Playing with IDEs

[Jeffrey Kesselman]

On Dec 25, 2007 6:28 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie at codewiz.org> wrote:
> Jeffrey Kesselman wrote:
>
> > Now this isnt to say that a minimum resolution cant work in the same
> > way it works on PCs... it works IF you can go full screen at that
> > resolution and if the game can request that resolution.
>
> It is impossible to provide a resolution other than the
> physical one on an LCD display without going through some
> kind of software scaling.
>
> Either we decide today that Sugar and its activities will
> only ever run on machines with 1200x900 displays, or we
> ask developers to make their activities scalable *somehow*.
> Which way seems more appealing to you?

I think the answer will surprise you.

As a game developer, its an easy choice....

FIX it at 12x9.  Make other resolutions OLPC2 OLPC3, etc.

Thats what any game developer would say.

Xmame is not a good example because your looking at games desigend for
much *lower* resolutions scaled up.  Plus they were desgined for
minimal CPUs so theres lots of processor with which to do it left
over.

2D game developers' game play is integrally bound up in the screne
real estate and how it is used. A change in play space of any kind can
dramatically change the game.

As I said, if the hardware can do the resolution, even if its by
scaling, then thats likely acceptable.  But a game developer wants to
use what power you've given him or her on the OLPC for game play, not
for scaling operations.

These are just the realities of the industry and this kind of development.

Do with them what you will.  But the last time I was  on a project
where they told us "no we don't need to do that because we aren't a
game machine, we're an educational machine" it was putting BLTers in
the CD-I player.

And we all know how well that turned out.

JK



-- 
~~ Microsoft help desk says: reply hazy, ask again later. ~~