320x240 versus 320x200

[Mortis]

I'm afraid this is incredible nitpicking, but I'm seriously having questions regarding the nature of the two resolutions, 320x240 and 320x200, and I wouldn't mind some

I'm beginning to feel like I should downgrade to 320x200 for several reasons, the primary one being that the classic "LucasArts" resolution was indeed 320x200. It feels "right".

Similarly, the block of 320x40 pixels is not exactly small work when it comes to a mass of background art.

My main question is, then, do any of you think the extra space would be worth preserving for presenting more geometric space in the backgrounds (or for some other reason, for that matter)? Do you prefer one resolution over the another?

[space boy]

Doesn't matter. Just pick the one you prefer(which obviously seems to be 320x200) and concentrate on more important aspects of the game.

[Renal Shutdown]

Personally, I'd opt for 320x240, or 640x480, or 800x600.  Only as my monitor is set for a 4:3 ratio, and I find it easier to draw stuff at that ratio.  If I made a game as 320x200, then I'd be fussing about whether the characters suddenly look too tall compared with the images in my head.  They'd look fine to everyone else, but it would annoy the heck out of me.

The main thing's to pick what you feel comfortable with.

(I'm actually planning backgrounds to be 640x400, but I'm going to letterbox the whole thing for 1. a widescreen movie feel, and 2. somewhere to put GUI stuff when it's needed).

[GarageGothic]

Actually, in these days where a lot of people are using laptops with 16:10 screens, it wouldn't be such as bad idea to develop your game in 320x200 and ask 4:3 screen users to check the "Force alternate letterbox resolution" box in setup.

But I would also say that it depends a lot on your interface. A traditional LucasArts GUI takes up a lot of screen space.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Nowadays, when I find a game that, like most RON games or like Cayanne Pepper, is developed for 320x200, I opt to go letterbox. Dunno about y'all, but in my monitor it's like I'm sitting in front of a TV - scanlines. Plus, the characters just seem stretched.

Personal preference. I know nothing about the technicality - but GG seems to be in the know, and his sugestion makes sense. Take heed.

[Mortis]

Actually, in these days where a lot of people are using laptops with 16:10 screens, it wouldn't be such as bad idea to develop your game in 320x200 and ask 4:3 screen users to check the "Force alternate letterbox resolution" box in setup.

This is an excellent observation! *takes notes*

Plus, the characters just seem stretched.

Yeah! You see stretched screenshots very often online. It doesn't look too bad with classic games, but can be rather risky when you're doing graphics yourself...

[scotch]

I'd generally have said go for x240 or x480 under all circumstances, because I've almost never seen an AGSer drawing appropriately for x200/x400 but GG's point about the increasing popularity of 16:10 is becoming something to consider. 4:3 is more common for the time being, but in a few years it'll probably be the other way round. Shame LCDs still have horrible upscaling differences... perhaps it'll standardise eventually.

If you are bitterly old school and need to use 320x200@4:3 and 256 colour for authenticity, at least be aware of the fact that it's a rectangular pixel mode, even if you aren't going to switch to a similar display mode to draw the graphics.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Also, bear in mind that while many older games had the backgrounds in 320x200, the resolution was still 320x240 to support a 40 pixel UI at the bottom!  This varied slightly, of course, with some backgrounds somewhat larger and smaller UI's, but it's nice having the extra vertical space when needed.

[Layabout]

I personally prefer 320x200 as i have a laptop with the aforementioned 16:10 ratio. 320x240 just looks a bit stretched.

[Mortis]

This is a far more interesting thread that I originally expected!

Also, bear in mind that while many older games had the backgrounds in 320x200, the resolution was still 320x240 to support a 40 pixel UI at the bottom!  This varied slightly, of course, with some backgrounds somewhat larger and smaller UI's, but it's nice having the extra vertical space when needed.

Yes, I've been playing Flight of the Amazon Queen some... "Oil be back..." anyway, it's a good example of the 320x240 format with backgrounds in 180px and 60px reserved for the interface.

If you are bitterly old school and need to use 320x200@4:3 and 256 colour for authenticity, at least be aware of the fact that it's a rectangular pixel mode, even if you aren't going to switch to a similar display mode to draw the graphics.

What do you think are the things that one should pay attention if one were to use 320x200@4:3? I mean, generally speaking the idea of forcing on the alternate letter box resolution is fine by me. I'm interested in what you think are the main points to watch out for, though.

Interestingly enough, I noticed that the Fountain of Youth team utilize the x200 resolution. Very nice, especially since the original Fate of Atlantis backgrounds are 150px as well.

[scotch]

Ideally you'd switch your desktop resolution to something 16:10 when you draw, most crts should be able to handle it. I'd suggest setting Photoshop's pixel aspect to 0.833, which would work fine, except that when you have vertically stretched pixels in PS the single pixel brush stops working right. Bit of a bug I think.
If you don't do that you just need to remember that things will be stretched vertically somewhat in game, so make your characters slightly squatter than you might otherwise, and take care when drawing things that are meant to be perfect squares or circles.

[Radiant]

Also, bear in mind that while many older games had the backgrounds in 320x200, the resolution was still 320x240 to support a 40 pixel UI at the bottom!

"Many" older games? Like what, exactly? Every lo-res Sierra and LucasArts game works in 320x200, as does Future Wars, Shadow of the Comet, etc etc etc. The sole exception I can think of is FOTAQ.