Are CRTs still the king for gaming?

[Ackmed]

I will never go back to CRT. LCD is better to me, in more things than its not.

Rollo, is this where someone asks you to get off 50+ year old tech, and get new tech? Seems like you try and use that argument all the time...

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
I will never go back to CRT. LCD is better to me, in more things than its not.

Rollo, is this where someone asks you to get off 50+ year old tech, and get new tech? Seems like you try and use that argument all the time...

It's not a matter of older versus newer Ackmed- it's a matter of better. LCDs just aren't better for gaming yet, they are for 2d stuff.

Will my next monitor be a LCD? Sure, I imagine.

The question was which is better for gaming right now- and things like lighter, more energy efficient, look cooler don't come into play there.

All that matters in gaming is IQ, response time, flexibility of settings, and size of screen.

I have 7800GTX SLI- I want to be able to run at 19X14 4X8X- what LCD does that?
I want to be able to run FarCry HDR at 12X10 and have it fill the screen and look right. I want to be able to run some games at 16X12 8 or 16XAA.

The fact of the matter is the LCD that comes closest to my needs is a 2405, and I think that's still only 19X12?

LCDs have come a long way, but they're not the BEST solution for gaming yet. I could care less how much my monitor weighs or how much juice it sucks- I only care about gaming the way I want to.

 

[Ackmed]

Oh... ok. So you can see that newer isnt always better. Each has its own advantages, and disadvantages.

Now try carrying over that thinking to video cards. I just find it ironic that you mock people and ATi for their cards with "3 year old tech", when you CRT is 30x+ older tech than that.

Is your HD sata or ide? If IDE, better update that old tech!!!

 

[CP5670]

PVA/MVA-panel LCDs have a stunning black level. TN ones start white, so the chemical they use to block the light sometimes leaks. However, the CRT's colors are usually more calibrated. The LCD's appear more lifelike because they are usually oversaturated (something like Digital Vibrance in NVIDIA ForceWare control panel). I used think my CRT looked better, but I looked at the tube so long and probably damaged my vision by giving me so much red-eye and headache. When I put on my glasses, the LCD's colors look almost better than my CRT's did.

Well, the black levels are really the main issue I have with LCD image quality. They are okay in the daytime but just don't look right in the dark, even fairly high end PVA/MVA ones, and I do all my gaming at night and like to have the lights off. The only ones I would consider acceptable (although still a bit inferior to the top CRTs) are the Sony and NEC ones with the glass coating, which are expensive and only available in resolution limited 19" versions.

My monitor has this feature that instantly doubles or triples the brightness by pressing a button on the front, so I can have the slightly oversaturated effect in games without affecting the black colors, which looks amazing in most games, and still have fully accurate colors in windows.

I have never gotten any headaches from looking at CRTs for long periods as long as the refresh rate is 85hz or higher; in fact, most LCDs cause me far more eyestrain in the dark due to the excessive brightness and that glitter effect. It feels like you are staring into a lightbulb with some of these LCDs, even at their lowest brightness settings. I have glasses too but it's something of a genetic issue in my case and unrelated to the CRTs I have been using.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Oh... ok. So you can see that newer isnt always better. Each has its own advantages, and disadvantages.

Now try carrying over that thinking to video cards. I just find it ironic that you mock people and ATi for their cards with "3 year old tech", when you CRT is 30x+ older tech than that.

Is your HD sata or ide? If IDE, better update that old tech!!!

I could almost bet money, that this thread title is asking if CRT's are still king for gaming.
Lemme take another look. Yup, sure does say that.

Rollo: Don't mind the toad. He's just pissed about getting owned in the "ATI = Corporate Fraud" thread. He won't dare post in it again for fear of bringing it back to the first forum page where everyone can see it. Lemme just go give that thread a bump. BRB.

 

[Ackmed]

Calling names again? Nice. Trolling after me again? Again, nice. Nobody was talking to you, or about your crappy CRT in the wall "mod".

I didnt get owned in that thread, I havent even looked at it since this morning, or last night, whichever was my last post. Im sorry I was at the lake most of the day.. I should have been here posting all Saturday!! What I said was true. Its ignorant to believe anything you read on the internet. There are no proven facts, no verdict has been made. Making assumptions is not a good idea, which is all I said. If you dont agree, well thats fine. I dont work that way.

 

[Keysplayr]

I think it's safe to say that LCD's own CRT's in just about everything "These days". Except gaming. Sure, people can game just fine on them, AFAIK. But whether they admit it or not, they really are just settling for less IQ and flexibility in games. They get used to it. Not something I'm ready to do just yet.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Calling names again? Nice. Trolling after me again? Again, nice. Nobody was talking to you, or about your crappy CRT in the wall "mod".

I didnt get owned in that thread, I havent even looked at it since this morning, or last night, whichever was my last post. Im sorry I was at the lake most of the day.. I should have been here posting all Saturday!! What I said was true. Its ignorant to believe anything you read on the internet. There are no proven facts, no verdict has been made. Making assumptions is not a good idea, which is all I said. If you dont agree, well thats fine. I dont work that way.

Fine fine fine. Now take a deep breathe, and run along junior.

 

[knyghtbyte]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
Oh, and dont buy it to save room unless you actually have a very small area to put your computer system on.......seriously, with the stand as well, most LCDs footprints are only 50% of a CRT, thats hardly a lot, mebbe 10ins reclaimed at most, not worth the cost in my opinion. The only ones to save more space are wall mountable walls, and most are not wall mountable.

More like a tenth of the space, depending if the power brick is built-in or not.

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
Also dont buy it if you play FPS games (HL2, CS:S, Doom3 etc) and are good at them, if you just play them for a laugh and are crap then it wont matter, but if you want to be the best, you need the picture on the screen to be as accurate as possible....LCD CANNOT match a CRT for that, people who say they barely notice it are obviously not playing at a competitive level.

Absolute nonsense. I have an LCD, and have played in numerous clans and had competitive matches. I'm better than I used to be when I had a CRT.

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
Dont buy one to watch movies on......you wanna watch DVD? get a CRT, even top level TV style LCDs and Plasmas cannot match CRT for the picture quality and response. You are better off buying a proper DVD player to hook up to a TV.....if you havnt the room then fair enough.....The main bonus PLasma has over CRT is it can go much bigger, CRT is limited to 36in for quality.......personally if i go over that i'd rather get a DLP projector and screen...heh

You must be joking here. You'd rather have a CRT than watch it on a Dell 2005FPW widescreen LCD? I'd take the LCD any day. For the same price, I'd rather get a DLP display though. Damn thing's based on the same idea as the age-old Nipkow disk and it owns everything out there today.

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
You absolutely do need the space on your desk.

Or, if you happen to want a desk instead of a CRT stand.

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
You do need desktop real estate (as in Windows desktop), but only if you buy a large size widescreen LCD will this be useful.

That's why you wouldn't want an LCD (with the kind of low-res panels they offer today). CRTs have much better resolutions.

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
You play RTS or RPG type games so response times do not make much difference...altho do make sure to buy a decent LCD as you will still notice the blurring on cheaper screens even playing something like C&C Generals.

I've played FPS (Quake 3, Wolfenstein: ET, BF2) for 9 months so far on my LCD, and it's been perfect.

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
You want to look cool and modern to your friends.

Sure, why not? I love showing stuff off, but that's not the only reason I bought it.

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
You look at a lot of photos.....if you get a really good LCD with a good black level, i must admit photos on a 19in LCD can look fantastic, for some reason they do come across more lifelike than a CRT.....oh, and its a lot easier to twist and LCD to portrait mode than a CRT...lol

PVA/MVA-panel LCDs have a stunning black level. TN ones start white, so the chemical they use to block the light sometimes leaks. However, the CRT's colors are usually more calibrated. The LCD's appear more lifelike because they are usually oversaturated (something like Digital Vibrance in NVIDIA ForceWare control panel). I used think my CRT looked better, but I looked at the tube so long and probably damaged my vision by giving me so much red-eye and headache. When I put on my glasses, the LCD's colors look almost better than my CRT's did.

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
To finalise.

LCD is for musthavethelatestgadget folks who dont game so much......they have uses, and they are nice, i own one myself (altho its now on a PC mostly used by my mum) but its nothing compared to a good CRT for gaming, and u can bet that Dell will still be selling a small range of decent CRTs for a while......however if you want a larger size (Dell UK no longer doing their 22in model :-( ) then go to Iiyama, i believe they are going to continue for a while......

No, really, LCDs are past the phase of the iPod or other "cool" devices. I don't own any of those music players.

LCDs are flicker free, and thus more natural to your eyes. Life doesn't flicker, why should your display? I know my eyes feel a lot more comfortable now. No more neck aches either. I'd get one every day with my CRT even at 100Hz vertical refresh rate. (I'm not just talking out of my ass just to disagree with you, contrary to what it may seem.)

LCDs have a lower TCO (total cost of ownership) because the cost of power on CRTs vs. LCD MSRP will break even sooner or later. You won't need a huge desk either. I (almost) even had to use my keyboard slot on my desk in order to have my CRT at the same surface as the keyboard.

CRTs do emit electromagnetic radiation (which some said would cause cancer). However, the "cancer" claims are basically BS now that CRTs route that radiation out their sides instead. LCDs don't have the harmful mercury/lead/cadmium, or most of VLF/ELF that CRTs emit. That makes them easier to dispose of (when they eventually die), also.

The moral of the story for me is the pros outweigh the cons. Do I see a little ghosting? Yeah of course I do, especially when you compare right next to a CRT. If you're not comparing it, you don't notice (or it doesn't bother you). One con is resolution, but that's not a limitation of technology. You see laptops with insane resolution LCDs. For my eyes, LCDs are like looking at a chocolate cake whereas CRTs are like looking at ... (you can guess where I'm going here).

You would actually prefer a LCD screen to a normal CRT Television for normal watching? you are mad...lol...the quality doesnt even come close yet, even the manufacturers themsevles admit it, its the space saving and the cool factor that most people buy them for......or if they want a very big size then obviously they have to go Plasma cuz there is no CRT at that size range........

as for the computer based monitors (CRT and LCD), CRT is superior for gaming, ghosting is noticable on LCD's, quite easily......even on the fast low response time monitors....but then my eyes and ears work perfectly and are very critical, hence i have a very nice hifi/home theatre setup that i took a long time to audition each piece to make sure it fitted in with what i like.......and hence i use the best monitor i can get within my budget...

It may be old technology, doesnt mean its useless yet.....once you can buy an LCD with a TRUE 4ms response time, not one based on a test that useless for real world application, then i might get another one.....(my 19in is an older 20ms model, but i've seen and played on faster ones at LAN tournies)....i do like the idea of them, they just dont serve the purpose i'd be buying it for yet....

(oh, and on the power issue, there is no way the cost difference between a CRT and an LCD would be offset in the saved electrical supply within the lifetime of the monitor, would need to be around 5 hours a day for 20 years of use to come close, the power issue is only relevent to companies where they are switched on quite often 24/7 and in banks of 50 or a few hundred monitors...........oh, and the space thing, its not a tenth, the panel itself might be a tenth of the space, but with the stand as well to make sure it desnt fall over will mean more like a space saving of 50-75% at most saved, unless you willing to use a thinner base and risk ur screen crashing forward onto your keyboard)

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
...and u can bet that Dell will still be selling a small range of decent CRTs for a while......however if you want a larger size (Dell UK no longer doing their 22in model :-( ) then go to Iiyama, i believe they are going to continue for a while......

Please don't recommend iiyama - their QC has gone through the floor since the good old days. I've had 2 replacements for my 19" in 11 months and this one will be going back too. Stuff like:

• blurry text for the entire screen
  blurry text in the middle of the screen
  pink top-left corner
  top-left corner that won't go straight and has a sharp kink in it
  not switching between modes/refresh rates properly and shrinking to one-third of the screen size
  not being able to use anywhere near 100% of the viewing area
  left-hand side bowing in/right-hand side straight

In short, they suck. I have a 7 year-old 17" iiyama that p1sses all over the year-old 19" from a great height.

I've been using an LCD at work for the last 2 months and it's so much better. My friend just bought one for gaming and has no complaints.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
CRTs are still the king of gaming- anyone who argues that is being dishonest or they are ignorant.

There are plenty of debates on what is the better monitor overall- but it comes down to a lot of people finding LCDs 'good enough' for gaming and having advantages elsewhere.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Oh... ok. So you can see that newer isnt always better. Each has its own advantages, and disadvantages.

Now try carrying over that thinking to video cards. I just find it ironic that you mock people and ATi for their cards with "3 year old tech", when you CRT is 30x+ older tech than that.

Is your HD sata or ide? If IDE, better update that old tech!!!

Man, I want to b!tch slap you for this statement. You cannot even compare the LCD versus CRT debate with HD versus SATA or 9500 versus 7800 GTX. Simply is the worst analogy I have seen in a looooooooong time.

Now, moving on, what Rollo says is true. CRT's are flexable, provide the best color and the best refresh rate. Now, with that said, LCD's have their place. LCD's are easier on the eyes, lighter, thinner, use less power. But they lack proper true color, they look and run like crap outside of native resolution. Yes, response time is even worse when running outside of native resolution.

And why are you always trolling/crapping on Rollo? You seem to attack him anytime you can, and frankly, it is getting old.


Edit ** What I prefer about LCD's is their perfect geometry. Something that always bothered me with CRT's. Depending on the CRT, you could have some swirvy lines. LCD's eliminate this and that is a huge + in my opinion.

 

[CP5670]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Please don't recommend iiyama - their QC has gone through the floor since the good old days. I've had 2 replacements for my 19" in 11 months and this one will be going back too. Stuff like:

• blurry text for the entire screen
  blurry text in the middle of the screen
  pink top-left corner
  top-left corner that won't go straight and has a sharp kink in it
  not switching between modes/refresh rates properly and shrinking to one-third of the screen size
  not being able to use anywhere near 100% of the viewing area
  left-hand side bowing in/right-hand side straight

In short, they suck. I have a 7 year-old 17" iiyama that p1sses all over the year-old 19" from a great height.

I've been using an LCD at work for the last 2 months and it's so much better. My friend just bought one for gaming and has no complaints.

This is the real problem with modern CRTs. It's not just Iiyama, it's all the companies. I had a similar experience with NEC/Mitsubishi recently; went through three bad monitors before I got a good one. CRTs sort of reached their peak in late 2003 and have gone way, way downhill since then due to huge cost cutting on quality control. They're basically forcing the market to LCDs because of this kind of crap regardless of which type of monitor is actually better.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Absolute nonsense. I have an LCD, and have played in numerous clans and had competitive matches. I'm better than I used to be when I had a CRT.

Generally the more you do something the better you get at it. Who is the say, if you stuck with your CRT that you would not be any better with it now? Perhaps you would be even better. Who knows, but you being better at shooters probably has little to do with the screen and much to do with experience and playtime.

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Oh... ok. So you can see that newer isnt always better. Each has its own advantages, and disadvantages.

Now try carrying over that thinking to video cards. I just find it ironic that you mock people and ATi for their cards with "3 year old tech", when you CRT is 30x+ older tech than that.

Is your HD sata or ide? If IDE, better update that old tech!!!

Man, I want to b!tch slap you for this statement. You cannot even compare the LCD versus CRT debate with HD versus SATA or 9500 versus 7800 GTX. Simply is the worst analogy I have seen in a looooooooong time.

Now, moving on, what Rollo says is true. CRT's are flexable, provide the best color and the best refresh rate. Now, with that said, LCD's have their place. LCD's are easier on the eyes, lighter, thinner, use less power. But they lack proper true color, they look and run like crap outside of native resolution. Yes, response time is even worse when running outside of native resolution.

And why are you always trolling/crapping on Rollo? You seem to attack him anytime you can, and frankly, it is getting old.


Edit ** What I prefer about LCD's is their perfect geometry. Something that always bothered me with CRT's. Depending on the CRT, you could have some swirvy lines. LCD's eliminate this and that is a huge + in my opinion.

Agreed, Rollo made some sensible posts in this thread, and then his "fanbase" decides to crap on this thread now. That was the most useless analogy that has nothing at all to do with the thread.

 

[pnb263]

well, speaking as someone who uses CRTs and LCDs along with projectors (DLP), I can say that it really depends on what you are playing. Whith slower moving games, or turn based games, then LCDs are king (IMHO), but with faster paced games, CRTs still rule in my world. I do a lot of video editing, creation and play the occational Q2 or Q3 match. for the real time editing I do, the larger LCDs that I have work absolute wonders compared to the large CRTs I have, but for gaming faster paced stuff, unless you get super-low response time LCDs (8ms or lower) then a CRT gives a great advantage in clarity and accuracy (and dont hurt your eyes after hours of gaming...

Use what you want, but the true test is to get an LCD and a CRT side by side playing the same thing to make a determination. If you can find a low-response LCD that looks good for you, then go for it. If you cant afford a low-response LCD (they are coming down in price all the time), then go with a CRT. My favorite CRT is my Hitachi Superscan Elite 802. its 21" and VERY clear/bright. as for my LCDs, I have several offerings from DELL in the 19" and 20" flavors. the games I play look GREAT ON BOTH, but the LCDs give me a slight headache after gaming with faster paced material.

Look at what you will be using if for primarily, then get demos of both types. ONLY YOU CAN BE THE JUDGE OF WHICH IS BETTER AS YOU WILL BE THE ONE WHO HAS TO LOOK AT IT ON A DAILY BASIS.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

im using CRT and LCD in dual monitor. LCD is MUCH easier on the eyes. 2-3 hours on CRT makes my eyes burn and hurt. Using the LCD i can stay on for 8 hours. You notice the blurring in higher response times but you get used to it.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Oh... ok. So you can see that newer isnt always better. Each has its own advantages, and disadvantages.

Now try carrying over that thinking to video cards. I just find it ironic that you mock people and ATi for their cards with "3 year old tech", when you CRT is 30x+ older tech than that.

Is your HD sata or ide? If IDE, better update that old tech!!!

Man, I want to b!tch slap you for this statement. You cannot even compare the LCD versus CRT debate with HD versus SATA or 9500 versus 7800 GTX. Simply is the worst analogy I have seen in a looooooooong time.

Now, moving on, what Rollo says is true. CRT's are flexable, provide the best color and the best refresh rate. Now, with that said, LCD's have their place. LCD's are easier on the eyes, lighter, thinner, use less power. But they lack proper true color, they look and run like crap outside of native resolution. Yes, response time is even worse when running outside of native resolution.

And why are you always trolling/crapping on Rollo? You seem to attack him anytime you can, and frankly, it is getting old.


Edit ** What I prefer about LCD's is their perfect geometry. Something that always bothered me with CRT's. Depending on the CRT, you could have some swirvy lines. LCD's eliminate this and that is a huge + in my opinion.

Sure you can compare the hardware I mentioned. Old tech vs. new tech. New isnt always better in every aspect.

I wasnt trolling Rollo. I just find it ironic that he uses a tech thats much older than he is, and then gives people a hard time about using "3 year old tech" in video cards.. We take playful jabs at each other all the time, I dont take offense to anything he says, and I know he doesnt either.

If you dont like it, dont read it. Seems simple enough to me.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Oh... ok. So you can see that newer isnt always better. Each has its own advantages, and disadvantages.

Now try carrying over that thinking to video cards. I just find it ironic that you mock people and ATi for their cards with "3 year old tech", when you CRT is 30x+ older tech than that.

Is your HD sata or ide? If IDE, better update that old tech!!!

Man, I want to b!tch slap you for this statement. You cannot even compare the LCD versus CRT debate with HD versus SATA or 9500 versus 7800 GTX. Simply is the worst analogy I have seen in a looooooooong time.

Now, moving on, what Rollo says is true. CRT's are flexable, provide the best color and the best refresh rate. Now, with that said, LCD's have their place. LCD's are easier on the eyes, lighter, thinner, use less power. But they lack proper true color, they look and run like crap outside of native resolution. Yes, response time is even worse when running outside of native resolution.

And why are you always trolling/crapping on Rollo? You seem to attack him anytime you can, and frankly, it is getting old.


Edit ** What I prefer about LCD's is their perfect geometry. Something that always bothered me with CRT's. Depending on the CRT, you could have some swirvy lines. LCD's eliminate this and that is a huge + in my opinion.

Sure you can compare the hardware I mentioned. Old tech vs. new tech. New isnt always better in every aspect.

I wasnt trolling Rollo. I just find it ironic that he uses a tech thats much older than he is, and then gives people a hard time about using "3 year old tech" in video cards.. We take playful jabs at each other all the time, I dont take offense to anything he says, and I know he doesnt either.

If you dont like it, dont read it. Seems simple enough to me.

It's very plain to see what your attempting here. You are trying to squeeze blood from a stone at a pathetic attempt to compare 3year old video card technology to old CRT technology. I'm sure that in your mind, you will find a way to mesh the two together and be comfortable with it. In fact, comfortable enough that you are willing to post in public about it and make a fool out of yourself. Take a hint man. When numerous people want to bitch slap you for your comments, it's time to move on. You need to stay over at Rage3d Emilee.

Final verdict IMHO: As of today, CRT's rule for gaming. LCD's rule everwhere else. That should be written in stone as of today. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

 

[Ackmed]

Hey guess what, my reply wasnt directed towards you. Take your own advice, and butt out? Dont let the door hit you on the way out...

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Hey guess what, my reply wasnt directed towards you. Take your own advice, and butt out? Dont let the door hit you on the way out...

You are posting on a public forum. If your reply was not to be seen, then you should have PMed the person of your choice. But since you posted out in the public and it is written down, you better be ready for a rebuttal from anyone.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Absolute nonsense. I have an LCD, and have played in numerous clans and had competitive matches. I'm better than I used to be when I had a CRT.

Generally the more you do something the better you get at it. Who is the say, if you stuck with your CRT that you would not be any better with it now? Perhaps you would be even better. Who knows, but you being better at shooters probably has little to do with the screen and much to do with experience and playtime.

I hadn't played the game for about a year and a half, and just recently got back in to it. My point is I'm not at a disadvantage by using an LCD. I probably instead would have gotten worse if the LCD was really an impairment, right?

A while back I briefly tried a slow wireless mouse and I couldn't stand it in-game. The movement was awful. An LCD has never come close to impairing me like that mouse has. The only thing that can possibly bother you is the response time (and resolution depending on the interpolation). When I'm in the game, I don't pay attention to the response time. I completely forget its even there. I'm just having fun wasting Nazis in Wolfenstein: ET.

Obviously the tube is and will always be the 'king' of gaming. That doesn't mean an LCD is inadequate.

If (or when) they make 4 ms. response time (black to white to black) LCDs, there won't be a single thing for me to complain about. Until then, I'm also eargerly awaiting SED, OLED, or maybe even DLP monitors.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Hey guess what, my reply wasnt directed towards you. Take your own advice, and butt out? Dont let the door hit you on the way out...

You are posting on a public forum. If your reply was not to be seen, then you should have PMed the person of your choice. But since you posted out in the public and it is written down, you better be ready for a rebuttal from anyone.

Oh, its you again, imagine that.

I was telling him, what he tries to tell me all the time. I dont care who responds to my post, however he has in the past.

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
CRTs are still the king of gaming- anyone who argues that is being dishonest or they are ignorant.

There are plenty of debates on what is the better monitor overall- but it comes down to a lot of people finding LCDs 'good enough' for gaming and having advantages elsewhere.

Making a blanket statement like that, is never a good idea. There are two key ways LCD's are better for me, than CRT's in gaming.

1. Widescreen. WS gaming is so much more enjoyable to me, than standard. Its not even close. You get much more game, and more realistic too. Sadly, not all games support WS, but you can get most to run in WS. I believe there is only one CRT that can play like my 24" LCD can, a Sony. However, they no longer make it, and Im not willing to take the chance of a 90lbs+ CRT break my glass desk. And then the eye strain wouldnt be worth it.

2. Eye strain. Playing games in the dark, on a CRT for over an hour or so, always killed my eyes. I had a highend Sony Trinitron CRT, and it was murder after a few hours. I have got nothing like that after going to LCD's.

Does the above make me dishonest and or ignorant? Nope.

There are plenty of good reasons to game on a CRT, and plent to game on a LCD. There are more for LCDs for me, and more important ones too.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Absolute nonsense. I have an LCD, and have played in numerous clans and had competitive matches. I'm better than I used to be when I had a CRT.

Generally the more you do something the better you get at it. Who is the say, if you stuck with your CRT that you would not be any better with it now? Perhaps you would be even better. Who knows, but you being better at shooters probably has little to do with the screen and much to do with experience and playtime.

I hadn't played the game for about a year and a half, and just recently got back in to it. My point is I'm not at a disadvantage by using an LCD. I probably instead would have gotten worse if the LCD was really an impairment, right?

A while back I briefly tried a slow wireless mouse and I couldn't stand it in-game. The movement was awful. An LCD has never come close to impairing me like that mouse has. The only thing that can possibly bother you is the response time (and resolution depending on the interpolation). When I'm in the game, I don't pay attention to the response time. I completely forget its even there. I'm just having fun wasting Nazis in Wolfenstein: ET.

Obviously the tube is and will always be the 'king' of gaming. That doesn't mean an LCD is inadequate.

If (or when) they make 4 ms. response time (black to white to black) LCDs, there won't be a single thing for me to complain about. Until then, I'm also eargerly awaiting SED, OLED, or maybe even DLP monitors.

I don't think anyone said that using an LCD for gaming was a skill impairment. An LCD will not improve nor degrade your gaming skill. That is up to you and your actual limit of aquiring skill in any given game. Although the OP did not specify whether it was visual quality or for skill degradation, I would imagine he meant for visuals only because that's the most common question about CRT's/LCD's around here.

xtknight, your LCD did not improve your skill in a game. You did. I'm friendly with a lot of online gamers, and to my surprise, a lot of them play on laptops with an external mouse and keyboard and some of them are quite good. I also know a lot of them who find it difficult to play because of ghosting on their lappy's and attach and external CRT to game.

I have several PC's in my home. All game capable. My main rig has the CRT, but I have gamed on 2 others in my house that have 18" Ultrasharps. My skill did not diminish or improve at all switching from CRT to LCD. My visual quality however, did diminish quite a bit. I know there are much better LCD's out there than 18" Dell Ultrasharps for gaming, but still can't hold a candle to a good (not even great) quality CRT for crisp and clean IQ in gaming.

 

[xtknight]

It's odd, I see no difference in the visuals. Blacks look black to me (not without my glasses). Unless I looked at grayscale/gamma tests all day, I'd be hard pressed to find any difference in colors. No, I couldn't put them right next to each other (my CRT actually died). I have a good recollection of how the CRT's colors looked though. Then again, the only CRTs I've had are a middle-ages NEC MultiSync, later a KDS, then some $100 eMachines one. :Q The LCD's color was originally too harsh for my taste (maybe 8000K vs 6500K), but once I did some major adjustments, I'm happy with how it looks.

If your LCD was so motion blurry that you couldn't focus, your effective gaming skill will definitely degrade. Maybe you're just as good down inside, but you can't use all that skill on a blurry display. What I'm saying is the LCD is definitely not my limiting factor, contrary to what some CRTs fans may think.