but what latest game has featured any of these things with high quality, at least they could give us decent, modern and tehnicaly well done graphics. I'm all for those artistic adventures with beutifuly prerendered graphics, but there aren't any OTHERS!

The 3D capability of today's GPU's can do some stunning efects (and I'm not talking about recent stuff, all that are DirectX 9 and OpenGL 2.0 enabled and that is from 2002).

Also full 3d can offer even more emersion and can offer some new way of interaction (penumbra).

[INDIGO]

I agree 100% up down and around with OP. It's time developers take full advantage of all the things GPU's can do now. I await the day for such.

[fabiopb]

Originally Posted by Keregioz

Personally I would honestly prefer games at 320x200 resolution if that meant that they would start putting some effort in the story, dialogue, puzzles and gameplay instead.

Same could be said about voiceovers, Keregioz - and they are frequently used as argument for lowering significantly game's scores. You can have a fantastic text, a really excelent dialogue with terrible voiceovers. So what are you interested in? The content of the speech or the tone of the character's voice? If you can live with a 320x200 I suppose you really don't mind an awful voiceover job too, right?

Then maybe a horrible interface shouldn't be reason for criticizing a game if it received enough effort in the puzzles? For me it's all related... I would never put things like you did - graphics are as important as all other aspects.

If presented in 320x200 a game like The Longest Journey wouldn't give me half the pleasure it did. And if it was presented in a beautiful Full HD (1920×1080) and with better special effects, the mood setting would be much more effective!

[Jayel]

A better analogy would be clear sounding voiceovers vs. low freq sampling full of scraches and pops

[tsa]

I must say I was surprised by Sokal's remark too. Wow, new stuff in a resolution I haven't been using since 1997! I also disagree with the remark that tiny things will be impossible to see when the resuolution is scaled down. If something that is visible in 1600x1200 is not visible anymore in 1280x1024 then it had better not be something that is important in the game. We all hate pixel hunting. So yes, I agree, up with the resolution! I agree that resolution is not the most important thing in AG's, but increasing the resolution is probably the easiest way to make a game more enjoyable.

[Collector]

I say higher resolutions, too, but I do agree in part with Keregioz. It should never come at the sacrifice of other, more important elements. While higher resolutions do not necessarily equate better graphics, it can help make the most of good graphics. Point is, why can't we have it all? A great game with fantastic graphics?

[mosdl]

I believe Secret Files 2 is one of the first games to support multiple high resolutions.

The problem with this is that it increases the workload, having to resize high res images takes up memory, and probably each screen needs to be tested in all possible resolutions during QA, which adds cost.

[Keregioz]

Originally Posted by heodox

That is all true, but what latest game has featured any of these things with high quality?

That's exactly my point... I would sacrifice graphics for those things cause they are extremely rare in today's adventure games.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by fabiopb

It's amazing how many developers still release adventure games with obsolete maximum resolutions such as 800x600, even lower. I use 1280x1024 in my 17" lcd and everytime I run a 800x600 game I get this horrible interpolation.

Perhaps the main source of your problem is a poor quality screen. Also, 17" size is a bit small nowadays. Maybe you should invest in some bigger, more expensive monitor with better scaling capabilities. You don't want to stay behind the times, do you?

[Keregioz]

Originally Posted by fabiopb

Same could be said about voiceovers, Keregioz - and they are frequently used as argument for lowering significantly game's scores. You can have a fantastic text, a really excelent dialogue with terrible voiceovers. So what are you interested in? The content of the speech or the tone of the character's voice? If you can live with a 320x200 I suppose you really don't mind an awful voiceover job too, right?

Then maybe a horrible interface shouldn't be reason for criticizing a game if it received enough effort in the puzzles? For me it's all related... I would never put things like you did - graphics are as important as all other aspects.

If presented in 320x200 a game like The Longest Journey wouldn't give me half the pleasure it did. And if it was presented in a beautiful Full HD (1920×1080) and with better special effects, the mood setting would be much more effective!

Like jayel said that's not a fair analogy. High resolution it's not the same as good voice overs. The right analogy is good quality graphics with good quality voice overs and as I already said for me high resolution does not equal good graphics.

Of course everybody would prefer TLJ with HD graphics and better special effects. I didn't say that I don't want good graphics. But you must see things from the game designers/developers perspective. Creating a game takes a lot of time and money and usually adventure game developers don't have the kind of budget that would allow them to have that kind of graphics and at the same time keep the quality high in all other aspects of the game. Unfortunately us adventure game players should compromise.

Would you enjoy TLJ more if it had HD graphics with breath taking special effects but poor voice acting and shortened length and who knows what other compromises so it would not exceed the budget?

[Keregioz]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Something which is designed for a high resolution will not necessarily be playable on lower resolutions. A lot of little details become hard to make out, and the overall picture suffers enormously. But if something is designed for a low resolution, it can be run on higher resolutions without losing anything. If there's a problem with displaying low resolutions on certain monitors, a good fix would be to present the original low-resolution graphics in high-resolution so that the screen doesn't cause trouble while you still get the whole picture as it was meant to be seen.

I think it goes both ways... if we're talking about prerendered backgrounds then something that was designed for low resolution won't look as good in high resolution. Higher resolution reveals a lot of flaws that were not visible in lower resolutions.

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by mosdl

I believe Secret Files 2 is one of the first games to support multiple high resolutions.

The second season of Sam & Max also supported multiple high resolutions.

[Keregioz]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

The second season of Sam & Max also supported multiple high resolutions.

I think we're talking about games with prerendered 3D graphics. For real time 3D there was also dreamfall and maybe others I don't remember right now.
It's much easier for real time 3D graphics to support high resolutions.

[MoonBird]

Originally Posted by fabiopb

It's amazing how many developers still release adventure games with obsolete maximum resolutions such as 800x600, even lower. I use 1280x1024 in my 17" lcd and everytime I run a 800x600 game I get this horrible interpolation

That interpolation happens simply, because 800x600 is 4:3 resolution and 1280x1024 is not. It's 5:4 and that's why the game graphics certainly look horrible. And while LCD can show only one optimal fixed resolution, there will be problems. That is one of the main reasons why I threw away my new LCD and put my old monitor back on the table.

[Henke]

Like Keregioz said, higher resolution doesn't necessarily means better graphics. I want more artistic achievements compared to technical ones. Sometimes they go hand in hand, sometimes not.

[Jannik]

Originally Posted by MoonBird

That interpolation happens simply, because 800x600 is 4:3 resolution and 1280x1024 is not. It's 5:4 and that's why the game graphics certainly look horrible. And while LCD can show only one optimal fixed resolution, there will be problems. That is one of the main reasons why I threw away my new LCD and put my old monitor back on the table.

Well, to my understanding, the last bit of your answer is more correct.

The farther away from the native resolution, the worse the game will look. It's not _just_ because of the proportion issue. But that obviously adds to the final outcome too

- Of course, there might be LCD's out there with very good scalers, but as far as I know it's the rule of thumb.

Sometimes it helps to play a game with borders activated. But it depends of the resolution and screen size.

[fabiopb]

Ascovel:

I'm sorry, I made a mistake - my lcd monitor is 19", not 17". Still there's no such thing as "scaling capabilities". LCD monitors have a native resolution and unfortunately anything that falls outside it will get a bad interpolation treatment. I hope this changes in the future...

Originally Posted by Collector

Point is, why can't we have it all? A great game with fantastic graphics?

Well put! I could put even diferently: bad games for bad games, at least give us some better graphics.

I read a few comments like "but this would increase the cost of production". So what? That's what creating and selling is all about. If action games producers did stick with this philosophy we would have first person shooters games with Wolfenstein/Doom 1 graphics being released today. In fact, that's exactly what adventure game producers are doing right now - releasing Dooms and Wolf3Ds, i. e., games with totally obsolete technologies. No wonder the adventure genre is going through difficult times... (bad stories are part of that too, of course).

Would high res graphics cost more money? Of course. But it's also a fact that producing a game like TLJ would be way cheaper today than it was 10 years ago. Today they have better softwares, hardware, tools, knowhow (at least they should have)... there are even freeware tools to replace 3d Studio (Blender) and Photoshop (Gimp). So even with the same investment the least we should expect is better quality.

Sorry, I don't understand why some of you see these obsolete graphics as the natural thing. For me the natural would be the evolution. To see a new game that could perfectly have been released 15 years ago is just not right.

We should stop treating those companies as if they were handicapped. No more "take it easy, they are putting a lot of efforts in the storyline...". It's time to request good stories, good interfaces, good voiceovers AND excelent graphics! Just like every other genre fans do.