Choosing the right rendering resolution for a pixel art game

For a pixel art game, the rendering resolution should be chosen based on scaling by integers to the most common screen resolutions (1080p, 1440p, 4K), ideally with a 16:9 aspect ratio. A resolution of 320×180 (or multiples thereof) guarantees sharp pixels, consistent scaling, and optimal compatibility with most PC and handheld console monitors. Rendering resolution should always be considered in conjunction with sprite size and camera framing.

Choose a rendering resolution is one of the most important decisions (and clearly one I most underestimated) when creating a pixel art game. It needs to be made as early as possible.

This choice impacts absolutely everything: visual readability, the apparent size of sprites, camera behavior, how the rendering is enlarged on modern screens, performance, and even game design decisions.

I encountered this problem quite early in the development of The Reaping Company, when I wanted to solve a specific problem: achieve pixel-perfect rendering while maintaining a smooth camera experience.

Initially, I started with a very intuitive approach. I observed the size of the character on screen in the game Celeste, a game I particularly love, and whose visuals are extremely well done. Since I also use... 16x16 sprites For the characters, I noted their approximate proportions:

• approximately 5 % of screen width,
• approximately 9 % in height.

So I reproduced this ratio in my own project, adopting a resolution of 320×180. Technically it worked, visually too, but the framing seemed too tight for a game which, unlike Celeste, will regularly offer enemies to fight, more open situations and an increased need for readability at medium distance.

At that moment, I vaguely had the idea that I needed to choose a good resolution, without really understanding why, or what objective criteria actually came into play. So my first decision was to go with a resolution of 384×216, slightly larger than Celeste's. And of course, it's not the one I ultimately chose to keep.

In this tutorial, I will explain why, and above all How to choose a rendering resolution for pixel art in a rational way, taking into account:

• integer resizing
• the most common screen ratios
• the resolutions actually used by the players
• and the constraints related to sprite size and readability

Why rendering resolution is crucial in pixel art games

Rendering resolution as a visual design constraint

Unlike high-resolution games, pixel art relies on extremely precise pixel relationships. Each pixel is intentional. It directly contributes to the readability of a sprite, an animation, or an entire scene.

For this reason, rendering resolution is not simply a technical parameter; it is a design constraint in its own right, and it makes integral part of the game's art direction. It determines, in particular:

• the apparent size of the sprites on the screen
• the portion of the world visible to the camera
• the visual density of the sets
• the pacing and readability of the animations
• the overall framework of the game

Once this resolution is chosen, it mechanically influences:

• level design
• the scale of environments
• the composition of the plans
• and even certain gameplay decisions

Sprite size and rendering resolution: an inseparable link

In The Reaping Company, the sprite size constraint became very apparent when transposing the main character (The Ghost) from a hand-drawn illustration to a 16×16 pixel sprite, as you can see here:

This side-by-side comparison highlights a crucial point: despite a massive loss of resolution and detail, the character's intention, posture, and identity must remain immediately recognizable.

The contrast is intentionally extreme here, since I went from a hand-drawn illustration to very low-resolution pixel art. But the problem is exactly the same when choosing between 16x16, 24x24, or 32x32 pixel sprites: at what level of detail is the character's identity truly best served?

On the scale of pixel art, every decision counts. An eye in one pixel or two pixels? Long or compact legs? What posture to adopt to remain legible in motion? Despite the very low resolution, the objective remains the same: to convey a clear intention and a strong identity.

At this stage, increase the sprite resolution (24×24 or 32×32) would mechanically offer greater precision. But more pixels don't necessarily mean better readability or a more accurate style. In some cases, a lower resolution actually forces bolder and more visually consistent choices.

This is precisely where the link between sprite size and rendering resolution becomes clear. A 16×16 pixel sprite in a 320×180 rendering resolution occupies approximately 5 % of the screen width. It immediately becomes legible, expressive, and central to the frame.

With a higher rendering resolution, the same sprite would appear much smaller on the screen:

• the field of vision would be wider,
• but the visual impact of the character would be diminished.,
• and some visual information could be lost.

Rendering resolution should therefore never be chosen in isolation. It should always be considered as a direct extension of sprite work and art direction.

Rendering resolution vs. screen resolution

A fundamental point in pixel art is to clearly distinguish:

• there rendering resolution internal game
• and the screen resolution player

In the vast majority of pixel art games, the world is rendered in a low internal resolution (for example 320×180), then enlarged to fit the screen.

WARNING, this enlargement must absolutely be done using integer multipliers.

For example :

• 320×180 ×6 → 1920×1080
• 320×180 ×8 → 2560×1440
• 320×180 ×12 → 3840×2160

As soon as a non-integer factor is used, the pixels become irregular :

• vague
• twinkle
• deformation
• or unwanted interpolation

This is often where problems with "smeared" or unstable rendering originate.

Use real screen resolution data

According to Steam's hardware survey (December 2025), here are the 5 most common screen resolutions among PC gamers :

• 1920×1080 (52.58 %) – 16:9
• 2560×1440 (20.59 %) – 16:9
• 3840×2160 (4.93 %) – 16:9
• 2560×1600 (4.83 %) – 16:10
• 3440×1440 (3.12 %) ~ 21:9

Similarly, global data on screen resolutions for the year 2025 shows that:

• 1920×1080 remains the most widespread resolution in the world
• 16:9 screens are dominant among desktop and laptop users
• Ultra-wide and very high-resolution screens are progressing, but remain secondary.

If you're aiming for broader compatibility (or simply good rendering robustness), it's also worth looking at the portable consoles current:

• Nintendo Switch: 1280×720 – 16:9
• Nintendo Switch 2: 1920×1080 – 16:9
• Steam Deck: 1280×800 – 16:10

This strongly suggests that The 16:9 aspect ratio should be the primary target for a pixel art game..

Targeting 16:9 doesn't mean ignoring other formats. It simply means choosing a base resolution that scales cleanly to the most common screens, while still allowing for... letterboxing or alternative layouts for special cases such as ultra-wide screens or screens with special ratios (16:10, 21:9, etc.).

A stable base in 16:9 reduces complexity and avoids unnecessary compromises from the earliest stages of development.

Integer resizing

Once the ratio is defined (16:9), the most important criterion becomes the integer resizing. A good basic resolution should be able to be cleanly upscaled to the most common screen resolutions, without introducing jagged pixels, blurring, or flickering.

To illustrate this, here is a comparison between several commonly used low rendering resolutions and the most widespread high final resolutions:

This table immediately highlights one thing: 320×180 is the most versatile basic resolution (as well as its integer multiples like 640×360). It scales perfectly to 80 % of Steam users' screen resolutions:

• 1080p with a 6x multiplier
• 1440p with an 8x multiplier
• 4K with a 12x multiplier

No fractional resizing, no compromises, and consistent pixel sizes across all major resolutions. It is precisely for these reasons that, despite my initial choice of 384×216, I ultimately opted for 320×180.

Readability, framing and artistic intent

Beyond purely technical considerations, the choice of a rendering resolution has a direct impact on the readability of the game in context, and therefore on how the player perceives, anticipates and understands the action.

At the same sprite size, lower internal resolutions produce visually larger sprites and tighter framing. This enhances the visual impact., improves the character's readability and gives pixel art a strong identity and accepted. On the other hand, the amount of information visible on the edges of the screen is more limited.

Conversely, higher internal resolutions can display more space and context, but mechanically reduce the apparent size of sprites, as they occupy a smaller percentage of the available space. They require more rigorous art direction, or even more detailed, to maintain good readability, especially in action games.

As explained previously, this is precisely why I initially opted for a 384×216 resolution: I was looking to improve the readability of elements located at the sides of the screen, in order to better anticipate enemies and situations at medium range. On paper, this choice offered increased visual comfort. But in practice, switching to 320×180 became essential. best overall compromise.

Admittedly, this resolution reduces the visible space at the edges, which might seem detrimental to an action game. But this constraint also opens the door to more intentional staging solutions.
For example :

• do not systematically center the camera on the character
• shift the framing slightly towards the direction in which he is looking or moving
• design the matches and levels taking this narrower field of vision into account.

Used intelligently, this constraint allows for direct the player's gaze, to increase tension and better control the pace of the confrontations. The game is therefore designed for this framework, and not in spite of it.

Therefore, there is no universally correct resolution. There is only the one that best serves the artistic intent, the gameplay, and the way the player is supposed to read the screen.

Readability, framing and artistic intent

Choosing a rendering resolution other than 320×180 is not a mistake in itself, but this engages in additional compromises which is important to anticipate. As soon as you move away from a resolution that scales perfectly to the most common formats, you will generally have to deal with:

• letterboxing is becoming more frequent (addition of black bars).
• alternative layouts for certain screen ratios
• more complex camera and interface management
• and sometimes visual inconsistencies depending on the final screen resolution

These adjustments are not insurmountable, but they add complexity from the earliest stages of development.

Conversely, a robust and versatile base resolution allows creative effort to be focused on gameplay, art direction, and readability, rather than on specific display cases. This is also why, despite its apparent limitations, 320×180 remains an extremely solid choice : it imposes clear, predictable constraints that are easy to integrate into a coherent artistic vision.

To conclude

Choosing the right rendering resolution for a pixel art game is not a trivial technical detail. It's a fundamental design decision. Based on:

• integer resizing
• the resolutions actually used by the players
• the readability of the sprites
• and the artistic intention of the project

This ensures a solid, consistent, and lasting visual foundation. A good rule of thumb is to choose the lowest resolution that clearly conveys your artistic direction while resizing cleanly for modern screens.

In pixel art, strong constraints give rise to strong visuals. And rendering resolution is probably one of the most important constraints you'll have to define.

Thank you for reading, and I hope this will help some of you. See you soon for another devlog or tutorial!