Hi!, hope you don't mind I bring back the topic of resolutions for a moment. I just read through this and I smiled when I realized I went through exactly the same doubts when choosing what resolution would be best and at the end I choose exactly the same as Max for my own project: 416*240. In my case the main reason was that anything that else that would be a good fit in terms of being a multiple of 16 would be too zoomed out for what I wanted... but there are actually other resolutions that could get a bit closer to perfect 16:9 ratio, I share my notes here:
16/9 = 1.7777777
416/240 = 1.7333333 (multiple of 16, same height and most of 16-bit games, 4K screens will not show glitches in the height because 2160/9=240), significant borders at the sides.
432/248 = 1.7419 (multiple of 8 ) DISCARDED no special advantages.
448/256 = 1.75 (multiple of 16 ) (borders at the sides)
480x270 = 1.7777777 perfect 16:9. Not multiple of 8, however is the perfect one to have a pixel perfect presentation in the typical 1920x1080 screen or 4K screen. So it will not glitch with shaders at all (explained below).
480/272 = 1.7647058.. (multiple of 16 )
512/288 = This is perfect 16:9 (and multiple of 16). However 1920x1080 is 3.75 times this, so it is not really helping with that other concern.
456/256 = 178125 (multiple of 8 ) (tiny borders at the top)
456/264 = 1.727272 (multiple of 8 ) (tiny borders at the sides)
When I talk about "glitching" I mean that the most common resolutions nowadays, at least in desktop and laptops (for mobile is a different story) are 1080p and 4K and if 1080 or 2160 can be divided by your chosen resolution you will get a pixel perfect experience which is good especially if you use shaders. Shaders can shot artifacts and glitches when not being pixel perfect. An example is attached.
So I think this is a balance between how much you are ok with zooming out your game's view (when too zoomed out the immersion can be lost), if you want it to be a multiple of 16 so you can easily edit your maps (I think multiple of 8 would be good enough as long as you have some 8 by 8 tiles), if you want it to fit perfectly in a 16:9 screen, if you want it to give a pixel perfect experience in 1080p or 4K!
So anyways, I think the choice for Ocean's Heart is good!, the borders are not that big! Thank you for reading.
16/9 = 1.7777777
416/240 = 1.7333333 (multiple of 16, same height and most of 16-bit games, 4K screens will not show glitches in the height because 2160/9=240), significant borders at the sides.
432/248 = 1.7419 (multiple of 8 ) DISCARDED no special advantages.
448/256 = 1.75 (multiple of 16 ) (borders at the sides)
480x270 = 1.7777777 perfect 16:9. Not multiple of 8, however is the perfect one to have a pixel perfect presentation in the typical 1920x1080 screen or 4K screen. So it will not glitch with shaders at all (explained below).
480/272 = 1.7647058.. (multiple of 16 )
512/288 = This is perfect 16:9 (and multiple of 16). However 1920x1080 is 3.75 times this, so it is not really helping with that other concern.
456/256 = 178125 (multiple of 8 ) (tiny borders at the top)
456/264 = 1.727272 (multiple of 8 ) (tiny borders at the sides)
When I talk about "glitching" I mean that the most common resolutions nowadays, at least in desktop and laptops (for mobile is a different story) are 1080p and 4K and if 1080 or 2160 can be divided by your chosen resolution you will get a pixel perfect experience which is good especially if you use shaders. Shaders can shot artifacts and glitches when not being pixel perfect. An example is attached.
So I think this is a balance between how much you are ok with zooming out your game's view (when too zoomed out the immersion can be lost), if you want it to be a multiple of 16 so you can easily edit your maps (I think multiple of 8 would be good enough as long as you have some 8 by 8 tiles), if you want it to fit perfectly in a 16:9 screen, if you want it to give a pixel perfect experience in 1080p or 4K!
So anyways, I think the choice for Ocean's Heart is good!, the borders are not that big! Thank you for reading.
