800x600?

[Jake]

You then said you never claimed the two drawings had to be similar and called it stupid. This is where you lost me. If the images are not similar, how do you compare the different resolutions and how do you know which is faster?

I said that I never claimed that the two drawings were of equal quality. If you draw at a higher resolution, you will typically get a better result when you downsample it to just drawing at native res, and claiming to the contrary would be silly. I'm just saying that if you draw the same character in the same pose from the same sketch at high and low resolutions and colour it with the same scheme and the same kind of blending, the high-res one will take longer to complete.

[yummy]

Sorry to intrude, but I think it's just a misunderstanding.

Jake, you said that drawing and coloring something at "high res" would take more time than one you draw at "low res". This is true that if you're drawing at, let's say, 3000x4000, it could take more time than drawing at 640x480 (well, depends of what kind of drawing you're making but, let's say the drawing is very detailled).
You're stressing there that artists would have to draw on larger parts of a canvas.

Considering that you'd have to cover larger portions, it's like the difference in painting the wall of a skyscraper and the painting of the wall of a small house.

What you wanted to stress out, Sin, is that artists might usually draw on high resolutions and then might decrease their resolution, so there wouldn't be that great a difference and nothing noticeable between the original and reduced version (this is also a technique largely used among CG artists that are a bit lazy or that can't afford to waste time since the deadline draws nearer).

There's nothing wrong to debate on the quality of an image, especially over this issue of image resolution (also, please don't call yourselves by such names, I'm sure both of you are pretty nice guys).

What I don't understand is how a game designed to work on 800×600 would impact on higher resolutions. I know that 640×480 pixellise when you play at resolutions over 800x600 (and get deformed when you quit the 4:3 ratio).

Perhaps some don't: look at the games from the first Playstation©. They are made on resolutions ranging from 256×224 to 640×480 and they still displayed decently on a TV screen. You might say that a computer monitor is much better than a TV screen and I'd probably agree, but I didn't really cared if there was pixellisation as long as it wasn't obviously visible (I remember quite clearly that video streams were awful).

I don't remember any OELVN with any kind of video yet, but would it be the same with Ren'Py (or any other engine) ?

Then about the images "pixel effect" on higher resolutions, I'm thinking that we probably should be conscious it might happen with the games we make. Let's simply add something like:

"Hey, you know, this game was made in the dark ages or so, we still worked on 320×240 resolutions and we made our pic with paint.
So please be careful, if you play this game again some years from now, when your computer becomes something even we didn't manage to imagine and that you're travelling in space, expect to see weird things that would probably make you run away".

[Jake]

What I don't understand is how a game designed to work on 800×600 would impact on higher resolutions. I know that 640×480 pixellise when you play at resolutions over 800x600 (and get deformed when you quit the 4:3 ratio).

Well, this is what I meant with my comment in the first place, which sparked all this off - since most artists do draw at higher resolutions than the display res, it often wouldn't be impossible to re-make an 800x600 VN in - say - 1600x1200, just by having the art assets downsampled less. Depending on the engine and storage constraints, high-res graphics might be included in the package to be scaled down to the correct on-screen size depending on how big the reader's monitor is...

[yummy]

Well you could do like this, but overall it would dramatically impact the game file size. A high quality and high resolution graphic weights over 30 megabytes uncompressed!
CGs used for background graphics weight even more...
If you consider that games that are released take several gigabytes only because they are voiced, imagine what would happen if you were to put these into the game package...

So until most users are equipped with the latest hardware (meaning your high res game would only be targetted at this user range) that could enable this feature - i.e. blu-ray devices or HVDs for the next decade - you're bound to stay focused on a specific resolution range to limit the risks.

It's too soon to include such things, although if you don't have that much media files, it's not impossible to include them. Technically speaking, it's not something impossible.

So there are at least four problems:
- media file storage
- memory issues
- engine being fast enough to read and display media issues
- display device being able to display high resolutions.

You might see why it's not going to happen that soon with commercial games.

[Sin]

Commercial games are already a couple of gigs on average and sometimes even up to four gigabytes.
But I don't think high-res textures is the reason. Overall there are much less textures in a visual novel compared say, a Gears of war, and the same texture can be reused through-out a vn. PNG and JPEG are both compressed formats and their file size isn't directly proportional to the amount of pixels either.

I looked in one of my asset folders, 64 backgrounds in 1024x768 collectively takes up 8 megabytes, averaging 120kb each. That's nothing!
Unless we're talking about animations, textures are still much less of an issue compared to say hours of recorded vocals and music.

The last two points are non-issues too. Hardware-accelerated engines (like Novelty) are more than capable of scaling images in real-time and modern monitors support plenty big resolutions. 1024x768 is a relatively small resolution by today's standards. If anything we should be discussing whether or not widescreen resolutions are a viable option, now that widescreen monitors are becoming more mainstream.

[Jake]

The last two points are non-issues too. Hardware-accelerated engines (like Novelty) are more than capable of scaling images in real-time and modern monitors support plenty big resolutions. 1024x768 is a relatively small resolution by today's standards.

This still depends largely on what demographic plays VNs, though. Anyone who uses their PC for modern gaming should have no trouble running an engine which uses OpenGL or DirectX to display 2048x2048 textures at their monitor's native resolution. You and I will have no problems, because we have PCs capable enough to run high-end graphics apps and develop on. In fact, anyone who bought a gaming PC five years ago should have no real trouble... but there were a significant number of people who complained when PyTom suggested he was looking into using OpenGL for Ren'Py because their computers couldn't support it. There have been more than a few people who can't run Renaissance (OpenGL-driven) for one reason or another, and that runs absolutely fine on the slowest, oldest PC I own which I have trouble even using for web-browsing these days.

Now, this can be argued to not make much difference for free amateur VNs, because the only people who lose out are the people who can't run the software. But for a commercial venture, it raises the question - are these people loitering around the LSF reading OELVNs because those are one of the few forms of interactive entertainment which their computers can support, or are these people actually representative of a significant VN-playing demographic? If the reason modern commercial VNs are still being created in 800x600 is because 90% of the paying audience have ancient PCs which can't support much higher than that, then it would be a good idea for a commercial VN to stick to those kind of specs.

[yummy]

Well, I was talking about high res images and other media included. This could be text (takes very little space so it's not a real issue), music, textures, still images, animations, 3D models... Take your pick.

I should have elaborated before. Sorry for confusing you.
For future games (on PC), it's best to think about retrospective technologies, even if it's somehow a kind of anachronymous way of thinking.
The PC I use for my everyday needs isn't that great: 1Gb RAM, P4 CPU 3ghz and about a total of ±800Gb of hard disk capacity (now ±80Gb free space... Tohoho...).
My VGA card is reaally old: it can't handle pixel shaders (NVIDIA Geforce 4MX).
I can't upgrade this because I'd have to buy a new motherboard, thus a new CPU (cause my socket isn't used anymore on modern motherboards), new RAM modules, new video card and so on. It'd be better to buy a new computer instead.
Even so, it still works and there's (incredibly) no lag whatsoever (until I fire up multiple h264 encoded videos plus other things in the background).
I can display OpenGL without problems but I can't play games that require pixel shaders (I have to borrow my bro's compie, huhu).

Most users have this kind of PC if they didn't buy a new one five or six years ago (but I doubt anyone still has the same VGA card though, it's really an antique).
There's no trouble displaying things at high resolutions neither, no lag or anything.

Imagine you're to put high res textures+3D models on this machine. There's bound to be some lag (you would tweak a bit to lessen this), thus the game experience is somehow modified.

What I wanted to point at is that for future high res games, the media file storage is an issue because of a possible increase in quality. Better sound means that you use either a better compression algorythm or that you are able to use uncompressed files at ease. Better animation might mean (not necessarily) more frames to render an animation (24fps+). Better CGs might mean more colors, more surface (if there's no use of compressed files).
Thus an increase in file size (lots of ifs in my last statement, tehehe).

I also wanted to stress that a computer with only 1Gb RAM is somehow limited. If your game engine can display high res media, it's cool, but the problem is the RAM needed for this to occur (aren't programs run on computer RAM?). I'm not a specialist about this and I might be totally false in my reasoning there. Just wanted to discuss about this.

I agree with you Ren, textures files don't usually weight much and generally compressed CGs don't weight much either.
You even reassured me about my last two points but yeah there's the VGA card problem (it's a display device, right?) ^^

Now, let's take a different perspective.
If you're to develop a game that is to be released with the latest rendering improvements and that you want some really good effects, why not ?
(Please wait until I bought a new PC! )
Your computer is fast enough, your VGA card is up to date and the tech required is used to the required level for your story narration, so it serves a good purpose in your storytelling technique. Plus, it's an incentive for users (like me) to upgrade their hardware !

[ficedula]

I also wanted to stress that a computer with only 1Gb RAM is somehow limited. If your game engine can display high res media, it's cool, but the problem is the RAM needed for this to occur (aren't programs run on computer RAM?). I'm not a specialist about this and I might be totally false in my reasoning there. Just wanted to discuss about this.

I agree with you Ren, textures files don't usually weight much and generally compressed CGs don't weight much either.
You even reassured me about my last two points but yeah there's the VGA card problem (it's a display device, right?) ^^

1GB RAM isn't really limited. 2d graphics alone simply aren't going to take up that much space, not even with more than one ultra high res graphic uncompressed and ready to display. You'd have to try hard to use up 1GB of memory. Which isn't to say you couldn't come up with a game that could use that much memory! But I can't offhand think of anything VN-style that would need that much, or even really find it useful.

The main problem I can see with picking a resolution to target a VN at, is finding one that's widely enough supported. 1024x768 is probably the only resolution you count on being supported on the majority of PCs. Even an old, CRT monitor will support that. Of course, if you're playing the VN on a non-HD TV, you're stuffed.

Want to go widescreen? Hard to say what resolution to go for. 1280x800? 1440x900? Go the whole hog for 1080p?

Realistically, what would I do? Probably pick a resolution that's high off to showcase the level of detail the game will actually have in it (yes, that's vague, but it's dependant on your assets), and try to make sure that different aspect ratio displays were catered for - by running in a non-full-screen window, if nothing else.

[Sin]

I understand why you would want to develop for the least possible hardware spec, but the minimum requirement is rising every day. Especially now since Vista needs at least pixel shader 2.0, so all computer that runs Vista have shader support.

Also, supporting something like pixel shaders won't exclude people with older hardware. On the code side I can ask the hardware "Hi? Do you support pixel shader 2.x?" and act accordingly, disabling any shaders from running if needed.

yummy: You're computer seems good enough. I'm sure you'd be able to play lots of games on it if you had a better graphics card. The Geforce 4 isn't the best card you can find for the AGP port. There are plenty more that's much better that'll fit in your current mobo.

And yes. Everything runs in RAM. When you type "int value = 42", that code allocates 2 bytes of RAM and stores the value 42. The code itself (.exe) is also stored in RAM. That said, not everything needs to be in RAM all the time. You only use what you need at a given moment.

[PyTom]

Also, supporting something like pixel shaders won't exclude people with older hardware. On the code side I can ask the hardware "Hi? Do you support pixel shader 2.x?" and act accordingly, disabling any shaders from running if needed.

Of course, the question is: "then what?"

One of the design goals for Ren'Py was that, apart from framerate, it looks the same wherever it is run. I think that makes the developer's life easier... even though the games may not be 100% cutting edge, what they have, they have everywhere.

yummy: You're computer seems good enough. I'm sure you'd be able to play lots of games on it if you had a better graphics card. The Geforce 4 isn't the best card you can find for the AGP port. There are plenty more that's much better that'll fit in your current mobo.

It's hard to ask people to upgrade their graphics card just to play a visual novel. This is a relatively casual market, and people will tend to just not play rather than upgrade.

When you type "int value = 42", that code allocates 2 bytes of RAM and stores the value 42.

And just to be pedantic, int has been 4 bytes for a long time now.

[Sin]

Of course, the question is: "then what?"

There are a couple of things you could do. You could downgrade to a simpler pixel shader and hope that works or leave it up to the developer to decide what to do. Pixel shaders aren't a necessity in visual novels so I'm sure there are ways to work around it if you really have to but they're a great asset to an artist if used properly.

The way I see it, having the support in there can't hurt. The same goes for resolutions.

I wouldn't ask anyone to upgrade their computer for a visual novel either. I meant games in general, which is one of the most common reason why people upgrade their machines. Novelty is more demanding than other VN-engines, but that is to say it requires Windows XP instead of 98. It's not a tall order to ask for DirectX-compatible hardware in 2008.

Thanks for correcting me btw. My memory is terrible.

[DaFool]

In fact, anyone who bought a gaming PC five years ago should have no real trouble... but there were a significant number of people who complained when PyTom suggested he was looking into using OpenGL for Ren'Py because their computers couldn't support it. There have been more than a few people who can't run Renaissance (OpenGL-driven) for one reason or another, and that runs absolutely fine on the slowest, oldest PC I own which I have trouble even using for web-browsing these days.

As one of the people who complained, let me just say thanks to the memory-allocation improvements Renaissance runs on my PC (whereas it didn't with the initial version), but not smooth enough for the gameplay to be enjoyable, so I still gave up.

I can't upgrade this because I'd have to buy a new motherboard, thus a new CPU (cause my socket isn't used anymore on modern motherboards), new RAM modules, new video card and so on. It'd be better to buy a new computer instead.

The machine I'm using now to create the raw graphics for my current project (which are high enough so a crisp 1080 HD release can theoretically be made with minimal downsizing), is an old school Pentium 4 1.3Ghz with 256MB ram and 32mb Geforce2 MX video card.
My tolerance levels must be pretty high since I plan to use this machine for another year or so. I am able to fully maximize it to its limits since I'm still able to work on 70 megabyte photoshop files that take 5 minutes to load. (It's also perfectly capable of playing 720p HD movie files so long as they are not in mkv format -- i.e., the subtitles are prerendered as in mp4) In fact it's my Sempron work computer that couldn't open my files 50% of the time, and that thing has 512mb of ram.

When I upgrade I'd have to change the motherboard, RAM (to use the latest DDR sticks), and the video card, but I priced it recently and comes to around $200-$250, with new casing and power supply included (I'll keep my current harddrive).

[Sin]

... is an old school Pentium 4 1.3Ghz with 256MB ram and 32mb Geforce2 MX video card.

You know you can get a computer with over twice the performance for almost no money at all.
Just saying.