A Fresh Look At Multi-Screen PC Gaming

crookedvulture writes "It has been quite a while since Slashdot last covered multi-monitor gaming. A lot has changed in the interim. Monitors prices continue to fall, and improved AMD Eyefinity and Nvidia Surround implementations make creating multi-display arrays incredibly easy. Graphics cards have gotten faster, allowing high-end models to handle the latest games at the ultra-high resolutions that multi-screen setups enable. Developers are doing a better job of supporting those resolutions, too, although HUD placement and single-screen cinematics are still problematic in some titles. Even in the games that do have niggling flaws, the wider perspective of a triple-screen config can offer a more engaging and immersive experience. As stereoscopic 3D implementations fail to catch on, multi-screen setups look like the best upgrade for PC gamers."

Space problem

[Darkness404]

I really don't see multi-screen gaming really catching on because of the simple fact that a lot of people don't have a whole heck of a lot of space, especially in the "core" gamer demographic who tend to either be living with their parents or living in a cramped apartment. Desktops aren't exactly space savers and decent sized monitors aren't easy to fit 3 or more on a normal sized desk.

Re:The last time i tried this

[Riceballsan]

I would imagine to properly implement multi-screen, the best method would not be to treat it as 1 big ass monitor with a divider in the middle, but instead 2 screens with different designated uses. Look at the DS, even among games that didn't need touch screen (IE the hinderance of a finger blocking the view). The bottom screen was rarely a continuation for the top screen. I could see the same approach for more advanced PC games. FPS: Primary monitor shows the field of vision, Secondary monitor shows, multi-level more detailed radar, coms information, HP, weapons etc... in some co-op games if it fits the storyline's abilities, possibly field of vision for team mate etc... RPG: Move all of the party information, skill bars etc... off the primary screen. make them more detailed and easier to see the hotkeys or whatever has been associated etc... Basically instead of using the monitor to make one huge split function screen, take everything that somewhat clutters the field of vision, but is also critical, and move it to the second monitor.

Still a gimmick

[Bieeanda]

I've been running multiple monitors since Windows 98's beyond half-assed support for the concept, and have three on my desk right now. Really, the only titles that benefit from these arrangements are extremely hard-core flight simulators (as noted elsewhere in the discussion) and the very occasional macro-scale real-time strategy game where there's a benefit to shoving all of your production and resource manipulation readouts to a separate screen.

For just about anything else, it's a silly little frippery-- sure, it might be cute to have a clan battle's K/D ratios on a separate screen, or an automap and inventory, but those are hardly quality of life breakthroughs. Like stereoscopic glasses and VR goggles, it's a solution in search of a problem.

Re:Niggling flaws?

[HarrySquatter]

Wow you must be pretty old when a term that is 500 years old is considered "new" to you.

Re:Still a gimmick

[TXG1112]

Nonsense! There are quite a few games where I would love to have a separate screen. With FPS's you could put the map, more detailed injury status, inventory and all sorts of things that might make for new and interesting game play. RPG's would derive a huge benefit as well in that you wouldn't need to waste game real estate on status, configuration or other information.

Your issue is that you are imagining today's game elements moved onto a second screen. I agree that this would merely be a marginal improvement, though one which I would welcome. Instead consider how the second screen and all that lovely space can be used to improve the game in various ways.