Optimal Screen Size for FPS Gaming [Scientific Research?]

[Notty_PT]

I´m quite the opposite! I prefer smaller monitors. Sure, I had no other option but to stick to 24 or 25 inches. But if someday a high refresh rate 22 inch monitor appears, I will be first in line to get it. I always played better on smaller screens, and I still feel 24 too big for me.

If you have a 27" 1440p monitor and play at 1080p and disable resolution scaling, what you get is effectively a smaller monitor. You can also use custom resolutions to make the image the same size as a 22" monitor. That means you can use the full 27" space for watching videos and playing immersive single-player games and whatnot, and then switch to a 22" sized image when playing a competitive game where you feel like you play better at smaller sizes.

You don't actually NEED a 22" monitor to get the same result as a 22" monitor.

I did that on basically every monitor I had, the problem is that it increased the input lag on a very noticeable way! So I gave up doing it. One of the reasons I went to Asus XG248Q 240hz was the fact it is 23,8 inches, so smaller screen. Some would say that only 1 inch difference is not that big, but is noticeable for someone like me that prefers smaller screens.

If we talk about Quake tho... I would say that´s the best game to test hardware, from mice to monitors, etc lol. The skill ceiling on that game is huge.

Yes, Quake is a good game for research projects -- that's the game tested for spacediver's (Marwan) article at http://www.blurbusters.com/human-reflex

Quake is so fast and needs such good aim while strafing and jumping around, that it is imo one of the best benchmarks for that matter. I can´t really remember playing a game that requires more skill than Quake! Thanks to this game I found the ideal mice to me, mouse pad, monitor technologies etc!

I highly doubt anyone is going to fund any research on ideal monitor size before 2025 or so. (Assuming Esports continues to grow and things get really serious).

For what it's worth, if you're playing games such as Starcraft II, League of Legends, Dota competitively, then 25" on a normal desk (about 18" away) is going to be the ideal size that allows your vision to easily consume the information in the corners of your screen. (So for instance, the mini-map, resources, supply,etc)

For FPS gaming, then 27" (and perhaps even slightly larger) will benefit you because your main focus will be on the middle of the screen (And things will appear larger so it will be easier to aim) and you'll still have your peripheral vision to see any opponents on the outskirts of your monitor. That way, you get the advantages of peripheral vision (you know, the awesome thing that humans have so we don't get eaten by predators in the wild) AND you have the advantage of having the largest possible image on the screen for aiming.

Ultimately, it depends on which game your playing and it's design.

If the game requires you to constantly scan corners of the screen for information, then 25" will be the largest you can comfortably use.
If the game relies more on focusing on a middle point (pretty much every FPS game), then 27" will provide you with a slight advantage.

This is based on an ex-professional gamer that literally wrote a book on the fundamentals of esport gaming (Fragging Fundamentals) and me going back and forth between 22, 25 and 27" displays because I enjoy the newest tech.

In my opinion you need good vision on every shooter, unless you are playing CS wich is basically a stationary aim simulator! Playing Quake on 27 inches is a pain, to spot enemies on the corners. If you want bigger enemies you can always adjust the fov. At 27 I can only focus on the center of the screen and that doesn´t benefit my game at all. Afaik most pros use 24 inches and 25 inches. And a lot of them actually complain about 25 inches; the thing is that most 240hz monitors are 25 so they had no other option.

[saw141]

Also, I don´t want to be rude, but I wouldn´t take overwatch stats that seriously. I don´t think that game is that "skilled". I mean, not on a aiming/movement perspective. is a team based game. Comms and positioning are the most important.

I don’t think you’re rude but I do disagree. I mainly mentioned it too to give an example of a measured statistical improvement, into a highly above average ranking. Widowmaker was my most played hero with a fairly above average win rate, my aim was incredibly significant. Teamwork and positioning are incredibly important but as a sniper Main my roles were mainly, damage, positioning, shotcalling, scouting.

I found that after getting that monitor, my performance and consistency increased in every game. My accuracy, headshot ratios, etc,. Are generally within the top 1-5% of the games that track it. Not trying to brag at all, just saying; I got better after going to 27” 144hz, and have stayed better. I used smaller monitors before but I’m never going back. The 144hz played a major role, too, of course. It can be all preference though, just depends on who and how.

Sorry to ramble.

[phatty]

I see what you're saying.

If you main a tank like winston or dva, then importance of aim disappears - assessing the whole field of view at one.

If you main widow maker and your main fov for targets is within the scoped flick range, then a bigger monitor for targetting would be beneficial.

I guess it depends on what you are doing and what your focus in gameplay is going to be. The weapon itself and nature / position you're playing.

Scout vs demo man vs heavy, etc.

[saw141]

I agree completely. This thread’s topic is certainly an interesting thing to consider. I’m not sure what particular research can be done aside from anecdotal consensus, but that may be sufficient.

[Vega]

In my decades of using and testing hundreds of display, I find the 1:1 rule works very well. You simply place your eyes the same distance from the screen as the screens diagonal measurement.

IE: Sit with eyes ~27 inches away from a 27" display.

This is close to the THX rule of 40 degrees view-able.

I also think for less complex visual games like quake/counterr-strike, getting away sitting slightly further from the screen (or having a slightly smaller screen) to see everything at once can be quite beneficial.

More complex games with a ton of cover/visual clutter (say BFV), sitting closer/having a larger display can be helpful.

[Notty_PT]

Also, I don´t want to be rude, but I wouldn´t take overwatch stats that seriously. I don´t think that game is that "skilled". I mean, not on a aiming/movement perspective. is a team based game. Comms and positioning are the most important.

I don’t think you’re rude but I do disagree. I mainly mentioned it too to give an example of a measured statistical improvement, into a highly above average ranking. Widowmaker was my most played hero with a fairly above average win rate, my aim was incredibly significant. Teamwork and positioning are incredibly important but as a sniper Main my roles were mainly, damage, positioning, shotcalling, scouting.

I found that after getting that monitor, my performance and consistency increased in every game. My accuracy, headshot ratios, etc,. Are generally within the top 1-5% of the games that track it. Not trying to brag at all, just saying; I got better after going to 27” 144hz, and have stayed better. I used smaller monitors before but I’m never going back. The 144hz played a major role, too, of course. It can be all preference though, just depends on who and how.

Sorry to ramble.

The thing is, overwatch hitboxes are huge, the movement is slow, so big targets + almost stationary aim most of the times. I dont consider that hard at all and thats why you have quake players like rapha or cooler that completly dominated on overwatch aim wise.

Maybe you did better on your 27 inch monitor due to better input lag or pixel response time/clarity compared to your old ones? There could be other factors, but like I said and I repeat this, I dont eant to be rude or somethimng, as a heavy quake player, overwatch to me means nothing skill aiming/mechanical skill wise. Very casual game with huge hitboxes, no movement skill whatsoever etc

One thing I can assure you, tox, rapha or dahang use 24 or 24,5 at max (due to the 240hz panels) and they would never go 27 inches route. And the gear those dudes use really mean something to me because they are the highest skilled mechanical players I ever seen in my life!

[saw141]

Eh, I disagree with the summation of Overwatch. I do know that Quake has more and faster paced movement, therefore requires more arm movement. I’ve actually been really interested in trying Quake after seeing RocketJumpNinja’s review videos.

[Chief Blur Buster]

I highly doubt anyone is going to fund any research on ideal monitor size before 2025 or so. (Assuming Esports continues to grow and things get really serious).

Full time? Sounds about right.

Part-time wise.... the door's open today. The researcher-funding door is now open here to many useful BlurBuster-esque research topics either way, especially those with such broad scope -- a size test can also double as an eyetracking-habits test, and reveal hundreds of datapoints of useful data in parallel.

I'm already a donor of a little eSports research today, already. I'm recruiting more part-time researchers (on a freelance basis) and have already paid some in collaborative articles like the human-reflex. Researchers reading this are invited to inquire within at [email protected] with their research/article proposal on a BlurBusters-flavoured topic and I may just very well end up paying your invoice if I like what I see on your credentials (e.g. ResearchGate).

The rationale is that more public research of high-Hz stuff of any kind (whether be sizes, eye tracking, gaming habits, response time, unusual input lag angles, etc) -- helps high-Hz monitors -- which Blur Busters so heavily specializes around. The free TestUFO tests, the free pursuit camera invention, the 2013 HOWTO of strobe backlight engineering, and all, have helped many reviewers, youtube stars, bloggers, as well as manufacturers and VR headsets immensely to add their first motion blur reduction modes, etc.

Which -- (yes, ulterior motive, but you all knew that!) -- Blur Busters end up selling more high-Hz monitors of all kinds (e.g. through our links). Which then thus, supports Blur Busters. But that's win, win -- a researcher gets a fun project being paid to play a game, and Blur Busters get more publicity.

I expect Blur Busters to grow the research funding pot in the coming years. The more Blur Busters grows, the more eSports/display/etc research I can personally fund. Which thus helps grow the market for better displays. And manufacturers benefit from providing more displays that meets the gamers needs of all kind, whether the casual Fortnite player or the professional eSports player. Hopefully I can afford to hire a full time researcher by 2025!

(Hello Class of 2025....Blur Busters may be calling you!)

[ericl]

I also play Quake, hell I grew up on Quake. I was part of the top North American CTF team for Quake 1 CTF back in 1998 (Back when Thresh and D2B2 were the big names in deathmatch). Then was dueling with CZM in Quake 3 in competitive duels (There were more names but he's one of the guys that people might recognize. Never played much with Fatal1ty because of the location.)

Finally, I got picked up by a CS team that wanted to go pro and started competitive CS for about 6-7 years while throwing in some Quake Live. Now all these years later, my brother is the Quake Live / Champions veteran in the family where he plays against Rapha and a few other notable names.

So my opinion (because after all, even though I based it on testing the various sizes, going back and forth over again), is that 27" is better for FPS performance.

On a side note, the pace depends on which character you play in Overwatch. I used to 'main' the character called Tracer that has very little health but blinks around the map. It's the fastest pace character in the game and makes Quake look a little slow when the action hits.

That's the difference with Overwatch, Quake and Counter Strike.

Quake = action all the time (like soccer!)
Overwatch = heavy action spikes, low action when you're staging up. (like american football!)
Counter-strike = No action what-so-ever, spike in action, back to no action. (like baseball!)

[Notty_PT]

Fair enough, all I wanted to say is that, unless some Quake players database shows most use bigger screens, no game is going to convince me that a bigger screen improves aim. Quake is my benchmark, and the other games mean less to nothing to me. At least not overwatch as I consider that game really casual aim wise. I mean, when I play Overwatch after playing Quake it feels like easy mode/aimbot. Hitboxes are just too big man, can´t take that game seriously for any study like this.

If we talk about Reflex or even some Call of Duty iterations (yes, call of duty hitboxes are very small compared to most shooters, even if that game gets usually roasted by a lot of PC gamers).

Black Ops 4, for example, has a long time to kill (number 1 factor for an aiming kill ceilling on a shooter) and small hitboxes. The best aim and tracking win the gunfights, there is no other way around it (Excluding character abilities, wich completly change it, but you only get them 1 or 2 times at best in a round).

But still... nothing beats trying to use Lightning Gun against Anarki or Athena in Quake Champions. I mean, if someone has 50% accuracy vs those tiny hitboxes, you should immediatly consider going pro