Resolution of choice, given memory requirements?

[Fry Crayola]

The football game I'm developing is quite memory intensive, currently standing at 50MB to store the necessary data for all the players, teams and competitions in the game. I'm actually quite pleased with that value because there's an awful lot of detail in that 50MB, and it's part of the game's USP. When you include the code itself, the graphics, the sounds, and the little data bits I've yet to implement, we're probably talking about 100MB or thereabouts. It's big.

With this in mind, would it be sensible to go with 1024*768 as the game's main resolution? For a PC to meet the memory requirements it will no doubt support it, the game doesn't really target users of weaker machines.

The plus points are that I can put more into each screen in the game without it looking too cluttered, and I can have more detail in the action sections which can add to the atmosphere and, with work, the gameplay.

On the negative side, it can result in more work for myself, as well as a much larger download - although on that issue I plan to create a much more limited demo for quicker downloading, so as not to put people off - stripping out many of the teams and competitions so the player can get a feel for how the game plays with less hassle. I also wonder if the added performance hit (more to render on screen) would be substantial enough - again given the memory requirements you'd expect a decent processor at the very least.

I realise it's a bit of a non-question and that I'm probably the only guy who really can answer it (as I'm the one who has to put in the effort)... but I thought it might be worth throwing it out there to see if anyone's got a little advice on the issue.

[luggage]

Champ Man lasted a while at 800x600 IIRC and they've now moved up to 1024x768. The higher res will help your screens look better but then there's the extra overhead of data.

What's your data like? Most of the football manager games I've played are text heavy and have simple boxes for buttons and things. This way there's not too much visual data. If you have lots of large individual buttons and icons you might want to have a look.

Maybe do a couple of mockups in game to see the difference in layout you can achieve? If everything fits and looks neat on 800x600 (for example) then there's no point stepping up a res.

[siread]

Just out of interest Fry, is it a 2D or 3D match engine?

[Fry Crayola]

Luggage - mockups are something I definitely plan on doing before I make a firm decision. There only data on display though is typical statistical stuff regarding competitions - match results, league tables, top scorers, etc. I'm aiming for a purely graphical and mostly hidden system for player attributes to encourage using in-form players who do the job you want, rather than picking them based on numbers. There'll be a radar chart used (akin to the one in PES) to give an overall representation so you have some guidelines.

So in theory it could work in 800*600. It's a question of how clean I can get it, really. When I go back to CM01/02 these days it's rather chunky.

Si - it'll be a 2D match engine.

[electronicStar]

Even if it will make you more work, you should let the user choose between 800X600 and 1024X768.

[Fry Crayola]

Certainly, that would be a good thing. But it's more about whether or not I ought to make the effort in the first place to get 1024*768 up and running. Relatively few players would be aggrieved that they can't up the resolution to 1024*768, compared to those who might prefer 800*600 - the latter can always be scaled to fill the screen and with some good design it won't be a problem.

1024*768 can't really be scaled down to the lower resolution in a game with quite a heavy text element.

Mind you, it's still early days and where there's a will....

[fog4711]

I suggest going for 1024*768. Time is on your side as 800*600 will become increasingly rare. Your 1024*768 may even motivate some people to update their old-fasioned hardware ;)

:cool: