Monkey Island 1 remake - come on

[plamdi]

RE: Thrik - LCD is much better for television - of course, you still have up-scaling of NTSC to PAL's resolution (well, you and I do - or would if we owned LCD TV's - the yanks have PAL downscaled to NTSC on their LCD's!); but for HD sets it's certainly good because HD 24p, 25p and 30p is all 1080 lines (although not all sets support all three in progressive modes, most 1080p sets are only 24p, and 25i and 30i). It's true that you should always use your monitor's resolution when using an LCD for a computer monitor; this in itself isn't all that bad, games are about the only thing that would cause you problems anyway. The one thing that I do get annoyed about CRT's is that 17" really means almost 16", and so forth; and of course, widescreen monitors of the same diagonal size have less picture size then 4:3 monitors (4:3 is better anyway for everything except movies).

 

Anyway, I don't think paprik is committed to doing a full remake - only a demo (he wants to work with LEC on an official MI5; which of course is very unrealistic), I'm going to try to talk him into it though; even if it means I have to take on some work I don't really want to do (lol); but really it is about time someone did a MI remake. If you read the thread carefully, you'll see he's using scanned painted art based on his 3D rendering; so it will look good. I think he should aim for 1024x768; but then again, it doesn't *need* to be that high.

 

Several years ago on the old SCRAMM forums, Bill Tiller showed up wanting to make a short adventure game; etc... and he's finally reached that goal now. He had to walk away from LucasArts though to form his own company to do it; it's not like LEC wants to do that kind of thing anymore. With the right team, an original adventure game could be successfully made; and the rights could be sold to a number of publishers to get the game in stores. The fans of adventure games really need to realize that the genre needs to be reinvented in many ways, rather then just plagiarizing ideas from the old ways of doing things. You can still make highly successful black & white mainstream movies today - shooting on 16MM stock; but you can't do it the way it was done in the 1940's that wouldn't work anymore.

[Thrik]

Yeah I know of the benefits, but the difference between monitors and televisions is that televisions almost always come with a good-quality upscaling chip that does a good job of making smaller images look okay on higher resolutions, while conversely monitors almost never do. Heck, quite a few people buy dedicated upscaling boxes to go next to their DVD player that run all sorts of resizing algorithms on the image.

 

They don't always look completely awful if it's upscaled by the same ratio, but you still generally get artefacts of the upscaling and moderately illegible text as a result. This is why not allowing people to run games in the player's native resolution is a really bad thing these days, even though it might be excusable for a fan project.

 

I totally disagree about widescreen monitors, though. I use a 22-inch widescreen at work and it's great for having a lot of stuff open at once, while at hope I use a 24-inch one that's similarly great for playing games (which thanks to consoles running on televisions generally have widescreen resolutions nowadays). Especially real-time strategy!

[john_doe]

The problem is, you can't possibly create 2D images and sprites for every possible native resolution some LCD-monitor could have.

(In 3D that problem would vanish more or less.)

[seann33uk]

I don't know. you lot are talking about LCDs and Tvs when the forum is about a remake for mi1 LOL

[Thrik]

You could reduce the lack of definition people on higher resolutions would see by using high-resolution assets in the game, and then have the game scale everything down and run in a lower resolution if needs to. This would mean people on smaller resolutions would be essentially wasting processing power on such high-resolution 2D art, but with higher resolutions and LCD screens becoming so predominant these days is it really the worse of the two options?

[ThunderPeel2001]

You could reduce the lack of definition people on higher resolutions would see by using high-resolution assets in the game, and then have the game scale everything down and run in a lower resolution if needs to. This would mean people on smaller resolutions would be essentially wasting processing power on such high-resolution 2D art, but with higher resolutions and LCD screens becoming so predominant these days is it really the worse of the two options?

 

It takes a hell of a lot longer to create artwork at 1600x1200 resolution than it does to create it for 640x480... when quite frankly, it isn't going to add anything to the *game*. It's probably worth mentioning that Curse of Money Island ran at 640x480 and that it is higher res than DVD (which is good enough, if you ask me).

 

The slight distortion you're experience on your 22" Widescreen LCD is not worth making the project so unwieldy that it never reaches fruition!

 

There's a real danger with this sort of thing of a) Biting off more than you can reasonably chew and b) Losing track of what's actually important.

 

I've been part of many amateur projects that have fallen to pieces because the person in charge didn't know when to say "that's good enough". Instead they get caught up in trying to beat the best thing they've ever seen, visually, instead of using the project's strengths (eg. MI's atmosphere and comedy) and focusing on them.

 

I've also been part of amateur projects which were successful. This was because they kept sight of what was feasible with no money and what made sure they didn't waste their limited resources dong things that actually weren't important to people's enjoyment of the project.

 

If paprik and his team can cobble together a version of MI, even if it's a demo, that looks as good as CMI (which ran beautifully at 640x480), then they will have done *brilliantly* well.

[Thrik]

CMI looks shagged on even the smallest resolution an LCD monitor generally comes with (1280x1024 @ 17 inches). The fact it has to be upscaled makes it, and Grim Fandango, extremely offensive on the eyes.

 

Perhaps if filters were used to improve the image for higher resolutions like those you see in ScummVM it'd be less jarring. This goes some way towards making the original Monkey Island trilogy playable.

 

Make no mistake though, people with 19-inch+ monitors are no rarity these days. The days of the CRT are numbered, and I very rarely encounter them these days.

 

Creating higher resolution artwork shouldn't be as difficult as you make it sound. If you're doing CMI-esque art, there's nothing stopping you from digitally painting the initial backgrounds a bunch of zoom levels out and then using larger brushes, and in fact this is good, common practice so the artist has maximum flexibility when it comes to using/distributing the assets afterwards. Kind of like how a band wouldn't record the music for their album with a **** tape recorder.

 

I'd be surprised if the CMI artwork itself wasn't created at a much higher resolution than we see in a game. It was almost certainly simply scaled down to fit, and of course cropped, etc.

 

I really don't understand your adversity to higher resolution graphics, Thunderpeel, and wonder if you actually know what you're talking about. Producing at a higher resolution isn't really very difficult and has been standard fare for years; the only reason older games like CMI aren't in a higher resolution is because of the monitor and storage capabilities of the day. If it were released now it'd go up to just a little beyond whatever maximum people are likely to use these days (1920x1200) and then downscale/crop for those below.

[Thrik]

And incidentally, if not improving the technical level of the game then what exactly is the point of a Monkey Island 1 remake? After all, by most accounts it's pretty much a symbol of perfection with regards to atmosphere and story, etc. Why go to all the effort of making it a more modern piece of game design if you're not going to actually accommodate modern hardware properly?

[elTee]

And incidentally, if not improving the technical level of the game then what exactly is the point of a Monkey Island 1 remake? After all, by most accounts it's pretty much a symbol of perfection with regards to atmosphere and story, etc. Why go to all the effort of making it a more modern piece of game design if you're not going to actually accommodate modern hardware properly?

An excellent point.

 

And I have to reply to the person who said CMI runs at a higher resolution than DVDs: that's not true. DVDs are like 720x576 or something, and even this has become 'too small' with the next-gen DVD format wars between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD - two things I know quite little about, but I assume will be commonplace in a matter of years.

 

Thrik's absolutely right - this isn't a fan project in the traditional sense; there's no original content. Look at the Maniac Mansion Deluxe fan project - the game itself is indistinguishable from the original in every regard, they've just updated the graphics and the GUI. This I presume is why they didn't get shut down by Lucas Legal. That said, they obviously value the Monkey Island property a lot more than any of their other adventure properties.

 

Personally, apart from the time factor, I can't imagine the project being that difficult just because you're essentially not designing the game yourselves. It's all there in front of you. Rip all the backgrounds with ScummRev then you'll have a folder full of artwork for you to re-imagine in photoshop at a higher resolution. You've got a finite number of characters. And whoever's doing the actual coding doesn't need to wait for the actual images/sprites/3D models, because they can just be slotted in as-and-when.

 

I know I'm simplifying it somewhat.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Make no mistake though, people with 19-inch+ monitors are no rarity these days. The days of the CRT are numbered, and I very rarely encounter them these days.

 

Rather than just ramble on, why not use the data to back yourself up.

 

Resolution usage stats:

1. 1024 x 768 (56.15%)

2. 1280 x 1024 (15.79%)

3. 800 x 600 (12.04%)

4. 1280 x 800 (4.09%)

5. 1152 x 864 (3.90%)

 

I'm sorry but your post is still ignorant and seems to ignore my original point: It takes a lot longer to create artwork for 1920x1200 resolution (as you suggest) than it does for 640x480, which is slightly lower resolution than DVD (sorry, you were right, el tee). If they want to do it, fine, but it will take longer. More effort with less overall ouput (unless you feel like posting your own attempts at drawing a Monkey 1 background at the res you suggest to show how 'easy' it is?).

 

You also seem to suggest that updating the graphics wouldn't be worth doing unless they were superior to CMI's.... as if the difference between Monkey Island 1 and CMI isn't big enough to warrant it!!

 

 

I'm sorry, but I can see a ****ing huge difference...

 

 

 

 

 

'Offensive to the eyes', my butt! CMI still looks wonderful.

 

 

I fail to see what mega-important, story and atmosphere-enhancing details we're all missing out on in CMI's wonderfully drawn backgrounds...?

 

I'd just like to see paprik and co spend time on things more profitable than creating background details that less than 1% of the population will ever see. Plus, I know how easy it is to burn yourself out on a project like this. CMI created wonderful artwork at 640x480... unless the results are jaw dropping, they don't really need to go much higher than this.

[Thrik]

Sorry, did you even read what I said?

 

It's not the detail or quality of CMI's artwork I'm questioning. It's the fact that the definition will degrade significantly if scaled up from 640x480, which basically includes 100% of those using LCD monitors. The statistics you posted do absolutely nothing to back up your point as LCDs come in 1024x768 too, and 640x480 still looks quite poor when scaled up to that resolution.

 

Do you use an LCD screen? Because if you do, I really can't see how you can be arguing with me about this. LCDs don't look very good when not in their native resolution -- simple as that. They don't resize the images in the same way CRTs do. They have to process it and try to make 307,200 pixels (640x480) fit into 786,432 pixels (1024x768), which invariably results in the image quality being comprised. This is different to CRT monitors which simply make the pixels physically bigger (meaning it's easier to see each individual one on lower resolutions).

 

And, again, your comment about it taking longer to create the art is absolute nonsense as I said before. Do you think it takes so much longer because they have to paint over twice/thrice/etc the area or something? If you do, let me correct you now: it doesn't. You zoom out in Photoshop or whatever you're using and use bigger brushes. Job done. And if we're talking about 3D renders, it's a five-second option change (and maybe a bit longer to render, which is completely automatic).

 

If you sincerely believe that only 1% of the population uses an LCD monitor then I'd probably be inclined to suggest you take your head out of your ass and see beyond yourself. But I assume you weren't saying that.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you understand the concept of resolutions at all based on your "wouldn't be worth doing unless they were superior to CMI's" comment. As what I've said above explains, the same piece of artwork in CMI would look a lot sharper and like Bill Tiller intended if it were big enough to look clear on 1600x1200 instead of just 640x480. Or if this analogy helps you, if it were poster-sized instead of postcard-sized. It wouldn't take him any longer to paint.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I DO use an LCD screen, you complete muppet!

[Thrik]

I'll take that enlightening comment as an acknowledgement of my points about how easy it is to support higher resolutions and create higher resolution art assets, and that it doesn't take significantly longer. Thanks for totally ignoring all that and just picking out the one thing you could actually argue with, coupled with an insult. Good show! ;-*

 

As I said, LCDs don't look good when the resolution isn't native. The fact that you use one doesn't change this assertion, and only demonstrates that you either have poor eyesight or are simply too used to looking at low upscaled resolutions (kind of like how someone who's only ever used VCR tapes might not know better). It looks worse and worse the higher up the resolution chain you go.

 

Since I've pretty much established my original point which is that supporting high resolutions shouldn't be difficult and that a modern remake of Monkey Island 1 probably should be made to support modern technology properly, I think it's best we drop the spin-off arguments now.

[Ray Jones]

Err, I think you cannot simply redo a game in hi-res and claim it to be better looking than the original.

 

For instance, Maniac Mansion Deluxe basically just updated to 256 colours and thus the gave impression of more detail, nothing else. Additionally you can chose 640x400 resolution what does nothing more than to double the pixels. I did not really change the look of the game or added anything. Monkey Island 1 is already 256 colours. And double pixels can be done with ScummVM. So the MM fan game is not anywhere near where this project is aiming at.

 

It's also different with CMI, because up-scaling those non pixel-ish graphics, which already have a relative good resolution and amount of colours is much easier. Even Monkey Island 2 and its hand drawn scanned backgrounds it would be easier to scale, but the MI1 graphics have been created natively for a 320x240 resolution, combined with the restriction that these have to be displayable with only 32 (or 16) colours.

 

I mean those hi-res backgrounds are all good and stuff, but seriously, regardless if 640x480, or 1900x1200, whatever, I consider it pretty much impossible to "enhance" Monkey Island 1 in any way through high resolution graphics. Also, I am not sure if those more or less realistic looking backgrounds would live up to the Monkey Island universe. It does look good, but just not right. Even more, what kind and style of character design is to be chosen with those? I have a hard time coming up with something good, except the idea of totally imitating the drawing style from the original box, but those again would not fit into the 3D scenes we've seen from paprik.

 

Seriously, before we all get wrapped up in decisions about final resolutions, I'd really like to know how is this scene is going to look like in the remake:

 

Fact is, a lot of the Monkey Island 1 feel is due to its unique look (despite the "bad" resolution). Maybe if the original MI1 look or any really similar would be simply redrawn in higher resolution, that is something I can imagine would go with the game. But still, the details, like the character's faces, clothes and the like, is something that has to be drawn very thoughtful to keep the game's spirit.

 

Another idea I have is using vector graphics a la Flashback and Another World to recreate the graphics (but way more enhanced), that would make the game resolution independent too.

[Thrik]

On that note, it might be worth pointing out that all of Monkey Island 2's backgrounds were original paintings that're completely smooth; they only became pixellated when the scaled down to the low resolution in the game (320x240) and then upscaled again by the monitor.

 

If the resources were put there by LucasArts we could realistically have a version of MI2 where the backgrounds are on a similar level of quality to CMI's, simply by allowing the game to natively run in a higher resolution and using larger resolution art assets by scanning the originals in at a larger size.

 

You can kind of see an example in the Monkey Island forum header (the Voodoo side), although that was resized; the real thing is bigger and just as smooth. That's what I was saying about having higher-resolution art assets in the game, which are usually drawn far bigger than necessary by artists anyway.

 

That said, I agree with what Ray said. Is this really a worthwhile endeavour considering it's the whole package of MI1 as a whole that makes it so nostalgic to people? I don't think so, personally. While I'd love to see something like CMI with the original background art in high resolution rather than the scaled-down 640x480 backgrounds and cleaned-up character sprites (smoother edges, for example), I wouldn't want it to go any further. Same goes for the original two.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I'll take that enlightening comment as an acknowledgement of my points about how easy it is to support higher resolutions and create higher resolution art assets, and that it doesn't take significantly longer. Thanks for totally ignoring all that and just picking out the one thing you could actually argue with, coupled with an insult. Good show! ;-*

 

As I said, LCDs don't look good when the resolution isn't native. The fact that you use one doesn't change this assertion, and only demonstrates that you either have poor eyesight or are simply too used to looking at low upscaled resolutions (kind of like how someone who's only ever used VCR tapes might not know better). It looks worse and worse the higher up the resolution chain you go.

 

Since I've pretty much established my original point which is that supporting high resolutions shouldn't be difficult and that a modern remake of Monkey Island 1 probably should be made to support modern technology properly, I think it's best we drop the spin-off arguments now.

 

Your entire posts are insults, filled with assumptions and demeaning comments! The muppet insult, which come on, is really more playful than anything, was only written because I had precisely .2 seconds to construct a reply. I wasn't deliberately avoiding your comments, sorry.

 

I still disagree with your assertion that doing 1920x1200 artwork is just as easy as doing 640x480 or 800x600. If what you're talking about doesn't actually add any details, but rather upscales the artwork more effectively for LCD screens, then why not just do it at a lower res and include bicubic upscaling within the software? That's how it would be done today (although probably at 1024x768 and in 3D).

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, eh?

 

BTW - Maybe my LCD is just better at upscaling than yours? :-P

[ThunderPeel2001]

Is this really a worthwhile endeavour considering it's the whole package of MI1 as a whole that makes it so nostalgic to people? I don't think so, personally. While I'd love to see something like CMI with the original background art in high resolution rather than the scaled-down 640x480 backgrounds and cleaned-up character sprites (smoother edges, for example), I wouldn't want it to go any further. Same goes for the original two.

 

So why were you arguing??

 

Even more, what kind and style of character design is to be chosen with those? I have a hard time coming up with something good, except the idea of totally imitating the drawing style from the original box, but those again would not fit into the 3D scenes we've seen from paprik.

 

I still think, based on Paprik's early artwork, that it's a worthwhile endevour. Some of the things he's allowed us to see look stunning and fit precisely in with the original artwork, too. Lastly, we'll all still have the original, so it's not like this will replace it.

[Thrik]

Because it'd be better to produce it the artwork at a higher resolution and then bicubically downscale it, so those on the higher resolutions still see a nice sharpness and clarity as opposed to the unavoidable blurriness that a bicubic upscale would cause.

 

I'd imagine the CMI background art was originally painted in a much higher resolution than 640x480. But because of space and practicality reasons it would have been downscaled to fit. This means if you run it on something like 1600x1200 it will blur as it's stretched up, no matter what processing is used.

 

This problem could have simply been avoided if DVDs and slightly better hardware was prevalent when CMI came out, allowing the developers to include the larger originals at a greater size, thus meaning it'd have been future proofed for higher resolutions.

 

It's like in a first-person shooter game. The textures on the walls in an old one would have been something like 128x128, which means when you play it on 1600x1200 the walls look like crap as the definition is lost, while on a smaller 640x480 screen they once looked fine as they weren't being stretched so much. However, if that game also had an option to enable 640x480 textures they'd appear super sharp and detailed in 1600x1200.

 

The difference is that now all such technology is common fare, and including high-resolution art assets shouldn't be an issue. Having to create more detail seriously isn't an issue because the paintings are so detailed to begin with and simply lose detail when compressed down to 640x480; if we were talking about a 1990 game where games weren't drawn in full painted colour then fair enough, but we aren't.

 

I remain unable to see why you can't grasp this concept. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I'm absolutely exhausting myself trying to put across why it wouldn't be much effort but would benefit any game a lot.

 

All that said, I think we all know this'll never come out. Heh.

[elTee]

<ramble>

Because it'd be better to produce it the artwork at a higher resolution and then bicubically downscale it, so those on the higher resolutions still see a nice sharpness and clarity as opposed to the unavoidable blurriness that a bicubic upscale would cause.

Interesting idea... there are other ways to upscale - expensive and patented, of course, but I'm sure I'd be able to, uh, get my hands on the necessary tools... leave it with me, just out of interest ;

 

I'd imagine the CMI background art was originally painted in a much higher resolution than 640x480. But because of space and practicality reasons it would have been downscaled to fit.

I hate to bring this up because I know so many people will be jealous, but I was lucky enough to hear some of the CMI soundtrack before it had been compressed for the game once, and I know you did too. It's kind of a moot point because no-one else here has heard it, but it was literally worlds apart from the stuff you can rip with ScummRev. Music and artwork are interchangeable in this regard - the uncompressed game (as with any game I suppose) is probably several gigs in size, whereas when crammed onto two CDs it becomes a paltry 1.4 gigs or so. There's a quality/size tradeoff. When your media is in the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD range - hell, even just double-layer DVD - the quality increases tenfold.

 

I seem to have gone off the point. What I'm trying to say is that if this project is done at a low resolution it is essentially pointless, because nostalgia is so important with this games. It's not like Maniac Mansion Deluxe where the resolution was secondary to just making the game bloody viewable... I mean hell, I play Secret of Monkey Island in EGA mode with PC speaker sound just for the full retro experience.

 

</ramble>

[ThunderPeel2001]

The difference is that now all such technology is common fare, and including high-resolution art assets shouldn't be an issue. Having to create more detail seriously isn't an issue because the paintings are so detailed to begin with and simply lose detail when compressed down to 640x480.

We don't really lose any detail in CMI's backgrounds, because they were designed with that resolution in mind. The worse thing is the reduction in colours which creates all sorts of banding/diffusion artefacts. It it was scanned in at super higher-res and used in-game, you would just see the pen strokes in more detail, not actually any more detail. Of course, I would *love* to see it at 800x600 or 1024x768 in 16-bit colour, but any higher than that wouldn't actually yield much difference. (You may as well upscale for LCDs at this point.)

 

I remain unable to see why you can't grasp this concept. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I'm absolutely exhausting myself trying to put across why it wouldn't be much effort but would benefit any game a lot.

Maybe it's because I work with printed artwork and scans for a living (not digital paintings, though). Maybe if someone could furnish us with some answers from the world of digital art then they could shut us both up? (Where's Bill Tiller when you need him?)

 

One thing to add: Zooming out in Photoshop, (ie. when you're working at 40%) often gives you an incorrect/distorted impression at what it will look like at 100%. That's why I don't think it's realistically feasible (in an amateur project with limited resources and energy); I think an artist might find themselves working at 100% to make sure everything looked ok.

 

All that said, I think we all know this'll never come out. Heh.

I hope we at least get to see paprik's finished artwork... If CMI hadn't drawn Guybrush so tall and lanky then they could have probably just used that version and saved themselves a lot of problems. Ah well.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I hate to bring this up because I know so many people will be jealous...

 

Yep, you're right. I wish I could hear some of that stuff, I bet it was amazing. Now you've gone and filled my head with dreams of a CMI Special Edition with super music and high-res art...!

[ThunderPeel2001]

For anyone who's interested, here's what these two look like next to each other:

 

 

I'm quite surprised at the changes he's made. I know it's nothing major, but its interesting none-the-less. The additional detail, especially on the cannon, is really great. He's also actually added more depth... the circus tent feels a little bigger.

[plamdi]

And I have to reply to the person who said CMI runs at a higher resolution than DVDs: that's not true. DVDs are like 720x576 or something, and even this has become 'too small' with the next-gen DVD format wars between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD - two things I know quite little about, but I assume will be commonplace in a matter of years.

You're not going to notice the difference between SD and HD on a 68cm TV, movies which are shot in digital (Wolf Creek, Attack of the Clones, Superman Returns) look stunning on 11-meter wide cinema screens!

Thrik's absolutely right - this isn't a fan project in the traditional sense; there's no original content. Look at the Maniac Mansion Deluxe fan project - the game itself is indistinguishable from the original in every regard, they've just updated the graphics and the GUI. This I presume is why they didn't get shut down by Lucas Legal. That said, they obviously value the Monkey Island property a lot more than any of their other adventure properties.

Yes, but they defend them all the same.

If you sincerely believe that only 1% of the population uses an LCD monitor

...I know I'll probably read him saying so himself... but he's talking about the 1% of PC owners who even know what Monkey Island is!

Additionally you can chose 640x400 resolution what does nothing more than to double the pixels.

No, that's 4 times the pixels!

On that note, it might be worth pointing out that all of Monkey Island 2's backgrounds were original paintings that're completely smooth; they only became pixellated when the scaled down to the low resolution in the game (320x240)

...I think you mean 320x200 (320x144 if you discount the interface area and just count the picture!)

 

Thrik - all serious PC computer geeks (gammers) own CRT MONITORS.

[Thrik]

Erm, no they don't. I know a lot of gamers both online and offline who're what you could consider 'hardcore' and pretty much every single one uses an LCD, and if you look at Steam's latest hardware survey 41% of people use 1280x800, which as far as I'm aware is very unlikely to appear on any CRT. A large portion of the 36% on 1024x768 are probably on smaller LCDs, too. Steam's results are probably slightly skewed too as although the userbase is massive, a lot of them play older games like Counter-Strike for Half-Life 1. If you were to restrict results to people who mainly play 2005/2006 games you'd probably find the results even more in LCD's favour.

 

But anyway, it's not a hugely relevant point we're going to get much fruition out of discussion. What I really came to say is that the circus render above is great. Seriously good job done on that!

 

BTW Thunderpeel, if you zoom out by two steps in Photoshop (assuming you're using the 'zoom out' tool and not directly entering an integer) it'll do a little processing and essentially give you a perfect downscale. It only goes a bit dodgy and uses nearest neighbour rescaling when you go in odd increments.

 

Also, if we're talking 3D then it should definitely be output in as high a resolution as possible since we're talking about just changing a number. Why not future proof if you can do so with almost no effort?

[elTee]

I've resized the circus image to 1600 pixels across, using a variety of different resizing methods, which can be compared below. Please click each image to see the full-res version.

 

Pixel resize (looks awful, probably as it would appear on an LCD)

 

Weighted average (slightly better than pixel resize, still bad)

 

Bicubic (not dire, but artefacts clearly visible on cannon - clearly an upscaled image)

 

Bilinear (very soft focus; see rope ladder - not great)

 

'Smart-size' (artefacts still visible on cannon, tightrope looks bad)

 

S-Spline (better, but artefacts on cannon still apparant; tightrope still not right)

 

S-Spline (w/edge-preserving blur) (artefacts smoothed at cost of clarity; looks like a pastel painting - tightrope still looks funny)

 

S-Spline (w/texture-preserving blur) (some clarity regained, best image - but still 'stylised' in order to cover-up problems)

 

What is the point of this? Well, mainly to show that even using complicated resizing methods the images still don't look great. Even if they did, your computer wouldn't be able to do it on-the-fly anyway - the best looking images out of the bunch above were not only resized but then post-processed to smooth some of the artefacts out. If you were playing an upscaled game it would look something like one of the first four images, not the last four.

 

The only way to achieve this kind of quality - assuming the game isn't made to a reasonably high resolution anyway - would be to edit each image and then recompile a second 'hi-res' version of the game with physically larger artwork etc. and offering it to people as an alternate version.

 

Which would be confusing and time consuming. And Thrik's right - and we all seem to have forgotten this for some reason - it is 3D, so it really wouldn't be difficult to make it hi-res. If I had seen that before I had uploaded these images, I wouldn't have uploaded them