Research input lag & HDTVs that is non CRT TV's are horrible for this. Fun fact: response time or gtg is different than input lag [url=http://example.com]http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/link[/url] So if your TV has an input lag of 40ms (Some can be as high as 150ms) which is average for TV's and if you add that to your ping because you can't respond to something that you haven't even seen yet...right? You can see how this effects gameplay. So how's that TV experience looking now? You can get a monitor with a 9ms input lag no tv comes close to that yet (17ms is fastest so far) because most gamers are unaware of this fact and do not request this to be addressed by TV manufactures. The more people that become aware of this issue and ask for manufactures to include input lag on specifications will help TV's bridge this input lag gap they have with monitors. Oops the more you know image URL didn't bring up the pic that I wanted to include that so imagine that image as the reply header.

Plasmas are the most realistic tv's on the market unlike those dumb LEDs which are more than realistic it's like it had plastic surgery on a tv

I prefer consoles, and even my pc is hooked up to my TV, but the only reason I even have a monitor is for photo editing, because the color accuracy far surpasses any TV.

[quote]This is coming fom the same nerf herder, who thinks that input lag and fps are the same thing... or even related.[/quote] This is coming from the same idiot who says they aren't related. I also never said they were the same. But they relate to one another. [quote]As for your "surround" sound headphones... any audiophile will call you on the quality of simulated surround vs the real thing.[/quote] Any audiophile will also tell you a majority of people don't set up their surround sound system up properly or don't have the right room to effectively get the most out of it. [quote]I have both a decent rig, and consoles. I like toplay with both, but find my self drawing to consoles for their longevity, price point, and ROI. I hate having to upgrade my grfx card every 2 years to make my games prettier.[/quote] If you are a PC gamer you'd know after the initial cost PC gaming as a whole is cheaper and you don't have to upgrade your GPU every two years. Good portion of 2-3 year models are better then the GPUs in the 'next gen' consoles.

My Samsung plasma has plenty of contrast & sharpness.... And... Real, rich blacks. And it's 58" Look, I am a ex-pc gamer. I don't notice any input lag compared to my monitor days.. I have no desire to upgrade my pc every year, I've become a casual gamer in my age & responsibilities in life this why I enjoy consoles more now. Put the game in and play.. No money pit changing out graphics cards, updating drivers...

"better" is a matter of preference. I prefer deep inky blacks and contrast to color pop and brightness. Motion has a more natural smoothness than the 120 and 240 emulation.LED based TV can't touch this models picture quality. Input lag could be better, but its good enough for what I do. Until OLED's come down, this is one of the best IMO.

I play on a 60" Panasonic plasma and it's pretty ridiculous Beaver. You'll get better brightness on LED/LCD but the colors and depth of a plasma is pretty damn good. However, a smaller unit, like a gaming monitor will have better contrast given that the pixels are a lot closer together.

I use a TV, I don't really care when it comes down to pixels, as long I can play a video game on it.

Not sure if stupid, or in denial. [spoiler]Probably both.[/spoiler]