RPGMAKER Game Resolution is so small! How to fix?

[Frito]

ok, so i was all excited to make a game, but i just realized when you actually make your game, it ends up being TINY!!!!!

i mean, this is almost 2014, and we paid good money for a game creation system that only exports a tiny window?!??!!?!?!?

i searched around, and i found out the MAX RESOLUTION FOR REPGMAKER IS 640x480!!!  Whut?!!?

Are you kidding me?  Who would ever want to buy a game made in RPGMaker that is so low in resolution?

Is there any hope of did i just get bamboozled?  Money is tight and i spent it in good faith, only to be presented with a tiny low resolution product? really?

So, what is the reason behind this? Is the program too weak to be able to handle actual current relevant resolutions?

Is this an issue that is going to be updated and fixed soon?

I honestly cant believe so many people here working so hard on their games to have the final product be so limited!  And if you do try to amke it bigger, it gets stretched out of shape...nice.

If anything, i hope the creators of RPGMAKER realize that people expect MODERN DAY STANDARDS from games they purchase..

I just feel that RPGMAKER is limiting us with this ridiculous resolution issue!

Here's hoping someone at enterbrain has the smarts to fix this!

 

[Jarrad]

I see no problem with it. I projected my project onto my 32in 1080p TV in full screen for a playtest. It plays in 720p when I do so, and it looks great.

You really should test it out for yourself.

 

[Insidious Mental Pollution]

Play it in fullscreen?

 

[Jarrad]

Play it in fullscreen?

Hit F1 and check launch in full screen, then relaunch the game.

 

[Insidious Mental Pollution]

Hit F1 and check launch in full screen, then relaunch the game.

I was supporting your initial reply - just realized my post made it look like I was questioning it.  My bad!

 

[Jarrad]

I was supporting your initial reply - just realized my post made it look like I was questioning it.  My bad!

I see, I guess I'm in help mode today.

 

[Andar]

i searched around, and i found out the MAX RESOLUTION FOR REPGMAKER IS 640x480!!!  Whut?!!?

The limit is based on one of window's libraries, and that one can't be changed easily.
There are scripts out there that allow you to scale the display if you don't want to go fullscreen.


The only thing you can't change is the INTERNAL resolution - the grid used by the engine to check and control the game.


And if you stop ranting a while and think about it, you'll probably realise that it would have a lot of bad consequences changing that - regular pixel art doesn't work in high resolution unless you place a lot more work into it (which would make it unusable for lower resolutions and require all developers to put in three or four time the worktime to create maps).


And that is only one point where a higher internal resolution would create problems - there are good reasons why big game companies (who support games with higher resolutions) have teams of dozens of people work several years for each one of those "high-resolution-games"...


You want to make a game with a few friends and see results available for betatesting in a few months?


Then forget about a high internal resolution and use fullscreen on 544x416 default resolution...

 

[Tuomo L]

You want to make a game with a few friends and see results available for betatesting in a few months?

Then forget about a high internal resolution and use fullscreen on 544x416 default resolution...

And if I want to make a living off selling my games I've worked on for years? Use another program and stop supporting RPG Maker? 

The limitations enforced on the userbase is never a good idea, having more options for larger resolution would allow you to still make small resolution OR make use of bigger resolution. Besides, 640x480 IS very small by today's standards no matter how you look at it.

 

[Hesufo]

Yeah, no.

A higher resolution would just make it even harder for pixel artists and custom resource makers to create stuff for RPG Maker. And it would seem to me that it's much more complex than just enabling higher res modes. Enterbrain would also have to tweak the editor so that the mapping along with all graphical resources are compatible across ALL resolutions.

The cost-benefit rate seems veeery off to me.

 

[Tsukihime]

I don't understand why rendering more of the map would make it harder for graphic artists or mappers.


What does art compatibility have to do with it? What aspects of the editor would need to be tweaked for higher resolutions?


I can imagine that your characters would suddenly look a lot smaller than they would because they are suddenly thrown into a larger window, but I don't really see that much of a problem.


Game maker and various 2D engines support higher resolutions. Why would RM be difficult?

 

[Tuomo L]

Yeah, no.

A higher resolution would just make it even harder for pixel artists and custom resource makers to create stuff for RPG Maker. And it would seem to me that it's much more complex than just enabling higher res modes. Enterbrain would also have to tweak the editor so that the mapping along with all graphical resources are compatible across ALL resolutions.

The cost-benefit rate seems veeery off to me.

Ahem.

It really would just make map scrolling far less frequent and improve your line of sight. Heck, I'd pay for a "resolution add on" script or something like this to make use of it in ACE.

 

[Hesufo]

MISTER BIG T, I don't see how that contradicts my post as you just showed a screenshot of a higher res in a map that uses the larger XP graphics and obviously there's no drawback as it just shows a larger tile grid.

However, I was mainly talking about the resources themselves. And your screenshot already proved one of my points: the need for more / larger tile sets. Also, did you know that the Game Over screens, the Battlebacks, etc. all come in a set resolution? Yeah, Enterbrain would have to modify all the graphical resources for the different resolutions to prevent the "stretching".

I'm sure there would also be some issues on the scripting side of things, such as in the menus. I'm not completely sure, though.

I wonder if you can do the same thing you did in XP (custom resolution) with VX Ace. If so then this discussion is pretty unnecessary, as I still don't see a reason why Enterbrain should natively support a higher resolution.

 

[Andar]

The limitations enforced on the userbase is never a good idea, having more options for larger resolution would allow you to still make small resolution OR make use of bigger resolution. Besides, 640x480 IS very small by today's standards no matter how you look at it.

Limitations on the userbase are never a good idea - but on the other hand, who's paying to remove the limitations?
The limit to 640x480 isn't there because someone at Enterbrain said "let's screw our users", it's there because of technical limitations of one of the used programming libraries.


That choice of library (I assume it was done due to compatibility with video output, because that resolution better fits old TV-Sets) might have been a bad one from hindsight now (10 years later), but to replace that library with a better one would require a large programming step.


Such a reprogramming isn't cheap - and while I hope that Enterbrain will do it for a future maker, we should not forget that the RM's userbase isn't exactly unlimited. How much are you willing to pay to get rid of that limitations? How much is the average user willing to pay for that? 

I don't understand why rendering more of the map would make it harder for graphic artists or mappers.


What does art compatibility have to do with it?

Rendering a larger map would not add work to the artists, only to the mappers (maps need to be larger) and to playing time (more time needed to walk the maps) - but as you said, the sprites would get a lot smaller. In fact, retaining 32x32 pixels while going to regular HD-resolutions would make the player microscopic.
If you go to higher resolutions there will be a limit on visibility, going beyond that will require you to change the grid to 64x64 or even higher for future resolutions. And that is where the artist works increases - if they have to make tiles in 64x64 instead of 32x32, their workload will probably double (it's four times the number of pixels, but there are shortcuts).


And again - who is going to pay the artists to make a whole new RTP based on 64x64 pixels? And that would have to be paid for to get any use out of a RM that supports much higher resolution as today's RM-Limit.

 

[wallacethepig]

Even with Mr. T's solution, think of the maps. The house maps. The sweet, sweet interior maps that will now never get done because you have to cram stuff into a space that's 4 or so times as big. Because otherwise it would look weird for a teeny-tiny house amongst all that blackness. Plus, LAG! and LAG! oh and also LAGLAGLAG. Not to mention loading times. And everyone else's point still stands, too.

And hey--phones have gotten smaller since 1995. So what are you complaining about? This is the dawn of a new era. Eventually screens will only be 3x3 pixels wide and we will only be able to play tic-tac-toe on our micro-phones. EMBRACE THE SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS, BRO! (Sarcasm. If the only game I can play digitally is tic-tac-toe I'll...wait...that doesn't sound to bad, actually. I would get way more work done. Or just play more GURPS and Magic. All three of those are good things.)

-Wallace

 

[Archeia]

Making 64x64 tiles aren't a joke ;~;

 

[Tuomo L]

I would like to just say I did not create the custom resolution script, it's actually way over three years old and made by ForeverZer0.ForeverZer0

 

[Tsukihime]

The limit to 640x480 isn't there because someone at Enterbrain said "let's screw our users", it's there because of technical limitations of one of the used programming libraries.

That choice of library (I assume it was done due to compatibility with video output, because that resolution better fits old TV-Sets) might have been a bad one from hindsight now (10 years later), but to replace that library with a better one would require a large programming step.

Which appears to be absolutely arbitrary seeing how a modified RGSS DLL released several weeks after the japanese version came out removes that limitation.

-snip-

Rendering a larger map would not add work to the artists, only to the mappers (maps need to be larger) and to playing time (more time needed to walk the maps) - but as you said, the sprites would get a lot smaller. In fact, retaining 32x32 pixels while going to regular HD-resolutions would make the player microscopic.

I don't see why maps need to be larger to compensate for more screen space. For smaller maps, it might look weird to have all that empty space, but for exterior maps, are people going to complain that they can go from one side of the map to the other with less amount of scrolling than they did when the resolution was half the size?

I would be fine with even 1024x768 or 1600x1200. While they may not be HD, they are still a lot better than 640x480.

If you go to higher resolutions there will be a limit on visibility, going beyond that will require you to change the grid to 64x64 or even higher for future resolutions. And that is where the artist works increases - if they have to make tiles in 64x64 instead of 32x32, their workload will probably double (it's four times the number of pixels, but there are shortcuts).

I don't understand what you mean by limit on visibility. You should be able to see more of the map. If anything, it would seem to be extending visibility.

And again - who is going to pay the artists to make a whole new RTP based on 64x64 pixels? And that would have to be paid for to get any use out of a RM that supports much higher resolution as today's RM-Limit.

I don't see an issue with the XP screenshot. It uses 32x32 tiles, with slightly taller actors.

For some reason, everyone needs to start using 64x64 tiles to compensate for a larger viewing space.

 

[Lunarea]

I can imagine that your characters would suddenly look a lot smaller than they would because they are suddenly thrown into a larger window, but I don't really see that much of a problem.

Actually, this is a pretty big issue. Your player is using that character to interact with the world. If they have to spend time squinting and trying to find the character on the map, you're ruining their immersion.

 

[Sharm]

I think supporting widescreen is a good idea but if we're sticking to a 32x32 grid I don't see the point in adding resolution options. What you'd be doing by adding resolution without adding a higher res grid is going for graphics at the expense of aesthetics, which is not a good trade. Graphics should be serving your game, not be an end to itself. I don't know, maybe I could see some rare games where a bigger resolution would be nice, like if they were using an extremely large sprite or wanted to do a sim game, but it seems the sort of thing that should be resolved with scripting and not an engine change.


If we're talking about allowing the user to choose the size of the grid that's a different thing entirely. I could see some real benefits here, especially if you could also go backwards and allow 16x16. Of course, this is the type of added versatility that could get in the way of usability so it would have to be carefully implemented so as not to get in the way with how easy it is to map. I expect the larger option wouldn't get as many resources though. I would never make 64x64 tiles for RM; that would be waaaaaay too much work in pixels.

 

[Archeia]

I removed the link from Tsukihime's post since that breaks RM's EULA.
Also as someone who actually tested that thing, there's an issue with TileMaps displaying over that modified dll, specifically 1024-size. And parallax backgrounds not appearing on specific computers. And intense lag at 1024 sizes as well.