I have been working on some graphics for my game which were 800 x 600 as per the manual. After everything went bang, I am re-doing the graphics at 1024 x 768 which gives a bit more detail.
Any thoughts about the resolution? Does anyone think that this is too big?
I should say that each object that you can use and each location has a graphic instead of a description.
That might be a little big. My laptop is that resolution, so if your graphic is that size it won’t fit on my screen once you take into account the window, any padding, etcetera. You could think about scaling based on window size, if T3 supports that.
Sorry for the delay, my account is buggered and I had to re-register, also I am only online during the weekend.
I take your point about the resolution, my problem is losing detail within the image. I did an image of an office which is typical, in terms of detail, of others in the game. The image consists of 400 objects and when I rendered this at 8000x6000 I could read the country names on the world map at the back of the room, so increasing the resolution to 1024x768 is not only a 39% increase in pixels it is also a 39% increase in detail.
So now I have to decide whether to keep the resolution at 1024x768 with a required monitor resolution of 1280x1024 and lose potential players or degrade the image so it is viewable by anyone, although there is only one reply to my post so I may keep the resolution.
Your suggestion about auto-resizing wont work. As far as I know the only tags for screen position are left, centre and right. If anyone knows of any way in T3 to auto-resize an image then please let me know.
Having said all this, if the image is bigger than the screen you can use the scroll bars, although this would become tedious for every room.
Since this is a text adventure gaming system, have you given thought to what happens if people play your game on an interpreter that won’t display the pictures? Or what if they turn them off? People often play text adventures because they aren’t as interested in looking at a bunch of graphics; certainly not graphics that are necessary in order to understand what’s going on. (Think of the old Spellcasting games. They had nice graphics. But you lost nothing if you turned them off.)
You say: “each object that you can use and each location has a graphic instead of a description.”
Sounds to me like you want to write a graphical game rather than a text game.
If your images contain so much detail that you need a good text resolution to even make things out … I don’t know. This doesn’t sound like something audiences here would be most interested in playing.
I’m more curious about this: what’s driving you to make this such a graphics-focused game?
Er, no. You definitely lose the graphics if you turn them off 
My problem I find playing a text adventure is that sometimes you have a location which does not contain all the information for a room, or simply from the context of interest if you only have 3 items in a room which should in real life have a lot more for example in a livingroom, then if you have a graphic, everything that you can see exsists in the game room. When I play text adventures I am imagining what the location would look like and thinking how I could create that location in 3d. I should say that I use 3d graphics a lot which is why I made the decision, right or wrong, to have the graphics in the game. Your point about the interpreter is that the game will be a stand-alone windows exe files. The object graphic is a clue so that the player does not waste time trying to do something with an object in a room, whereas if an object has its own graphic then you know that you can use or interact with it. I am not a hack and slash fan so I am not writing a graphical game, hence the text adventure, the graphics simply enhances the location description.