Design [SOLVED] Best Screen Ratio

D

DarthTenebris

Guest
Hello everybody,

My previous game used a 4:3 ratio, which looked terrible with fullscreen on today's 16:9 standard monitors. I am currently unfortunately stuck with a 1366x768 monitor which is actually a bit off 16:9, but I am determined to use a 16:9 room resolution so it doesn't look bad in fullscreen.

BUT the issue is, 16:9 resolutions are not divisible by 64 - which is the size of almost everything I have. All is divisible by 64 - no decimals. So far I only have a 5120x2880 resolution (and its multiples) that fit this criteria. Does anyone else know a 16:9 resolution perfectly divisible by 64 resolution? (width and height, when divided by 64, both give an integer)

Or am I stuck with 5120x2880 and its multiples?
PS: A website says that that is the resolution of a Retina 5K - well not everyone has a 5K screen...

Thank your for your time :)

[EDIT]
Well, 1440 isn't divisible by 64... but 2880 is :p

[EDIT2]
I found 1024x576 :D
But that doesn't seem like a "common" resolution...
Can a simple trick with views make it "common"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DesArts

Member
Hello everybody,
All is divisible by 64 - no decimals. So far I only have a 2560x1440 resolution (and its multiples) that fit this criteria. Does anyone else know a 16:9 resolution perfectly divisible by 64 resolution? (width and height, when divided by 64, both give an integer)
But 1440 doesn't divide by 64 perfectly. If the height doesn't matter to you then 1920 should already be fine.
 
D

DarthTenebris

Guest
But 1440 doesn't divide by 64 perfectly. If the height doesn't matter to you then 1920 should already be fine.
But 1920x1080 doesn't fit in... 1920 is perfectly divisible by 64, but 1080 isn't...
And well, 1440 isn't divisible by 64, but 2880 is :p
But that would mean a 5K screen resolution... Not everyone has a 5K screen...

Everyone else: Any other ideas?

[EDIT]
I found 1024x576 :D
But that doesn't seem like a "common" screen resolution...
Can a simple trick with views make it "common"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dmi7ry

Member
Steam hardware survey:
1920 x 1080 - 56.79%
1366 x 768 - 17.36%
any other resolutions has much less %.
So, most of users will use 1920 x 1080. It would be the best solution if you adapt the game to this resolution.
If you need only whole 64*64 images on the screen then add 28 px black areas at top and bottom of the screen (or not black, it depends on the game/design).
 
Would you consider 1280x768?
1280/64 = 20
768/64 = 12

It's a 5:3 aspect ratio. I use 8:5 and that seems to work quite comfortably without the black bars being too annoying.
 
D

DarthTenebris

Guest
Steam hardware survey:
1920 x 1080 - 56.79%
1366 x 768 - 17.36%
any other resolutions has much less %.
So, most of users will use 1920 x 1080. It would be the best solution if you adapt the game to this resolution.
If you need only whole 64*64 images on the screen then add 28 px black areas at top and bottom of the screen (or not black, it depends on the game/design).
Glad to know :)
But can you explain what "add 28 px black areas at the top and bottom of the screen" means? Do I just make the room 1080 + 28 pixels tall?

Would you consider 1280x768?
1280/64 = 20
768/64 = 12

It's a 5:3 aspect ratio. I use 8:5 and that seems to work quite comfortably without the black bars being too annoying.
Unfortunately I'd like to get a 16:9 ratio - to fit best on most screens.
Thanks for trying though.


This is getting frustrating :(
 

Dmi7ry

Member
But can you explain what "add 28 px black areas at the top and bottom of the screen" means? Do I just make the room 1080 + 28 pixels tall?
No. Set up 1920x1080, but game would use only 1920x1024 of them (30*64 x 16*64). 56 pixels left. Use these 56 pixels for something.
Or you can use 1920*1024 and "keep aspect ratio" → it will add black lines (each is 28 px height) at top and bottom.
 
D

DarthTenebris

Guest
No. Set up 1920x1080, but game would use only 1920x1024 of them (30*64 x 16*64). 56 pixels left. Use these 56 pixels for something.
Or you can use 1920*1024 and "keep aspect ratio" → it will add black lines (each is 28 px height) at top and bottom.
So I make the room size and ports 1920x1080 then use the keep aspect ratio option?
 

Bingdom

Googledom
The real question is, what resolution do you actually need? If you're going to make a pixel art game, I wouldn't go anywhere near 1080p. You're looking at the resolution to be displayed on the screen, when in fact you should be concerned about the view (camera) in the room. Then it's is scaled up to match the monitor.

Let's take a look at a few pixel art games' resolution.
Hyper Light Drifter's resolution is 480x270, according to reddit.
Catboy uses 480x270.

It's really up to you on how large you want those pixels to show. According to Steam's hardware survey, 1920x1080 is the most common resolution. You'll want your resolution to scale up in integer amounts to prevent pixel deformation.

The games I've shown you proves this case.
1920/480 = 4.
1080/270 = 4.
With the information above, you can see that the resolution can be scaled up by 4x. An integer amount, which prevents pixel deformation and compatible for more of the audience.

If you fear to come across a monitor that's not a 16:9 resolution, and you don't know how to fix that, then I would suggest reading these blogs. [1] [2]
At this point, it depends on your game design. Do you want to adjust the view or do you want a fixed resolution to prevent the player seeing more of the map?

(IIRC) Since your game is going to be scaled up to 1080p, you shouldn't receive camera jitter, if done correctly.
 
Last edited:
D

DarthTenebris

Guest
The real question is, what resolution do you actually need? If you're going to make a pixel art game, I wouldn't go anywhere near 1080p. You're looking at the resolution to be displayed on the screen, when in fact you should be concerned about the view (camera) in the room. Then it's is scaled up to match the monitor.

Let's take a look at a few pixel art games' resolution.
Hyper Light Drifter's resolution is 480x270, according to reddit.
Catboy uses 480x270.

It's really up to you on how large you want those pixels to show. According to Steam's hardware survey, 1920x1080 is the most common resolution. You'll want your resolution to scale up in integer amounts to prevent pixel deformation.

The games I've shown you proves this case.
1920/480 = 4.
1080/270 = 4.
Therefore, the resolution is scaled up by 4x. An integer amount, which prevents pixel deformation and compatible for more of the audience.

If you fear to come across a monitor that's not a 16:9 resolution, and you don't know how to fix that, then I would suggest reading these blogs. [1] [2]
At this point, it depends on your game design. Do you want to adjust the view or do you want a fixed resolution to prevent the player seeing more of the map?

(IIRC) Since your game is going to be scaled up to 1080p, you shouldn't receive camera jitter, if done correctly.
So the camera is the one I need divisible by 64, and let the monitor do the scaling to fit the screen? The black bars then appear, similar to my previous game which used a 4:3 ratio. I thought it looked ugly due to a 1366x768 screen (it'd still look ugly on a 16:9 monitor though), so I tried to use 16:9 (which is the common resolution) for my next game. Unfortunately, I found out that the 16:9 ratio is tricky to align with a 32x32 or 64x64 grid.
Conclusion: So I should align my views and let the monitor do the scaling - and then ignore the black bars?

1920x1024 (if you need perfect x64 alignment and not a pixel more). Then you don't need to do anything else.
Alright. Thank you for your help. :D
 
D

DarthTenebris

Guest
UPDATE
After implementing the method that @Dmi7ry suggested, I see that the objects position in the room editor do not represent the actual location when the game is run. This issue has been around since my original resolution, but I thought it was because of my resolution not matching the monitor or something like that. But it turns out, after changing the resolution to fit *most* monitors, I still see that the positions don't match. What could be the issue?

1) Room size and view ports are set to 1920x1024
2) "Keep aspect ratio" setting is true in the global game settings

[EDIT]
On the other hand, how acceptable is a displaying a 4:3 ratio game on a 16:9 screen nowadays? It seems like a 4:3 ratio is easier to work with 64x64 tiles. But then again, the black bars appear. Thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dmi7ry

Member
UPDATE
After implementing the method that @Dmi7ry suggested, I see that the objects position in the room editor do not represent the actual location when the game is run. This issue has been around since my original resolution, but I thought it was because of my resolution not matching the monitor or something like that. But it turns out, after changing the resolution to fit *most* monitors, I still see that the positions don't match. What could be the issue?
Show screenshots with the problem.

On the other hand, how acceptable is a displaying a 4:3 ratio game on a 16:9 screen nowadays? It seems like a 4:3 ratio is easier to work with 64x64 tiles. But then again, the black bars appear. Thoughts?
No reason to use 4:3 because almost nobody uses it (about 1% according to Steam hardware survey)
 

Carnivius

Member
UPDATE

On the other hand, how acceptable is a displaying a 4:3 ratio game on a 16:9 screen nowadays? It seems like a 4:3 ratio is easier to work with 64x64 tiles. But then again, the black bars appear. Thoughts?

It's fine by me and many retro games I play on modern systems do it. Fill the height and have black bars on left and right (or fill them with a background image) My projects tend to be 4:3 partially cos retro and partially cos I just like a more square play area.
I also have a 4:3 flatscreen second monitor plugged into my PC and stored under my desk which I lift out when I need a spare screen or to run retro games on an actual 4:3 screen. :p
 
Z

zendraw

Guest
i personally think today`s devs shuld design theyr games so they can use the player`s display aspect ratio.
 

Dmi7ry

Member
i personally think today`s devs shuld design theyr games so they can use the player`s display aspect ratio.
Right (btw, also it allows to contlrol the performance). And the best way when game is fully adaptive to the resolution (and uses 100% of the display).
 
D

DarthTenebris

Guest
Here are some screenshots to display what happens.

ss1.png
^^What it looks like in the room editor
ss2.png
^^What it looks like during gameplay (don't mind the bit of white text on the yellow object)

I have room settings as mentioned above: 1920x1024 with "keep aspect ratio" setting enabled.
[EDIT]
It seems like an issue with the room editor. The instances are where they are in gameplay - in the screenshot above, in the room editor, the instance should have been able to move, because it has space around it. But in gameplay, it shifts a bit, causing it to glitch into the wall, and as a result, unable to move (tested with a player object - that yellow ball doesn't actually have a move code only shoot)

I see the replies are against 4:3... So I suppose I'll keep trying to work this out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Z

zendraw

Guest
that has nothing to do with aspect ratio.set your view size and port the same and floor your view position and then check again.
 

Dmi7ry

Member
that has nothing to do with aspect ratio.set your view size and port the same and floor your view position and then check again.
View + port size can't shift only one object.
But, for example, there may be changed sprite's origin. Or the object may be drawn in Draw GUI layer (with wrong settings). etc.
 
D

DarthTenebris

Guest
@Dmi7ry Project sent. Thanks for trying to help :)
View + port size can't shift only one object.
But, for example, there may be changed sprite's origin. Or the object may be drawn in Draw GUI layer (with wrong settings). etc.
I rechecked and found that my player and enemy sprite have their origins messed up :p I fixed it and retried it but it still doesn't solve the problem :( And it can't be a problem with drawing, I checked that all draw events are draw events, not draw gui.
 
D

DarthTenebris

Guest
UPDATE
I did not notice that after changing the sprite origin, the objects were dislocated in the room editor. As such, they remain in the "glitched" position. Relocating them seems to have fixed the problem.
Thank you to @Dmi7ry for pointing out sprite origin! :D Saved my life :3

Thank you to everyone's contributions to this topic! :D
Have a nice day :)
 

Dmi7ry

Member
UPDATE
I did not notice that after changing the sprite origin, the objects were dislocated in the room editor. As such, they remain in the "glitched" position. Relocating them seems to have fixed the problem.
In project you sent I found that sprite's origin is "Middle Centre", but values are 0,0. So, I changed it to another one (just random) and then back to "Middle Centre" (then values were changed to 32,32) - it solved the problem.
 
D

DarthTenebris

Guest
In project you sent I found that sprite's origin is "Middle Centre", but values are 0,0. So, I changed it to another one (just random) and then back to "Middle Centre" (then values were changed to 32,32) - it solved the problem.
Thank you :D
Yeah I found that a few minutes after I sent you the project. A small thing caused a massive issue!
 

Dmi7ry

Member
I found one more problem. You have "locked" origins of sprites. But if reopen the project, origin will be reseted (0,0). So, don't use "lock" option until it will be fixed.

P.S. I sent a bug report.
 
D

DarthTenebris

Guest
I found one more problem. You have "locked" origins of sprites. But if reopen the project, origin will be reseted (0,0). So, don't use "lock" option until it will be fixed.

P.S. I sent a bug report.
Thanks for letting me know :D
You've been very helpful to me :D
 
Top