Best T.V. size for FPS (BF3, COD MW3, etc).

[lux.sh]

So the geeks say its 32inch is the optimal size for FPS. Heard this from other game console FPS players off/online. Didn't really buy it. Then, one of my friends who works for gaming industry says that is correct. He often participates in closed beta testing of FPS games (including COD, connection selected) and he says 10/10 of the hand-picked game freaks in the testing knows this.

I'm playing on 46". He said "that is why you suck so bad". I told him to f**k off.

Did some online research and found some technical advise. Something about 32" giving you best balance between vision of the whole screen and aim speed/accuracy. Too big of a screen, you get better aim accuracy for mid-long targets but you sacrifice shorter distance shots with slower reaction speed. Too small of a screen, accuracy falls dramatically for long range shots. Practical combination of the two would fall anywhere between 32~37" screen size.

Any opinion on this? About to pull a trigger on LG LED 32" for $300.

[Sylon]

I've heard smaller tv's work better for people playing FPS games too, but I've never heard there was a specific size just for FPS games. Seems like spending a lot of money just for a certain genre of video games.

[Railgun]

I think there`s a little bit of a placebo effect at work here.

First and foremost, how far away from the screen are you? That will dictate the size of the screen.

Secondly, on the assumption that the resolution is the same between a 32" and 60" (all 1920x1080) and the game will consistently display at the same resolution (whether 720p or 1080p or what have you) then the movement of the character is going to be identical to the movement of the mouse or controller. The game works by a particular resolution, not how large the screen is. It has no idea (in most cases, in particular consoles) how physically large a display is. You move the mouse an inch, your FOV will change accordingly the same amount regardless of TV size. What you can see however, changes in scale of course. You`ll be able to better see something in the horizon in a large screen than in a small. Conversely, you can see more by moving your eyes less on a small screen, so your reaction time is cut, hence the perception of smaller screens being better suited for FPSs.

Lastly, you can adjust the sensitivity of movement to suit if you want.

That said, you can get an 11" screen and sit on top of it and get the same result if you were using a 32", five feet away or a 65", 10 feet away.

[abisson]

Changing the TV won't make you any better.

It always just depend of how far away you are from the screen...

[bolinp78]

I play on a 58" and have never thought about it. Damn you.

[cloakster]

Originally Posted by Railgun

That said, you can get an 11" screen and sit on top of it and get the same result if you were using a 32", five feet away or a 65", 10 feet away.

Don't know if its the same for everyone, but this is definitely not true for me in gaming. I started out playing Halo 3 from 8 feet away on a 52" LCD and noticed that I played much better only sitting 3-4 feet away from my 32" CRT TV. At first I thought it was the full screen vs widescreen, but then I saw that on MLG they play with 22" LCD TV's and all the comments about it were about how much they liked that size. I needed a new computer monitor anyways so I bought myself a 21.5" monitor and sure enough I played much, much better.

In the end ive noticed that I play much better with a 21-24" monitor sitting on my desk than on any larger TV from any distance.

[scorcherjf]

Don't choose your TV size because of your console game system... unless you have a separate home theater system. You're playing a shooter on a console, don't put so much thought into it lol. If you want real competition play on a PC.

[kyleb350]

Makes sense. I've been playing MW3 on my 60", and although it's nice to be able to see detail better, I find it a bit difficult to catch something on the side of the screen that's bordering my peripheral vision. My wired headphones only go so far back! lol

[lux.sh]

Originally Posted by Railgun

That said, you can get an 11" screen and sit on top of it and get the same result if you were using a 32", five feet away or a 65", 10 feet away.

I was waiting for someone to point this out, because this is what I thought.

However, sitting close to a 32" TV and sitting far away from 46" TV has a big difference. I don't know why, there has to be scientific explanation to this. When I sit close to 32" TV and play, I still feel very comfortable, able to see everything within my eye sight. However, sitting far away from the 46" TV to gain that same amount of "vision" or "sight", it is very different. You have more "broader" sight of everything, you can't just concentrate on the TV any more since you are just so far away.

I think its something like this. Movie theater versus sitting close to large HDTV to gain similar experience. It is never the same. Viewing experience just isn't even close to it. You can have a 55" plasma TV 4 feet front of you with polk monitors setup for 1500watt, you will not feel the same way as if you are in the theater. Though, yes, if I had such nice setup, I wouldn't go to movie theater.

Also, when the guy described "aim speed", he didn't mean actual speed of the aim being faster fundamentally. It is the feel. With larger screen, you see the guy on the top left screen much slower, you move your crosshair to the point in a slower fashion. Hope this makes sense.

Spending extra $300 bucks for just game console TV might sound a bit over the line (especially when I only play PES 2012 and MW3), but if I do get a dedicated game console TV, I can just have the 46" in my bedroom for movies and formula one races.

[Tuned1M]

My KDR is much better on my 40" versus my 82" that's for sure.

[ragingclue]

Originally Posted by lux.sh

I was waiting for someone to point this out, because this is what I thought.

However, sitting close to a 32" TV and sitting far away from 46" TV has a big difference. I don't know why, there has to be scientific explanation to this. When I sit close to 32" TV and play, I still feel very comfortable, able to see everything within my eye sight. However, sitting far away from the 46" TV to gain that same amount of "vision" or "sight", it is very different. You have more "broader" sight of everything, you can't just concentrate on the TV any more since you are just so far away.

I think its something like this. Movie theater versus sitting close to large HDTV to gain similar experience. It is never the same. Viewing experience just isn't even close to it. You can have a 55" plasma TV 4 feet front of you with polk monitors setup for 1500watt, you will not feel the same way as if you are in the theater. Though, yes, if I had such nice setup, I wouldn't go to movie theater.

Also, when the guy described "aim speed", he didn't mean actual speed of the aim being faster fundamentally. It is the feel. With larger screen, you see the guy on the top left screen much slower, you move your crosshair to the point in a slower fashion. Hope this makes sense.

Spending extra $300 bucks for just game console TV might sound a bit over the line (especially when I only play PES 2012 and MW3), but if I do get a dedicated game console TV, I can just have the 46" in my bedroom for movies and formula one races.

The user is the least common denominator when you're trying to figure out whether a bigger screen will slow you down. When I sit at my desk in front of the 42" monitor, I physically have to move my eyes and head, my field of view and focus shrinks, and it makes me suck more than I already do. For a computer setup, you're not usually going to be more than a couple feet away. I had to switch to my 23" monitor for FPS because with 42", it was just too damn close.

Now, if I sat a few more feet away, the 42" would be my choice.