Technically yes. Of course the newer bigger better tv you will get the bigger better graphics but you can also buy a huge turd and waste your money so do your research and for many people a very nice 32" flat screen tv with a closer chair setup will actually be way better to play on than a 50" that you sit on the couch across the room.. Just do your research before spending money on a huge tv especially since some die after 5 years...
for my tv viewing I have a small flat screen, I also use it for my PS 3, I got it a few years ago new for $99. For most of my media I have an old big tv that I watch movies and play ps2 on.
Thanks Asuka424 for the Signature
This question is one that would be answered differently for just about every person. If your using a PS4 the it matters in the sense that your TV at least needs an HDMI port and idealy ethier be 720p or 1080p beyond that size/features would be dependent on your sistuations and likes/needs
Adjusting the colour is a must as well, with some customisation the image you see or present to others becomes spectacular.
Diplays should provide FXAA and blur filters, but they don't. Perhaps there is software to make a laptop perform that in between your console and the screen.
A display does not create game information of course, but it is the last link along with sound, and while he last link doesn't need to be as strong as the first in carrying weight, it still needs to be hard to withstand wear.
The best option is to buy a samsung 3Dtv 2nd hand. 3D head mounted displays would be a much better option if they weren't badly made or owned now by perverse degenerates.
Audio from a TV is never good, ear/headphones from the speakers is the best option there. Followed by something that was expensive in it's time but is sold cheaply now as second hand.
When CRT's were standard, the minimum framerate was around 80. Anything less induced distracting flicker that caused headaches. TV's using similar design operated at 50 & 60 fps.
Interlacing is great, but as a performance saving feature, not as a display design.
If a TV can display 1080p it can display 1080i, which is much better for games. Better because a higher framerate can be acheived without a sacrifice in colour depth or resolution, better for motion to be slightly blurred than stuttering and lacking animation.
LEDs can turn off for true black, which is nice but video and games aren't designed for true blacks, trying to show something on screen at all times.
Response time is important for LCDs and LEDs, the lower the number the better, larger numbers will cause images to fade out, which isn't a problem for games, but scenes change in movies and the last image mixing with be new one spoils a movie.
An LCD/LED display that doesn't output 120 frames per second or more can't display 3D content.
Plasma screens if left showing a static image will burn that image into the display, so it will intrude upon whatever shown, DVD menus inculded. They consume a lot of power, but the blacks are dark.
24bit colour is the standard at the moment, it should be much higher, especially as at higher resolutions colour gradients widen in percievable stages. It is what is out there but when that changes it should be worth a better display.
Sure it matters.
No. It doesn't.
We can start with the basics. Would you rather play games on a black and white tv or color?
Non-issue because color has been a "thing" since the 1950's.
Then there's resolution. 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p.
Another non-issue. 95% of all TV's sold today are 1080p.
And hertz as well. 60hz, 120hz, 240hz.
Also a non-issue, because broadcast programming is shown at 30hz. And the only time you'll need anything higher than 60Hz is if your source material exceeds 60fps. And in most TV's.... the refresh rate is not a refresh rate at all, but simply an image interpolation-processing gimmick.
There's 2D and 3D.
Also a non-issue. 3D content for broadcast channels is very rare. And most movies that are in 3D, don't sell well and buying them is expensive. lets not forget glasses... active shutter glasses can cost upwards of $120 or more. Passive glasses are also a bit "expensive" as you'll need to spend $15 or more at the movie theater.
And don't forget about size either. Would you want 32" or 200"?
And the latest technology is 4K resolution. It's 8 times the resolution of 1080p.
It is not....4k is 4 times the resolution of 1080p (2 times larger vertically, 2 times larger horizontally). 8k is 8 Times the resolution of 1080p. And that also doesn't matter because there is no 4k content that justifies the high cost of such a TV. And the processing power to play a game in 4k is obscenely expensive.
I'm not sure how a PS3 or PS4 game would look on a 4K television, but the posabilities are limitless these days.
They wouldn't look any better, because the source material ranges from 540p (for some PS3 games) to 1080p(on all PS4 games). And 1080p, upscaled to 4k, doesn't look any better even if 4k is exactly 4times the resolution. Upscaling doesn't work very well either because there is an inherent "fuzziness" to the image.
So... you've never noticed that some television brands look much nicer than others? Say, a Samsung or Bravia blowing SunBrite, Sylvania, Element and Dynex out of the water visually?
Add me as a friend to chat or just play games -- PSNid: seraphim_falconu
i was wondering if it matters what tv you use, like if it effects the graphics of the games you play and stuff?
Edit: Updated title/Updated labels
For more information on labels please visit: http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/PlayStation
Another thing to consider, especially if you are playing FPS's is input lag. Ever had someone lined up in your sites, fired what you knew to be a dead on head shot only to miss? Could be a pesky lagger or it could be the all the processing your tv is doing to create that pretty image. Vizio, Sony and Toshiba seem to make the the TV's with the lowest amount of input delay. As far as selecting a gaming tv is concerned, this is probably the one of the most important things to consider IMO.