What's the best resolution for a VN?

[Ran08]

Umm, not sure if this is in the right place. XD
And I know that this has been asked a couple of times now, sorry, but I couldn't find the link to the old thread I saw. -____-

So... umm, I just want to ask, what do you think is the best resolution for a VN? Currently I have mine at 900x700, just a bit bigger than the usual 800x600.
I don't want it to be too small, but not too big as well. And also, if it is big, won't that make the file size big? How should one compress it?

I guess what I'm really asking is, what is too big and too small for you, when it comes to VNs?

Thanks. ^^

[Googaboga]

Here are some topics that discus that topic:
http://lemmasoft.renai.us/forums/viewto ... =4&t=16795
http://lemmasoft.renai.us/forums/viewto ... =4&t=17343
http://lemmasoft.renai.us/forums/viewto ... 46&t=20883

You'll find lots of opinions in those.

Personally I like something a little larger than what you are going with, but that's just me.

[Ran08]

Ahh, I see! Thank you. <3 Those links are very helpful.

I guess I should go for 1024x600 or something like that then.

[Greeny]

1366x768 is the best resolution. All the others are inferior and must be exterminated.

[Tempus]

So... umm, I just want to ask, what do you think is the best resolution for a VN? Currently I have mine at 900x700, just a bit bigger than the usual 800x600.

The first thing to consider before resolution is aspect ratio. Aspect ratio is the shape of the screen. Once, 4:3 was the most popular (it's worth noting this is still used for some tablets like the iPad). Today, 16:9 - "widescreen" - has taken over for desktop displays (it's also used for some laptops and tablets). Other common aspect ratios are 16:10 (desktop and laptop displays, some tablets) and 3:2 (smart phones). It's not possible to adequately support them all if you're using static artwork, so you're probably going to want to focus on 16:9 and 16:10, especially if you're not releasing for use on tablets or smart phones.

Regardless or what you choose, make sure it's an aspect ratio that is actually used. Above, you take 800 x 600 (4:3) and add 100 pixels to the width and height for 900 x 700, but this changes the aspect ratio. To keep it 4:3 it'd need to be 900 x 675 or 933 x 700. Despite it being a lot less common, using 4:3 is better than using some random aspect ratio that no displays conform to. In a similar vein, choose a resolution that's actually used; 1920 x 1200, 1920 x 1080, 1600 x 1000, 1600 x 900, 1366 x 768 < they're the ones I'd pick from, myself. I'm personally using 1920 x 1200 for my art. It's 16:10, but the extra height can just be cropped or overflow on 16:9 displays.

I don't want it to be too small, but not too big as well. And also, if it is big, won't that make the file size big? How should one compress it?

Save as a .jpg with as much compression as you can get away with before artefacts begin to appear (pixellation, banding). Even a 1920 x 1080 BG is relatively small if it's saved well. I did a render at 1900 x 1200; it's a jpeg and only 180kb -- if you save a smaller image incorrectly (and many, many people on the internet do) it can easily exceed that. The PNG version of that same render is 1.3mb. If you're using Photoshop and saving a JPEG, don't use the quality 11 and 12 settings; they're apparently experimental and add basically no difference in fidelity, but still increase the file size.

• "P.S. Another interesting fact found in the article is an explanation of why the quality values go from 1-12 instead of the standard 1-10. They say it’s because the maximum value people are expected to use is 10. For the values 11 and 12 (included for “experimental reasons”), you don’t actually get much noticeable change in image quality, but file size balloons like crazy!" -- A Higher Quality Setting in Photoshop Sometimes Reduces JPEG Quality

[AxemRed]

If you care about file size, you should be using "save for web" anyway.

[Donmai]

I guess I should go for 1024x600 or something like that then.

I agree. It's a very good choice.

[Boomsickle]

I Like HD things.

[Talann]

I Like HD things.

I agree actually. I guess that for me it's the bigger the better. But it's your option anyways. So yeah~

[SHiNKiROU]

For my VN, I'm living in an ideal world. I drew sprites in 1000*2250, and the backgrounds are 3D renders.
If you are drawing characters and backgrounds, draw them more than twice of the expected resolution. If you draw for 16:10, you can box in 16:10, 16:9 and 4:3.
For the VNs I play, I prefer at least 800*600, but don't care about aspect ratio.

[TrickWithAKnife]

Do people still care about file size these days?
We aren't distributing games on floppy disks anymore, and I think dialup has been all but eradicated.

I should also voice my personal opinion on window sizes. A size like 800x600 is as distracting as bad art. The first thing I think is that the devs have no clue what they are doing, so they just stuck with the default size. Next is trying to decide if I can be bothered playing in a tiny little window, or going full screen and looking at horribly blocky images. Usually I'm deleting the game within 5 minutes, regardless of it being good or not. A game should be enjoyable, not frustrating, and the devs should design for the players. The players are under no obligation to suffer through poor design choices.

[Tempus]

A size like 800x600 is as distracting as bad art. The first thing I think is that the devs have no clue what they are doing, so they just stuck with the default size. Next is trying to decide if I can be bothered playing in a tiny little window, or going full screen and looking at horribly blocky images.

This >.> Aside from the bold part, not only does it become blocky in full screen, it warps the aspect ratio and stretches the image horizontally. I played Clannad recently and couldn't tolerate it in full screen for long...

Do people still care about file size these days?
We aren't distributing games on floppy disks anymore, and I think dialup has been all but eradicated.

Again this. Depending on how they're saved and how detailed they are, FIFTEEN 1920 x 1200 JPEG backgrounds can equal roughly the size of ONE 3 minute long, 160kb/s MP3 file, which would be about 3mb. And I'm being generous with that example; 160kb/s is a pretty low bitrate; if you're just taking the audio straight from your composer / sound artist, you can bet they're going to save their files with a higher bitrate than that -- anywhere between 192kb/s - 320kb/s. So if you have just one 3 minute long, 320kb/s MP3 file in your game, that's roughly the same size as thirty 1920 x 1200 JPEG backgrounds.

When I see people gripe about file size I really do think they have no idea a) how to save images properly and b) don't care to find out. A 1920 x 1200 image is only around 160kb - 300kb if it's saved as a JPEG and appropriately compressed. It's not rocket science. If you or your team don't know how to manage this, find someone who does and ask for their help or learn how to yourself.

Edit: Here's a link to the render I referred to in my first post in this thread. It's a 180kb JPEG and as you can see it has no artefacts or banding.

[Ran08]

Thank you for your opinions everyone!
At least... now I'm sure it's better to go bigger. ^^
Haha, and you're right tempus, I think I belong to the first group. XD I don't know how to save images properly. Although, in my case, I don't know how to make png files into jpeg. Something new to learn~
And by the way, the background does have a nice quality. I can't believe the file size is so small. Must. Learn. How.

Actually, the file size thingy was because of a complain from a friend of mine. Wahaha. She said that she doesn't like downloading large files because it takes a long time. (She wasn't talking about VNs, but... I guess her comment was the reason for my apprehension.)

Again, thank you very much everyone! ^^ You've all been very helpful.

[nyaatrap]

If people care about just file size, it means that game isn't qualified to spend their time.
Png loading delay and 32 bit application memory limit are issues on larger resolutions. I'm making my game in 1366x768, but I need to spent huge time to optimize its performance.

[Tempus]

Thank you for your opinions everyone!
At least... now I'm sure it's better to go bigger. ^^
Haha, and you're right tempus, I think I belong to the first group. XD I don't know how to save images properly. Although, in my case, I don't know how to make png files into jpeg. Something new to learn~
And by the way, the background does have a nice quality. I can't believe the file size is so small. Must. Learn. How.

I'm sure you'll find a way If you don't have Photoshop, there'll probably be file converters out there. GIMP is a free alternative to Photoshop. The thing is to make sure the exporter gives you options, especially for compression. In Photoshop it's a little 0 - 12 slider with 8-10 being the ideal setting. I imagine it's similar in other good image editors. Don't save JPEGs (or anything for that matter) in MS Paint... I... just don't

The most important things to learn about are lossless file formats vs lossy ones, compression, and what each file format's strength is. There's other stuff, but it's not as big of a deal as those things. JPEG vs PNG is quite interesting really; this image is a 1280 x 1114 PNG and only 32kb, whereas the JPEG version is 155kb - this is because JPEG excels at saving images with gradients and colour bleeding (it was developed for saving photographs, after all), but if you have "artificial" blocks of solid colour in your image (like the one I just linked to), PNG totally wipes the floor even if the image dimensions are huge.

Here's a document I wrote a while ago on file formats that may be of some use to you. I haven't updated it recently since it was for an old project I'm no longer with (and I remember all the info, so I don't need it XD) For anyone reading it, disregard the part in the "how to save" section for JPEG... there's a descrepency between JPEGs saved from "save for web..." vs "save as..." which may be caused by chromo subsampling being applied to the former (and unannounced, no less - thanks, Adobe!). So yeah, you might not want that, so use the normal "save as..." option.

I've actually thought of releasing all the documentation I've written in the past in case it's of some use to someone, but some of it is still a bit messy and might just end up being a hindrance / confusing >.>

Actually, the file size thingy was because of a complain from a friend of mine. Wahaha. She said that she doesn't like downloading large files because it takes a long time.

That's understandable. I used to have a painfully slow connection just a few years back and still remember the frustration XD Out of curiosity, I resized the render I linked to above and made it 800 x 600, saving as a PNG. It's still almost double the size of the 1920 x 1200 version. The JPEG is 180kb and the resized PNG is 320kb. Anyway, bla bla bla, happy saving!

Edit: someone informed me the link to the image in this post was broken; it should be fixed now.