I was wondering if I could get some clarification on the issue of what fails a game for not meeting the safe area criteria. Although I've got my own thoughts on what works and what shouldn't, I'm fairly new around here, so I'd really like to get the community view of what can be passed or failed.

As it stands, the game I'm working on did have a consideration for the safe area, by allowing the user to choose the size of the screen (hidden away in the options). I'm reasonably happy to make corrections as it's clear that the general consensus around here seems to be that we try to maintain high standards. A very good thing.

So here are the scenarios. They range from being obviously a fail to being a clear pass. Would you pass or fail each of these? (And if you feel like it, why?)

1) The game draws all important information entirely inside the safe area, in a fixed format.

2) The game draws some important information outside of the safe area, in a fixed format.

3) The game draws some important information outside of the safe area as the default, but allows the user reasonable control over the screen format.

4) The game suggests that the player might want to adjust their options, perhaps as some sort of tip, or within the game's instructions.

5) The first time the game is run (e.g per profile), the user is asked to calibrate the screen format/size.

LedgeWizard

If you can do it in a timely way, scaling is your friend.  I've had some real headaches getting everything "in safe" because I have no knowedge of the display devices tester and players are using, so I would say keep ALL essential information within the safe area as well as you can AND allow the user to scale the screen. Doing it on first run per profile is good, but allow readjustment for when they upgrade their TV/monitor/projector etc.

Regards,
Mike

I think the general consensus from previous discussions about this is: (I will be corrected if I'm wrong)

* The default setting should be everything important is within the safe area. i.e. A player must be able to just start the game and play, without having to adjust any options, and without being prompted to change any options. They can then go and change options if they wish.

* Your #5 is a no no.

Assuming safe area safe-ness is the only thing in question about the game:

1) Pass
2) Depends. If there is important information that makes the game unplayable (ie, the health bar is outside), then it's a fail. If it's mainly cosmetic stuff (ie a character portrait) then it's not a fail, but definitely let the developer know.
3) Depends on how accessible the options are. If they're buried deep in an obscure options menu with no attention drawn to itself, I'd be leaning towards a fail.
4) Maybe. I'm on the fence with this one, since it's so easy yo set the screen to the minimum size as default instead of making me tweak the options just to play the game. If there are some black bars around the screen, fine, I'll fiddle with the options later. If I have to go through a setup process before the game is playable, then it's a big turn off to me as a customer.
5) If it's unskippable, then yes, that seems acceptable, however it will annoy customers.

There are two easy ways to handle this from a developers perspective:

1) Allow for scaling of the screen, and set it to the minimum by default so everything is inside the inner 80%. Then let the user know "hey if you have a TV with little overscan, adjust these options to get a better gameplay experience".
2) Just use GraphicsDevice.TitleSafeArea and the UnsafeAreaOverlay (available on the XNA wiki) when positioning your GUI and HUD elements, and don't worry about it.

Thanks for the constructive replies. To give a little more detail, my current project is nearing completion, but has been utilising the whole screen, with some of the essential information on the edges. Really bad, I know, but I've learned for the future.

The levels of the game don't currently leave enough space to move things further in and level redesign/rebalancing would be a lot of work (at this stage), but thankfully I've already included scaling in the options. So what I think I'll do is scale everything down by default and create some sort of border (I hate the idea of all that space doing nothing).

For the border, I'm thinking of drawing the game full screen (minus the interface elements), then making it blurred (there's probably a technical term for that) and then displaying the scaled version centred on top of that. Not sure how that'll look. I hope that makes sense. Either way, it's quick and fairly painless to try. The user can then make the game larger and the border won't need fixing as it'll either be partially or fully hidden.

Hopefully that's a reasonable compromise that won't annoy potential customers.

There is a simpler way than hard-coded stuff: in my games I get the TitleSafeArea from the GraphicDevice and use that data to position my texts and items in the scene.

Cheers,
Pino

PinoEire:

There is a simpler way than hard-coded stuff: in my games I get the TitleSafeArea from the GraphicDevice and use that data to position my texts and items in the scene.

UberGeekGames:

2) Just use GraphicsDevice.TitleSafeArea and the UnsafeAreaOverlay (available on the XNA wiki) when positioning your GUI and HUD elements, and don't worry about it.

;)

UberGeekGames:

PinoEire:

There is a simpler way than hard-coded stuff: in my games I get the TitleSafeArea from the GraphicDevice and use that data to position my texts and items in the scene.

UberGeekGames:

2) Just use GraphicsDevice.TitleSafeArea and the UnsafeAreaOverlay (available on the XNA wiki) when positioning your GUI and HUD elements, and don't worry about it.

;)

:)

I didn't read the whole thread... when people just ask for general opinion over a checklist I just chime in answering to the OP reserving further reading later on :) A bad habit maybe, but this way
 
:)

LedgeWizard:

5) The first time the game is run (e.g per profile), the user is asked to calibrate the screen format/size.

I like games that give me this option, but you shouldn't expect the user to know how to do this.  And even if you force the user to calibrate the screen, you should always begin by defaulting to the safest scenario.  I do something similar to my HUD.

Craig Martin:

I think the general consensus from previous discussions about this is: (I will be corrected if I'm wrong)

Yes indeed, I'm here to correct you. ;-)

Craig Martin:

* The default setting should be everything important is within the safe area. i.e. A player must be able to just start the game and play, without having to adjust any options, and without being prompted to change any options. They can then go and change options if they wish.

* Your #5 is a no no.

Not at all. The #5 is totally acceptable, not a reason for a failure, and also doesn't seem to be a problem for gamers at all. :-)

Many developers here have indeed expressed the opinion, that it is important that the player can go into the game and play without having to adjust any options. Ubergeek hints at the same in his posting above when describing it as "annoying". I think this fear is unfounded and it should not stop a developer from including such a "zoom" option in his game, if this is the best option for the game.

First my theoretical argument: For the sake of the argument, let's assume that it is indeed annoying to the gamer. So why should the developer care? If it comes down to it, the only reason why this annoyance could be relevant for the developer would be, if it would cause a gamer to not buy the game who otherwise would have bought it!

How would that happen? I can not see any realistic scenario for this...

Would someone who just went to the trouble of finding/selecting your game on the dashboard (or the web marketplace) and who then had the patience to download and start the game, who then sees the "Please adjust the screen-size" screen on first startup, would this person then immediately exit the game saying "This is so annoying, I will not even continue to test this game further!!!"? I really can't believe that.
So even if the player were annoyed by this screen, he would with very high probability still continue to play the trial. So what happens then? Would someone who plays the trial and likes the game enough to spend money on it then say: "You know, I really like this game and I would have bought it, but because of this annoying screen-size feature I will now not buy it! But without that annoying feature I really would have bought it!". Again, I can't believe that.
I do not believe that you will lose a single sale to a customer just because of this feature, i.e. there won't be a customer who would have bought the game if only it didn't have this "annoying" feature...

Now some pratical experience to back up that theory:

I have two games on the marketplace which both use this feature. During the first startup, both games ask you to adjust the game for your screen size. (BTW, both games went through peer review without problems regarding this feature.).
Not a single review (speaking of game reviews here, not peer reviews) even mentions this feature (to my knowledge). Not positively, but surely also not negatively. Not one reviewer (not even the ones that mentioned other features they didn't like) quoted this feature as a "bad/annoying" feature. I don't even think that anyone even remembered the feature a few minutes after their first start of the game.
Even more: Both games have a very good conversion rate (unfortunately coupled with the usual lousy overall download number typical for games that are off the new releases list). So a sizeable portion of (the few) gamers who actually download my games then also buy them - obviously this "annoying" feature is not stopping them! :-)

Doc

OK I seemed to have caused a small misunderstanding. I didn't mean that having to adjust it is annoying, but that if it was initially set to something more than the worst case scenario, and I had to hunt for the option to change it, it would be annoying. Calibrating it at startup is fine. Rereading my post I think I got that mixed up since I was in a hurry writing that. :)

Spyn Doctor:

For the sake of the argument, let's assume that it is indeed annoying to the gamer. So why should the developer care? If it comes down to it, the only reason why this annoyance could be relevant for the developer would be, if it would cause a gamer to not buy the game who otherwise would have bought it!

Aaron Ramsey:

It just seems utterly counter-productive to knowingly ship a game with something that you believe might annoy your users.

Sure, I'm with you on that. I was just playing devil's advocate. Personally, I do not believe that this issue is annoying for players at all, so I had no problem shipping my games with it. :-)
The player reaction seems to support that, as the conversion rate is quite good and AFAIK no player ever has commented in any way on this feature (neither positively nor negatively, so I think in the eyes of the players it's a non-issue).
That's why I wrote that I think that this "fear of annoyance" about this option is something in the heads of us developers only. We know about the safe area, and what it is, and why, etc. Players (mostly) don't. They don't care either. They breeze through such an option without really noticing it and have already forgotten about it a few seconds later.

Doc

I would be annoyed if a game didn't use my full screen by default and I didn't get to set it at first startup. (not fail annoyed, just annoyed)