roflmao88

how about we give runscape the graphics of halo3? opinions will change. how about vise versa? (I SURE HOPE NOT)

it's obvious that it's graphics and yeah, games can be realistic and GOOD at the same time. rainbow6 is one of the most fun shooters i've ever played, and it's realistic. less than 5 shots you're dead...that's not realism? k'mon... and basically everything i said above i repeated because people weren't getting to the point. if halo 3 had the graphics of runescape, i seriously don't think it would sell the thousands of copies it is now this second. if runescape had the graphics of halo3 however...there's a chance some WoW players would defect to the RS side... without some concept of realism in video games, i really bet it won't be a good game. to "escape reality", you're still used to fysics...look at tetris. gravity and maths is what you apply from irl to it. shooter games...you have guns and kill people, that's realism. RUNESCAPE, you KILL things. that's realism. graphics do more than you think, most games wouldn't be as impressive without it. if all 360 games had bad graphics, the 360 would have bad reviews and everyone will know it as the "bad graphics but good game console". as i said...runescape isn't FUN, it's addictive. i know, cw/pc/pking may seem fun to you, but what drives you to get that stuff? fishing for hours of sharks just to get the cash of what you put it onto? cw IS fun, but cw isn't all of runescape. in runescape, you have to wait until you can actually get good at the fun stuff, you have to force yourself to train skills for hours upon hours, and by having to do that, you're addicted. i'm level 112, i know what i'm talking about. in fact, i'm seriously starting to get bored of rs. cw and pking all the time isn't that fun anymore...you'll realize as soon as you get to the "top", it doesn't pay off for all the wasted hours.

dude..you haven't even played any of the ps3 games have you? resistance fall of man is possibly the best fps i have ever played, warhawk is possible the best tps MP i've ever played. try them, you'll be blown away. no they don't suck, their gameplay is just..amazing. don't assume what you don't know dude, the games on ps3 are more fun than you think. you're just poisoned by the minds of 360 fanboys not keeping their mouth shut about the overly-hyped halo3... Actually i played a demo of resistance and omg was that game fun, i take back the ALL statement that was stupid and incorrect, BUT there is a lot of dross(bad games) on the PS3 that look STUNNING. I haven't played Warhawk (i'm pretty sure i played a version for the PC sometime back and it kicked [wagon]). You are right though such a sweeping statement was foolish its just that over 10 years the amount of 'pretty' games that have lacked substance is shocking and the PS3 seems to have waaaaay too many poor games at the moment, and i can only blame lazy/[developmentally delayed] developers/producers for this. Games have come a long way, but there are too many companies that are guaranteed a hit if they spend 2 years on graphics and 10 minutes on gameplay mechanics. Edit: The Halo series is basically a remake of a previous FPS series Bungie made, which I've forgotten the name of :wall: , the graphics weren't da bomb on that (think original doom) but the gameplay was awesome. Bungie are an exceptional gaming company that has never really made a half-finished product (maybe halo 2 counts story-wise). I have an Xbox360 but i have no grudge against Sony, in fact if and when there are 10 good games out for the PS3 i will buy it. going off topic here but cool, i'm getting a 360 for xmas...since my brother was really stupid and bought a bunch of 360 games. so far we have an untouched halo3, gears of war, and rainbow 6. can't wait to play them lol...

and if this topic is against all nextgen for just good graphics, what about the halo series? i seriously don't think anything could ever be as published as that, and halo1/2/3 would absolutely not be the same game if it didn't have it's very good graphics. the writer of this article...you're saying if you replace master chief with a box with arms holding guns won't make a difference? without strong graphics of today's technology...i bet no nextgen games would ever be the same. play one of the most amazing nextgen games (halo3, warhawk, gow...any that are graphically superior) and take out the graphics. they won't be them anymore. k'mon...gears of war is well known for it's blood effects...chainsaw a guy's head, you'll be surprised at how REALISTIC it is. replace it with 2-d not-so-good-graphical blood, it won't be the same. hell....give runescape the graphics of halo3. everyone will think of it differently AND positively. i swear.

dude..you haven't even played any of the ps3 games have you? resistance fall of man is possibly the best fps i have ever played, warhawk is possible the best tps MP i've ever played. try them, you'll be blown away. no they don't suck, their gameplay is just..amazing. don't assume what you don't know dude, the games on ps3 are more fun than you think. you're just poisoned by the minds of 360 fanboys not keeping their mouth shut about the overly-hyped halo3...

this doesn't exacly mean that all realistic games aren't good, hell i see this topic against all nextgen....is it simply because everyone here likes runescape or something? again..runescape is not fun..it's just addictive. it doesn't take much skill to click a tree or somewhat..yeah i play runescape but call me an addict. I have a ps3, currently play warhawk on it. i do not think you can ever compare that to runescape...two completely different concepts, though both only online. yeah, warhawk is FUN, but i can't play it for months...hell not even years as anyone can with runescape. runescape isn't FUN, it's addictive. realistic games don't all suck. in fact, nowadays if you play a shooter game, you can actually SEE where you shoot them, the thing you shoot reacting in a realistic matter. you don't expect it to be unrealistic, do you? some games NEED realistic concepts to be ALIVE, runescape is FANTASY....that's different. warhawk isn't even anywhere near realistic when it comes to the concept... now...GRAW2 OR RB6 (ghost recon advanced warfighter 2 or rainbow 6) are really realistic. in less than 5 shots, you're dead. boo hoo...why are they still [wagon] good games? because they give the correct feeling, they're something called TACTICAL shooters. they're possibly the most realistic a game could get, and not to mention..it takes much more skill to aim for a target that's less than 1/40th of your screen than to click a poorly pixelized figure on your screen and select "attack". if the graphics of a shooter games pretty much suck, there could be some flaws...even if the game is kickass. if the graphics suck..you can like shoot someone and miss by an inch..yet you still hit the person. beleive me..that happens to many old games.