What games really tax / show the shortcomings of your LCD display?

~~DudeBoyz~~ · Feb 8, 2007, 09:17 AM

With LCD's replacing CRT's so much, and CRT production declining fast, I'm wondering what games out there tax the capabilities of these newer LCD's?

Are there some games that you fire up and notice ghosting and higher response times more than you would in other games?

Like UT2004 may look and play pretty good on most LCD's, but Titan Quest may not. Some space shooters with dark backgrounds may look better than games with lighter backgrounds, for instance?

I'm just wondering. Some folks seem to think LCD's stack up nicely, but I do know that not all do. On a CRT, blacks look black, whites look white and colors seem rich. There is no issue about response time, since it's nearly instant, and there is no ghosting as a result. No "smearing" if you move very fast past objects in the game.

If someone can help give examples of games that hold up well and games that don't, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks

H3X4D3C1M4L · Feb 15, 2007, 07:49 PM

If you get a good LCD then everything will look good, and bad ones will look bad with everything... that's usually the general rule.

I would assume RTS games and some simulation games would look OK on LCDs with higher response times... and FPS's or fast sims would look better on something with lower response times

Judas · Feb 15, 2007, 08:06 PM

IMO, i've not found anything that taxes or makes this dell 3007 look crummy.... but i prefer to get good quality displays.... usually i end up paying twice as much for the same size monitor as the cheapest of the similare size.

IMO, the Acer AL1951 is the best overall standard ratio 19" LCD i've ever seen
the top of the line dells all look great as long as you avoid the models with known issues by getting a revision that have fixed them. (like my dell, the previous A01 and A00 models had some banding or backlighting issues that cause some rather nasty gradiant looking visuals.)

A samsung 32" LCD TV ( a fairly older one) would ghost rather bad when playing any exceptionally high motion games. Most movies looked good on it though.

really, anything under 16ms is going to provide excellent gaming under any condition, anything under 8 will give you ultimiately the best possible, anything below 2ms is just rediculiously awesome.

However if i were to complain, it's that a pile of games are still stuck on 4x3 ratio settings, disallowing the option to go 16x9 or 16x10 mode.

~~DudeBoyz~~ · Feb 15, 2007, 09:27 PM

On my Viewsonic VP2030b, Doom 3 shows how it doesn't old up very well with dark shadows. They look a very dark gray, instead of the deeper black that they show on the CRT. The Samsung 204b shows those shadows better - I think it's partially due to the different glare filters.

The Viewsonic does not do the best job on the water in Battle for Middle Earth II. With the game 100% maxed out in video quality settings, the water lacks some of the "punch" in terms of translucency, especially on the little white caps on the top.

The Samsung 204b didn't seem to handle Titan Quest very well, with Vsync on or off really. Tearing seemed evident and the lighting effects did not look convincing. I have not tried that game yet since I got the Viewsonic VP2030b.

Feb 8, 2007, 09:17 AM	#1
~~DudeBoyz~~ banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,677 Rep Power: 0	What games really tax / show the shortcomings of your LCD display? With LCD's replacing CRT's so much, and CRT production declining fast, I'm wondering what games out there tax the capabilities of these newer LCD's? Are there some games that you fire up and notice ghosting and higher response times more than you would in other games? Like UT2004 may look and play pretty good on most LCD's, but Titan Quest may not. Some space shooters with dark backgrounds may look better than games with lighter backgrounds, for instance? I'm just wondering. Some folks seem to think LCD's stack up nicely, but I do know that not all do. On a CRT, blacks look black, whites look white and colors seem rich. There is no issue about response time, since it's nearly instant, and there is no ghosting as a result. No "smearing" if you move very fast past objects in the game. If someone can help give examples of games that hold up well and games that don't, I'd appreciate it. Thanks

Feb 15, 2007, 07:49 PM	#2
H3X4D3C1M4L DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 6,794 Rep Power: 0	If you get a good LCD then everything will look good, and bad ones will look bad with everything... that's usually the general rule. I would assume RTS games and some simulation games would look OK on LCDs with higher response times... and FPS's or fast sims would look better on something with lower response times

Feb 15, 2007, 09:27 PM	Thread Starter #4
~~DudeBoyz~~ banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,677 Rep Power: 0	On my Viewsonic VP2030b, Doom 3 shows how it doesn't old up very well with dark shadows. They look a very dark gray, instead of the deeper black that they show on the CRT. The Samsung 204b shows those shadows better - I think it's partially due to the different glare filters. The Viewsonic does not do the best job on the water in Battle for Middle Earth II. With the game 100% maxed out in video quality settings, the water lacks some of the "punch" in terms of translucency, especially on the little white caps on the top. The Samsung 204b didn't seem to handle Titan Quest very well, with Vsync on or off really. Tearing seemed evident and the lighting effects did not look convincing. I have not tried that game yet since I got the Viewsonic VP2030b.