next »

[Icedemon]

so heres what i was wondering...

im not a total noob to the indie scene, got like a year n a half under my belt, but i haven't yet found a tutorial or some other bit of advice that explains screen size, and graphics quality, and all that. I know basic stuff, but i was wondering if any one knows of (or has made, or would be willing to make) a tutorial that covers the following:

- screen size/ sprite size - differences, advantages, etc.
- graphics quality - from 2D to 3D and everything in between
- resolution

plz let me know! thnx 

-ice

[Derek]

Hmmm, what is it that you'd like to be explained about those, exactly?

Those are really just preferences.

[Icedemon]

well.. for screen size and sprite size, id even be happy with a tutorial that showwed each size (even if the example was like a blank box) and said advantages, disadvantges, and what type of games that particular size is usually used for... but as for the graphics, like from 2D to 3D, i know stuff about both, but as for inbetween 2D and 3D (example: like in some most GBA advance games, those kind of graphics... how do you define those?...) i dunno, stuff like that... srry but just sort of a general graphics overveiw kinda things

word. 

[Akhel]

There is nothing between 2D and 3D except for a few cupcakes and orange juice. You must be thinking of isometric view (sometimes inaccurately called "2.5D"), which is actually 2D.

As for sizes, you just choose and use whatever size (in whatever proportion) you think would best suit your needs. Basically, the smaller the screen, the faster the game will run and the worse will be the overall image quality. This is completely untrue in some cases, though.

[PoV]

You're right, it could be documented better.  I'm a total nerd of these technical details having worked on my share of systems.  But the truth is is what ends up in more recent games games is the result of iterative trial and error (i.e. playing with the camera distance), preference as Derek pointed out, and the chance that something preferentially chosen just works.  Some older games, it's hardware restrictions that dictated the graphic sizes.  The NES and original Gameboy for example, can't have more then 10 8 pixel wide sprites drawn per horizontal line.  That's why you rarely see more than 3 16 pixel wide enemies on a single platform in 2D platformers on those systems.

[Icedemon]

ok wait, first to clarify... im not an idiot. i just realized how weird my post sounded. Between 2D and 3D... pshhh... sorry haha, k i meant like... well has anyone ever playd golden sun? its like very low rez 3D blended with 2D, but it looks nice, ya know? is there any name for like those kinds of transitory games? And thanks for the isometric veiw link, akhel, but that wasn't exactly what i was talking about.

[PoV]

Pre-rendered sprites is a term that's sometimes used for that.  Doing the art in 3D software (3DS Max, Maya, whatever), then reducing it to GBA sprite friendly sizes.  I've also been on a project where we animated in 3D, and used the resulting rendered 3D animations as a sort of rotoscope, cleaning up the rendered frames with pixel details.  Not really any faster than blobbing colors to create a rough animation, but it's a useful crutch for animators or pixelers without much 2D animation experience, when 3D modeling experience is plentiful.

[Martha Stewart]

Well, I'm not really an expert on video games, although Martha has done a little hacking in her time. *giggle*

If we're talking about resolutions, it really depends on the time of year.  Since it's spring now, I usually like to go with 640 x 480.  Honestly, that's a nice choice for any time... but it's simply perfect for spring (and especially Easter)!  It's a nice, non-offensive res with a mellow, wooden finish.

Martha loves to frag n00b bitches on a warm spring day at 640 x 480... and that's a good thing.

[Akhel]

Well, I'm not really an expert on video games, although Martha has done a little hacking in her time. *giggle*

If we're talking about resolutions, it really depends on the time of year.  Since it's spring now, I usually like to go with 640 x 480.  Honestly, that's a nice choice for any time... but it's simply perfect for spring (and especially Easter)!  It's a nice, non-offensive res with a mellow, wooden finish.

Martha loves to frag n00b bitches on a warm spring day at 640 x 480... and that's a good thing.

DUDE YOU'RE WEIRD, PLEASE GO AWAY!

[Icedemon]

WHOA. Pov, thnx for the help. Martha, go away. i mean, martha stewart?! man...

-ice

[Anthony Flack]

What, you want Martha to go away? No!

It really, really totally depends on what you want to do. Games get much, much slower  and the graphics take up exponentially more memory as you up the resolution. That's not nearly so important now as it used to be, but if you want a fast action game with loads of overdraw and stacks of big, fluid sprites without requiring a huge download and a top-of-the-line machine, lower resolutions are still a good idea.

Personally, I think that if you use edge-antialiasing on your sprites, then 640x480 looks absolutely fine. Some people would consider that heretical in this day and age, although obviously not here on TIGSource, where everyone competes to see who can use the lowest resolution, and 320x240x8 is considered excessive... 

However, if your game has a clean, vectory look, you may want to go higher. This is also generally true for more static game types, particularly ones with lots of text and other info on screen, like strategy games. You probably don't want to go higher than 1024x768, for maximum compatability.

Any game that runs in 3d hardware (whether it has a 2d or a 3d look) can be scaled to any resolution with very little effort, so you should allow the user to set it to whatever their native res is.

[PoV]

Martha Stuart!?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I second Anthony's advice, but another thing to keep in mind is that if your game will use pixel art (hand-made tiles and sprites rather than 3D rendered) it's a lot more work to draw an 80x80 sprite than it is to draw a 40x40 sprite, so lower resolutions are sometimes chosen for that reason. Even going from 320x200 to 640x480 means your sprites will take more than four times as long to make (to appear the same size in each resolution). It would look a little nicer, because the sprites would have a higher resolution, but it wouldn't actually look four times as nice. So for pixel art I think the lower resolutions are better, not only because it runs faster, but because it takes a lot less work to get a good effect at that level.

[moi]

I use the 2D in 3D technique (hardware accelerated polygons to draw the sprites).
Solves a lot of problem, the user can just chose the resolution he wants.

And it's very easy to do these semi 3D games you're talking about.

[guille]

There's this nice and legally free ebook that talks about graphics.

Here are the chapters that could interest you the most:
   2. Designing for Different Display Modes
   3. Image Compression and Graphic File Formats
  11. Planning Arcade Game Graphics

You can read a complete overview and download it from here:
http://www.blendernation.com/2007/01/12/free-book-designing-arcade-computer-game-graphics/

It's a nice start, give it a go.

[Icedemon]

ooo, thanks! so far, it's pretty helpful. Word.