Tip.it Times Presents: Realistic Games? No thanks.

[Death_Dude74]

There's nothing wrong with realism, and I think the author misses that point. The point I think he or she should shoot for is that realism isn't essential in all games/aspects of games. His current standing is rather extremist (All good games aren't realistic).

[roflmao88]

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.

[roflmao88]

With a small point to Crysis a game noted for insane graphics (its better than real life tim!...............) that CANNOT BE PLAYED AT ITS BEST SETTINGS ON ANY COMPUTER CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.thats insane the [bleep] have started bringing out what in effect is a concept game. They are sucking our wallets dry people, revolt, just because some tool bankrolled idiots to make the most complex graphics ever doesn't mean we need to spend $90 on the resultant game. You graphix [bleep] are gonna cost us all a lot of money by pushing prices up on useless games that look pretty. The problem with demanding awesome graphics can be seen on the PS3, ALL of its games are pretty awesome looking, ALL of its games are horrible to play. If you want something awesome to look at go to Brazil and look at the rainforest, or if your too lazy buy an HD TV and watch a show about the rainforest. If you want a decent game then gameplay will always be the most important thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I am not saying crysis will suck, i am also not saying games with good graphics suck. I AM SAYING that when developers (especially the scummy ones) think that all they need to do to sell is have 'great graphics', then we suffer because we get deluged by awesome looking but awful playing games. If you don't think this is the case you obviously haven't been looking at the releases for consoles over the last 10 years.

 

 

 

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...

[roflmao88]

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.

[Quinton595]

Okay seriously now guysÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ what exactly is the point of Tetris?

 

 

 

 

 

Roflmfao :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: =D>

[berbatovsky]

With a small point to Crysis a game noted for insane graphics (its better than real life tim!...............) that CANNOT BE PLAYED AT ITS BEST SETTINGS ON ANY COMPUTER CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.thats insane the [bleep] have started bringing out what in effect is a concept game. They are sucking our wallets dry people, revolt, just because some tool bankrolled idiots to make the most complex graphics ever doesn't mean we need to spend $90 on the resultant game. You graphix [bleep] are gonna cost us all a lot of money by pushing prices up on useless games that look pretty. The problem with demanding awesome graphics can be seen on the PS3, ALL of its games are pretty awesome looking, ALL of its games are horrible to play. If you want something awesome to look at go to Brazil and look at the rainforest, or if your too lazy buy an HD TV and watch a show about the rainforest. If you want a decent game then gameplay will always be the most important thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I am not saying crysis will suck, i am also not saying games with good graphics suck. I AM SAYING that when developers (especially the scummy ones) think that all they need to do to sell is have 'great graphics', then we suffer because we get deluged by awesome looking but awful playing games. If you don't think this is the case you obviously haven't been looking at the releases for consoles over the last 10 years.

 

 

 

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]ed 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.

[P_E_N_N_Y]

With a small point to Crysis a game noted for insane graphics (its better than real life tim!...............) that CANNOT BE PLAYED AT ITS BEST SETTINGS ON ANY COMPUTER CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.thats insane the [bleep] have started bringing out what in effect is a concept game. They are sucking our wallets dry people, revolt, just because some tool bankrolled idiots to make the most complex graphics ever doesn't mean we need to spend $90 on the resultant game. You graphix [bleep] are gonna cost us all a lot of money by pushing prices up on useless games that look pretty. The problem with demanding awesome graphics can be seen on the PS3, ALL of its games are pretty awesome looking, ALL of its games are horrible to play. If you want something awesome to look at go to Brazil and look at the rainforest, or if your too lazy buy an HD TV and watch a show about the rainforest. If you want a decent game then gameplay will always be the most important thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I am not saying crysis will suck, i am also not saying games with good graphics suck. I AM SAYING that when developers (especially the scummy ones) think that all they need to do to sell is have 'great graphics', then we suffer because we get deluged by awesome looking but awful playing games. If you don't think this is the case you obviously haven't been looking at the releases for consoles over the last 10 years.

 

 

 

 

 

As a PS3 owner i can state you're completely wrong in your analysis, so far i've seen a single game that looks pretty but doesn't play well (the darkness), like the other guy said resistance fall of man IS the best fps i've ever played to me and the graphics count for a hell of a lot of that.

 

 

 

It's not "greedy developers" it's called technological advancement, without which none of this would be here in the first place,

 

 

 

Some people can't afford, some people just wanna stick with what they're used to, that's fine until they believe their completely untested opinion holds weight.

 

 

 

If you don't wanna shell out for next-gen or take the time to source decent games like your 10 years watching would suggest then fine, but WE are and WE'RE enjoying it.

[P_E_N_N_Y]

Every console has its substance lacking games, hell my brother's shelf is full of em, but at what point did barbie's magical kiddy land jump to everyone's mind as a representation of the PS2?

[ductran1989]

Nicely done, that leave me speechless, so many people think runescape graphic suck, and all this stuff, they move to Warcraft 3 and WoW most of them claim that they're paying 5 dollars to play a crappy graphic game, and they rather pay additional 15 dollars to get a decent graphic. many of my friends agree that this game graphic suck and told me to quit but I simply tell them Runescape is the first online game I play and also the last, if you try to get me to your game don't bother. Why am I stuck to Runescape, maybe the friends I made, the story and quest that is so interesting: King arthur, Camelot, the music, etc.... Sure it wasn't the best game that ever design but the people that play it for a long time had grown with the game. Heck some game are simple as 2d and it still bring great joy. Tetris is a great example, pac man, mario, they were all 2d. I can guarantee that if I play a mario song, more than half the people in this forum would know the theme song. I play runescape 2 years ago, before Macroer came behind melzart maze and chop yew, and I think it's a worth while game and time of course. If you think it suck I have nothing else to say to you except that "If you don't appreciate it, you don't deserve it". NICE TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION

 

 

 

ÃÆââ¬Å¡ÃâéTran

[Lord-kain1]

So true so true. Although i would have to add that ive found tetris to be very helpful IRL. You ever move anyone ? I've moved a lotta people and all that time playing tetris(back in the day) definitly helpped with packing loads in tight. :-D

 

 

 

LK1

 

 

 

ps i wish they would make games at first not thinking about the graphics and stick to storylines etc, and THEN do graphics once they get everything else worked out. super realisum = super boring ( except maybe if they did a super real DECENT version of resident evil)

[neonihilist]

Some people are saying runescape isn't fun just addictive. I disagree; runescape can be fun. It depends on what your doing. I enjoy minigames like castle wars, pest control, ect. PKing can also be fun. Quests can be fun. Clan events or tip.it events are fun. There is a lot you can do in rs that's fun.

[Voldmort0]

Well written, and an excellent point.

 

But like the editor said, virtual games is for relaxing and escaping from real life. We shouldn't have to watch out for everything we do in a game like we do IRL.

 

Anyway, well said.

[roflmao88]

With a small point to Crysis a game noted for insane graphics (its better than real life tim!...............) that CANNOT BE PLAYED AT ITS BEST SETTINGS ON ANY COMPUTER CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.thats insane the [bleep] have started bringing out what in effect is a concept game. They are sucking our wallets dry people, revolt, just because some tool bankrolled idiots to make the most complex graphics ever doesn't mean we need to spend $90 on the resultant game. You graphix [bleep] are gonna cost us all a lot of money by pushing prices up on useless games that look pretty. The problem with demanding awesome graphics can be seen on the PS3, ALL of its games are pretty awesome looking, ALL of its games are horrible to play. If you want something awesome to look at go to Brazil and look at the rainforest, or if your too lazy buy an HD TV and watch a show about the rainforest. If you want a decent game then gameplay will always be the most important thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I am not saying crysis will suck, i am also not saying games with good graphics suck. I AM SAYING that when developers (especially the scummy ones) think that all they need to do to sell is have 'great graphics', then we suffer because we get deluged by awesome looking but awful playing games. If you don't think this is the case you obviously haven't been looking at the releases for consoles over the last 10 years.

 

 

 

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...

[Anthony8150]

Very nice article.

 

This is the reason why I don't understand why Jagex does pointless graphical updates. We wouldn't be playing Runescape if all we cared about were graphics, so what's the point of updating graphics if no one will care. Sure, some graphical updates are fine, like the Varrock update, but updates to vials, sharks, buckets, what's the point?

 

 

 

You can tell The Editor is a Nintendo fan :-w

[Ltje]

I somewhat partly agree with the article.

 

 

 

The editor compares two whole different kind of genres of games, and after that comparison he concludes that graphics and realism are much less important that gameplay.

 

While I do think that gameplay is the most important thing for any game, I dont think you cant say that because of some comparison. It simply varies way to much for each genre of styles.

 

 

 

For example, fantasy MMORPGs dont need realism in fysics or graphics. WoW doesn't have realistic graphics, nor ultrarealistic fysics. Still, its the best selling MMORPG ever.

 

Shooters DO need realism in fysics and graphics. Crysis has both, and its like the most anticipated game ever. If it only had good gameplay, and no good graphics/fysics, no-one would care about Crysis.

 

 

 

So, I think that you need to compare games about their gameplay and realism only in their own genre.

 

That would basically left us with a comparison between RS and WoW. Not that hard to imagine that WoW beats RS on the aspect of realism in both graphics and fysics.

 

I also think that it is safe to say that the gameplay of WoW is better then RS, as WoW has much less grinding then RS. And grinding makes a BAD gameplay. It makes a game addictive, but does not give it a good gameplay, not at all.

 

 

 

So, to sum it up, WoW beats RS on both realism and gameplay. (No big deal btw). That would left us with the conclusion that the conclusion of the Editor is wrong, as he says that RS is popular and good because of the gameplay. But we've seen that that's not the case.

 

So there must be other reasons why RS is still popular. Cost, accessibility, addictiveness, and being easy would be a few of that. But not the good gameplay of RS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But, in the end, gameplay is what makes or breaks a game. Period.

[Cabbage_Boii]

wow. a great article! definetly one of best articles in a while!

 

 

 

alot of funny facts in there, LOL tetris is to help me......know how big a square is :-s hah!

 

 

 

--Swaggeh :-w

[fat_klutz]

The article was well written but bias. The author was correct in saying that graphics don't make the game but they sure as hell can ruin it or make it incredible.

 

 

 

Second thing, he said people play video games to escape from reality. No, people play to have fun. If you are playing to escape from reality than you should go see a phycologist.

 

 

 

Third thing, realistic games are better the majority of times. Would you like to play a game where a sniper rifle shoots at the speed of an SMG? I wouldn't. Realism plays a huge part in how good games are and I think the author totally mistated his point.

 

 

 

Last thing, Tetris has a point. It forces the player to think on their feet as well as planning ahead and requiring some pretty fast fingers at lvls 10+

 

 

 

Nicely done, that leave me speechless, so many people think runescape graphic suck, and all this stuff, they move to Warcraft 3 and WoW most of them claim that they're paying 5 dollars to play a crappy graphic game, and they rather pay additional 15 dollars to get a decent graphic. many of my friends agree that this game graphic suck and told me to quit but I simply tell them Runescape is the first online game I play and also the last, if you try to get me to your game don't bother. Why am I stuck to Runescape, maybe the friends I made, the story and quest that is so interesting: King arthur, Camelot, the music, etc.... Sure it wasn't the best game that ever design but the people that play it for a long time had grown with the game. Heck some game are simple as 2d and it still bring great joy. Tetris is a great example, pac man, mario, they were all 2d. I can guarantee that if I play a mario song, more than half the people in this forum would know the theme song. I play runescape 2 years ago, before Macroer came behind melzart maze and chop yew, and I think it's a worth while game and time of course. If you think it suck I have nothing else to say to you except that "If you don't appreciate it, you don't deserve it". NICE TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION

 

 

 

ÃÆââ¬Å¡ÃâéTran

 

 

 

WC3 costs 30(ish) dollars for 2 cds, two amazing campaigns, the ability to make your own maps, and play online for free. And it has realitively bad graphics. So anybody claiming to be paying 15 dollars for WC3 is an idiot.

 

 

 

On a side note, have you ever played any other games?? Runescape is not that good of a game when compared.

[roflmao88]

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.

[Albel]

Very nice article. RS may not be the most realistic, but i love RS because the fact i can be with my friends and skill wity them. All of my friends who played RS before whet to WoW...ill have to ask them this question.

 

Great job again :thumbsup:

[ayden7794]

Funny I was reading an article on AI in games just the other day. Most of these games dont mimic life at all because it is total maddnes. Like in Halo what are the chances that one "supper soldier" can take out hundreds of aliens (maddnes eh?) while his commrades are either no were to be seen or dead. AI and graphics just make the game better and has little to do with mimicing life.

[jacob2002373]

That was a good read i agree with the writer. I hate ppl who play warcraft and laugh at runescape like its 10 times worse then Wow. I'v been playing rs for a while now and it never gets boring, its got so many skills and so many places to go and things to experience. I love games for how fun they are..period.(good graphics i dont mind....lol) :)

 

 

 

edit:my rl friends quit and went to Wow also..

[roflmao88]

how about we give runscape the graphics of halo3? opinions will change.

 

 

 

how about vise versa? (I SURE HOPE NOT)

[unkn0wnwarrior]

how about we give runscape the graphics of halo3? opinions will change.

 

 

 

how about vise versa? (I SURE HOPE NOT)

I wouldn't want Runescape to have Halo 3 graphics... That would bring in too many people who think graphics are EVERYTHING in a game.

[supercanon14]

well i was on the dod:S fourms(day of defeat source) and this dude compaired RO (red orstra ostfrount 41-45) to dod:s and RO has more graphics beter phsyics all that stuff and the one thang that was missing was fun...

 

 

 

 

 

now dod:s has modern graphics good phsyics and is fun...

[GreyNite]

very nicely written i must say halo has got the graphics and the story line but runescape and some other games have just pure fun and i think thats what counts just my oppinon tho :D