Question for mult-screen gamers

[mashumk]

Doesn't having those thick bezels between displays bother you? Seems it would be very distracting and take you out of the experience. The game has thick black plastic lines breaking up the view for crying out loud.
I'm genuinely, respectfully curious.

Why isn't a single giant screen more engrossing? Whether it be a 30" hi-res or giant TV, surely a complete picture beats out giant plastic lines dividing your view. Even "thin" bezels are very obvious.

(Though I wish manufacturers would actually make thing bezels but that's another topic. Come on, manufacturers! Some TV's have practically millimeter bezels!)

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

Most people just tune out the bezels. The side screens are mainly for peripheral vision when used for gaming.

 

[Via]

Bezels don't bother me anymore. They never really did.

 

[Fardringle]

If you play with three screens, having the bezels to the sides of the main view (forward) just makes it look like the upright supports in a car or plane, so really aren't distracting at all.

 

[BrightCandle]

Initially when you get eyefinity/surround you think you'll never get passed the bezels as they seem so awkward. However once you start to game and use them as your peripheral vision you don't really notice them anymore. The brain compensates for their presence and unless you think about them rather than the game you'll barely notice them.

The difference between a big screen and multiple screens is the field of view. A bigger monitor still has the same FOV as a smaller one, its 16:9/16:10. A multi screen setup however is 48:10/48:9 and hence a much wider view field. It gives you nearly 150 degree view and your eyes will spot motion quickly on the side monitors.

Its worth saying that games strech the image on the side monitors they aren't really designed to be looked at directly but just as peripheral. You can look at them directly but the image is stretched.

 

[blastingcap]

Doesn't having those thick bezels between displays bother you? Seems it would be very distracting and take you out of the experience. The game has thick black plastic lines breaking up the view for crying out loud.
I'm genuinely, respectfully curious.

Why isn't a single giant screen more engrossing? Whether it be a 30" hi-res or giant TV, surely a complete picture beats out giant plastic lines dividing your view. Even "thin" bezels are very obvious.

(Though I wish manufacturers would actually make thing bezels but that's another topic. Come on, manufacturers! Some TV's have practically millimeter bezels!)

Do your A-pillars in your car bother you? Most people's minds ignore the A-pillars after driving for a while. Playing on a single screen is like taking black spray paint and blacking out your side windows when driving.

Single monitor = tunnel vision. Sorry but it's true. The only way you can increase your field of view on a single monitor without distortion is to literally have black bars over and under the picture, just like watching a 2.35:1 movie on a regular TV screen, or watching 1080p content on a 4:3 ratio TV.

I'll take my 48:9 aspect ratio over the typical gamer's 16:10 or 16:9 aspect ratio every day of the week.

 

[KAZANI]

I think multi-monitor setups are ridiculous. People claim they increase immersion but they are looking at a gameworld behind bars which is unrealistic. Actually it's even worse than that because the width of the bezels is not factored in the graphic engine, making the image look like a jigsaw puzzle whose pieces aren't fit together. Then, there's the question of why spend a lot of money on high-end hardware to run silly first person games with advanced graphics when, obviously since you can "overlook" the elephant in the room in front of you, image quality is not a prime concern. By the way I find quite ironic the use of 16:10 monitors in such setups in order to achieve a wider FOV.

 

[BrightCandle]

I think multi-monitor setups are ridiculous. People claim they increase immersion but they are looking at a gameworld behind bars which is unrealistic. Actually it's even worse than that because the width of the bezels is not factored in the graphic engine, making the image look like a jigsaw puzzle whose pieces aren't fit together. Then, there's the question of why spend a lot of money on high-end hardware to run silly first person games with advanced graphics when, obviously since you can "overlook" the elephant in the room in front of you, image quality is not a prime concern. By the way I find quite ironic the use of 16:10 monitors in such setups in order to achieve a wider FOV.

1) You don't notice the bars after a while
2) You have bezel correction which corrects the game so its simple a view obscured by the bars so that the image line up perfectly. I don't find I use it but its there for people concerned that the lines aren't straight.
3) Agreed you need more hardware, but only about 2x as much graphics. The secondary monitors don't need to be as high quality as the middle one.
4) 16:10 is simply the most prevalent aspect ratio for PCs. Doesn't matter if you use 16:9.

It does increase immersion, and in FPS' it gives you vision to the sides that allows you to spot enemies you otherwise wouldn't. Its saved my ass a lot of times, its a major competitive advantage.

 

[KAZANI]

1) You don't notice the bars after a while
2) You have bezel correction which corrects the game so its simple a view obscured by the bars so that the image line up perfectly. I don't find I use it but its there for people concerned that the lines aren't straight.
3) Agreed you need more hardware, but only about 2x as much graphics. The secondary monitors don't need to be as high quality as the middle one.
4) 16:10 is simply the most prevalent aspect ratio for PCs. Doesn't matter if you use 16:9.

It does increase immersion, and in FPS' it gives you vision to the sides that allows you to spot enemies you otherwise wouldn't. Its saved my ass a lot of times, its a major competitive advantage.

If you are able to filter out such in-your-face image imperfections, then you needn't be so demanding about image quality in the first place. It's sad that first person games are such dumbed down and dull gameplay experiences thesedays because developers are trapped into serving the hardcore gamers' whimsical and self-negating demands.

about 16:10:
I believe it's 16:9 that dominates the market today and not the other way around, but anyways, back in the days wasn't the argument for choosing a 16:10 over a 16:9 monitor that the latter is comparatively too wide for a given diagonal?