320x200 vs 320x240 (or 640x400 vs 640x480)

[Crimson Wizard]

This may be considered silly, but I want to know, are there any disadvantages of using larger-height resolution? Obviously, if you choose 320x240 over 320x200 or 640x480 over 640x400 then your game screens will have more space. But are there any drawbacks of choosing that kind of resolution (except for using a little bit more memory to store game backgrounds)?

[Scavenger]

320x200 et al generally were the resolutions used by games in the early 90s. QVGA (that is, 320x240) is a more recent invention. So you have the nostalgia hook of having rectangular pixels. Which is, I must admit, quite a cool thing - it requires a little more art skill to get everything right, considering that when you make the graphics, you're making them on square pixel ratio (this wasn't a problem in the 80s and 90s, however), but it's fiddly and unless you're really having your heart set on it, not worth it for the hassle and the 40 vertical pixel sacrifice.

However, 320x200 and 640x400 have a hidden secret that wasn't apparent at the time (the screen resolution was originally just a byproduct of memory space limitations).

It's 16:10. Roughly computer-brand Widescreen, if I remember correctly.

[Calin Leafshade]

I use 320x200 mainly because i like the letterboxing it gives on square monitors when the 'force alternate letterbox' setting is on.. but thats easy to replicate in 320x240 anyway...

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I prefer 320x240 for the same reason developers did:  more vertical space for the UI. 

[Swordofkings128]

I like 320x200 because it appears wider, giving it a more cinematic effect. Plus it gives me 40 less pixels to worry about, but as Prog said, it leaves less space for your interface, so you have to be more conservative with how you design it.

[Snake]

I decided on 320x240 for Leitor's Edge solely because of the text being at the bottom of the screen, leaving more room for the backgrounds.

[GarageGothic]

I must admit I think a 4:3 aspect ratio is a poor choice for any game developed at this day of age, especially if you have an alternative. I don't really like the way AGS handles letterboxing of 320x200 games on 4:3 monitors since the black bars are wasted space - it still looks better to me than a 320x240 screen centered on a windescreen monitor though. I've been advocating variable viewport sizing so you could have two different GUI/text displays for 4:3 and 16:10 modes, but there doesn't seem to be much support for such a feature.

[Karlos]

Is there a good reason to choose such low resolutions to begin with, other than nostalgia?  I understand that higher resolutions will be lower, take-up more disk space and more memory, but surely modern  computers can handle 640x480 and above, though?  It looks like the vast majority of games use 320x200, so it seems like there must be some kind of compelling reason besides nostalgia. 

[Matti]

Karlos, that totally depends on your skills and style - of course a pixel artist won't choose a 1024x768 resolution, while a vector artist like me won't use a 320x resolution.

Also, if you're a beginner (in art) and have problems with filling the background, a game in a high resolution could happen to look rather stale and dull. The same goes for animations - the larger the sprites are, the smoother the animations have to be in order to look good.

[TerranRich]

320 resolution is mostly for pixel art, games with artwork intended to resemble older games. Games done in 640 and higher usually have to have a different style, like vector, 3D, or hand-drawn. That's just my observation, though.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

The main factor advocating low resolutions for amateur developers:

Development time is significantly reduced.  For freeware efforts this is especially important since energy and interest tends to flag when there's no compensation involved, especially on large projects.

[TerranRich]

Not always true, especially when working with 3D. Dev time is about the same. If anything, higher res is preferred to show detail.