A video game TO addictive?

Grand Exchange made it easier to merchant, yea being a small time merch who stood trying to hussle noobs was killed, but people who actually had money + skills knew how to use the GE. It was brain dead simple, buy when the price dips down, sell when its high. You could still make a killing doing "old-school" merchanting by utilizing "junk". I made 800k profit one hour by selling Dragon Axes when they shot up in demand. The GE made runescape more balanced, buying an expensive item no longer meant standing at Varrock dodging 12 idiots trying to sell there crap.

Way off topic...

@Dray, Did you miss the "most dynamic swordfighting game" comment? My point was not that a game is best when its realistic, but that games that have a mixture of realism and fantasy seem to be the most fun, at least IMO.

Actually simple mindless games like Bejeweled are the most playable ones. Your argument is quite fallactic because it is impossible for a human to make a game without incorporating SOME reality in it. Hence, all games have, if even just a pinch, of reality parallelism in them, and thats why your argument does not stand since in this concept, i am speaking of how a game goes out of its way to purposely look more like reality, instead of trying to deviate from it.

in the past, when RPGs(wich i have now renamed to IML(Interactive Multi Layered)) were simple, turn base was fun, because you did not have too much complexity, nowadays, with a thrilling and more vivid and complex gameplay, live action turn base is a good idea. Non live action turn base, as in the new Final Fantasy, look dumb.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:Actually simple mindless games like Bejeweled are the most playable ones. Your argument is quite fallactic because it is impossible for a human to make a game without incorporating SOME reality in it. Hence, all games have, if even just a pinch, of reality parallelism in them, and thats why your argument does not stand since in this concept, i am speaking of how a game goes out of its way to purposely look more like reality, instead of trying to deviate from it.

So if I said most people like Steak when its cooked but not burnt, that would be illogical because if you looked under a microscope you will always find parts that are burnt or under cooked? I wasn't stating an "argument", I was stating an opinion on what I've noticed based on the current trend in gaming.

Either way..

Moneyman wrote:

Dray The Fingerless wrote:Actually simple mindless games like Bejeweled are the most playable ones. Your argument is quite fallactic because it is impossible for a human to make a game without incorporating SOME reality in it. Hence, all games have, if even just a pinch, of reality parallelism in them, and thats why your argument does not stand since in this concept, i am speaking of how a game goes out of its way to purposely look more like reality, instead of trying to deviate from it.

So if I said most people like Steak when its cooked but not burnt, that would be illogical because if you looked under a microscope you will always find parts that are burnt or under cooked? I wasn't stating an "argument", I was stating an opinion on what I've noticed based on the current trend in gaming.

Either way..

I do not understand what you are trying to counter attack me with. Your steak example is the same thing i said. That we do not live in absolutes.

HE SAID YOUR ARGUMENT WAS INVALID!

Oh...I forgot to add the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags.

I said games that have a mixture of fantasy and reality seem to be the most fun. So what if every game has some MEASURE of reality to it? That doesn't make my statement a fallacy. If my statement is fallacious because every game has some reality, then I could say your statement is just as fallacious because every game has some unreality in it. You just used oversimplified logic to make back up your opinion.

This is kind of the way I would view a real life enactment of our debate:

Guy - "I like my steak medium rare"

Other guy - "That statement is fallactic because you will always have microscopic parts of steak that are un-cooked or burnt"

Guy - "...Your argument is invalid because its FALLACIOUS, not FALLACTIC...lol"

But seriously this is a pointless and boring debate and is off topic, and not in a "this is way better then the actual topic" way.

P.S: I can't believe this thread made it to 9 pages...LOL

You havent ackowledged my whole argument. I simply stated all games have a level of reality. That was a declaration. My argument was my final sentence. That the problem is when a game simply seeks to be more and more realistic, instead of attempting to run away from reality, wich is what games should do. You sir, are wrong.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:You havent ackowledged my whole argument. I simply stated all games have a level of reality. That was a declaration. My argument was my final sentence. That the problem is when a game simply seeks to be more and more realistic, instead of attempting to run away from reality, wich is what games should do. You sir, are wrong.

Your declaration was that my argument was wrong because all games have some reality in them. Your statement that games all have some reality is a true fact, but your statement about my argument being incorrect because of that fact is not a provable fact, its an opinion about an opinion.

Your argument that games should run away from reality is a personal preference, its neither wrong nor right. My argument that games should have a mixture of reality and fantasy is also a personal preference, its based on what I personally find the most entertaining. To argue about which viewpoint is correct is like arguing about whether the color red is better then the color blue, in the end it all boils down to personal preference.

I never stated your argument about games having reality makes them fun is incorrect. My problem has always been games who try to imitate day by day monotonic routines, aka, The Sims or stock market or whatever else.

This is just getting fucking stupid now.

You;re just saying the same thing over and over again...

Dray The Fingerless wrote: My problem has always been games who try to imitate day by day monotonic routines, aka, The Sims or stock market or whatever else.

Now that is a point I agree with. Who wants to push buttons and watch a character do something they could do in real life? That's why I came to hate runescape(and other MMORPG's), because it basically boiled down to repeatedly clicking on a rock and watching a poorly rendered 3d model mine an ore for 4 hours. The things that challenged me, like manipulating the economy, or finding loopholes in the game, or fighting other players, became dull and pointless because they were like real life only crappier.

I understand more fully what you mean now, and I definitely agree with it. Just look at all those shitty reality games that have come out for the Wii. Wii sports/Wii fit or those shitty yoga games are just plain pathetic. Instead of enhancing gameplay like it should, the Wii's has become the "slummy side" of console town, with a bunch of poorly designed games that simply use the motion control to make a buck off of stupid Casual gamers.

I hate to think about it, but this reminds me exactly of what reality TV did to television. They say a picture is worth a thousand words...