Full screen Resolution?

[Steve Elliott]

I'm just wondering what people consider an appropriate resolution for a (full screen, not windowed) game on a desktop computer would be these days, and why? 1024 x 768?

[Naughty Alien]

..for me 1920x1080 is something i would considered normal to expect..

[Steve Elliott]

ok, 1080p sounds good as it's my max screen resolution - and Qube produced a shooter at that resolution.  So even shoot 'em ups at 1080p these days?

Things can always be scaled down I guess, for other systems.  I'm talking 2D, so that was never a required high resolution...It's been a while since I wrote a game lol.

[Naughty Alien]

..i think its good idea to have an option to scale down resolution, but i think screen size i mentioned is now days, something normal to expect on gamer desktop...thats exactly same resolution im using as default for my new project game (PNC)..

But again..dont be surprised to see some uber weird configurations as i saw some things, i thought exists only in hell backyard, during support time for Hoodwink..man..some people have some really nasty configurations..

[xlsior]

Here's some handy info: the Steam Hardware survey, which includes the desktop resolution -- which in most cases will be native resolution of the screen:

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

- Only 1.3% runs at 1024x768
- a whopping 48.78% runs 1920x1080... But you don't want to lock into that, since 24% uses 1366/1360x768, which is the max resolution of many laptop screens.

For best compatibility, you'd want your program to query the system at launch, detect the desktop resolution, and use that. Alternatively, query the list of supported resolutions and pick the one that best fits the parameters of your program... But be prepared to handle both widescreen and non-widescreen gracefully. Widescreen leads, but there's still plenty of non-widescreen users around.

final thought: If you see a bunch of widescreen resolutions in the available graphics modes, then you can make an educated guess that the user likely has  a widescreen monitor, and picking 1024x768 will likely cause the game to look weird and stretched if you force that resolution upon them anyway.

[Steve Elliott]

Thanks guys.

[therevills]

For the past few games, I've gone with 1366x768 as the native resolution and upscale to the user's resolution. If the user cannot support that resolution I drop down to 1024x768 and then 800x600.

[cpsmith0191]

When I first started using computers I use to get cheesed off when games would not support my low budget screen resolution.
So when I produce programs I feel obliged to support lower resolutions ie 640/480, 800/600, 1028/768.
Maybe I should drop 640/480 but I like the challenge of getting the game and the info to play it into tight spaces. I like to think this approach produces a cleaner interface, but maybe I'm just ancient? have fun cps

[Qube]

Personally at the moment I always develop for 1920x1080 and scale down / up. I find that resolution works out good across the overall range of laptops and desktops. I've not seen native 1024x768 resolution ( 4:3 aspect ratio ) in a looooong time and shifted to a 16:9 aspect ratio quite a while ago. The exception is developing for the iPad which still uses a 4:3 ratio.

[Steve Elliott]

Yes, like cps I was thinking of low end systems (and for 2D 1024 x 768 is more than enough).

But Qube is right, the majority of systems are wide-screen format these days, so 1920 x 1080 makes sense (and scale as required).

[TomToad]

I think it depends on exactly what kind of game you are making and who your target audience is.  Most low end laptops, and even some mid-range laptops are still using 1366x768.  If you are creating a casual game that doesn't require a lot of power, say a solitaire game or a match 3 game, then there is no need to make everything at a higher resolution, causing a degradation of quality when scaling down.  However, if you are creating a 3D shooter or some game that requires a bit of power, then you can demand higher resolution as anyone with a powerful system will most likely have a high resolution monitor as well.

[MagosDomina]

Although users like myself are likely a minority now I would keep an option for proper 4:3 aspect ratio scaling.

[Pingus]

For a 2D game, 1920x1080 seems the rule nowadays. There is no big loss in quality when you downscale (at least nobody will notice it expect us, developpers), and upscale is still pretty rare.

[IanMartin]

1920x1080. 

Platfinity supports 800x600 to 1920x1080.  It doesn't support 4K though. 

4K monitors are starting to become a thing.  My wife's new laptop, bought this year, has a 4K screen.  So I would look at adding that to be (near) future proof. 
I think a lowest resolution you'll see now in the real world would be
X: 1280
Y: 768
1366x768 laptops are incredibly popular. 

I second looking at the Steam Survey for resolutions actually being used on people's desktops.   I added these to my fullscreen/window update:
1920 x 1080, 1600 x 900, 1440 x 900, 1366 x 768, 1360 x 768, 1280 x 1024, 1280 x 800, 1280 x 720, 1024 x 768, 800 x 600

[sphinx]

For me, a resolution of 19:6 ratio is the most important thing to think of when making a new game.

I know virtual resolution plays a great role here but I prefer making it right (if I may say so) from the start.