Are CRTs still the king for gaming?

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 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.

It may have been a blanket statement, but an accurate one.

I have the best of both worlds with my "crappy" in the wall recessed CRT.
I have every advantage of an LCD (even more so, takes up ZERO desk space) besides power consumption and heat. And any heat dumps into my garage so what do I care.
Granted, not a lot of people have the situation where they can recess their CRT's in a wall, but it cannot be beat.

Widescreen gaming? Probably very nice indeed, but this does not help IQ.

I don't know if your honest, ignorant or not Ackmed. But you do bang your head against the wall a lot.

 

[Ackmed]

It was not accurate. Why? Because the reasons I stated. CRTs are not better in every aspect of gaming. Which is why a blanket statement like that is a bad idea, and wrong.

How does that CRT look on the other side of the wall? Not good I would imagine.

I didnt say WS helped the IQ. What I said was, that I enjoy it better than a standard res. I enjoy gaming better, because I get more game, and it looks more realistic. We see in WS thru our eyes.

How is what I am saying banging my head on the wall? I can admit that neither CRT of LCD's are 100% the best, others cannot.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: 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.

I totally agree. LCD's are not a limiting factor for skill. Unless like you said, you get blurred motion/ghosting so severe it makes it unplayable or effects your accuracy.

 

[CP5670]

There is that Sony FW900 if you want a widescreen CRT. It's out of production, but then again, so are all the good CRTs by now. I was thinking of getting that since there are quite a few used HP branded ones going on ebay for pretty decent prices, but its refresh rates are a bit inferior to what I eventually decided on and not everything supports widescreen anyway.

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.

I've found that the differences show up much more in the dark, as I said before. Most LCDs that look fine in the daytime look like trash in the dark. That glass coating needs to become a standard thing on new LCDs, as it makes a significant difference here. Right now those LCDs are way overpriced and only go up to 1280x1024. They cost around twice as much as those without the coating. The coating is more widespread on laptop screens for some reason though.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
It was not accurate. Why? Because the reasons I stated. CRTs are not better in every aspect of gaming. Which is why a blanket statement like that is a bad idea, and wrong.

How does that CRT look on the other side of the wall? Not good I would imagine. I forget, as I don't spend a lot of time standing in my garage looking at the back of my monitor. I usually spend my PC time on the other end of the CRT, but if you want me to go stand in my garage for a while and stare at it, I just might.

I didnt say WS helped the IQ. What I said was, that I enjoy it better than a standard res. I enjoy gaming better, because I get more game, and it looks more realistic. We see in WS thru our eyes.

How is what I am saying banging my head on the wall? I can admit that neither CRT of LCD's are 100% the best, others cannot.

Let me make this simple for you. (You're going to hate me even more with this question).

Which has better Image quality for gaming purposes? Good quality CRT? Or a state of the art UBER expensive LCD?

I know you can't answer this direct question. It's not in your ability. You will worm your way around it, or try to.


Question for OP!!! What reason did you create this thread for? Was it for image quality in gaming? Or other?
Let us know.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: CP5670
There is that Sony FW900 if you want a widescreen CRT. It's out of production, but then again, so are all the good CRTs by now. I was thinking of getting that since there are quite a few used HP branded ones going on ebay for pretty decent prices, but its refresh rates are a bit inferior to what I eventually decided on and not everything supports widescreen anyway.

Thats the one I mentioned. They dont make it anymore, and its over 90lbs. I was |-| close to getting one still, about 2 years ago.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Ackmed
It was not accurate. Why? Because the reasons I stated. CRTs are not better in every aspect of gaming. Which is why a blanket statement like that is a bad idea, and wrong.

How does that CRT look on the other side of the wall? Not good I would imagine. I forget, as I don't spend a lot of time standing in my garage looking at the back of my monitor. I usually spend my PC time on the other end of the CRT, but if you want me to go stand in my garage for a while and stare at it, I just might.

I didnt say WS helped the IQ. What I said was, that I enjoy it better than a standard res. I enjoy gaming better, because I get more game, and it looks more realistic. We see in WS thru our eyes.

How is what I am saying banging my head on the wall? I can admit that neither CRT of LCD's are 100% the best, others cannot.

Let me make this simple for you. (You're going to hate me even more with this question).

Which has better Image quality for gaming purposes? Good quality CRT? Or a state of the art UBER expensive LCD?

I know you can't answer this direct question. It's not in your ability. You will worm your way around it, or try to.


Question for OP!!! What reason did you create this thread for? Was it for image quality in gaming? Or other?
Let us know.

I have not used a nice CRT for gaming in years, so I wouldnt be able to answer that honestly. From what I gather, the blacks are better on CRTs, and thats it as far as IQ goes? Keeping a LCD at its native res, is otherwise as nice looking as a CRT?

Yet, IQ is not what the topic says. It says "gaming". Which my two points have a profound impact in gaming, for me. WS = better. No eyes train = better. Seems simple to me.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: CP5670
There is that Sony FW900 if you want a widescreen CRT. It's out of production, but then again, so are all the good CRTs by now. I was thinking of getting that since there are quite a few used HP branded ones going on ebay for pretty decent prices, but its refresh rates are a bit inferior to what I eventually decided on and not everything supports widescreen anyway.

Thats the one I mentioned. They dont make it anymore, and its over 90lbs. I was |-| close to getting one still, about 2 years ago.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Ackmed
It was not accurate. Why? Because the reasons I stated. CRTs are not better in every aspect of gaming. Which is why a blanket statement like that is a bad idea, and wrong.

How does that CRT look on the other side of the wall? Not good I would imagine. I forget, as I don't spend a lot of time standing in my garage looking at the back of my monitor. I usually spend my PC time on the other end of the CRT, but if you want me to go stand in my garage for a while and stare at it, I just might.

I didnt say WS helped the IQ. What I said was, that I enjoy it better than a standard res. I enjoy gaming better, because I get more game, and it looks more realistic. We see in WS thru our eyes.

How is what I am saying banging my head on the wall? I can admit that neither CRT of LCD's are 100% the best, others cannot.

Let me make this simple for you. (You're going to hate me even more with this question).

Which has better Image quality for gaming purposes? Good quality CRT? Or a state of the art UBER expensive LCD?

I know you can't answer this direct question. It's not in your ability. You will worm your way around it, or try to.


Question for OP!!! What reason did you create this thread for? Was it for image quality in gaming? Or other?
Let us know.

I have not used a nice CRT for gaming in years, so I wouldnt be able to answer that honestly. From what I gather, the blacks are better on CRTs, and thats it as far as IQ goes? Keeping a LCD at its native res, is otherwise as nice looking as a CRT?

Yet, IQ is not what the topic says. It says "gaming". Which my two points have a profound impact in gaming, for me. WS = better. No eyes train = better. Seems simple to me.

It's been years since you used a CRT for gaming? Then you wouldn't even be a good candidate for an opinion in this thread. IMHO. As stated in my above posts, I use both currently.

 

[Vcize]

I use a Dell 2005FPW for gaming and absolutely LOVE it. Before this I'd always used CRT's, but I could never go back now. Haven't noticed even the smallest flicker of ghosting playing FPS or anything else, and the widescreen is incredible in games.

 

[Busithoth]

If space is no concern, then I would get the CRT. I love the idea of embedding the monitor in the wall, to gain more space.
The blacks are absolutely deeper on the CRT, and if my desk weren't so shallow, I'd've kept my CRT in use.
I noticed no ghosting on the 2001FP, but I'm told it's there by everyone else. When I ran it alone, the 2001 seemed flawless. Running dual with the CRT, it seemed to cast a pall over the colors (and all fiddling with settings only seemed to make it worse)
Basically, if you're looking for games, get a nice big CRT and enjoy it.
It's not like LCDs are going anywhere anytime soon. I imagine they'll only be getting better and better with time.

but then again, looking at my 2405, nothing says 'Happy Birthday to Me!' louder than that beauty.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003


It's been years since you used a CRT for gaming? Then you wouldn't even be a good candidate for an opinion in this thread. IMHO. As stated in my above posts, I use both currently.

And why is that? Its not like CRT tech has gotten better.

Other than blacker blacks, what other things make a CRT better at IQ for you? I cant think of any.

 

[JRW]

I have not used a nice CRT for gaming in years, so I wouldnt be able to answer that honestly. From what I gather, the blacks are better on CRTs, and thats it as far as IQ goes? Keeping a LCD at its native res, is otherwise as nice looking as a CRT?

My 3 week side by side comparison of a high end CRT vs. 2001FP showed the CRT having far better black levels ( you dont realise how important black levels are until you see it side by side) , color accuracy, no viewing angle restrictions,no motion blur whatsoever ,framerates appeared noticabley smoother on the CRT in all games, images that had smooth gradients of color on the CRT had a slight banding effect(dithering) on the LCD,im told only the expensive 10bit lcd's will have CRT like gradients.

I've never had eye strain problems with my CRT in the 2 years ive had it (1600x1200@85hz desktop res) ,If you run 85hz or higher refresh rates its unlikely you will have any problems.

I also noted a slight input lag on the LCD side in games and even when not gaming ,for example when minmizing / maximizing windows you would see the window respond on the CRT first then the LCD ,it was a very minimal delay but noticable. Proabably no big deal for some but I didnt like the idea of having added lag when playing fast paced FPS games online.

My CRT has a brightness toggle button on the front (Pro / Standard / Dynamic) When in Dynamic mode it gives it a nice boost in contrast wich is perfect for Gaming & Movies, Its actualy an internal adjustment because the user control value for contrast remains the same regardless of the mode you choose.

Not being able to change resolutions was an issue.. Even tho I have a P4 2.8C @ 3.3ghz / 6800GT I still like being able to run 1280x960 with some games for the added framerate, on the 2001FP running a lower res resulted in more motion blur and a slight (although not bad) degrade in image quality.

So for me the only advantage I saw with the LCD was better text output,but way to many negatives to consider it as a CRT replacement for Gaming.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003


It's been years since you used a CRT for gaming? Then you wouldn't even be a good candidate for an opinion in this thread. IMHO. As stated in my above posts, I use both currently.

And why is that? Its not like CRT tech has gotten better.

Other than blacker blacks, what other things make a CRT better at IQ for you? I cant think of any.

Actually, you do not wish to think of any.
What JRW listed in his side by side comparison comprises a lot more than just blacker blacks.

 

[Ackmed]

Actually, you shouldnt put words in other peoples mouths. I said I couldnt think of any, and I couldnt. Clearly his examples are not going to be noticed by everyone. It also depends on the LCD someone is comparing. A cheap LCD compared to a nice LCD is much more of a difference than a cheap CRT to a nice CRT.

I had eye strain, even wuth 85hz. People are different, and it effects them differently. I too had a CRT side by side my first LCD for a few weeks. And sitting there playing from a CRT, to a LCD wasnt a big change for me. The black difference is not as big as his pics show it to be. As was brought up the last time he compared them.

Why you cant grasp that a CRT is not better for gaming in every single catagory is beyond me. Better in most? Sure, but not all. Now I do sound like Im banging my head against the wall, because you cant grasp this simple concept. Let me know when you can, until then, Im over this thread.

 

[CP5670]

There is also that glittering effect I mentioned earlier. It makes colors look non-uniform and what's worse, the sparkling seems to change depending on your viewing position. Even a slight head movement causes a weird shift in the sparkles. It actually hurts my eyes a bit. Some people don't notice it at all though.

On a side note, does anyone know why high end CRT TVs are still quite common but CRT computer monitors are being phased out?

My CRT has a brightness toggle button on the front (Pro / Standard / Dynamic) When in Dynamic mode it gives it a nice boost in contrast wich is perfect for Gaming & Movies, Its actualy an internal adjustment because the user control value for contrast remains the same regardless of the mode you choose.

yeah, this is an awesome feature that was introduced in the final generation of aperture grill CRTs. Mine also has the same thing, except it's called superbright mode. Games look so much better with the superbright mode 1 setting. It's unlike anything else out there.

 

[JRW]

The black difference is not as big as his pics show it to be. As was brought up the last time he compared them.

Actualy the last time I used compare pics I had a side by side shot wich did make the LCD's IQ and black levels look worse than in person due to my camera settings (Yet at the same time this is also more proof on just how deep CRT black levels can be considering they remained black in that shot)

The pictures I posted on page 1 of this thread ,while not perfect color & white balance wise, are very accurate as far as black levels go.. Of course not all LCD's have this bad of black levels but the 2001FP sitting next to my CRT was very poor in this category regardless of what monitor settings / videocard / in game brightness combos I tried.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Actually, you shouldnt put words in other peoples mouths. I said I couldnt think of any, and I couldnt. Clearly his examples are not going to be noticed by everyone. It also depends on the LCD someone is comparing. A cheap LCD compared to a nice LCD is much more of a difference than a cheap CRT to a nice CRT.

I had eye strain, even wuth 85hz. People are different, and it effects them differently. I too had a CRT side by side my first LCD for a few weeks. And sitting there playing from a CRT, to a LCD wasnt a big change for me. The black difference is not as big as his pics show it to be. As was brought up the last time he compared them.

Why you cant grasp that a CRT is not better for gaming in every single catagory is beyond me. Better in most? Sure, but not all. Now I do sound like Im banging my head against the wall, because you cant grasp this simple concept. Let me know when you can, until then, Im over this thread.

I understand your frustration. If it's all the same to you, I'll take the opinion of the guy using both CRT and LCD (mine included) over a guy who hasn't used a CRT in years.
I'm sure I'll see you raging against the machine in another thread somewhere. TTYL

 

[Cloudius]

JRW try lowering the backlight option on your LCD to minimum. Yours seems oddly bright even for an LCD. Yes i agree that LCD Black Levels arnt as good as CRT but the sony LCD i have displays extremely vibrant and good looken colors the black is a little weak but its not that bad. Also i go to college so having something small makes a big difference.

First post on the fourms

EDIT: fergot to put the mode of my LCD Here it has a kind of glossy screen so it dosnt have the grainy feel that JRW stated, id take a picture of it while playing doom 3 but i have no digital camera.

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: JRW

I have not used a nice CRT for gaming in years, so I wouldnt be able to answer that honestly. From what I gather, the blacks are better on CRTs, and thats it as far as IQ goes? Keeping a LCD at its native res, is otherwise as nice looking as a CRT?

My 3 week side by side comparison of a high end CRT vs. 2001FP showed the CRT having far better black levels ( you dont realise how important black levels are until you see it side by side) , color accuracy, no viewing angle restrictions,no motion blur whatsoever ,framerates appeared noticabley smoother on the CRT in all games, images that had smooth gradients of color on the CRT had a slight banding effect(dithering) on the LCD,im told only the expensive 10bit lcd's will have CRT like gradients.

I've never had eye strain problems with my CRT in the 2 years ive had it (1600x1200@85hz desktop res) ,If you run 85hz or higher refresh rates its unlikely you will have any problems.

I also noted a slight input lag on the LCD side in games and even when not gaming ,for example when minmizing / maximizing windows you would see the window respond on the CRT first then the LCD ,it was a very minimal delay but noticable. Proabably no big deal for some but I didnt like the idea of having added lag when playing fast paced FPS games online.

My CRT has a brightness toggle button on the front (Pro / Standard / Dynamic) When in Dynamic mode it gives it a nice boost in contrast wich is perfect for Gaming & Movies, Its actualy an internal adjustment because the user control value for contrast remains the same regardless of the mode you choose.

Not being able to change resolutions was an issue.. Even tho I have a P4 2.8C @ 3.3ghz / 6800GT I still like being able to run 1280x960 with some games for the added framerate, on the 2001FP running a lower res resulted in more motion blur and a slight (although not bad) degrade in image quality.

So for me the only advantage I saw with the LCD was better text output,but way to many negatives to consider it as a CRT replacement for Gaming.

Thanks for your review. I was thinking of getting a 2001fp because its one of the few lcd monitors that have a 16x12 native res. I think I'll stick with a CRT for the reasons you stated.

I currently own both, and I game on my CRT. My LCD is superior for websurfing and 2d apps. LCD's just can't beat the versatility of adjustable resolutions on CRT's.

Now, if the game is bright and has lots of vivid colors, it will look better on an LCD. The downside is that black levels look like sh!t. Doom 3 doesn't display properly on some levels on my LCD.

 

[BenSkywalker]

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.

As you already noted, their are widescreen CRTs(certainly more then one too). 'Not even close' doesn't seem to cut it when there isn't a big difference.

2. Eye strain. Playing games in the dark, on a CRT for over an hour or so, always killed my eyes.

You must have very unique eyes or a really bad monitor. Trinitrons are known for their horrible convergence so that may have had something to do with it. Gaming in the dark is particularly poor on a LCD with their stunningly bad contrast ratios. Try it out on a decent monitor(not a POS Sony tube) and use SuperBright pushing 100Hz or more in the games you are playing and try and convince yourself CRTs are not vastly superior for night time playing.

 

[KeepItRed]

I find LCD's to be awsome. I got a 17" Samsung Syncmaster 151n and the image quality is great. If you decide on getting a LCD make sure it supports high resolution. Newer models support 1600x1200 while standards only support up to 1024x768.

 

[KeepItRed]

Oops double post.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: KeepItRed
I find LCD's to be awsome. I got a 17" Samsung Syncmaster 151n and the image quality is great. If you decide on getting a LCD make sure it supports high resolution. Newer models support 1600x1200 while standards only support up to 1024x768.

17"? For gaming?!

"Yikes! It's a wee little zombie lurching toward me like a drunk garden gnome!"

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: KeepItRed
I find LCD's to be awsome. I got a 17" Samsung Syncmaster 151n and the image quality is great. If you decide on getting a LCD make sure it supports high resolution. Newer models support 1600x1200 while standards only support up to 1024x768.

17"? For gaming?!

"Yikes! It's a wee little zombie lurching toward me like a drunk garden gnome!"

Not all of us are old and blind . Although you may not be, a 17" LCD's native resolution is 1280x1024, the same as a 19" LCD. You'll have to pay big bucks for a 20"+ LCD for a larger resolution, of which you'll most likely lose out on response time.

However the 151n is a 15" LCD monitor, 1024x768, and I don't know of any 15" desktop LCDs that are acceptable for gaming (as in they have terrible response times). You need 20" for 1600x1200, however widescreen is taking over, so you're likely end up with 16x10 or 19x12.

However "gaming" LCDs are all in the 1280x1024, 17-19" range. These are the monitors that support the fastest response times which is the biggest factor in determining if an LCD can perform well enough to game.

However it is true. I bought my LCD for work first and gaming second. If I could afford a dedicated gaming rig as well as the space for it, I would have chosen CRT in a heartbeat, they're just so much more flexible for gaming. The only area where LCDs are better for any sort of gaming are LANs, you don't want to lug around a CRT, a nice gaming LCD is perfect for such occasions.

However LCDs are getting pretty good, you have to fine tune the CRT to get the perfect picture, with LCDs its pretty much DVI and go, perhaps with some minor tweaks. Color reproduction and response time getting better, you also get that pixel perfect picture...however I don't think LCDs will ever take over CRTs in gaming superiority, I think we'll see some new display panel technology take over before that can happen.

For now, 1280x1024 does fine with a nice dose of AA giving the illusion of a much higher resolution monitor. I'm looking forward to a 24" LCD as love the desktop space, both physical and virtual.

 

[JRW]

Originally posted by: Cloudius
JRW try lowering the backlight option on your LCD to minimum. Yours seems oddly bright even for an LCD. Yes i agree that LCD Black Levels arnt as good as CRT but the sony LCD i have displays extremely vibrant and good looken colors the black is a little weak but its not that bad. Also i go to college so having something small makes a big difference.

First post on the fourms

EDIT: fergot to put the mode of my LCD Here it has a kind of glossy screen so it dosnt have the grainy feel that JRW stated, id take a picture of it while playing doom 3 but i have no digital camera.

Actualy the backlight / brightness was at its lowest setting in those shots,The 2001FP uses an IPS panel wich are known to have weak black levels, but in the 2001's case the problem is made even worse because of its fairly low 400:1 contrast ratio. The 2005FPW also uses an IPS panel but has 500:1 ratio so its probably not as bad (still way off from a CRT im sure) But if you're reffering to my side by side pic then yes its way overbright in that shot but thats because my camera settings were out of whack.

Trinitrons are known for their horrible convergence so that may have had something to do with it. Gaming in the dark is particularly poor on a LCD with their stunningly bad contrast ratios. Try it out on a decent monitor(not a POS Sony tube) and use SuperBright pushing 100Hz or more in the games you are playing and try and convince yourself CRTs are not vastly superior for night time playing.

Thats funny ive never heard that before ... I have no convergence issues with my Sony G520P, I do remember making a minor convergence adjustment when I first got it but its a habit of mine to calibrate a new CRT,Even if it does get out of whack over time it has multiple convergence adjustments for blue and red, same goes for Geometry wich is suprisingly almost near perfect on it as of right now. Another thing that impressed me about this CRT is the fact its well focused in all areas of the screen ,I can move a small notepad window around any corner / center etc. without noticing any change in text focus. I sent back a higher end Viewsonic due to inconsistent focus ,I ended up paying $200 more for the Sony but it was well worth it.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: KeepItRed
I find LCD's to be awsome. I got a 17" Samsung Syncmaster 151n and the image quality is great. If you decide on getting a LCD make sure it supports high resolution. Newer models support 1600x1200 while standards only support up to 1024x768.

17"? For gaming?!

"Yikes! It's a wee little zombie lurching toward me like a drunk garden gnome!"

Not all of us are old and blind .

It's not a matter of blindness Bunny, it's a matter of having the screen fill your field of vision and immerse you in the game.

Everything in the game looks miniature on a small screen, it gets hard to care about the tiny antics. "Look! That tiny Imp is throwing a tiny fireball!"

The bigger things are, the more exciting they are. That's why you watch movies on huge screens, not a 27" tv at the front of the theatre.