1024x768 refusal


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#41 JemyM

JemyM

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 11 posts

Posted 11 October 2003 - 08:42 AM

The actual need of more resolution options can be discussed beyond all recognition, and everybody will stick to the solution that fits their monitor/graphiccard the most, and thus a such argument could go on forever.

The good part with 3d games, is that theese discussions are normally unneccessary, since 3d games can be rendered in any resolution of personal choice, as long as the 2d interface works as textures rather than being solid 2d bitmaps. Take Vampire: Redemption as an example of a nice hud that can be stretched and thereby all resolutions can be used:
http://www.planetvam...hot010204-1.jpg

But then there are the developers that decides. They decide that "one is good for all", or "most use * so we can as well ignore the rest". Its that kind of thinking I am against to the bone. In this case it lefts me with a game that looks far worse than it could have. Im my case, it actually turned me down so much that I havnt played more than the first map so far.

The worst part here, is that I have talked FOR UFO in many forums. I have used UFO as a reference of games that can as well be 3d today, since 3d looks as good as 2d, and also allow greater detail/resolution at the same time.
When it now couldnt change the resolution, I felt it as a smack in my face. :laugh:

So yes, I have serious issues with 'locked options', and if you dont want to listen to my ramble, you dont need to. Im just going to sit here and sob for awhile.

Best Regards
JemyM

#42 wheatt

wheatt

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 12 October 2003 - 07:55 AM

My problem with the game resolution is that I use a TFT screen, and it is optimised for 1280x1024.  Lower resolutions are "stretched" across the screen and it doesn't do it very well.

This problem was fixed (just now, after a bit of experimentation) by changing the "Digital Flat Panel Options" (in the Nvidia detonator configuration panel - not sure what the ATI equivalent is) from Monitor Scaling to Display Adapter Scaling.

I now have picture of post-apocalyptic lovelyness  :laugh:

Tom.

#43 el_bardos

el_bardos

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 13 October 2003 - 12:51 PM

By the looks of the option panel for the resolution, it looks like other resolutions were originally going to be available. I think it is fair to assume that the developer had a good reason for not allowing these in the final version (presumably because of an glitch they couldn't fix in time for release). After all they'll want to appeal to the widest possible audience, including the graphics snob.

My guess would be this all comes down to the usual problems with game development; deadlines and budgets. If I was in the position of being given the option of 'you can have top quality graphics but the research tree size will be halved and you can only play on one continent' I think I'd leave things the same.

If you look a bit deeper than the immediate visual impact, there is a game of immense detail and depth. The time taken to produce this obviously reduces the time available to graphical development, although they have taken the time to ensure that the graphics are perfectly reasonable ( and in a genre of gaming not renowned for its graphical excellence). Put aside your predudices and play for an hour or two. You might be pleasantly surprised.  :laugh:

#44 Pete

Pete

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,890 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buckley, North Wales

Posted 13 October 2003 - 05:28 PM

Aye, but just to quickly side with JemyM's argument on one thing (what am I doing :P), surely the resolutions would have been thought about as soon as they started piecing the tactical game together with the global game? As soon as the interface was needed (pretty early on) it would have been thought about, so technically nothing else would have had to be cut out from time restraints.

The more I give myself time to think about it, the less it makes sense.

Doesn't mean I have a problemplayng it though, as I run everything at 1024x768 which is where we'll all disagree to some degree :laugh:
May your terror missions always be infested with Chrysalids.

#45 Silencer

Silencer

    Squaddie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 08 November 2005 - 09:06 PM

I agree it doesn't make sense to lock it in 1024x768. The only reason I can imagine for not allowing this is that they made a stupid mistake and 'forgot' to make the interface scaleable, and that by the time they realized this it was far too late to fix it in time.

It's unfortunate too because although the game doesn't look "bad" in 1024x768 it doesn't look that good either, it looks like it is several years old already. Hopefully they will add this ability in a patch.

#46 Slaughter

Slaughter

    Colonel

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norway, Oslo

Posted 09 November 2005 - 12:35 AM

They intended to include other modes in the game, but had to cut it due to time constraints towards the end. The problem is, as you say, that they have to make versions of the interface for each resolution mode. I hope they'll add more modes in a patch as well, but it will not be part of the first one.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users