Why blame the monitor for his inability to play a game well.
Because this is an absolutely true statement and one of the reasons why many people don't play as good as they used to or can't play as good as they can. Your monitor is one of, if not the most important input/output device on the computer.
There's a reason why CRT monitors are still superior to LCDs for gaming.
Input lag is the first reason and sure the article is from 2006 but most on the market LCDs still have input lag.
Response time is another while most LCDs do have 2-8 millisecond for GtG, WtW, BtB for other colors and shades of colors can vary almost over 150ms, there's a reason why they advertise the G-W-B shifts which is ironic cause LCDs can never display true blacks. CRTs even the cheapest crappiest out there are still magnitudes faster. Depending on the quality of the CRT and material they are usually one to two magnitudes faster i.e. microsecond to nanosecond. Plus to add to that the entire LCD technology works on the principle of a sample-and-hold, which introduces blurring and smearing which holds the frame still till the next refresh unlike a CRT that goes through the process of phosphor decay, which itself does introduce negatives but inherent in what a CRT uses for displaying images(phosphors). So with an LCD if your other colors for example are an average of 40-80ms then 16.68ms+40-80+ the little extra from the sample-and-hold+ monitor input lag, and you can be looking at over 100ms delay(smearing, blurring, and lag) before the next frame arrives.
And finally aside from picture quality of higher end in particular aperture grille CRT monitors which depending on the CRT is superior to that of the different LCD panel types. Is refresh rate unless he was using a 120hz LCD monitor which is 80-85% as good as a CRT(mostly lacking in terms of PQ, black levels, resolution, refresh rates), though it might not be so good for those music games as you want more vertical height i.e. 1920x1200 not 1920x1080. Then he is using that LCD at 60hz and receiving a new frame every 16.68ms+input lag(if it's there)+response time. For a long time and even now(with 120hz LCDs) CRTs still provide much more refresh rates in some cases being pushed to over 200hz or more.
Back in the late 90s and early 2000s when people were changing from CRT to LCD either thinking they were superior or because their high-end CRTs were dying and they couldn't find a new one. Some people out there had been gaming at such high refreshrates we are talking over 130hz etc.etc. in the case of one person's post I ran into saying he normally played at 144hz-150hz. When he used an LCD monitor he said it was like a slideshow it literally made him stop playing games because LCDs just couldn't keep up. Ironically even in cases were people used high refresh rate cause their friends did the same thing and they couldn't tell the difference, they too noticed just how slow LCDs were. Most of the posts did come from quake players but even in slower-paced FPS games the differences were very detrimental for those that changed.
Some can and some can't notice the difference, in the case of another post that I ran into of a person who played at a similar refresh rate range but also pushed it for other games to 180hz mentioned being able to guesstimate refresh rates just by looking at them even on the desktop.
Either way the person in the video may be playing the game correctly and as best he could. But how can he play at his best and or better if the display he is using does not provide enough information for him to react to.
(I'm not gonna mention frames per second despite the fact that, that is very important because I'm guessing those music games are super easy to run and even a low-quality computer could achieve hundreds of frames per second in the game.)
