<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_17_138258</id>
	<title>Game Design: A Practical Approach</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1245261600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.aeforge.com/~aeon" rel="nofollow">Aeonite</a> writes <i>"As the title suggests, <em>Game Design: A Practical Approach</em> presents a practical approach to game design &mdash; one that is almost too practical in places. The book does a good job of covering many of the foundational elements of game design (called "atoms" by the author), but in places the level of practical detail &mdash; and the heavy focus on Lua code examples &mdash; is a bit hard to work through. Readers allergic to code may find themselves skipping over swaths of text instead of actually reading it."</i> Read below for the rest of Michael's review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Aeonite writes " As the title suggests , Game Design : A Practical Approach presents a practical approach to game design    one that is almost too practical in places .
The book does a good job of covering many of the foundational elements of game design ( called " atoms " by the author ) , but in places the level of practical detail    and the heavy focus on Lua code examples    is a bit hard to work through .
Readers allergic to code may find themselves skipping over swaths of text instead of actually reading it .
" Read below for the rest of Michael 's review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aeonite writes "As the title suggests, Game Design: A Practical Approach presents a practical approach to game design — one that is almost too practical in places.
The book does a good job of covering many of the foundational elements of game design (called "atoms" by the author), but in places the level of practical detail — and the heavy focus on Lua code examples — is a bit hard to work through.
Readers allergic to code may find themselves skipping over swaths of text instead of actually reading it.
" Read below for the rest of Michael's review.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365437</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1245272160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Programmers are a dime a dozen. That ain't nothing but ten-cent coding.</i></p><p><i>Designers, though, are the core of any game.</i></p><p>I used to work writing video games, and still do some coding in the CustomTF mod.</p><p>We had an expression: anyone can design a game. The hard part is implementing it, and implementing it well.</p><p>Look at the open source community for proof.</p><p>Three times this year so far, I've had people approach me with an idea for a game, but didn't bring anything to the table themselves. Though to be fair one was a CS guy, and another was mostly useless, but knew some other people willing to work on the project with me if I wanted to do it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programmers are a dime a dozen .
That ai n't nothing but ten-cent coding.Designers , though , are the core of any game.I used to work writing video games , and still do some coding in the CustomTF mod.We had an expression : anyone can design a game .
The hard part is implementing it , and implementing it well.Look at the open source community for proof.Three times this year so far , I 've had people approach me with an idea for a game , but did n't bring anything to the table themselves .
Though to be fair one was a CS guy , and another was mostly useless , but knew some other people willing to work on the project with me if I wanted to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programmers are a dime a dozen.
That ain't nothing but ten-cent coding.Designers, though, are the core of any game.I used to work writing video games, and still do some coding in the CustomTF mod.We had an expression: anyone can design a game.
The hard part is implementing it, and implementing it well.Look at the open source community for proof.Three times this year so far, I've had people approach me with an idea for a game, but didn't bring anything to the table themselves.
Though to be fair one was a CS guy, and another was mostly useless, but knew some other people willing to work on the project with me if I wanted to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366367</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1245233580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lines between designer and programmer aren't so clear.  Consider this anecdote.

</p><p>One startup I worked for briefly had a design and even a reference implementation.  Took them 18 months to get to that point.  Their reference implementation was extremely slow, taking about 20 minutes on a small set of data and they wanted someone like me to improve it.  As requested, I changed out all the C++ iostream library calls for C stdio library calls, which got the run time down to 12 minutes.  That was their idea how things might be sped up-- optimize the reference implementation.  Then I studied the code until I understood what it did, and wrote a new version from scratch, using different algorithms.  It ran in 2 seconds.  Whenever there was a difference in output between the 2 versions, I found that the reference implementation was the incorrect one.  That took me a month and a half.

</p><p>And it was all for nothing.  In creating the much faster program, I demonstrated that their mysterious magical technique was closely related to very well known techniques in the areas from which I took the algorithms.  And that what they were trying to do had in fact already been tried, and had been a resounding failure.  That didn't convince them of the need to try another approach.  They had invested too much time in their technique and didn't want to give up on it.  So... my program by virtue of being so much faster allowed much more testing.  Could check a few thousand sets of data in a hour, instead of a few dozen in a week.  These tests also showed that the idea was no good.  What did they do about that?  Refuse to face facts and kept insisting that if only we could find the right way to prepare the data, it would all work.  Tried dozens of transformations on the data.  Nothing worked.  Not that I really expected any better.

</p><p>I urged them to try a whole different approach.  I offered several ideas.  I offered as evidence that this was the direction to go my success on implementing the original idea anew.  They protested that they couldn't abandon the original idea, they had sunk too much effort in it, and they could patent it, whereas other ideas likely were already patented by others.  They started seeking out ways that might work on which they could bolt on their patentable method.  The real work would be done some other way, and their technique would contribute nothing except the ability to get patents.  But they still wanted to pretend that the original method would be the workhorse.  By then, they were having trouble paying everyone on time.  I left.

</p><p>Patents were quite damaging to the whole effort.  They may have been much more receptive to other ideas if not for that issue.  May or may not have got somewhere before the money ran out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lines between designer and programmer are n't so clear .
Consider this anecdote .
One startup I worked for briefly had a design and even a reference implementation .
Took them 18 months to get to that point .
Their reference implementation was extremely slow , taking about 20 minutes on a small set of data and they wanted someone like me to improve it .
As requested , I changed out all the C + + iostream library calls for C stdio library calls , which got the run time down to 12 minutes .
That was their idea how things might be sped up-- optimize the reference implementation .
Then I studied the code until I understood what it did , and wrote a new version from scratch , using different algorithms .
It ran in 2 seconds .
Whenever there was a difference in output between the 2 versions , I found that the reference implementation was the incorrect one .
That took me a month and a half .
And it was all for nothing .
In creating the much faster program , I demonstrated that their mysterious magical technique was closely related to very well known techniques in the areas from which I took the algorithms .
And that what they were trying to do had in fact already been tried , and had been a resounding failure .
That did n't convince them of the need to try another approach .
They had invested too much time in their technique and did n't want to give up on it .
So... my program by virtue of being so much faster allowed much more testing .
Could check a few thousand sets of data in a hour , instead of a few dozen in a week .
These tests also showed that the idea was no good .
What did they do about that ?
Refuse to face facts and kept insisting that if only we could find the right way to prepare the data , it would all work .
Tried dozens of transformations on the data .
Nothing worked .
Not that I really expected any better .
I urged them to try a whole different approach .
I offered several ideas .
I offered as evidence that this was the direction to go my success on implementing the original idea anew .
They protested that they could n't abandon the original idea , they had sunk too much effort in it , and they could patent it , whereas other ideas likely were already patented by others .
They started seeking out ways that might work on which they could bolt on their patentable method .
The real work would be done some other way , and their technique would contribute nothing except the ability to get patents .
But they still wanted to pretend that the original method would be the workhorse .
By then , they were having trouble paying everyone on time .
I left .
Patents were quite damaging to the whole effort .
They may have been much more receptive to other ideas if not for that issue .
May or may not have got somewhere before the money ran out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lines between designer and programmer aren't so clear.
Consider this anecdote.
One startup I worked for briefly had a design and even a reference implementation.
Took them 18 months to get to that point.
Their reference implementation was extremely slow, taking about 20 minutes on a small set of data and they wanted someone like me to improve it.
As requested, I changed out all the C++ iostream library calls for C stdio library calls, which got the run time down to 12 minutes.
That was their idea how things might be sped up-- optimize the reference implementation.
Then I studied the code until I understood what it did, and wrote a new version from scratch, using different algorithms.
It ran in 2 seconds.
Whenever there was a difference in output between the 2 versions, I found that the reference implementation was the incorrect one.
That took me a month and a half.
And it was all for nothing.
In creating the much faster program, I demonstrated that their mysterious magical technique was closely related to very well known techniques in the areas from which I took the algorithms.
And that what they were trying to do had in fact already been tried, and had been a resounding failure.
That didn't convince them of the need to try another approach.
They had invested too much time in their technique and didn't want to give up on it.
So... my program by virtue of being so much faster allowed much more testing.
Could check a few thousand sets of data in a hour, instead of a few dozen in a week.
These tests also showed that the idea was no good.
What did they do about that?
Refuse to face facts and kept insisting that if only we could find the right way to prepare the data, it would all work.
Tried dozens of transformations on the data.
Nothing worked.
Not that I really expected any better.
I urged them to try a whole different approach.
I offered several ideas.
I offered as evidence that this was the direction to go my success on implementing the original idea anew.
They protested that they couldn't abandon the original idea, they had sunk too much effort in it, and they could patent it, whereas other ideas likely were already patented by others.
They started seeking out ways that might work on which they could bolt on their patentable method.
The real work would be done some other way, and their technique would contribute nothing except the ability to get patents.
But they still wanted to pretend that the original method would be the workhorse.
By then, they were having trouble paying everyone on time.
I left.
Patents were quite damaging to the whole effort.
They may have been much more receptive to other ideas if not for that issue.
May or may not have got somewhere before the money ran out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28368221</id>
	<title>WHY?</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1245245400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this review here?! The book was released 3 years ago!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this review here ? !
The book was released 3 years ago !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this review here?!
The book was released 3 years ago!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364231</id>
	<title>Next up:</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1245266640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having fun: The methodical way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having fun : The methodical way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having fun: The methodical way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364961</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245269880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The code is the design. See: http://www.developerdotstar.com/mag/articles/reeves\_design\_main.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The code is the design .
See : http : //www.developerdotstar.com/mag/articles/reeves \ _design \ _main.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The code is the design.
See: http://www.developerdotstar.com/mag/articles/reeves\_design\_main.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28370815</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should make 2 games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245316140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you need 2D collision for your TETRIS clone, you either use very weird shapes for people with IQ over 300 or you are doing something wrong.<br>Also you learn nothing writing FPSs(Which nowadays would use OpenGL or DirectX), you learn to appreciate Algebra when you design the 3D engines.<br>I wonce wrote a Raytracer. It was fun to apply the maths from school to something useful. Still I don't feel that learning them in school was worth anything - I can find anything I need from Wikipedia and Google when I need it and turn it into a working application in minutes.<br>Leave the real boring maths for math majors, as a programmer, I have never "applied" any math that didn't involve 1s and 0s.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you need 2D collision for your TETRIS clone , you either use very weird shapes for people with IQ over 300 or you are doing something wrong.Also you learn nothing writing FPSs ( Which nowadays would use OpenGL or DirectX ) , you learn to appreciate Algebra when you design the 3D engines.I wonce wrote a Raytracer .
It was fun to apply the maths from school to something useful .
Still I do n't feel that learning them in school was worth anything - I can find anything I need from Wikipedia and Google when I need it and turn it into a working application in minutes.Leave the real boring maths for math majors , as a programmer , I have never " applied " any math that did n't involve 1s and 0s .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you need 2D collision for your TETRIS clone, you either use very weird shapes for people with IQ over 300 or you are doing something wrong.Also you learn nothing writing FPSs(Which nowadays would use OpenGL or DirectX), you learn to appreciate Algebra when you design the 3D engines.I wonce wrote a Raytracer.
It was fun to apply the maths from school to something useful.
Still I don't feel that learning them in school was worth anything - I can find anything I need from Wikipedia and Google when I need it and turn it into a working application in minutes.Leave the real boring maths for math majors, as a programmer, I have never "applied" any math that didn't involve 1s and 0s.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364705</id>
	<title>Re:I never RTFB!</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1245268740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the book gives me some mod points before I start skimming it, I'm good to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the book gives me some mod points before I start skimming it , I 'm good to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the book gives me some mod points before I start skimming it, I'm good to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364641</id>
	<title>Re:In my work, I disagree</title>
	<author>ls671</author>
	<datestamp>1245268500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed, they used to try to teach us that at the University.</p><p>The example was an early fly-by-wire plane that failed to apply brakes while landing because the tarmac was flooded with water.</p><p>Specs said that the brakes couldn't be applied until the airplane touches the ground which it never did because it was only touching the water and the programmers implemented the specs as is.</p><p>They tried to teach us that programmers have a responsibility to review the specs and mention anything that did not make sense !<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed , they used to try to teach us that at the University.The example was an early fly-by-wire plane that failed to apply brakes while landing because the tarmac was flooded with water.Specs said that the brakes could n't be applied until the airplane touches the ground which it never did because it was only touching the water and the programmers implemented the specs as is.They tried to teach us that programmers have a responsibility to review the specs and mention anything that did not make sense !
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed, they used to try to teach us that at the University.The example was an early fly-by-wire plane that failed to apply brakes while landing because the tarmac was flooded with water.Specs said that the brakes couldn't be applied until the airplane touches the ground which it never did because it was only touching the water and the programmers implemented the specs as is.They tried to teach us that programmers have a responsibility to review the specs and mention anything that did not make sense !
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365081</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245270420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Both are skilled and necessary, but construction workers without an architect aren't going to build anything of great value.</p></div></blockquote><p>And an architect without construction workers is nothing but a second-rate sketch artist who draws only (imaginary) buildings.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both are skilled and necessary , but construction workers without an architect are n't going to build anything of great value.And an architect without construction workers is nothing but a second-rate sketch artist who draws only ( imaginary ) buildings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both are skilled and necessary, but construction workers without an architect aren't going to build anything of great value.And an architect without construction workers is nothing but a second-rate sketch artist who draws only (imaginary) buildings.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365243</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245271200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A more accurate analogy would be that programmers are the building engineers, grounding any impractical ideas or designs by the architect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A more accurate analogy would be that programmers are the building engineers , grounding any impractical ideas or designs by the architect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A more accurate analogy would be that programmers are the building engineers, grounding any impractical ideas or designs by the architect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364499</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>Hogwash McFly</author>
	<datestamp>1245267900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality. Both are skilled and necessary, but construction workers without an architect aren't going to build anything of great value.</p></div><p>Good analogy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality .
Both are skilled and necessary , but construction workers without an architect are n't going to build anything of great value.Good analogy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality.
Both are skilled and necessary, but construction workers without an architect aren't going to build anything of great value.Good analogy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366121</id>
	<title>Quotes</title>
	<author>YourExperiment</author>
	<datestamp>1245232500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like someone needs to learn that the &lt;quote&gt; tag isn't used for putting quotes around things.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like someone needs to learn that the tag is n't used for putting quotes around things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like someone needs to learn that the  tag isn't used for putting quotes around things.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364455</id>
	<title>Best Game Design Advice</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1245267780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Make Games, Not Product."</p><p>It is a subtle and deepy philisophical statement. Doom 3 was a product, a game engine to be specific. Same with Unreal 2. Both were lousy games.</p><p>Technologically they were impressive yes, but a game, not so much.</p><p>You have to go in making a GAME. That will shape the entire development process versus going into it as a product otherwise the video game industry will burn itself out just like the movie industry... wait... shit.. We complain about how remakes and sequels in movies but video games? Lets make another ZELDA... crap.. too late...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Make Games , Not Product .
" It is a subtle and deepy philisophical statement .
Doom 3 was a product , a game engine to be specific .
Same with Unreal 2 .
Both were lousy games.Technologically they were impressive yes , but a game , not so much.You have to go in making a GAME .
That will shape the entire development process versus going into it as a product otherwise the video game industry will burn itself out just like the movie industry... wait... shit.. We complain about how remakes and sequels in movies but video games ?
Lets make another ZELDA... crap.. too late.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Make Games, Not Product.
"It is a subtle and deepy philisophical statement.
Doom 3 was a product, a game engine to be specific.
Same with Unreal 2.
Both were lousy games.Technologically they were impressive yes, but a game, not so much.You have to go in making a GAME.
That will shape the entire development process versus going into it as a product otherwise the video game industry will burn itself out just like the movie industry... wait... shit.. We complain about how remakes and sequels in movies but video games?
Lets make another ZELDA... crap.. too late...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364423</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>sys.stdout.write</author>
	<datestamp>1245267660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I agree with your general point, calling programmers a dime-a-dozen is disingenuous.  Even superbly designed games can be taken down by technical glitches and poor performance.  Success of video games requires competency in all aspects.<br> <br>Except the sound "artists", of course.  Those guys are wankers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with your general point , calling programmers a dime-a-dozen is disingenuous .
Even superbly designed games can be taken down by technical glitches and poor performance .
Success of video games requires competency in all aspects .
Except the sound " artists " , of course .
Those guys are wankers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with your general point, calling programmers a dime-a-dozen is disingenuous.
Even superbly designed games can be taken down by technical glitches and poor performance.
Success of video games requires competency in all aspects.
Except the sound "artists", of course.
Those guys are wankers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28372329</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should make 2 games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245331620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The collision detection required for Tetris is completely different for the collision detection required for more 'continuous' virtual spaces.<br>Are you a game designer per chance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The collision detection required for Tetris is completely different for the collision detection required for more 'continuous ' virtual spaces.Are you a game designer per chance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The collision detection required for Tetris is completely different for the collision detection required for more 'continuous' virtual spaces.Are you a game designer per chance?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364307</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>fooslacker</author>
	<datestamp>1245267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a common misconception of the programmer as a commodity.  Designers are by far the most important resource just as architects and designers are the most important for enterprise apps.  That said crappy programmers can destroy a good design just like a bad design can't be coded around.  It's akin to designing a sky scraper and getting a bunch of 15th century hut builders to construct it.  Designers are imperative but capable programmers are very important as well.  The real question is when do you hit a point of diminishing returns for a more expert programmer.  To continue the building metaphor you don't need skyscraper builders to build a hut but you'd better not try to build a skyscraper with hut builders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a common misconception of the programmer as a commodity .
Designers are by far the most important resource just as architects and designers are the most important for enterprise apps .
That said crappy programmers can destroy a good design just like a bad design ca n't be coded around .
It 's akin to designing a sky scraper and getting a bunch of 15th century hut builders to construct it .
Designers are imperative but capable programmers are very important as well .
The real question is when do you hit a point of diminishing returns for a more expert programmer .
To continue the building metaphor you do n't need skyscraper builders to build a hut but you 'd better not try to build a skyscraper with hut builders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a common misconception of the programmer as a commodity.
Designers are by far the most important resource just as architects and designers are the most important for enterprise apps.
That said crappy programmers can destroy a good design just like a bad design can't be coded around.
It's akin to designing a sky scraper and getting a bunch of 15th century hut builders to construct it.
Designers are imperative but capable programmers are very important as well.
The real question is when do you hit a point of diminishing returns for a more expert programmer.
To continue the building metaphor you don't need skyscraper builders to build a hut but you'd better not try to build a skyscraper with hut builders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</id>
	<title>Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245265740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Programmers are a dime a dozen. That ain't nothing but ten-cent coding.</p><p>Designers, though, are the core of any game. They are the ones who shape and craft the game, much like I.M. Pei designs masterful works of architecture. The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality. Both are skilled and necessary, but construction workers without an architect aren't going to build anything of great value.</p><p>That's why Lua is such a great teaching language, and why I think this book does really well. The focus is on the design of the games first and foremost. What are the gamer's needs? What are the goals and subgoals for each level? That's the most important thing. And Lua is a great language to help bring those designs into reality.</p><p>Yes, coding is necessary, and this book has plenty of code. But if you are serious about creating a game, it's the design that matters, the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programmers are a dime a dozen .
That ai n't nothing but ten-cent coding.Designers , though , are the core of any game .
They are the ones who shape and craft the game , much like I.M .
Pei designs masterful works of architecture .
The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality .
Both are skilled and necessary , but construction workers without an architect are n't going to build anything of great value.That 's why Lua is such a great teaching language , and why I think this book does really well .
The focus is on the design of the games first and foremost .
What are the gamer 's needs ?
What are the goals and subgoals for each level ?
That 's the most important thing .
And Lua is a great language to help bring those designs into reality.Yes , coding is necessary , and this book has plenty of code .
But if you are serious about creating a game , it 's the design that matters , the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programmers are a dime a dozen.
That ain't nothing but ten-cent coding.Designers, though, are the core of any game.
They are the ones who shape and craft the game, much like I.M.
Pei designs masterful works of architecture.
The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality.
Both are skilled and necessary, but construction workers without an architect aren't going to build anything of great value.That's why Lua is such a great teaching language, and why I think this book does really well.
The focus is on the design of the games first and foremost.
What are the gamer's needs?
What are the goals and subgoals for each level?
That's the most important thing.
And Lua is a great language to help bring those designs into reality.Yes, coding is necessary, and this book has plenty of code.
But if you are serious about creating a game, it's the design that matters, the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365627</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should make 2 games</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1245229920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2D sword-and-sorcery type RPGs are easy to make and fun. You get to apply the pythagorean theorem (distance calculations), trigonometry (calculating which angle the enemies face), AI (following, going around corners), and all the basic game making concepts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2D sword-and-sorcery type RPGs are easy to make and fun .
You get to apply the pythagorean theorem ( distance calculations ) , trigonometry ( calculating which angle the enemies face ) , AI ( following , going around corners ) , and all the basic game making concepts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2D sword-and-sorcery type RPGs are easy to make and fun.
You get to apply the pythagorean theorem (distance calculations), trigonometry (calculating which angle the enemies face), AI (following, going around corners), and all the basic game making concepts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364759</id>
	<title>Re:I never RTFB!</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1245269040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>tl;dr</htmltext>
<tokenext>tl ; dr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tl;dr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364881</id>
	<title>Re:In my work, I disagree</title>
	<author>Mipoti Gusundar</author>
	<datestamp>1245269580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They tried to teach us that programmers have a responsibility to review the specs and mention anything that did not make sense !<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div></blockquote><p>I most respectuly disagree.  Not only is jolly rude to question dobuts about spec, but is also causing costs to be overruninng.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They tried to teach us that programmers have a responsibility to review the specs and mention anything that did not make sense !
; - ) I most respectuly disagree .
Not only is jolly rude to question dobuts about spec , but is also causing costs to be overruninng .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tried to teach us that programmers have a responsibility to review the specs and mention anything that did not make sense !
;-)I most respectuly disagree.
Not only is jolly rude to question dobuts about spec, but is also causing costs to be overruninng.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364749</id>
	<title>Re:In my work, I disagree</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1245268980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In my work as a programmer, I often have to fill in huge gaps left by the designers, and the designers usually only get the best ideas after they have seen what the engine can do."</p><p>But this is more about technology getting in the way of the design and the fact that game design itself is comparitively young, compared to say  architecture.</p><p>I agree that understanding programming and coding definitely helps a game designer, no doubt about it.  The same way that understanding coding and shaders helps artists.</p><p>The thing people don't recognize is that the IDEAL designer has slogged through the trenches and gets an idea of what is feasable and what is not.  This is why a lot of the greatest designers were programmers (Will Wright, Sid Meier, John carmack).</p><p>Building games is about solving mathematical problems and understanding the underlying the underlying guts of what goes into a game, but also it's also about knowing what is fun versus what isn't.</p><p>Much of the "fun" in a game comes from tweaking game mechanics things like animation times to make sure everything feels right and whatnot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In my work as a programmer , I often have to fill in huge gaps left by the designers , and the designers usually only get the best ideas after they have seen what the engine can do .
" But this is more about technology getting in the way of the design and the fact that game design itself is comparitively young , compared to say architecture.I agree that understanding programming and coding definitely helps a game designer , no doubt about it .
The same way that understanding coding and shaders helps artists.The thing people do n't recognize is that the IDEAL designer has slogged through the trenches and gets an idea of what is feasable and what is not .
This is why a lot of the greatest designers were programmers ( Will Wright , Sid Meier , John carmack ) .Building games is about solving mathematical problems and understanding the underlying the underlying guts of what goes into a game , but also it 's also about knowing what is fun versus what is n't.Much of the " fun " in a game comes from tweaking game mechanics things like animation times to make sure everything feels right and whatnot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In my work as a programmer, I often have to fill in huge gaps left by the designers, and the designers usually only get the best ideas after they have seen what the engine can do.
"But this is more about technology getting in the way of the design and the fact that game design itself is comparitively young, compared to say  architecture.I agree that understanding programming and coding definitely helps a game designer, no doubt about it.
The same way that understanding coding and shaders helps artists.The thing people don't recognize is that the IDEAL designer has slogged through the trenches and gets an idea of what is feasable and what is not.
This is why a lot of the greatest designers were programmers (Will Wright, Sid Meier, John carmack).Building games is about solving mathematical problems and understanding the underlying the underlying guts of what goes into a game, but also it's also about knowing what is fun versus what isn't.Much of the "fun" in a game comes from tweaking game mechanics things like animation times to make sure everything feels right and whatnot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364671</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>UnknownSoldier</author>
	<datestamp>1245268560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Programmers are a dime a dozen. That ain't nothing but ten-cent coding.</p><p>Oh please. Ideas are dime a dozen too. Your great idea means jack shit if it isn't implemented.</p><p>\_Great\_ Programmers, and \_Great\_ Designers, are much, much rarer.</p><p>I'm not sure how many years of game programming you have (sounds like you don't have much), but you are ignoring important pieces of game development:</p><p>* An architect who is illiterate of the materials used to build the building, will spec something that can't be built.  Designers tend to ignore run-time costs because they don't understand the technical reasons why you can't implement their "grand idea."  Good AI is not computational cheap.</p><p>* Often times, design "hand waves" how systems will work, because they can't be bothered with the actual nitty-gritty details. The devil is in the (implementation) details.</p><p>* More and more game designers are doing programming via scripting.  Designers for the most part, are clueless about writing \_good\_ code (due to inexperience), and heaven help the programmer who has to debug their scripts.  In the ideal world a designer would work \_together\_ with a programmer so that BOTH may learn each other's craft.</p><p>&gt; the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.</p><p>Uhm, no.</p><p>Some things look great on paper, but in practice, are bad ideas.</p><p>Sometimes a great execution, will make an OK idea, be good !</p><p>I would seriously consider learning more about design and programming before spouting off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Programmers are a dime a dozen .
That ai n't nothing but ten-cent coding.Oh please .
Ideas are dime a dozen too .
Your great idea means jack shit if it is n't implemented. \ _Great \ _ Programmers , and \ _Great \ _ Designers , are much , much rarer.I 'm not sure how many years of game programming you have ( sounds like you do n't have much ) , but you are ignoring important pieces of game development : * An architect who is illiterate of the materials used to build the building , will spec something that ca n't be built .
Designers tend to ignore run-time costs because they do n't understand the technical reasons why you ca n't implement their " grand idea .
" Good AI is not computational cheap .
* Often times , design " hand waves " how systems will work , because they ca n't be bothered with the actual nitty-gritty details .
The devil is in the ( implementation ) details .
* More and more game designers are doing programming via scripting .
Designers for the most part , are clueless about writing \ _good \ _ code ( due to inexperience ) , and heaven help the programmer who has to debug their scripts .
In the ideal world a designer would work \ _together \ _ with a programmer so that BOTH may learn each other 's craft. &gt; the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.Uhm , no.Some things look great on paper , but in practice , are bad ideas.Sometimes a great execution , will make an OK idea , be good ! I would seriously consider learning more about design and programming before spouting off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Programmers are a dime a dozen.
That ain't nothing but ten-cent coding.Oh please.
Ideas are dime a dozen too.
Your great idea means jack shit if it isn't implemented.\_Great\_ Programmers, and \_Great\_ Designers, are much, much rarer.I'm not sure how many years of game programming you have (sounds like you don't have much), but you are ignoring important pieces of game development:* An architect who is illiterate of the materials used to build the building, will spec something that can't be built.
Designers tend to ignore run-time costs because they don't understand the technical reasons why you can't implement their "grand idea.
"  Good AI is not computational cheap.
* Often times, design "hand waves" how systems will work, because they can't be bothered with the actual nitty-gritty details.
The devil is in the (implementation) details.
* More and more game designers are doing programming via scripting.
Designers for the most part, are clueless about writing \_good\_ code (due to inexperience), and heaven help the programmer who has to debug their scripts.
In the ideal world a designer would work \_together\_ with a programmer so that BOTH may learn each other's craft.&gt; the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.Uhm, no.Some things look great on paper, but in practice, are bad ideas.Sometimes a great execution, will make an OK idea, be good !I would seriously consider learning more about design and programming before spouting off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28367315</id>
	<title>Re:When is scripting really necessary?</title>
	<author>am 2k</author>
	<datestamp>1245238560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In more complex games, scripting can have the additional advantage that you don't need to recompile (or with good engines, even restart) the game when changing the script. That can be a huge timesaver.</p><p>Additionally, you can get in-game console parsing/execution (think Quake3) for free when you integrate your scripting engine with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In more complex games , scripting can have the additional advantage that you do n't need to recompile ( or with good engines , even restart ) the game when changing the script .
That can be a huge timesaver.Additionally , you can get in-game console parsing/execution ( think Quake3 ) for free when you integrate your scripting engine with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In more complex games, scripting can have the additional advantage that you don't need to recompile (or with good engines, even restart) the game when changing the script.
That can be a huge timesaver.Additionally, you can get in-game console parsing/execution (think Quake3) for free when you integrate your scripting engine with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366485</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1245234120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I very much agree. Seems to me that one reason game developers integrate LUA is because game designers are at least as big hacks as the developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I very much agree .
Seems to me that one reason game developers integrate LUA is because game designers are at least as big hacks as the developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I very much agree.
Seems to me that one reason game developers integrate LUA is because game designers are at least as big hacks as the developers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28373397</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>EnglishTim</author>
	<datestamp>1245337200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What an apt username.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What an apt username .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What an apt username.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28373797</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245339060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, coding is necessary, and this book has plenty of code. But if you are serious about creating a game, it's the design that matters, the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.</p></div><p>Yeah, you keep believing that....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , coding is necessary , and this book has plenty of code .
But if you are serious about creating a game , it 's the design that matters , the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.Yeah , you keep believing that... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, coding is necessary, and this book has plenty of code.
But if you are serious about creating a game, it's the design that matters, the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.Yeah, you keep believing that....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364079</id>
	<title>Protip: Don't design games on or for Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245265680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux just isn't ready for the game designer yet. It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to get their 3d modeling software working, especially not when they already have a Windows machine with Maya 3.0 that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere. The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux just is n't ready for the game designer yet .
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web , but the average computer user is n't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to get their 3d modeling software working , especially not when they already have a Windows machine with Maya 3.0 that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation , as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother 's basement somewhere .
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf ( haha ) providing me my OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux just isn't ready for the game designer yet.
It may be ready for the web servers that you nerds use to distribute your TRON fanzines and personal Dungeons and Dragons web-sights across the world wide web, but the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to get their 3d modeling software working, especially not when they already have a Windows machine with Maya 3.0 that does its job perfectly well and is backed by a major corporation, as opposed to Linux which is only supported by a few unemployed nerds living in their mother's basement somewhere.
The last thing I want is a level 5 dwarf (haha) providing me my OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364275</id>
	<title>Atom the smallest unit?</title>
	<author>halcyonandon1</author>
	<datestamp>1245266880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why the author calls the foundational elements of game design atoms...

I mean.. logically, an atom in this context would imply the simplest, well-formed concepts of game design that cannot be broken down any further.

Concepts like "UI, inventory, power-ups, puzzles, conflicts" are generally abstract and can most certainly be broken down or interpreted differently.  So, if the author needs a catchy buzzword label to define the content elements of his book... why choose a word that has scientific, logical and mathematical meaning?  Meaning that conflicts with the intended meaning this label is supposed to define.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why the author calls the foundational elements of game design atoms.. . I mean.. logically , an atom in this context would imply the simplest , well-formed concepts of game design that can not be broken down any further .
Concepts like " UI , inventory , power-ups , puzzles , conflicts " are generally abstract and can most certainly be broken down or interpreted differently .
So , if the author needs a catchy buzzword label to define the content elements of his book... why choose a word that has scientific , logical and mathematical meaning ?
Meaning that conflicts with the intended meaning this label is supposed to define .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why the author calls the foundational elements of game design atoms...

I mean.. logically, an atom in this context would imply the simplest, well-formed concepts of game design that cannot be broken down any further.
Concepts like "UI, inventory, power-ups, puzzles, conflicts" are generally abstract and can most certainly be broken down or interpreted differently.
So, if the author needs a catchy buzzword label to define the content elements of his book... why choose a word that has scientific, logical and mathematical meaning?
Meaning that conflicts with the intended meaning this label is supposed to define.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28379999</id>
	<title>Yeah, books have sell by dates.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245317220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think "the Origin of Species", "Pincipia Mathematica" and such other ugly old books are already rotten and stink to high heavens....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think " the Origin of Species " , " Pincipia Mathematica " and such other ugly old books are already rotten and stink to high heavens... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think "the Origin of Species", "Pincipia Mathematica" and such other ugly old books are already rotten and stink to high heavens....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28368221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366131</id>
	<title>Re:I never RTFB!</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1245232560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>;-)</i></p><p>I'm glad to see you're so happy. Is it because the book review sounded particularly good or interesting? I didn't bother to read your post so I'm not sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>; - ) I 'm glad to see you 're so happy .
Is it because the book review sounded particularly good or interesting ?
I did n't bother to read your post so I 'm not sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>;-)I'm glad to see you're so happy.
Is it because the book review sounded particularly good or interesting?
I didn't bother to read your post so I'm not sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28368409</id>
	<title>Re:In my work, I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245247440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.</p><p>First of all, breaks in an aircraft are the same regardless of whether it's fly-by-wire or not. Second, you seem to believe that fly-by-wire means controlled by computer. It doesn't. It means that the controls are electronic (unlike hydraulic). The Concorde, for instance, was analog fly-by-wire.</p><p>What you probably refer to is how the precautions Airbus implemented after Lauda Air 004 backfired slightly. One engine in that Boeing 767 deployed reverse thrust mid-flight and consequently the aircraft disintegrated completely. Airbus took a number of measures to make sure it wouldn't happen to their aircraft and consequently made autobreaks more "careful". As a consequence, one A340 overshot a runway since the pilot made a rough landing, which damaged the sensors so that they didn't register that the aircraft was on the ground. Once the pilots realized that the aicraft wasn't automatically breaking, they obviously applied maximum breaking power manually but it was too late.</p><p>Now, if you cannot completely prevent failures, it's better to have them fail like that since first of all, overshooting a runway doesn't usually result in fatalities (and not necessarily even a hull-loss) and second, pilots should be alert enough to manually apply breaks, if the automation doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit.First of all , breaks in an aircraft are the same regardless of whether it 's fly-by-wire or not .
Second , you seem to believe that fly-by-wire means controlled by computer .
It does n't .
It means that the controls are electronic ( unlike hydraulic ) .
The Concorde , for instance , was analog fly-by-wire.What you probably refer to is how the precautions Airbus implemented after Lauda Air 004 backfired slightly .
One engine in that Boeing 767 deployed reverse thrust mid-flight and consequently the aircraft disintegrated completely .
Airbus took a number of measures to make sure it would n't happen to their aircraft and consequently made autobreaks more " careful " .
As a consequence , one A340 overshot a runway since the pilot made a rough landing , which damaged the sensors so that they did n't register that the aircraft was on the ground .
Once the pilots realized that the aicraft was n't automatically breaking , they obviously applied maximum breaking power manually but it was too late.Now , if you can not completely prevent failures , it 's better to have them fail like that since first of all , overshooting a runway does n't usually result in fatalities ( and not necessarily even a hull-loss ) and second , pilots should be alert enough to manually apply breaks , if the automation does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.First of all, breaks in an aircraft are the same regardless of whether it's fly-by-wire or not.
Second, you seem to believe that fly-by-wire means controlled by computer.
It doesn't.
It means that the controls are electronic (unlike hydraulic).
The Concorde, for instance, was analog fly-by-wire.What you probably refer to is how the precautions Airbus implemented after Lauda Air 004 backfired slightly.
One engine in that Boeing 767 deployed reverse thrust mid-flight and consequently the aircraft disintegrated completely.
Airbus took a number of measures to make sure it wouldn't happen to their aircraft and consequently made autobreaks more "careful".
As a consequence, one A340 overshot a runway since the pilot made a rough landing, which damaged the sensors so that they didn't register that the aircraft was on the ground.
Once the pilots realized that the aicraft wasn't automatically breaking, they obviously applied maximum breaking power manually but it was too late.Now, if you cannot completely prevent failures, it's better to have them fail like that since first of all, overshooting a runway doesn't usually result in fatalities (and not necessarily even a hull-loss) and second, pilots should be alert enough to manually apply breaks, if the automation doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365199</id>
	<title>Re:In my work, I disagree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245270960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There are no programming errors, only bad requirements."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There are no programming errors , only bad requirements .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There are no programming errors, only bad requirements.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28371729</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245325800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no basis for your analogy. It's just as reasonable to say that the programmer is the architect (the one who puts together the intellectual property), and the builder is analogous to the guy copying discs...</p><p>Meanwhile, the designer is the person who tells the architect what he wants, but doesn't actually implement it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no basis for your analogy .
It 's just as reasonable to say that the programmer is the architect ( the one who puts together the intellectual property ) , and the builder is analogous to the guy copying discs...Meanwhile , the designer is the person who tells the architect what he wants , but does n't actually implement it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no basis for your analogy.
It's just as reasonable to say that the programmer is the architect (the one who puts together the intellectual property), and the builder is analogous to the guy copying discs...Meanwhile, the designer is the person who tells the architect what he wants, but doesn't actually implement it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28367029</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245236760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can tell you haven't worked with any <i>good</i> programmers, and have spent far too much time talking to starry-eyed kids full of ideas, and no practical way to implement them.</p><p>Show a little love for the programmers.  They are the engineers and the brain surgeons of game development.</p><p>Incidentally, I work as an artist in the game industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can tell you have n't worked with any good programmers , and have spent far too much time talking to starry-eyed kids full of ideas , and no practical way to implement them.Show a little love for the programmers .
They are the engineers and the brain surgeons of game development.Incidentally , I work as an artist in the game industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can tell you haven't worked with any good programmers, and have spent far too much time talking to starry-eyed kids full of ideas, and no practical way to implement them.Show a little love for the programmers.
They are the engineers and the brain surgeons of game development.Incidentally, I work as an artist in the game industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365275</id>
	<title>When is scripting really necessary?</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1245271320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think in many cases, embedding a scripting engine is overkill. The only scenarios I can think of where it's advantageous are:</p><p>- If your bots/NPC behavior is sophisticated enough that they need their own programs that run concurrently as mini-virtual machines.<br>- If your game accepts user generated content, and a simple scripting language becomes an end user feature.<br>- If your team indeed is really big and you have non-programmers designing game logic.</p><p>I'm sure there are more, but for more than one project I've worked on, I ended up abandoning scripting altogether because it just wasn't worth the complexity or performance hit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think in many cases , embedding a scripting engine is overkill .
The only scenarios I can think of where it 's advantageous are : - If your bots/NPC behavior is sophisticated enough that they need their own programs that run concurrently as mini-virtual machines.- If your game accepts user generated content , and a simple scripting language becomes an end user feature.- If your team indeed is really big and you have non-programmers designing game logic.I 'm sure there are more , but for more than one project I 've worked on , I ended up abandoning scripting altogether because it just was n't worth the complexity or performance hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think in many cases, embedding a scripting engine is overkill.
The only scenarios I can think of where it's advantageous are:- If your bots/NPC behavior is sophisticated enough that they need their own programs that run concurrently as mini-virtual machines.- If your game accepts user generated content, and a simple scripting language becomes an end user feature.- If your team indeed is really big and you have non-programmers designing game logic.I'm sure there are more, but for more than one project I've worked on, I ended up abandoning scripting altogether because it just wasn't worth the complexity or performance hit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366847</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should make 2 games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245235980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're using collision detection (even 2D) to make a Tetris clone work, you're doing it completely wrong. Maybe you were thinking of Space Invaders?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're using collision detection ( even 2D ) to make a Tetris clone work , you 're doing it completely wrong .
Maybe you were thinking of Space Invaders ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're using collision detection (even 2D) to make a Tetris clone work, you're doing it completely wrong.
Maybe you were thinking of Space Invaders?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365857</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should make 2 games</title>
	<author>Quirkz</author>
	<datestamp>1245231060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bah, I just stick to browser/text based. Without the need for fancy animation, I'm the writer, programmer, AND creative developer. It's a niche market, as I rely on players who enjoy good writing and a witty joke more than eye candy, and who can appreciate the rewards of a classic RPG over action, but then you don't need to know much more than HTML, a little programming, and enough to tie some stuff to a database.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah , I just stick to browser/text based .
Without the need for fancy animation , I 'm the writer , programmer , AND creative developer .
It 's a niche market , as I rely on players who enjoy good writing and a witty joke more than eye candy , and who can appreciate the rewards of a classic RPG over action , but then you do n't need to know much more than HTML , a little programming , and enough to tie some stuff to a database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah, I just stick to browser/text based.
Without the need for fancy animation, I'm the writer, programmer, AND creative developer.
It's a niche market, as I rely on players who enjoy good writing and a witty joke more than eye candy, and who can appreciate the rewards of a classic RPG over action, but then you don't need to know much more than HTML, a little programming, and enough to tie some stuff to a database.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28371719</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245325680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree. Judging by forums like GameDev, programmers are most in demand, then artists, and then least of all, designers. There's no end of wannabe designers who are "I've got a great idea for my game! Now can someone please write it for me?" Posts that say "I'm a programmer looking for someone to design me something" are unheard of.</p><p>Now sure, you might say the problem is that these people aren't any good, but you could make the same comment about programmers - that skilled programmers are rare just as skilled designers are.</p><p>Design and programming often go hand in hand - often you won't know if ideas are viable unless you've prototyped it. And even if someone else is doing the coding, you still need an understanding of programming yourself in order to know what is feasible, and how best to approach something.</p><p>Yes, good design is important, but don't make the mistake of talking about designers and programmers as if they are separate beasts. Non-programming designers are just the endless number of people who think they have a great "idea".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
Judging by forums like GameDev , programmers are most in demand , then artists , and then least of all , designers .
There 's no end of wannabe designers who are " I 've got a great idea for my game !
Now can someone please write it for me ?
" Posts that say " I 'm a programmer looking for someone to design me something " are unheard of.Now sure , you might say the problem is that these people are n't any good , but you could make the same comment about programmers - that skilled programmers are rare just as skilled designers are.Design and programming often go hand in hand - often you wo n't know if ideas are viable unless you 've prototyped it .
And even if someone else is doing the coding , you still need an understanding of programming yourself in order to know what is feasible , and how best to approach something.Yes , good design is important , but do n't make the mistake of talking about designers and programmers as if they are separate beasts .
Non-programming designers are just the endless number of people who think they have a great " idea " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
Judging by forums like GameDev, programmers are most in demand, then artists, and then least of all, designers.
There's no end of wannabe designers who are "I've got a great idea for my game!
Now can someone please write it for me?
" Posts that say "I'm a programmer looking for someone to design me something" are unheard of.Now sure, you might say the problem is that these people aren't any good, but you could make the same comment about programmers - that skilled programmers are rare just as skilled designers are.Design and programming often go hand in hand - often you won't know if ideas are viable unless you've prototyped it.
And even if someone else is doing the coding, you still need an understanding of programming yourself in order to know what is feasible, and how best to approach something.Yes, good design is important, but don't make the mistake of talking about designers and programmers as if they are separate beasts.
Non-programming designers are just the endless number of people who think they have a great "idea".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364979</id>
	<title>Article layout</title>
	<author>johannesg</author>
	<datestamp>1245270000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's with the weird </p><p><div class="quote"><p>layout</p></div><p> of the article?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's with the weird layout of the article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's with the weird layout of the article?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364373</id>
	<title>In my work, I disagree</title>
	<author>roguegramma</author>
	<datestamp>1245267420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my work as a programmer, I often have to fill in huge gaps left by the designers, and the designers usually only get the best ideas after they have seen what the engine can do.</p><p>Also, the specification of the average designer is so vague in terms of programming, e.g. "I want the program to be smarter than the user" that it is worthless.</p><p>Because of this any fulltime designer is usually in the top 5\% of his craft, while a fulltime programmer still can be useful if he isn't in the top 5\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my work as a programmer , I often have to fill in huge gaps left by the designers , and the designers usually only get the best ideas after they have seen what the engine can do.Also , the specification of the average designer is so vague in terms of programming , e.g .
" I want the program to be smarter than the user " that it is worthless.Because of this any fulltime designer is usually in the top 5 \ % of his craft , while a fulltime programmer still can be useful if he is n't in the top 5 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my work as a programmer, I often have to fill in huge gaps left by the designers, and the designers usually only get the best ideas after they have seen what the engine can do.Also, the specification of the average designer is so vague in terms of programming, e.g.
"I want the program to be smarter than the user" that it is worthless.Because of this any fulltime designer is usually in the top 5\% of his craft, while a fulltime programmer still can be useful if he isn't in the top 5\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28375537</id>
	<title>Sure...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245346140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but what about calculus they required for comp-sci when there were no interesting game-related courses?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but what about calculus they required for comp-sci when there were no interesting game-related courses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but what about calculus they required for comp-sci when there were no interesting game-related courses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366421</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>caywen</author>
	<datestamp>1245233820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that seriously understates the importance of the actual brains behind making something a reality. You can make this same point without denigrating the very people who actually wrote LUA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that seriously understates the importance of the actual brains behind making something a reality .
You can make this same point without denigrating the very people who actually wrote LUA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that seriously understates the importance of the actual brains behind making something a reality.
You can make this same point without denigrating the very people who actually wrote LUA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366437</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>Dutch Gun</author>
	<datestamp>1245233880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Programmers are a dime a dozen. That ain't nothing but ten-cent coding.</p></div><p>I feel a bit silly responding to obvious flamebait, but it's been modded insightful for some bizarre reason.  As a professional game programmer, I feel the need to respond.  A *professional* game developer understands and appreciates the values of his co-workers in ALL disciplines.  There's no room for some stupid 'us' vs. 'them' mentality.  I'm fortunate to work with some brilliant artists and designers.  We programmers produce not only the game code, but also internal tools that are essentially "force multipliers" for them.  In return, they use our code and tools and produce cool and amazing things we would never have thought of.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They are the ones who shape and craft the game, much like I.M. Pei designs masterful works of architecture. The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality. Both are skilled and necessary, but construction workers without an architect aren't going to build anything of great value.</p></div><p>This is Slashdot.  You need a car analogy.</p><p>You're claiming the steering wheel (designer) is the most important part of the car, because without it, we couldn't control the car (direct the game development).  But there are so many vital systems to the car - removing any one of these components makes the car useless, so it's silly to argue which one is 'most important'.  What good is the car without wheels?  Without an engine?  Or brakes, or a body?  Even the more minor roles (headlights and tail lights) are critical for specific circumstances.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, coding is necessary, and this book has plenty of code. But if you are serious about creating a game, it's the design that matters, the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.</p></div><p>I wish you well with that approach.  Unless you take ALL aspects of game development seriously, you're doomed to failure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Programmers are a dime a dozen .
That ai n't nothing but ten-cent coding.I feel a bit silly responding to obvious flamebait , but it 's been modded insightful for some bizarre reason .
As a professional game programmer , I feel the need to respond .
A * professional * game developer understands and appreciates the values of his co-workers in ALL disciplines .
There 's no room for some stupid 'us ' vs. 'them ' mentality .
I 'm fortunate to work with some brilliant artists and designers .
We programmers produce not only the game code , but also internal tools that are essentially " force multipliers " for them .
In return , they use our code and tools and produce cool and amazing things we would never have thought of.They are the ones who shape and craft the game , much like I.M .
Pei designs masterful works of architecture .
The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality .
Both are skilled and necessary , but construction workers without an architect are n't going to build anything of great value.This is Slashdot .
You need a car analogy.You 're claiming the steering wheel ( designer ) is the most important part of the car , because without it , we could n't control the car ( direct the game development ) .
But there are so many vital systems to the car - removing any one of these components makes the car useless , so it 's silly to argue which one is 'most important' .
What good is the car without wheels ?
Without an engine ?
Or brakes , or a body ?
Even the more minor roles ( headlights and tail lights ) are critical for specific circumstances.Yes , coding is necessary , and this book has plenty of code .
But if you are serious about creating a game , it 's the design that matters , the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.I wish you well with that approach .
Unless you take ALL aspects of game development seriously , you 're doomed to failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programmers are a dime a dozen.
That ain't nothing but ten-cent coding.I feel a bit silly responding to obvious flamebait, but it's been modded insightful for some bizarre reason.
As a professional game programmer, I feel the need to respond.
A *professional* game developer understands and appreciates the values of his co-workers in ALL disciplines.
There's no room for some stupid 'us' vs. 'them' mentality.
I'm fortunate to work with some brilliant artists and designers.
We programmers produce not only the game code, but also internal tools that are essentially "force multipliers" for them.
In return, they use our code and tools and produce cool and amazing things we would never have thought of.They are the ones who shape and craft the game, much like I.M.
Pei designs masterful works of architecture.
The programmers are just the construction workers who make the design a reality.
Both are skilled and necessary, but construction workers without an architect aren't going to build anything of great value.This is Slashdot.
You need a car analogy.You're claiming the steering wheel (designer) is the most important part of the car, because without it, we couldn't control the car (direct the game development).
But there are so many vital systems to the car - removing any one of these components makes the car useless, so it's silly to argue which one is 'most important'.
What good is the car without wheels?
Without an engine?
Or brakes, or a body?
Even the more minor roles (headlights and tail lights) are critical for specific circumstances.Yes, coding is necessary, and this book has plenty of code.
But if you are serious about creating a game, it's the design that matters, the implementation can be farmed off to any body shop.I wish you well with that approach.
Unless you take ALL aspects of game development seriously, you're doomed to failure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364065</id>
	<title>I never RTFB!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245265620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(...) may find themselves skipping over swaths of text instead of actually reading it.</p></div><p>

It should appeal a lot to slashdotters then<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( ... ) may find themselves skipping over swaths of text instead of actually reading it .
It should appeal a lot to slashdotters then ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(...) may find themselves skipping over swaths of text instead of actually reading it.
It should appeal a lot to slashdotters then ;-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28376391</id>
	<title>Game Design vs. Game Theory</title>
	<author>PegamooseG</author>
	<datestamp>1245349260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Might be an interesting read.  I may not be as interested in the programming side, but I might find some of the other topics to be beneficial.
</p><p>Can anyone suggest a good book covering Game Theory?  I'm looking for something that can provide me with a better grasp of the mathematics of establishing challenges in a game.  Ex.  Suppose there is a board game with pile of cards to draw from (like Monopoly).  The deck has positive and negative game factors.  What is the probability Negative should show up over Positive to make the game challenging enough, but not too challenging?  And, at what strength do these factors makes the game too easy/difficult?  And, how often should the cards be drawn?
</p><p>But, I'm not just interested in this for board games.  I'm interested in this for computer games, too.  For RPGs, how does one adequately scale NPCs the players' progression?  How often should encounters happen?  How much and how often should the player be rewarded?  Etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Might be an interesting read .
I may not be as interested in the programming side , but I might find some of the other topics to be beneficial .
Can anyone suggest a good book covering Game Theory ?
I 'm looking for something that can provide me with a better grasp of the mathematics of establishing challenges in a game .
Ex. Suppose there is a board game with pile of cards to draw from ( like Monopoly ) .
The deck has positive and negative game factors .
What is the probability Negative should show up over Positive to make the game challenging enough , but not too challenging ?
And , at what strength do these factors makes the game too easy/difficult ?
And , how often should the cards be drawn ?
But , I 'm not just interested in this for board games .
I 'm interested in this for computer games , too .
For RPGs , how does one adequately scale NPCs the players ' progression ?
How often should encounters happen ?
How much and how often should the player be rewarded ?
Etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Might be an interesting read.
I may not be as interested in the programming side, but I might find some of the other topics to be beneficial.
Can anyone suggest a good book covering Game Theory?
I'm looking for something that can provide me with a better grasp of the mathematics of establishing challenges in a game.
Ex.  Suppose there is a board game with pile of cards to draw from (like Monopoly).
The deck has positive and negative game factors.
What is the probability Negative should show up over Positive to make the game challenging enough, but not too challenging?
And, at what strength do these factors makes the game too easy/difficult?
And, how often should the cards be drawn?
But, I'm not just interested in this for board games.
I'm interested in this for computer games, too.
For RPGs, how does one adequately scale NPCs the players' progression?
How often should encounters happen?
How much and how often should the player be rewarded?
Etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28372537</id>
	<title>Re:Everyone should make 2 games</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1245333180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True everyone should also have to take a crack at path finding at least once. That and the Travelling Salesman algo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True everyone should also have to take a crack at path finding at least once .
That and the Travelling Salesman algo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True everyone should also have to take a crack at path finding at least once.
That and the Travelling Salesman algo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365627</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366651</id>
	<title>Re:Why there is so much emphasis on design</title>
	<author>whiplashx</author>
	<datestamp>1245234960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you work in the games industry?! That's a really weird interpretation of "design." (I work at a AAA game studio, by the way)</p><p>There are so many ways I want to go on this one:</p><p>1) That's a really naive interpretation. If you're going to use an architecture analogy, you can't compare the programmers to construction workers. Level designers and combat designers are the construction workers. Do you even know what a civil engineer does? System designers and Programmers are more like that. The Lead Designer is more like an architect, and he wouldn't have a clue what was possible if it weren't for the Lead Programmer or tech director.</p><p>2) DAIKATANA.</p><p>3) Programmers make way more money than the average designer (check salary surveys), because it takes years of training to even go near games. There are high and low level designers, and the majority of design are low level and make less.</p><p>4) Do you realize that the majority of man-hours of grunt work are spent on tech design, level design, and combat design?</p><p>That's like saying "Racecar drivers are the core of racing. Engineers are a dime a dozen." Or "Screenwriters are the core of film. Directors are a dime a dozen." You think programmers just sit there building things that other people told them to? That's so incredibly misinformed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you work in the games industry ? !
That 's a really weird interpretation of " design .
" ( I work at a AAA game studio , by the way ) There are so many ways I want to go on this one : 1 ) That 's a really naive interpretation .
If you 're going to use an architecture analogy , you ca n't compare the programmers to construction workers .
Level designers and combat designers are the construction workers .
Do you even know what a civil engineer does ?
System designers and Programmers are more like that .
The Lead Designer is more like an architect , and he would n't have a clue what was possible if it were n't for the Lead Programmer or tech director.2 ) DAIKATANA.3 ) Programmers make way more money than the average designer ( check salary surveys ) , because it takes years of training to even go near games .
There are high and low level designers , and the majority of design are low level and make less.4 ) Do you realize that the majority of man-hours of grunt work are spent on tech design , level design , and combat design ? That 's like saying " Racecar drivers are the core of racing .
Engineers are a dime a dozen .
" Or " Screenwriters are the core of film .
Directors are a dime a dozen .
" You think programmers just sit there building things that other people told them to ?
That 's so incredibly misinformed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you work in the games industry?!
That's a really weird interpretation of "design.
" (I work at a AAA game studio, by the way)There are so many ways I want to go on this one:1) That's a really naive interpretation.
If you're going to use an architecture analogy, you can't compare the programmers to construction workers.
Level designers and combat designers are the construction workers.
Do you even know what a civil engineer does?
System designers and Programmers are more like that.
The Lead Designer is more like an architect, and he wouldn't have a clue what was possible if it weren't for the Lead Programmer or tech director.2) DAIKATANA.3) Programmers make way more money than the average designer (check salary surveys), because it takes years of training to even go near games.
There are high and low level designers, and the majority of design are low level and make less.4) Do you realize that the majority of man-hours of grunt work are spent on tech design, level design, and combat design?That's like saying "Racecar drivers are the core of racing.
Engineers are a dime a dozen.
" Or "Screenwriters are the core of film.
Directors are a dime a dozen.
" You think programmers just sit there building things that other people told them to?
That's so incredibly misinformed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567</id>
	<title>Everyone should make 2 games</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1245268140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone taking programming should learn to program two specific games in the course of their curriculum:</p><p>TETRIS (Collision detection, input , output, real time game loop, sound, etc.. 2D collision)</p><p>Multiplayer FPS Clone (3D programming, basic modelling, networking, latency management, using established middleware, map design)</p><p>That will teach those kids that said, "When am I ever going to use Linear Algebra in real life!"</p><p>Whippersnappers...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone taking programming should learn to program two specific games in the course of their curriculum : TETRIS ( Collision detection , input , output , real time game loop , sound , etc.. 2D collision ) Multiplayer FPS Clone ( 3D programming , basic modelling , networking , latency management , using established middleware , map design ) That will teach those kids that said , " When am I ever going to use Linear Algebra in real life !
" Whippersnappers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone taking programming should learn to program two specific games in the course of their curriculum:TETRIS (Collision detection, input , output, real time game loop, sound, etc.. 2D collision)Multiplayer FPS Clone (3D programming, basic modelling, networking, latency management, using established middleware, map design)That will teach those kids that said, "When am I ever going to use Linear Algebra in real life!
"Whippersnappers...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28370815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28372329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28371719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28367315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28372537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28373797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366651
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28368409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28375537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28367029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28379999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28368221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28373397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28371729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364705
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_138258_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366367
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_138258.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28368221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28379999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_138258.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28367315
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_138258.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365627
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28372537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28370815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28372329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28375537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_138258.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364275
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_138258.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_138258.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_138258.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_138258.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_138258.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28371719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28371729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28367029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364641
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364881
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28368409
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28364749
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28365199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28373797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28366437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_138258.28373397
</commentlist>
</conversation>
