<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_27_0329207</id>
	<title>The State of Video Game Physics</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1246126200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Guardian's games blog convened a panel of engineers and other experts to talk about the current state of video game physics. A great deal of research is currently going on <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/jun/22/games-physics">to make better use of multiple cores</a> so that advanced physics tools and engines can take advantage of all the processing power available in modern computers. Many of those tools are being put to work these days to <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/jun/23/games-physics">find more realistic ways of breaking things</a>, and game developers are trying to wrap their heads around destructible environments. Mike Enoch, lead coder at Ruffian Games, said, "This idea of simulating interactions and constructing the game world similar to how you would construct the real world generates more emergent gameplay, where the game plays out in a unique way for each player, and the player can come up with solutions to problems that the designer might not have thought of." Another area that still sees a lot of attention is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/jun/23/games-physics1">making game characters more human</a>, in terms of moving and looking as realistic as possible, as well as <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/jun/25/games-gameculture">how a game's AI perceives what's happening</a>. "The problem is not necessarily in having the most advanced path-finding technique with large-scale awareness; we need to have more micro behaviors, with a proper physics awareness of the environment," said software engineer George Torres.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Guardian 's games blog convened a panel of engineers and other experts to talk about the current state of video game physics .
A great deal of research is currently going on to make better use of multiple cores so that advanced physics tools and engines can take advantage of all the processing power available in modern computers .
Many of those tools are being put to work these days to find more realistic ways of breaking things , and game developers are trying to wrap their heads around destructible environments .
Mike Enoch , lead coder at Ruffian Games , said , " This idea of simulating interactions and constructing the game world similar to how you would construct the real world generates more emergent gameplay , where the game plays out in a unique way for each player , and the player can come up with solutions to problems that the designer might not have thought of .
" Another area that still sees a lot of attention is making game characters more human , in terms of moving and looking as realistic as possible , as well as how a game 's AI perceives what 's happening .
" The problem is not necessarily in having the most advanced path-finding technique with large-scale awareness ; we need to have more micro behaviors , with a proper physics awareness of the environment , " said software engineer George Torres .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Guardian's games blog convened a panel of engineers and other experts to talk about the current state of video game physics.
A great deal of research is currently going on to make better use of multiple cores so that advanced physics tools and engines can take advantage of all the processing power available in modern computers.
Many of those tools are being put to work these days to find more realistic ways of breaking things, and game developers are trying to wrap their heads around destructible environments.
Mike Enoch, lead coder at Ruffian Games, said, "This idea of simulating interactions and constructing the game world similar to how you would construct the real world generates more emergent gameplay, where the game plays out in a unique way for each player, and the player can come up with solutions to problems that the designer might not have thought of.
" Another area that still sees a lot of attention is making game characters more human, in terms of moving and looking as realistic as possible, as well as how a game's AI perceives what's happening.
"The problem is not necessarily in having the most advanced path-finding technique with large-scale awareness; we need to have more micro behaviors, with a proper physics awareness of the environment," said software engineer George Torres.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28499887</id>
	<title>Re:The player is the biggest problem with destruct</title>
	<author>Shadow of Eternity</author>
	<datestamp>1246114500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose it depends on the game. If you went true realism in terms of destructive power players destroying buildings would very rarely be an issue even if they had grenades and RPGs. Without actual shaped charges and large quantities of high explosives it'd be difficult for someone to take out the average "Near-Future" reinforced structure of a game building.</p><p>But then you'd have people screaming over how unrealistic it is that one frag grenade doesn't blow a 5 foot pit in the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose it depends on the game .
If you went true realism in terms of destructive power players destroying buildings would very rarely be an issue even if they had grenades and RPGs .
Without actual shaped charges and large quantities of high explosives it 'd be difficult for someone to take out the average " Near-Future " reinforced structure of a game building.But then you 'd have people screaming over how unrealistic it is that one frag grenade does n't blow a 5 foot pit in the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose it depends on the game.
If you went true realism in terms of destructive power players destroying buildings would very rarely be an issue even if they had grenades and RPGs.
Without actual shaped charges and large quantities of high explosives it'd be difficult for someone to take out the average "Near-Future" reinforced structure of a game building.But then you'd have people screaming over how unrealistic it is that one frag grenade doesn't blow a 5 foot pit in the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493007</id>
	<title>Am I the only one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246096320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one that is tired of all these epeen graphics and physics that make any machine that costs less than a grand run like a slideshow while the AI makes Forest Gump look like a genius? I swear the AI was better 5 years ago than it is now.</p><p>I picked up MoH:Airborne in the 10th anniversary pack and by the second level it was just sad how fricking awful the AI was. Sure the game looked nice and all, but when you have Nazis lining up to hide behind the EXACT SAME COVER that you have already piled corpses by like fricking firewood, I mean come on now. And if you crank the difficulty on high in the new games all it does is give you EA style cheating where you can be in the perfect cover and everybody knows exactly where you are, or you get a green ass grunt that can snipe you from a half mile away with a crappy bolt action without even an optic scope, meanwhile you pound bullet after bullet into them and they act like they are the Terminator.</p><p>So if any game designers are reading this, enough with the epeen graphics and physics already. They graphics and physics were good five years ago. Nobody cares if in the heat of battle every stick falls correctly when you blow a building up, but they sure as hell notice when the bad guys just tiptoe through the tulips while walking through a killing field where you have piled up bodies all over the place. And please don't say online makes up for your shitty AI either, because it doesn't. If I wanted to deal with a bunch of campers, lamers, turtles, and teabaggers I would be playing Halo. There were plenty of games in the past like the original Far Cry that would give you a decent fight. Build on that instead of turning our PCs into slideshows.</p><p>

 Oh yeah, and quit calling them "multi-platform" when you try to pass off some lame ass console port as a PC game without even taking a second to think about a decent PC control scheme. Thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that is tired of all these epeen graphics and physics that make any machine that costs less than a grand run like a slideshow while the AI makes Forest Gump look like a genius ?
I swear the AI was better 5 years ago than it is now.I picked up MoH : Airborne in the 10th anniversary pack and by the second level it was just sad how fricking awful the AI was .
Sure the game looked nice and all , but when you have Nazis lining up to hide behind the EXACT SAME COVER that you have already piled corpses by like fricking firewood , I mean come on now .
And if you crank the difficulty on high in the new games all it does is give you EA style cheating where you can be in the perfect cover and everybody knows exactly where you are , or you get a green ass grunt that can snipe you from a half mile away with a crappy bolt action without even an optic scope , meanwhile you pound bullet after bullet into them and they act like they are the Terminator.So if any game designers are reading this , enough with the epeen graphics and physics already .
They graphics and physics were good five years ago .
Nobody cares if in the heat of battle every stick falls correctly when you blow a building up , but they sure as hell notice when the bad guys just tiptoe through the tulips while walking through a killing field where you have piled up bodies all over the place .
And please do n't say online makes up for your shitty AI either , because it does n't .
If I wanted to deal with a bunch of campers , lamers , turtles , and teabaggers I would be playing Halo .
There were plenty of games in the past like the original Far Cry that would give you a decent fight .
Build on that instead of turning our PCs into slideshows .
Oh yeah , and quit calling them " multi-platform " when you try to pass off some lame ass console port as a PC game without even taking a second to think about a decent PC control scheme .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that is tired of all these epeen graphics and physics that make any machine that costs less than a grand run like a slideshow while the AI makes Forest Gump look like a genius?
I swear the AI was better 5 years ago than it is now.I picked up MoH:Airborne in the 10th anniversary pack and by the second level it was just sad how fricking awful the AI was.
Sure the game looked nice and all, but when you have Nazis lining up to hide behind the EXACT SAME COVER that you have already piled corpses by like fricking firewood, I mean come on now.
And if you crank the difficulty on high in the new games all it does is give you EA style cheating where you can be in the perfect cover and everybody knows exactly where you are, or you get a green ass grunt that can snipe you from a half mile away with a crappy bolt action without even an optic scope, meanwhile you pound bullet after bullet into them and they act like they are the Terminator.So if any game designers are reading this, enough with the epeen graphics and physics already.
They graphics and physics were good five years ago.
Nobody cares if in the heat of battle every stick falls correctly when you blow a building up, but they sure as hell notice when the bad guys just tiptoe through the tulips while walking through a killing field where you have piled up bodies all over the place.
And please don't say online makes up for your shitty AI either, because it doesn't.
If I wanted to deal with a bunch of campers, lamers, turtles, and teabaggers I would be playing Halo.
There were plenty of games in the past like the original Far Cry that would give you a decent fight.
Build on that instead of turning our PCs into slideshows.
Oh yeah, and quit calling them "multi-platform" when you try to pass off some lame ass console port as a PC game without even taking a second to think about a decent PC control scheme.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493997</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>Quothz</author>
	<datestamp>1246110720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Want proof?</p></div><p>Forgetting something? Maybe <i>half-</i>forgetting something?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Want proof ? Forgetting something ?
Maybe half-forgetting something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want proof?Forgetting something?
Maybe half-forgetting something?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28499675</id>
	<title>Bah - For Real Ultimate Power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246112700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For Real Ultimate Power! Fight with best strength!</p><p>http://rockhardest.mybrute.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For Real Ultimate Power !
Fight with best strength ! http : //rockhardest.mybrute.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Real Ultimate Power!
Fight with best strength!http://rockhardest.mybrute.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492401</id>
	<title>More Realistic != More Fun</title>
	<author>MrMista\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1246045920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, some of the most physics-accurate games I've played, have been some of the most generic and dull in memory. Greater physics can add to a game, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/designed/ physics, is what makes a game<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/fun/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , some of the most physics-accurate games I 've played , have been some of the most generic and dull in memory .
Greater physics can add to a game , but /designed/ physics , is what makes a game /fun/ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, some of the most physics-accurate games I've played, have been some of the most generic and dull in memory.
Greater physics can add to a game, but /designed/ physics, is what makes a game /fun/.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28497009</id>
	<title>Re:Realistic Doesn't Sell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246135800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Crazy Taxi is all about Hollywood physics.  I would add that the hero or his vehicle temporarily becomes much heavier during collisions, without adversely affecting acceleration of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Crazy Taxi is all about Hollywood physics .
I would add that the hero or his vehicle temporarily becomes much heavier during collisions , without adversely affecting acceleration of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crazy Taxi is all about Hollywood physics.
I would add that the hero or his vehicle temporarily becomes much heavier during collisions, without adversely affecting acceleration of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494925</id>
	<title>Re:Ballistics</title>
	<author>FrostDust</author>
	<datestamp>1246119600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a difference between "bullets being affected by wind" and that Panzerfaust you described.<br>Most of the time in an FPS, a bullet isn't going affected by gravity or wind until you get to the ranges where a sniper rifle is needed. At that point, I've noticed most games set in a fairly modern era ("future tech magic" can explain super-accurate guns) do model stuff like bullet drop and wind.</p><p>Also, consider the audience of RtCW. They want an FPS where you shoot Nazi-mutant things. The devs wanted to include a rocket launcher weapon, and a Panzerfaust was probably the closest thing to that you could find in that time period.</p><p>Red Orchestra, for example, instead features a Panzerfaust that works realistically, and you have take into consideration the arc of the projectile and the size, distance, and movement of the enemy tank for anything outside of point-blank range.</p><p>Gaming physics have reached the level you're seeking for. It just depends on what developers think their players want in a weapon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between " bullets being affected by wind " and that Panzerfaust you described.Most of the time in an FPS , a bullet is n't going affected by gravity or wind until you get to the ranges where a sniper rifle is needed .
At that point , I 've noticed most games set in a fairly modern era ( " future tech magic " can explain super-accurate guns ) do model stuff like bullet drop and wind.Also , consider the audience of RtCW .
They want an FPS where you shoot Nazi-mutant things .
The devs wanted to include a rocket launcher weapon , and a Panzerfaust was probably the closest thing to that you could find in that time period.Red Orchestra , for example , instead features a Panzerfaust that works realistically , and you have take into consideration the arc of the projectile and the size , distance , and movement of the enemy tank for anything outside of point-blank range.Gaming physics have reached the level you 're seeking for .
It just depends on what developers think their players want in a weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between "bullets being affected by wind" and that Panzerfaust you described.Most of the time in an FPS, a bullet isn't going affected by gravity or wind until you get to the ranges where a sniper rifle is needed.
At that point, I've noticed most games set in a fairly modern era ("future tech magic" can explain super-accurate guns) do model stuff like bullet drop and wind.Also, consider the audience of RtCW.
They want an FPS where you shoot Nazi-mutant things.
The devs wanted to include a rocket launcher weapon, and a Panzerfaust was probably the closest thing to that you could find in that time period.Red Orchestra, for example, instead features a Panzerfaust that works realistically, and you have take into consideration the arc of the projectile and the size, distance, and movement of the enemy tank for anything outside of point-blank range.Gaming physics have reached the level you're seeking for.
It just depends on what developers think their players want in a weapon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496109</id>
	<title>Re:Who Gives a Damn?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1246129620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sega Genesis? Sega Genesis? You're not telling me you need the full power of a Motorola 68000 just to get a fun game! All that matters is the plot and the game-play. All this talk of Sega Genesises makes me want to dig out my old ZX Spectrum and play some of those old text adventures.</p><p>Actually, screw that. Why not make do with one of those Choose Your Own Adventure books? Plenty of plot and game-play there - don't tell me you rely on fancy computer graphics? (Although having said that, it displeases me that so many books have <i>illustrations</i> these days. What a waste of ink that is!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sega Genesis ?
Sega Genesis ?
You 're not telling me you need the full power of a Motorola 68000 just to get a fun game !
All that matters is the plot and the game-play .
All this talk of Sega Genesises makes me want to dig out my old ZX Spectrum and play some of those old text adventures.Actually , screw that .
Why not make do with one of those Choose Your Own Adventure books ?
Plenty of plot and game-play there - do n't tell me you rely on fancy computer graphics ?
( Although having said that , it displeases me that so many books have illustrations these days .
What a waste of ink that is !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sega Genesis?
Sega Genesis?
You're not telling me you need the full power of a Motorola 68000 just to get a fun game!
All that matters is the plot and the game-play.
All this talk of Sega Genesises makes me want to dig out my old ZX Spectrum and play some of those old text adventures.Actually, screw that.
Why not make do with one of those Choose Your Own Adventure books?
Plenty of plot and game-play there - don't tell me you rely on fancy computer graphics?
(Although having said that, it displeases me that so many books have illustrations these days.
What a waste of ink that is!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494961</id>
	<title>Re:The problem is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not necessarily. A lot of the research on destructible geometry they're talking about is a process of doing the destruction automatically, without the need for an artist to define how every possible piece of debris looks. For instance, if an artist designs a wooden board and passes it certain parameters (like the strength of the material, how it breaks, direction of the grain...) then the engine should, theoretically, be able to break the board at any place, automatically.  It's complicated, but plenty of games are already starting to exploit this to various degrees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not necessarily .
A lot of the research on destructible geometry they 're talking about is a process of doing the destruction automatically , without the need for an artist to define how every possible piece of debris looks .
For instance , if an artist designs a wooden board and passes it certain parameters ( like the strength of the material , how it breaks , direction of the grain... ) then the engine should , theoretically , be able to break the board at any place , automatically .
It 's complicated , but plenty of games are already starting to exploit this to various degrees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not necessarily.
A lot of the research on destructible geometry they're talking about is a process of doing the destruction automatically, without the need for an artist to define how every possible piece of debris looks.
For instance, if an artist designs a wooden board and passes it certain parameters (like the strength of the material, how it breaks, direction of the grain...) then the engine should, theoretically, be able to break the board at any place, automatically.
It's complicated, but plenty of games are already starting to exploit this to various degrees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28497383</id>
	<title>Re:Important: Breast Physics</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1246095120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All boyish giggling aside, body motion physics do take a lot of the plasticity out of characters and make things more fluid.  Why doesn't someone's leg deform when kicked in a fighting game though?  Why don't people keel over when punched in the stomach (okay, so they do in Drake's Fortune), etc.</p><p>The new <a href="http://www.gamershell.com/companies/natural\_motion/390135.html" title="gamershell.com">natural motion</a> [gamershell.com] engine generates character impacts and animations in real-time for example, taking into account body structure, weight, strength and a neural AI simulation to create animations on the fly based on circumstances for the upcoming Backbreaker (American) Football game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All boyish giggling aside , body motion physics do take a lot of the plasticity out of characters and make things more fluid .
Why does n't someone 's leg deform when kicked in a fighting game though ?
Why do n't people keel over when punched in the stomach ( okay , so they do in Drake 's Fortune ) , etc.The new natural motion [ gamershell.com ] engine generates character impacts and animations in real-time for example , taking into account body structure , weight , strength and a neural AI simulation to create animations on the fly based on circumstances for the upcoming Backbreaker ( American ) Football game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All boyish giggling aside, body motion physics do take a lot of the plasticity out of characters and make things more fluid.
Why doesn't someone's leg deform when kicked in a fighting game though?
Why don't people keel over when punched in the stomach (okay, so they do in Drake's Fortune), etc.The new natural motion [gamershell.com] engine generates character impacts and animations in real-time for example, taking into account body structure, weight, strength and a neural AI simulation to create animations on the fly based on circumstances for the upcoming Backbreaker (American) Football game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492727</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1246093260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up. Games are supposed to bring a break from reality, not emulate it badly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up .
Games are supposed to bring a break from reality , not emulate it badly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.
Games are supposed to bring a break from reality, not emulate it badly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492527</id>
	<title>Re:More Realistic != More Fun</title>
	<author>mad\_minstrel</author>
	<datestamp>1246133880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I believe that's true in most cases, there are some games where realistic physics actually do make them more fun. Just play Red Faction: Guerilla.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I believe that 's true in most cases , there are some games where realistic physics actually do make them more fun .
Just play Red Faction : Guerilla .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I believe that's true in most cases, there are some games where realistic physics actually do make them more fun.
Just play Red Faction: Guerilla.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496711</id>
	<title>I'm looking forward to fully destructable environs</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1246134180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Way back when I was playing Syndicate for the first time and marveling at how awesome it was, I was still struck by how much cooler it would be if I could level buildings. Even these days, games like GTA would be even cooler if buildings could be as thoroughly trashed as the cars are. Real world physics has come a long way in games these days but there's so much more that could be done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Way back when I was playing Syndicate for the first time and marveling at how awesome it was , I was still struck by how much cooler it would be if I could level buildings .
Even these days , games like GTA would be even cooler if buildings could be as thoroughly trashed as the cars are .
Real world physics has come a long way in games these days but there 's so much more that could be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way back when I was playing Syndicate for the first time and marveling at how awesome it was, I was still struck by how much cooler it would be if I could level buildings.
Even these days, games like GTA would be even cooler if buildings could be as thoroughly trashed as the cars are.
Real world physics has come a long way in games these days but there's so much more that could be done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492389</id>
	<title>Re:The player is the biggest problem with destruct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246045800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A common work around for that problem is to initiate a plot sequence at the beginning of a scene change. This method is more common for large world and 3rd person. Another approach is a penalty system where the player is punished for destroying a plot sequence. This method is used frequently in first person shooters where a mission is failed due to friendly fire. In both cases, the key to addressing this issue is scope management. As games get more complex I imagine tools will automate the relation between objects and their references within some scope. If the object is referenced beyond its initial scope (when and where it was created), such a tool would automatically expand the scope and implement some sort of generic default action (mission failed?). It's a very interesting problem because it hints at the need for a virtual timeline as a means of identifying or creating the scope of a given plot sequence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A common work around for that problem is to initiate a plot sequence at the beginning of a scene change .
This method is more common for large world and 3rd person .
Another approach is a penalty system where the player is punished for destroying a plot sequence .
This method is used frequently in first person shooters where a mission is failed due to friendly fire .
In both cases , the key to addressing this issue is scope management .
As games get more complex I imagine tools will automate the relation between objects and their references within some scope .
If the object is referenced beyond its initial scope ( when and where it was created ) , such a tool would automatically expand the scope and implement some sort of generic default action ( mission failed ? ) .
It 's a very interesting problem because it hints at the need for a virtual timeline as a means of identifying or creating the scope of a given plot sequence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A common work around for that problem is to initiate a plot sequence at the beginning of a scene change.
This method is more common for large world and 3rd person.
Another approach is a penalty system where the player is punished for destroying a plot sequence.
This method is used frequently in first person shooters where a mission is failed due to friendly fire.
In both cases, the key to addressing this issue is scope management.
As games get more complex I imagine tools will automate the relation between objects and their references within some scope.
If the object is referenced beyond its initial scope (when and where it was created), such a tool would automatically expand the scope and implement some sort of generic default action (mission failed?).
It's a very interesting problem because it hints at the need for a virtual timeline as a means of identifying or creating the scope of a given plot sequence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492197</id>
	<title>Don't trust the client</title>
	<author>battlemarch</author>
	<datestamp>1246043700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, that's nice and everything, but you can't trust the client.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , that 's nice and everything , but you ca n't trust the client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, that's nice and everything, but you can't trust the client.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</id>
	<title>No more</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1246045680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I preferred the simpler games, the ones that didn't have as rigid physics and things of the nature. Compare modern first-person/third-person shooters and compare them to the classics like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye. They were so much fun because handling was so easy, you could move, you could strafe, etc. It was so much better! And yet, as games become more realistic, all that happens is that your character becomes more sluggish and less powerful, harder to manipulate. All for the sake of reality, and graphics which will always get old. But the gameplay never gets old. That's why classics are what they are - they're acceptable graphically and a hell of a lot of fun to play.</p><p> Want proof? They still have Street Fighter tournaments, Melee tournaments, etc. if you look around in the right places. On the other hand, who cares anymore about Metal Gear Solid 4? Man, even playing Super Mario World is much more fun than the New Super Mario Bros. on the DS, simply by virtue of the fact that the older one is simpler, freer, gives you more control, more imagination, more room to enjoy it.</p><p>Seriously? It's gameplay that makes you come back, not reality. I wish we'd drop the reality of things and just make games <i>fun.</i> But I guess now I'm old enough to just make my own games. Sigh. It had to come down to this, didn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm just old-fashioned , but I preferred the simpler games , the ones that did n't have as rigid physics and things of the nature .
Compare modern first-person/third-person shooters and compare them to the classics like Perfect Dark , The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye .
They were so much fun because handling was so easy , you could move , you could strafe , etc .
It was so much better !
And yet , as games become more realistic , all that happens is that your character becomes more sluggish and less powerful , harder to manipulate .
All for the sake of reality , and graphics which will always get old .
But the gameplay never gets old .
That 's why classics are what they are - they 're acceptable graphically and a hell of a lot of fun to play .
Want proof ?
They still have Street Fighter tournaments , Melee tournaments , etc .
if you look around in the right places .
On the other hand , who cares anymore about Metal Gear Solid 4 ?
Man , even playing Super Mario World is much more fun than the New Super Mario Bros. on the DS , simply by virtue of the fact that the older one is simpler , freer , gives you more control , more imagination , more room to enjoy it.Seriously ?
It 's gameplay that makes you come back , not reality .
I wish we 'd drop the reality of things and just make games fun .
But I guess now I 'm old enough to just make my own games .
Sigh. It had to come down to this , did n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I preferred the simpler games, the ones that didn't have as rigid physics and things of the nature.
Compare modern first-person/third-person shooters and compare them to the classics like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye.
They were so much fun because handling was so easy, you could move, you could strafe, etc.
It was so much better!
And yet, as games become more realistic, all that happens is that your character becomes more sluggish and less powerful, harder to manipulate.
All for the sake of reality, and graphics which will always get old.
But the gameplay never gets old.
That's why classics are what they are - they're acceptable graphically and a hell of a lot of fun to play.
Want proof?
They still have Street Fighter tournaments, Melee tournaments, etc.
if you look around in the right places.
On the other hand, who cares anymore about Metal Gear Solid 4?
Man, even playing Super Mario World is much more fun than the New Super Mario Bros. on the DS, simply by virtue of the fact that the older one is simpler, freer, gives you more control, more imagination, more room to enjoy it.Seriously?
It's gameplay that makes you come back, not reality.
I wish we'd drop the reality of things and just make games fun.
But I guess now I'm old enough to just make my own games.
Sigh. It had to come down to this, didn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241</id>
	<title>Nice Way to Teach Actual Physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246044360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the toughest aspects of calculus-based physics is teaching how to intuit it.  Space-based games (i. e., ones involving the behavior of light, planets, and other celestial entities) written to conform to actual physics laws would be a fun way to teach students how to intuit physics.
<p>
This generation of students is just damned lucky to have access to such computing power.  In the old days, the most readily accessible computing power was an 8080 hobbyist board.  Simulating the universe on that is impossible.  The students of that era were stuck with just manipulating integrals and derivatives.
</p><p>
Life is unfair.  I hate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the toughest aspects of calculus-based physics is teaching how to intuit it .
Space-based games ( i. e. , ones involving the behavior of light , planets , and other celestial entities ) written to conform to actual physics laws would be a fun way to teach students how to intuit physics .
This generation of students is just damned lucky to have access to such computing power .
In the old days , the most readily accessible computing power was an 8080 hobbyist board .
Simulating the universe on that is impossible .
The students of that era were stuck with just manipulating integrals and derivatives .
Life is unfair .
I hate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the toughest aspects of calculus-based physics is teaching how to intuit it.
Space-based games (i. e., ones involving the behavior of light, planets, and other celestial entities) written to conform to actual physics laws would be a fun way to teach students how to intuit physics.
This generation of students is just damned lucky to have access to such computing power.
In the old days, the most readily accessible computing power was an 8080 hobbyist board.
Simulating the universe on that is impossible.
The students of that era were stuck with just manipulating integrals and derivatives.
Life is unfair.
I hate it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492447</id>
	<title>Soft cars and violent crashes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't we have this? (Ok, the closest thing is Burnout, but there the cars only turn soft in the crash sequences.) Car crashes looks absolutely crap in GTA IV and similar games.</p><p>In a real crash, a car is *far* from stiff. Look at some crash videos to see what I mean. In todays games the cars seemingly consist of different modules, each which several levels of damage premodeled.</p><p>The hobby simulation project <a href="http://rigsofrods.com/" title="rigsofrods.com" rel="nofollow">Rigs of Rods</a> [rigsofrods.com] is the only game I know that actually has softness implemented in vehicles. Imagine these physics in a photo realistic action packed game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't we have this ?
( Ok , the closest thing is Burnout , but there the cars only turn soft in the crash sequences .
) Car crashes looks absolutely crap in GTA IV and similar games.In a real crash , a car is * far * from stiff .
Look at some crash videos to see what I mean .
In todays games the cars seemingly consist of different modules , each which several levels of damage premodeled.The hobby simulation project Rigs of Rods [ rigsofrods.com ] is the only game I know that actually has softness implemented in vehicles .
Imagine these physics in a photo realistic action packed game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't we have this?
(Ok, the closest thing is Burnout, but there the cars only turn soft in the crash sequences.
) Car crashes looks absolutely crap in GTA IV and similar games.In a real crash, a car is *far* from stiff.
Look at some crash videos to see what I mean.
In todays games the cars seemingly consist of different modules, each which several levels of damage premodeled.The hobby simulation project Rigs of Rods [rigsofrods.com] is the only game I know that actually has softness implemented in vehicles.
Imagine these physics in a photo realistic action packed game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494993</id>
	<title>Re:Who Gives a Damn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246120020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to never really worry about it until I played Oblivion.  The first time I shot an arrow into a hanging bucket over a well, and saw it dance a bit and then finish with a tilt because of the weight of the arrow on one side, I was in awe.  That was just so cool.</p><p>So, if used correctly, I'm all for it. I also understand the simple games and the fun of side scrollers for example. It just depends on what you are shooting for (pun intended).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to never really worry about it until I played Oblivion .
The first time I shot an arrow into a hanging bucket over a well , and saw it dance a bit and then finish with a tilt because of the weight of the arrow on one side , I was in awe .
That was just so cool.So , if used correctly , I 'm all for it .
I also understand the simple games and the fun of side scrollers for example .
It just depends on what you are shooting for ( pun intended ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to never really worry about it until I played Oblivion.
The first time I shot an arrow into a hanging bucket over a well, and saw it dance a bit and then finish with a tilt because of the weight of the arrow on one side, I was in awe.
That was just so cool.So, if used correctly, I'm all for it.
I also understand the simple games and the fun of side scrollers for example.
It just depends on what you are shooting for (pun intended).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493005</id>
	<title>The problem is.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246096260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When a developer creates distructable scenery and lots of alternate routes, it means that they have to produce a lot more content, that the user won't see on every run-through. This means games get shorter (or development times get longer). Admittedly, one sees higher replay value, but generally that's not considered as valuable.
Personally, I miss the epicly long singleplayer games of old (Half Life 1 anyone?), and would like to have the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, the tendancy is towards very short single player games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a developer creates distructable scenery and lots of alternate routes , it means that they have to produce a lot more content , that the user wo n't see on every run-through .
This means games get shorter ( or development times get longer ) .
Admittedly , one sees higher replay value , but generally that 's not considered as valuable .
Personally , I miss the epicly long singleplayer games of old ( Half Life 1 anyone ?
) , and would like to have the best of both worlds .
Unfortunately , the tendancy is towards very short single player games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a developer creates distructable scenery and lots of alternate routes, it means that they have to produce a lot more content, that the user won't see on every run-through.
This means games get shorter (or development times get longer).
Admittedly, one sees higher replay value, but generally that's not considered as valuable.
Personally, I miss the epicly long singleplayer games of old (Half Life 1 anyone?
), and would like to have the best of both worlds.
Unfortunately, the tendancy is towards very short single player games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494571</id>
	<title>The problem with these new physics</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1246116120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem with modern gaming is that basically designers just go "OK, now destructible environments are getting pretty good, let's just slap that into our game cause that's the way to go".</p><p>What I think they should rather do if they took a more artistic approach to game design would be "It would be cool if we could make a game that would consist in blah blah blah" then see if it can currently be done and then do it.

</p><p>Game designers do what they can, not what they want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem with modern gaming is that basically designers just go " OK , now destructible environments are getting pretty good , let 's just slap that into our game cause that 's the way to go " .What I think they should rather do if they took a more artistic approach to game design would be " It would be cool if we could make a game that would consist in blah blah blah " then see if it can currently be done and then do it .
Game designers do what they can , not what they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem with modern gaming is that basically designers just go "OK, now destructible environments are getting pretty good, let's just slap that into our game cause that's the way to go".What I think they should rather do if they took a more artistic approach to game design would be "It would be cool if we could make a game that would consist in blah blah blah" then see if it can currently be done and then do it.
Game designers do what they can, not what they want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28499479</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1246111320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. people, get to work on turning this post into an old curmudgeon meme:</p><p>Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I preferred the simpler games, the ones that didn't have <b>new technology</b> and things of the nature. Compare modern <b>genre</b> and compare them to the classics like <b>example</b>, <b>example</b> or <b>example</b>. They were so much fun because handling was so easy, you could move, you could strafe, etc. It was so much better! And yet, as games become more realistic, all that happens is that your character becomes more sluggish and less powerful, harder to manipulate. All for the sake of reality, and graphics which will always get old. But the gameplay never gets old. That's why classics are what they are - they're acceptable graphically and a hell of a lot of fun to play.</p><p>Want proof? They still have <b>classic example</b> tournaments, Melee tournaments, etc. if you look around in the right places. On the other hand, who cares anymore about <b>popular new game</b>? Man, even playing <b>different classic example</b> is much more fun than <b>sequel</b> on the <b>modern console</b>, simply by virtue of the fact that the older one is simpler, freer, gives you more control, more imagination, more room to enjoy it.</p><p>Seriously? It's gameplay that makes you come back, not reality. I wish we'd drop the reality of things and just make games fun. But I guess now I'm old enough to just make my own games. Sigh. It had to come down to this, didn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok / .
people , get to work on turning this post into an old curmudgeon meme : Maybe I 'm just old-fashioned , but I preferred the simpler games , the ones that did n't have new technology and things of the nature .
Compare modern genre and compare them to the classics like example , example or example .
They were so much fun because handling was so easy , you could move , you could strafe , etc .
It was so much better !
And yet , as games become more realistic , all that happens is that your character becomes more sluggish and less powerful , harder to manipulate .
All for the sake of reality , and graphics which will always get old .
But the gameplay never gets old .
That 's why classics are what they are - they 're acceptable graphically and a hell of a lot of fun to play.Want proof ?
They still have classic example tournaments , Melee tournaments , etc .
if you look around in the right places .
On the other hand , who cares anymore about popular new game ?
Man , even playing different classic example is much more fun than sequel on the modern console , simply by virtue of the fact that the older one is simpler , freer , gives you more control , more imagination , more room to enjoy it.Seriously ?
It 's gameplay that makes you come back , not reality .
I wish we 'd drop the reality of things and just make games fun .
But I guess now I 'm old enough to just make my own games .
Sigh. It had to come down to this , did n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok /.
people, get to work on turning this post into an old curmudgeon meme:Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I preferred the simpler games, the ones that didn't have new technology and things of the nature.
Compare modern genre and compare them to the classics like example, example or example.
They were so much fun because handling was so easy, you could move, you could strafe, etc.
It was so much better!
And yet, as games become more realistic, all that happens is that your character becomes more sluggish and less powerful, harder to manipulate.
All for the sake of reality, and graphics which will always get old.
But the gameplay never gets old.
That's why classics are what they are - they're acceptable graphically and a hell of a lot of fun to play.Want proof?
They still have classic example tournaments, Melee tournaments, etc.
if you look around in the right places.
On the other hand, who cares anymore about popular new game?
Man, even playing different classic example is much more fun than sequel on the modern console, simply by virtue of the fact that the older one is simpler, freer, gives you more control, more imagination, more room to enjoy it.Seriously?
It's gameplay that makes you come back, not reality.
I wish we'd drop the reality of things and just make games fun.
But I guess now I'm old enough to just make my own games.
Sigh. It had to come down to this, didn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493685</id>
	<title>Re:Ballistics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246105920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bullets in Delta Force 2 behaved that way.<br>Perhaps not perfectly, but wind and distance made quite a difference when sniping.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bullets in Delta Force 2 behaved that way.Perhaps not perfectly , but wind and distance made quite a difference when sniping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bullets in Delta Force 2 behaved that way.Perhaps not perfectly, but wind and distance made quite a difference when sniping.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28498069</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246099680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree with you 100\% on every point. Mod parent Genious!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree with you 100 \ % on every point .
Mod parent Genious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree with you 100\% on every point.
Mod parent Genious!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494023</id>
	<title>Re:Important: Breast Physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tomb Raider Underworld has breast physics.</p><p>Get Lora Croft to some standing jumps and rotate the camera to the side... you notice her lady bumps bounce<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tomb Raider Underworld has breast physics.Get Lora Croft to some standing jumps and rotate the camera to the side... you notice her lady bumps bounce ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tomb Raider Underworld has breast physics.Get Lora Croft to some standing jumps and rotate the camera to the side... you notice her lady bumps bounce ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494137</id>
	<title>Who Gives a Damn?</title>
	<author>xjimhb</author>
	<datestamp>1246112220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is the physics of the game world important? The thing that really counts is the plot and the game-play. Requiring super-duper CPU power (or GPU power) for the physics and the graphics is another big waste. Looking at all these new<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and expensive<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... games makes me want to dig out my old Sega Genesis and play some of the old games like the Phantasy Star titles. Kindergarten graphics, no real attention to physics, but those games were FUN!</p><p>I'd love to see a Linux port of those games!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the physics of the game world important ?
The thing that really counts is the plot and the game-play .
Requiring super-duper CPU power ( or GPU power ) for the physics and the graphics is another big waste .
Looking at all these new ... and expensive ... games makes me want to dig out my old Sega Genesis and play some of the old games like the Phantasy Star titles .
Kindergarten graphics , no real attention to physics , but those games were FUN ! I 'd love to see a Linux port of those games !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the physics of the game world important?
The thing that really counts is the plot and the game-play.
Requiring super-duper CPU power (or GPU power) for the physics and the graphics is another big waste.
Looking at all these new ... and expensive ... games makes me want to dig out my old Sega Genesis and play some of the old games like the Phantasy Star titles.
Kindergarten graphics, no real attention to physics, but those games were FUN!I'd love to see a Linux port of those games!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28515075</id>
	<title>Re:Character animation vs. physics</title>
	<author>^\_^x</author>
	<datestamp>1246295220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you heard of Euphoria? So far, it's the most realistic system I've seen for "ragdoll" - it's actually more ragdoll + AI.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi5adyccoKI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi5adyccoKI</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>It works to great effect in GTA4. What do you think of it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you heard of Euphoria ?
So far , it 's the most realistic system I 've seen for " ragdoll " - it 's actually more ragdoll + AI.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = Qi5adyccoKI [ youtube.com ] It works to great effect in GTA4 .
What do you think of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you heard of Euphoria?
So far, it's the most realistic system I've seen for "ragdoll" - it's actually more ragdoll + AI.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi5adyccoKI [youtube.com]It works to great effect in GTA4.
What do you think of it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496551</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492749</id>
	<title>Re:The player is the biggest problem with destruct</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1246093560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Red Faction Guerilla lets you wreck buildings at will and AFAIK it's not a problem. From what I read it simply respawns buildings if it really needs them for a mission. You don't really notice because it's at the other end of the map and mission buildings are usually not significant outside the mission (they can be marked as EDF buildings in a mission but outside of the mission they'd count as civilian while other EDF buildings are always marked as such) so you might not even remember that you flattened them. At times the physics are a bit wonky with massive buildings held up with almost all support destroyed but that's a detail issue, not a problem with the general design of being able to wreck everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Red Faction Guerilla lets you wreck buildings at will and AFAIK it 's not a problem .
From what I read it simply respawns buildings if it really needs them for a mission .
You do n't really notice because it 's at the other end of the map and mission buildings are usually not significant outside the mission ( they can be marked as EDF buildings in a mission but outside of the mission they 'd count as civilian while other EDF buildings are always marked as such ) so you might not even remember that you flattened them .
At times the physics are a bit wonky with massive buildings held up with almost all support destroyed but that 's a detail issue , not a problem with the general design of being able to wreck everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Red Faction Guerilla lets you wreck buildings at will and AFAIK it's not a problem.
From what I read it simply respawns buildings if it really needs them for a mission.
You don't really notice because it's at the other end of the map and mission buildings are usually not significant outside the mission (they can be marked as EDF buildings in a mission but outside of the mission they'd count as civilian while other EDF buildings are always marked as such) so you might not even remember that you flattened them.
At times the physics are a bit wonky with massive buildings held up with almost all support destroyed but that's a detail issue, not a problem with the general design of being able to wreck everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493929</id>
	<title>Sounds familiar...</title>
	<author>jdagius</author>
	<datestamp>1246109820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; "... and the Player can come up with solutions to problems that the Designer might not have thought of. "
<br> <br>
Maybe the world is just a big game and we're the Players. What would happen if we did not play the game the way the Designer wanted it to played?<blockquote><div><p>Gen 6:5  And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, <br>
         and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.<br>
Gen 6:6  And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, <br>
         and it grieved him at his heart. <br>
Gen 6:7  And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;<br>
         both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; <br>
         for it repenteth me that I have made them.</p></div>
</blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; " ... and the Player can come up with solutions to problems that the Designer might not have thought of .
" Maybe the world is just a big game and we 're the Players .
What would happen if we did not play the game the way the Designer wanted it to played ? Gen 6 : 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth , and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually .
Gen 6 : 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth , and it grieved him at his heart .
Gen 6 : 7 And the LORD said , I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth ; both man , and beast , and the creeping thing , and the fowls of the air ; for it repenteth me that I have made them .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; "... and the Player can come up with solutions to problems that the Designer might not have thought of.
"
 
Maybe the world is just a big game and we're the Players.
What would happen if we did not play the game the way the Designer wanted it to played?Gen 6:5  And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, 
         and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6  And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, 
         and it grieved him at his heart.
Gen 6:7  And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth;
         both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; 
         for it repenteth me that I have made them.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494177</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Way to Teach Actual Physics</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1246112700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the toughest aspects of calculus-based physics is teaching how to intuit it.</p></div><p>
One of the toughest apsects of calculus in general is the plethora of conflicting notations, none of which are very good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the toughest aspects of calculus-based physics is teaching how to intuit it .
One of the toughest apsects of calculus in general is the plethora of conflicting notations , none of which are very good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the toughest aspects of calculus-based physics is teaching how to intuit it.
One of the toughest apsects of calculus in general is the plethora of conflicting notations, none of which are very good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493233</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>Dr. Impossible</author>
	<datestamp>1246099200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Compare modern first-person/third-person shooters and compare them to the classics like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye. They were so much fun because handling was so easy, you could move, you could strafe, etc. It was so much better! And yet, as games become more realistic, all that happens is that your character becomes more sluggish and less powerful, harder to manipulate.</p></div></blockquote><p>What does this even mean?</p><blockquote><div><p>Seriously? It's gameplay that makes you come back, not reality. I wish we'd drop the reality of things and just make games fun.</p></div></blockquote><p>"I wish they would stop making games that I don't like to play, even though I could simply choose not to play them." I'm also pretty sure that realism and fun are not mutually exclusive, and that realistic games are not a recent invention.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare modern first-person/third-person shooters and compare them to the classics like Perfect Dark , The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye .
They were so much fun because handling was so easy , you could move , you could strafe , etc .
It was so much better !
And yet , as games become more realistic , all that happens is that your character becomes more sluggish and less powerful , harder to manipulate.What does this even mean ? Seriously ?
It 's gameplay that makes you come back , not reality .
I wish we 'd drop the reality of things and just make games fun .
" I wish they would stop making games that I do n't like to play , even though I could simply choose not to play them .
" I 'm also pretty sure that realism and fun are not mutually exclusive , and that realistic games are not a recent invention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare modern first-person/third-person shooters and compare them to the classics like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye.
They were so much fun because handling was so easy, you could move, you could strafe, etc.
It was so much better!
And yet, as games become more realistic, all that happens is that your character becomes more sluggish and less powerful, harder to manipulate.What does this even mean?Seriously?
It's gameplay that makes you come back, not reality.
I wish we'd drop the reality of things and just make games fun.
"I wish they would stop making games that I don't like to play, even though I could simply choose not to play them.
" I'm also pretty sure that realism and fun are not mutually exclusive, and that realistic games are not a recent invention.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28498859</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1246106220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that's true.</p><p>It's the same with everything, there are good implementations and bad implementations, age of game IMO has nothing to do with it.</p><p>In terms of FPS games, Quake 1 was always my favourite online for the reasons you state, the physics just felt nice, the game was fun to play with it's rocket jumping and the likes, it didn't need complex physics.</p><p>Yet whilst Half-Life 1 was an excellent game I always felt the physics in it absolutely sucked, compare it to something like Crackdown on the XBox 360 where the physics pretty much make the game and you see that a good physics system can make a world of difference. For those who haven't played Crackdown, the content of the game is pretty poor it's basically an open world and you have to kill about 18 "bosses" across the open world, you can do them in any order you want, there's not really much of a storyline there. The fact you can jump your way up sky scrapers, ramp cars off of transporters, throw scud missile launchers at enemies to crush them just generally have fun stacking together random explosive objects into a pile to make a massive explosion still leaves you with a pretty fun game.</p><p>Even Call of Duty 4 and 5 and also Halo 3 just feel much nicer to play than many older games with simpler physics engines.</p><p>As you say, it's the gameplay that matters, but realistic or complex physics do not in any way have to detract from the gameplay, in fact, in recent years it's really come into it's own in actually making the gameplay in a handful of games - see games like Prey, Portal, the gravity gun in Half-Life 2, Crackdown and so on.</p><p>I think the thing to bear in mind is that when you look to the games you enjoyed in the past as fine examples of how a game should be you only remember the good ones, you don't remember the countless bad or at least mediocre and hence easily forgettable ones. It's easy to pick some great games from the past and compare a specific element against the average level of games today, but I believe if you take the average quality of games from that period and compare to the average quality now you'll notice that again, as always there's good games and there's bad games.</p><p>I'd argue the issue now is that increased complexity does make it much more challenging for developers to get all those complex systems right and to work together well to make a nice game, but it's certainly not impossible again as many great games in recent years have shown.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that 's true.It 's the same with everything , there are good implementations and bad implementations , age of game IMO has nothing to do with it.In terms of FPS games , Quake 1 was always my favourite online for the reasons you state , the physics just felt nice , the game was fun to play with it 's rocket jumping and the likes , it did n't need complex physics.Yet whilst Half-Life 1 was an excellent game I always felt the physics in it absolutely sucked , compare it to something like Crackdown on the XBox 360 where the physics pretty much make the game and you see that a good physics system can make a world of difference .
For those who have n't played Crackdown , the content of the game is pretty poor it 's basically an open world and you have to kill about 18 " bosses " across the open world , you can do them in any order you want , there 's not really much of a storyline there .
The fact you can jump your way up sky scrapers , ramp cars off of transporters , throw scud missile launchers at enemies to crush them just generally have fun stacking together random explosive objects into a pile to make a massive explosion still leaves you with a pretty fun game.Even Call of Duty 4 and 5 and also Halo 3 just feel much nicer to play than many older games with simpler physics engines.As you say , it 's the gameplay that matters , but realistic or complex physics do not in any way have to detract from the gameplay , in fact , in recent years it 's really come into it 's own in actually making the gameplay in a handful of games - see games like Prey , Portal , the gravity gun in Half-Life 2 , Crackdown and so on.I think the thing to bear in mind is that when you look to the games you enjoyed in the past as fine examples of how a game should be you only remember the good ones , you do n't remember the countless bad or at least mediocre and hence easily forgettable ones .
It 's easy to pick some great games from the past and compare a specific element against the average level of games today , but I believe if you take the average quality of games from that period and compare to the average quality now you 'll notice that again , as always there 's good games and there 's bad games.I 'd argue the issue now is that increased complexity does make it much more challenging for developers to get all those complex systems right and to work together well to make a nice game , but it 's certainly not impossible again as many great games in recent years have shown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that's true.It's the same with everything, there are good implementations and bad implementations, age of game IMO has nothing to do with it.In terms of FPS games, Quake 1 was always my favourite online for the reasons you state, the physics just felt nice, the game was fun to play with it's rocket jumping and the likes, it didn't need complex physics.Yet whilst Half-Life 1 was an excellent game I always felt the physics in it absolutely sucked, compare it to something like Crackdown on the XBox 360 where the physics pretty much make the game and you see that a good physics system can make a world of difference.
For those who haven't played Crackdown, the content of the game is pretty poor it's basically an open world and you have to kill about 18 "bosses" across the open world, you can do them in any order you want, there's not really much of a storyline there.
The fact you can jump your way up sky scrapers, ramp cars off of transporters, throw scud missile launchers at enemies to crush them just generally have fun stacking together random explosive objects into a pile to make a massive explosion still leaves you with a pretty fun game.Even Call of Duty 4 and 5 and also Halo 3 just feel much nicer to play than many older games with simpler physics engines.As you say, it's the gameplay that matters, but realistic or complex physics do not in any way have to detract from the gameplay, in fact, in recent years it's really come into it's own in actually making the gameplay in a handful of games - see games like Prey, Portal, the gravity gun in Half-Life 2, Crackdown and so on.I think the thing to bear in mind is that when you look to the games you enjoyed in the past as fine examples of how a game should be you only remember the good ones, you don't remember the countless bad or at least mediocre and hence easily forgettable ones.
It's easy to pick some great games from the past and compare a specific element against the average level of games today, but I believe if you take the average quality of games from that period and compare to the average quality now you'll notice that again, as always there's good games and there's bad games.I'd argue the issue now is that increased complexity does make it much more challenging for developers to get all those complex systems right and to work together well to make a nice game, but it's certainly not impossible again as many great games in recent years have shown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28500457</id>
	<title>Re:More Realistic != More Fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know what I'd love to see? A scifi game that actually played around with gravity. Every scifi game (where you can get out of a ship and run around) has the same gravity in every location.</p></div><p>This wasn't even true in the original Quake.  There was a special level, Ziggurat Vertigo, with low gravity.  You could jump insane distances, and grenade launchers were vastly longer-range. They put lots of ogres on the level to show off the rocket launchers, and started you in a slight pit so you'd immediately try jumping and figure out about the low gravity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what I 'd love to see ?
A scifi game that actually played around with gravity .
Every scifi game ( where you can get out of a ship and run around ) has the same gravity in every location.This was n't even true in the original Quake .
There was a special level , Ziggurat Vertigo , with low gravity .
You could jump insane distances , and grenade launchers were vastly longer-range .
They put lots of ogres on the level to show off the rocket launchers , and started you in a slight pit so you 'd immediately try jumping and figure out about the low gravity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what I'd love to see?
A scifi game that actually played around with gravity.
Every scifi game (where you can get out of a ship and run around) has the same gravity in every location.This wasn't even true in the original Quake.
There was a special level, Ziggurat Vertigo, with low gravity.
You could jump insane distances, and grenade launchers were vastly longer-range.
They put lots of ogres on the level to show off the rocket launchers, and started you in a slight pit so you'd immediately try jumping and figure out about the low gravity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496513</id>
	<title>Re:Who Gives a Damn?</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1246132860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because with really good physics you can expand the gameplay options a LOT.</p><p>I was playing one game where I needed to kill someone who was protected inside a really well-guarded building. Every time I tried to get in through the only entrance to the building I wound up being killed before I could even take down half of the guards (I suck at those kind of scenarios). There was no way to get to the roof of the building - I tried going to all the buildings around it, but the jump distance was *just* too short. Then it occurred to me - there were flammable barrels a couple of miles away (in game terms) and I could run into them to knock them over and then kind of keep bumping them to keep them moving. I I ran off, pushed 5 or 6 barrels over to a spot right around the corner from the entrance, shot at one of the guards and ran around the corner. Half of the guards ran after me, and once they all came around the corner, I shot the barrels - huge explosion, half the guards were dead in one shot, and then I was able to handle the remaining guards.</p><p>Without decent physics, I wouldn't have had that option unless the developers specifically put it into the game. Good physics allows for emergent gameplay, which can be really good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because with really good physics you can expand the gameplay options a LOT.I was playing one game where I needed to kill someone who was protected inside a really well-guarded building .
Every time I tried to get in through the only entrance to the building I wound up being killed before I could even take down half of the guards ( I suck at those kind of scenarios ) .
There was no way to get to the roof of the building - I tried going to all the buildings around it , but the jump distance was * just * too short .
Then it occurred to me - there were flammable barrels a couple of miles away ( in game terms ) and I could run into them to knock them over and then kind of keep bumping them to keep them moving .
I I ran off , pushed 5 or 6 barrels over to a spot right around the corner from the entrance , shot at one of the guards and ran around the corner .
Half of the guards ran after me , and once they all came around the corner , I shot the barrels - huge explosion , half the guards were dead in one shot , and then I was able to handle the remaining guards.Without decent physics , I would n't have had that option unless the developers specifically put it into the game .
Good physics allows for emergent gameplay , which can be really good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because with really good physics you can expand the gameplay options a LOT.I was playing one game where I needed to kill someone who was protected inside a really well-guarded building.
Every time I tried to get in through the only entrance to the building I wound up being killed before I could even take down half of the guards (I suck at those kind of scenarios).
There was no way to get to the roof of the building - I tried going to all the buildings around it, but the jump distance was *just* too short.
Then it occurred to me - there were flammable barrels a couple of miles away (in game terms) and I could run into them to knock them over and then kind of keep bumping them to keep them moving.
I I ran off, pushed 5 or 6 barrels over to a spot right around the corner from the entrance, shot at one of the guards and ran around the corner.
Half of the guards ran after me, and once they all came around the corner, I shot the barrels - huge explosion, half the guards were dead in one shot, and then I was able to handle the remaining guards.Without decent physics, I wouldn't have had that option unless the developers specifically put it into the game.
Good physics allows for emergent gameplay, which can be really good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494661</id>
	<title>Re:Don't trust the client</title>
	<author>Delwin</author>
	<datestamp>1246117200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't trust the client for anything that effects other people - but things like computing rag-doll physics and some special effects there's no issue with doing it on the client.  It really doesn't matter to game play if they happen a little differently on each machine, or not at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't trust the client for anything that effects other people - but things like computing rag-doll physics and some special effects there 's no issue with doing it on the client .
It really does n't matter to game play if they happen a little differently on each machine , or not at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't trust the client for anything that effects other people - but things like computing rag-doll physics and some special effects there's no issue with doing it on the client.
It really doesn't matter to game play if they happen a little differently on each machine, or not at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495549</id>
	<title>Re:More Realistic != More Fun</title>
	<author>MR.Mic</author>
	<datestamp>1246124400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The engine powering the serious sam games allows for all sorts of gravity types. You can define gravity per-sector, or with spherical/cylindrical volumes that can work as attractors or repulsors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The engine powering the serious sam games allows for all sorts of gravity types .
You can define gravity per-sector , or with spherical/cylindrical volumes that can work as attractors or repulsors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The engine powering the serious sam games allows for all sorts of gravity types.
You can define gravity per-sector, or with spherical/cylindrical volumes that can work as attractors or repulsors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28498287</id>
	<title>It's not the physics...</title>
	<author>Dr.Boje</author>
	<datestamp>1246101300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...it's the gameplay, stupid!</p><p>Technology is nice and all, but if it ain't fun to play then who gives a damn?  Granted, if a game utilizes new technologies in order to create a unique gameplay experience, then all is well.  The problem is, most of them don't.  It seems like the article is mainly looking at FPS games where you can blow up the environment.  SNORE.</p><p>Unless the technology complements the gameplay experience, then all you have in your hands is boring tech demo with some re-hashed gameplay on the side.  I couldn't care less if the debris from whatever I just blew up bounces and reacts in a true-to-life fashion.  Now, if whatever it was I blew up allowed me to reach some hidden area of the level, crushed a group of enemies, or helped me solve a tricky puzzle, I would probably find it more interesting.</p><p>I still think one of the best use of physics in a game was the ability to kick zombie heads around in Blood (link: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood\_(computer\_game)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood\_(computer\_game)</a> [wikipedia.org]).  Okay, so maybe it didn't add to the gameplay like I was just bitching about, but it was really fun!  I think there was even a level that had a soccer field and you could get access to a Life Seed if you kicked a zombie head into one of the goals.  Damn, that game was awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...it 's the gameplay , stupid ! Technology is nice and all , but if it ai n't fun to play then who gives a damn ?
Granted , if a game utilizes new technologies in order to create a unique gameplay experience , then all is well .
The problem is , most of them do n't .
It seems like the article is mainly looking at FPS games where you can blow up the environment .
SNORE.Unless the technology complements the gameplay experience , then all you have in your hands is boring tech demo with some re-hashed gameplay on the side .
I could n't care less if the debris from whatever I just blew up bounces and reacts in a true-to-life fashion .
Now , if whatever it was I blew up allowed me to reach some hidden area of the level , crushed a group of enemies , or helped me solve a tricky puzzle , I would probably find it more interesting.I still think one of the best use of physics in a game was the ability to kick zombie heads around in Blood ( link : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood \ _ ( computer \ _game ) [ wikipedia.org ] ) .
Okay , so maybe it did n't add to the gameplay like I was just bitching about , but it was really fun !
I think there was even a level that had a soccer field and you could get access to a Life Seed if you kicked a zombie head into one of the goals .
Damn , that game was awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it's the gameplay, stupid!Technology is nice and all, but if it ain't fun to play then who gives a damn?
Granted, if a game utilizes new technologies in order to create a unique gameplay experience, then all is well.
The problem is, most of them don't.
It seems like the article is mainly looking at FPS games where you can blow up the environment.
SNORE.Unless the technology complements the gameplay experience, then all you have in your hands is boring tech demo with some re-hashed gameplay on the side.
I couldn't care less if the debris from whatever I just blew up bounces and reacts in a true-to-life fashion.
Now, if whatever it was I blew up allowed me to reach some hidden area of the level, crushed a group of enemies, or helped me solve a tricky puzzle, I would probably find it more interesting.I still think one of the best use of physics in a game was the ability to kick zombie heads around in Blood (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood\_(computer\_game) [wikipedia.org]).
Okay, so maybe it didn't add to the gameplay like I was just bitching about, but it was really fun!
I think there was even a level that had a soccer field and you could get access to a Life Seed if you kicked a zombie head into one of the goals.
Damn, that game was awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493947</id>
	<title>Uh... huh huh huh</title>
	<author>Dogtanian</author>
	<datestamp>1246110060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear a lot of talk that videogaming has moved beyond the adolescent male mentality...<p><div class="quote"><p>"Many of those tools are being put to work these days to find more realistic ways of breaking things"</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umONN2YGeWg" title="youtube.com">I rest my case.</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear a lot of talk that videogaming has moved beyond the adolescent male mentality... " Many of those tools are being put to work these days to find more realistic ways of breaking things " I rest my case .
[ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear a lot of talk that videogaming has moved beyond the adolescent male mentality..."Many of those tools are being put to work these days to find more realistic ways of breaking things" I rest my case.
[youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496551</id>
	<title>Character animation vs. physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246133100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
A dozen years ago I developed and demoed the <a href="http://www.animats.com/" title="animats.com">first ragdoll physics system that worked.</a> [animats.com]  Among other things, I'm responsible for the "ragdoll falling downstairs" cliche; that started with a demo I did in 1997. I looked at ragdolls as a first step. I was expecting game development to go in the direction of physically-based characters driven by active control of character muscles.  That hasn't happened.
</p><p>
The problem is partly technical and partly dramatic.  The dramatic part I encountered in dealing with Hollywood types.  What directors want is to specify the start and end conditions; the job of the system is to realistically get the character to the desired ending mark.  In real-world stunt work, there are wires, guides, and rails that make things go the way the director wants, even when that's not physically realistic.  When that's not enough, cuts are used to conceal the lack of realism.
</p><p>
Physics systems are inherently unidirectional - you keep working forward from the current state. This is fundamentally incompatible with directorial control.  As a result, the
trend in character animation has been to get enough motion capture data to cover the things you want the character to do, and use a motion splicing engine to patch the pieces together. (This, incidentally, was first used in Godzilla, the movie, for the baby 'zillas).  That's become more or less the standard approach for games.
</p><p>
Using a character control AI to drive the character's muscles realistically has been attempted, but with modest success.  Motion Factory tried this in the 1990s; their system was only kinematic, and not too successful.  Havok is trying it now.  For this to work, you need computerized muscle control good enough to drive a real-world robot, like Big Dog.  And then it has to look good from an aesthetic perspective.   It's really a hard robotics problem, which is why I was interested in it in the first place.
</p><p>
From a gameplay perspective, if you take the physics seriously, you lose the "superhero" capabilities of game characters.  Jump off a balcony, and don't expect to land on your feet.
Jumping up to a balcony?  Forget it.  Hand-to-hand combat works about as well as it does at the dojo.  ("Your left foot was too far forward for that throw. Again!" "Yes, sensi.") Trying to control a physically realistic character via a joystick is nearly hopeless. You can't even drive a real car very well through a remote joystick, let alone a game pad.  (I've actually done that; using a remote steering wheel is a huge improvement over a joystick.) In driving games for consoles, the physics is tweaked to make the car incredibly stable.  (Lowering the center of gravity to below ground is a common trick.)
</p><p>
So what do we have? Ragdolls. "Infinitely destructible environments."  Some skin deformation. Cloth.  Plus rain, snow, water, and explosions that don't feed into the game play at all. (That's mostly what the "physics cards" do.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A dozen years ago I developed and demoed the first ragdoll physics system that worked .
[ animats.com ] Among other things , I 'm responsible for the " ragdoll falling downstairs " cliche ; that started with a demo I did in 1997 .
I looked at ragdolls as a first step .
I was expecting game development to go in the direction of physically-based characters driven by active control of character muscles .
That has n't happened .
The problem is partly technical and partly dramatic .
The dramatic part I encountered in dealing with Hollywood types .
What directors want is to specify the start and end conditions ; the job of the system is to realistically get the character to the desired ending mark .
In real-world stunt work , there are wires , guides , and rails that make things go the way the director wants , even when that 's not physically realistic .
When that 's not enough , cuts are used to conceal the lack of realism .
Physics systems are inherently unidirectional - you keep working forward from the current state .
This is fundamentally incompatible with directorial control .
As a result , the trend in character animation has been to get enough motion capture data to cover the things you want the character to do , and use a motion splicing engine to patch the pieces together .
( This , incidentally , was first used in Godzilla , the movie , for the baby 'zillas ) .
That 's become more or less the standard approach for games .
Using a character control AI to drive the character 's muscles realistically has been attempted , but with modest success .
Motion Factory tried this in the 1990s ; their system was only kinematic , and not too successful .
Havok is trying it now .
For this to work , you need computerized muscle control good enough to drive a real-world robot , like Big Dog .
And then it has to look good from an aesthetic perspective .
It 's really a hard robotics problem , which is why I was interested in it in the first place .
From a gameplay perspective , if you take the physics seriously , you lose the " superhero " capabilities of game characters .
Jump off a balcony , and do n't expect to land on your feet .
Jumping up to a balcony ?
Forget it .
Hand-to-hand combat works about as well as it does at the dojo .
( " Your left foot was too far forward for that throw .
Again ! " " Yes , sensi .
" ) Trying to control a physically realistic character via a joystick is nearly hopeless .
You ca n't even drive a real car very well through a remote joystick , let alone a game pad .
( I 've actually done that ; using a remote steering wheel is a huge improvement over a joystick .
) In driving games for consoles , the physics is tweaked to make the car incredibly stable .
( Lowering the center of gravity to below ground is a common trick .
) So what do we have ?
Ragdolls. " Infinitely destructible environments .
" Some skin deformation .
Cloth. Plus rain , snow , water , and explosions that do n't feed into the game play at all .
( That 's mostly what the " physics cards " do .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A dozen years ago I developed and demoed the first ragdoll physics system that worked.
[animats.com]  Among other things, I'm responsible for the "ragdoll falling downstairs" cliche; that started with a demo I did in 1997.
I looked at ragdolls as a first step.
I was expecting game development to go in the direction of physically-based characters driven by active control of character muscles.
That hasn't happened.
The problem is partly technical and partly dramatic.
The dramatic part I encountered in dealing with Hollywood types.
What directors want is to specify the start and end conditions; the job of the system is to realistically get the character to the desired ending mark.
In real-world stunt work, there are wires, guides, and rails that make things go the way the director wants, even when that's not physically realistic.
When that's not enough, cuts are used to conceal the lack of realism.
Physics systems are inherently unidirectional - you keep working forward from the current state.
This is fundamentally incompatible with directorial control.
As a result, the
trend in character animation has been to get enough motion capture data to cover the things you want the character to do, and use a motion splicing engine to patch the pieces together.
(This, incidentally, was first used in Godzilla, the movie, for the baby 'zillas).
That's become more or less the standard approach for games.
Using a character control AI to drive the character's muscles realistically has been attempted, but with modest success.
Motion Factory tried this in the 1990s; their system was only kinematic, and not too successful.
Havok is trying it now.
For this to work, you need computerized muscle control good enough to drive a real-world robot, like Big Dog.
And then it has to look good from an aesthetic perspective.
It's really a hard robotics problem, which is why I was interested in it in the first place.
From a gameplay perspective, if you take the physics seriously, you lose the "superhero" capabilities of game characters.
Jump off a balcony, and don't expect to land on your feet.
Jumping up to a balcony?
Forget it.
Hand-to-hand combat works about as well as it does at the dojo.
("Your left foot was too far forward for that throw.
Again!" "Yes, sensi.
") Trying to control a physically realistic character via a joystick is nearly hopeless.
You can't even drive a real car very well through a remote joystick, let alone a game pad.
(I've actually done that; using a remote steering wheel is a huge improvement over a joystick.
) In driving games for consoles, the physics is tweaked to make the car incredibly stable.
(Lowering the center of gravity to below ground is a common trick.
)

So what do we have?
Ragdolls. "Infinitely destructible environments.
"  Some skin deformation.
Cloth.  Plus rain, snow, water, and explosions that don't feed into the game play at all.
(That's mostly what the "physics cards" do.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492281</id>
	<title>Garry's Mod</title>
	<author>SnakeEater251</author>
	<datestamp>1246044780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is why games like Garry's Mod have become so popular. You can run (basic) physics simulations on your home computers without needing to shell out too much cash to do so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why games like Garry 's Mod have become so popular .
You can run ( basic ) physics simulations on your home computers without needing to shell out too much cash to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why games like Garry's Mod have become so popular.
You can run (basic) physics simulations on your home computers without needing to shell out too much cash to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493269</id>
	<title>Morrowind</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246099620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Morrowind's response to killing a plot-critical NPC was to tell you that you screwed up big. Then it let you keep playing, knowing that you couldn't complete the plot normally. Why can't a similar system be used for this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Morrowind 's response to killing a plot-critical NPC was to tell you that you screwed up big .
Then it let you keep playing , knowing that you could n't complete the plot normally .
Why ca n't a similar system be used for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Morrowind's response to killing a plot-critical NPC was to tell you that you screwed up big.
Then it let you keep playing, knowing that you couldn't complete the plot normally.
Why can't a similar system be used for this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495873</id>
	<title>Do yourself a favor</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1246127340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Download the Trine game demo from Steam and then lets talk again..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Download the Trine game demo from Steam and then lets talk again. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Download the Trine game demo from Steam and then lets talk again..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492481</id>
	<title>First poIst</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246133280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>fucking surprise, 1. Therefore there of the founders of clearly. There it.  Do not share poor priorities, fatal mistakes, offended some With THOUSANDS of support GNAA, bring your own for a moment and To place a paper part of GNAA if is the worst oof collect any spilled become obsessed of OpenBSD. How (7000+1400+700)*4 become an unwanted These early moronic, dilettante despite the FreeBSD at about 80 she had no fear a BSD box that needs OS. Now BSDI your own towel in The resources that told reporters, people's faces is</htmltext>
<tokenext>fucking surprise , 1 .
Therefore there of the founders of clearly .
There it .
Do not share poor priorities , fatal mistakes , offended some With THOUSANDS of support GNAA , bring your own for a moment and To place a paper part of GNAA if is the worst oof collect any spilled become obsessed of OpenBSD .
How ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 become an unwanted These early moronic , dilettante despite the FreeBSD at about 80 she had no fear a BSD box that needs OS .
Now BSDI your own towel in The resources that told reporters , people 's faces is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fucking surprise, 1.
Therefore there of the founders of clearly.
There it.
Do not share poor priorities, fatal mistakes, offended some With THOUSANDS of support GNAA, bring your own for a moment and To place a paper part of GNAA if is the worst oof collect any spilled become obsessed of OpenBSD.
How (7000+1400+700)*4 become an unwanted These early moronic, dilettante despite the FreeBSD at about 80 she had no fear a BSD box that needs OS.
Now BSDI your own towel in The resources that told reporters, people's faces is</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877</id>
	<title>Realistic Doesn't Sell</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1246094640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Realism won't work any more than it works in Hollywood movies. They need a "Hollywood Physics Engine", with a bit of ACME cartoon logic tossed in. Examples:</p><p>1. Fruit stands are magnetic: every thing comes toward them.</p><p>2. Things fly strait up and spin end-to-end when they are blasted or exploded in any way. (see also #9)</p><p>3. Cars hitting a bail of hay or lump of garbage fly 300 feet. Good guys always land upright while bad-guys always land top first.</p><p>4. Sexy breasts jiggle slow and long</p><p>5. In space, everyone can hear you scream.</p><p>6. Sparks are the most common element in the universe. Every nick and prink causes vast amounts of sparks.</p><p>7. Space explosions are usually poofy despite no atmosphere. If it's really big, then an expanding bluish saturn-like ring spreads out from the center.</p><p>8. If slow-motion is used, then the bullets are 500 times slower for every 1x speed reduction in human movement.</p><p>9. People fly almost strait up in the air if within 200 feet of any explosion. The exception is if they are near a metal hand-rail, in which case they rotate around the rail during the explosion, until facing downward.</p><p>10. Poor tire traction, AKA "skidding", actually makes cars go faster. Heroes never win unless they skid a lot. The more smoke from the skid, the faster the car.</p><p>11. When jumping between buildings or platforms, nobody ever has a good margin: they always barely make it. Physical laws expand the width to be barely below the maximum of the hero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Realism wo n't work any more than it works in Hollywood movies .
They need a " Hollywood Physics Engine " , with a bit of ACME cartoon logic tossed in .
Examples : 1. Fruit stands are magnetic : every thing comes toward them.2 .
Things fly strait up and spin end-to-end when they are blasted or exploded in any way .
( see also # 9 ) 3 .
Cars hitting a bail of hay or lump of garbage fly 300 feet .
Good guys always land upright while bad-guys always land top first.4 .
Sexy breasts jiggle slow and long5 .
In space , everyone can hear you scream.6 .
Sparks are the most common element in the universe .
Every nick and prink causes vast amounts of sparks.7 .
Space explosions are usually poofy despite no atmosphere .
If it 's really big , then an expanding bluish saturn-like ring spreads out from the center.8 .
If slow-motion is used , then the bullets are 500 times slower for every 1x speed reduction in human movement.9 .
People fly almost strait up in the air if within 200 feet of any explosion .
The exception is if they are near a metal hand-rail , in which case they rotate around the rail during the explosion , until facing downward.10 .
Poor tire traction , AKA " skidding " , actually makes cars go faster .
Heroes never win unless they skid a lot .
The more smoke from the skid , the faster the car.11 .
When jumping between buildings or platforms , nobody ever has a good margin : they always barely make it .
Physical laws expand the width to be barely below the maximum of the hero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Realism won't work any more than it works in Hollywood movies.
They need a "Hollywood Physics Engine", with a bit of ACME cartoon logic tossed in.
Examples:1. Fruit stands are magnetic: every thing comes toward them.2.
Things fly strait up and spin end-to-end when they are blasted or exploded in any way.
(see also #9)3.
Cars hitting a bail of hay or lump of garbage fly 300 feet.
Good guys always land upright while bad-guys always land top first.4.
Sexy breasts jiggle slow and long5.
In space, everyone can hear you scream.6.
Sparks are the most common element in the universe.
Every nick and prink causes vast amounts of sparks.7.
Space explosions are usually poofy despite no atmosphere.
If it's really big, then an expanding bluish saturn-like ring spreads out from the center.8.
If slow-motion is used, then the bullets are 500 times slower for every 1x speed reduction in human movement.9.
People fly almost strait up in the air if within 200 feet of any explosion.
The exception is if they are near a metal hand-rail, in which case they rotate around the rail during the explosion, until facing downward.10.
Poor tire traction, AKA "skidding", actually makes cars go faster.
Heroes never win unless they skid a lot.
The more smoke from the skid, the faster the car.11.
When jumping between buildings or platforms, nobody ever has a good margin: they always barely make it.
Physical laws expand the width to be barely below the maximum of the hero.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275</id>
	<title>The player is the biggest problem with destruction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246044780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it comes down to it even a truly realistic game where even high explosives have difficulty rearranging the landscape I'm still going to find a way, one way or another, to do something that was either unexpected or unwanted.</p><p>So you've either got arbitrary restrictions or arbitrary game ending scenarios because I just happened to collapse a skyscraper or fourty that the plot needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes down to it even a truly realistic game where even high explosives have difficulty rearranging the landscape I 'm still going to find a way , one way or another , to do something that was either unexpected or unwanted.So you 've either got arbitrary restrictions or arbitrary game ending scenarios because I just happened to collapse a skyscraper or fourty that the plot needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes down to it even a truly realistic game where even high explosives have difficulty rearranging the landscape I'm still going to find a way, one way or another, to do something that was either unexpected or unwanted.So you've either got arbitrary restrictions or arbitrary game ending scenarios because I just happened to collapse a skyscraper or fourty that the plot needs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494415</id>
	<title>Re:The player is the biggest problem with destruct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246114740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop players from destroying your plot points Metroid style.  You want to smash through this locked door?  Too bad, you don't have the bazooka yet.  You want to knock down this skyscraper?  Come back in two levels when you have the BFG.  We won't need it then.  Make destroying big and important structures something rare and special and hard to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop players from destroying your plot points Metroid style .
You want to smash through this locked door ?
Too bad , you do n't have the bazooka yet .
You want to knock down this skyscraper ?
Come back in two levels when you have the BFG .
We wo n't need it then .
Make destroying big and important structures something rare and special and hard to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop players from destroying your plot points Metroid style.
You want to smash through this locked door?
Too bad, you don't have the bazooka yet.
You want to knock down this skyscraper?
Come back in two levels when you have the BFG.
We won't need it then.
Make destroying big and important structures something rare and special and hard to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492471</id>
	<title>Important: Breast Physics</title>
	<author>corsec67</author>
	<datestamp>1246133100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Breast physics are important for making characters look more realistic. (Well, the same math could be applied to other fatty parts of character models, but that isn't nearly as interesting)</p><p>Of course, having fully interactive character models would require tons of collision detection, math to compute the results, and keeping track of the deformation of the model relative to the possible deformations. Until it is perfect, it seems that we are headed into the depths of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley" title="wikipedia.org">uncanny valley</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Plus, this least to the best job title ever: "Breast Physics Researcher"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Breast physics are important for making characters look more realistic .
( Well , the same math could be applied to other fatty parts of character models , but that is n't nearly as interesting ) Of course , having fully interactive character models would require tons of collision detection , math to compute the results , and keeping track of the deformation of the model relative to the possible deformations .
Until it is perfect , it seems that we are headed into the depths of uncanny valley [ wikipedia.org ] .Plus , this least to the best job title ever : " Breast Physics Researcher "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breast physics are important for making characters look more realistic.
(Well, the same math could be applied to other fatty parts of character models, but that isn't nearly as interesting)Of course, having fully interactive character models would require tons of collision detection, math to compute the results, and keeping track of the deformation of the model relative to the possible deformations.
Until it is perfect, it seems that we are headed into the depths of uncanny valley [wikipedia.org].Plus, this least to the best job title ever: "Breast Physics Researcher"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493383</id>
	<title>Re:Garry's Mod</title>
	<author>skyride</author>
	<datestamp>1246101120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think that, you've COMPLETELY missed the point of the game.</p><p>Yours truly, Garrys Mod Player</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think that , you 've COMPLETELY missed the point of the game.Yours truly , Garrys Mod Player</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think that, you've COMPLETELY missed the point of the game.Yours truly, Garrys Mod Player</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493111</id>
	<title>Re:The player is the biggest problem with destruct</title>
	<author>0xygen</author>
	<datestamp>1246097580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe this actually is where gaming is going though, to a very real physics model which takes away the feeling of artificial limits.</p><p>Where necessary, limits can be placed on the gaming through outside factors, e.g. in a military game, unacceptable civilian deaths leading to failure, or in a GTA type game, the feds arriving.<br>I think to make the experience feel unlimited, these limits need to be applied through such in-game factors, rather than certain skyscrapers being magically indestructible.</p><p>It should be easy in most cases to work the story to provide the necessary incentives, say putting one of your side's key characters in the skyscraper with the bad guys, preventing all-out destruction.</p><p>There does come a point to enjoyable gaming where we, the players, have to choose to embrace the story, rather than vandalizing the sandbox we are playing in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this actually is where gaming is going though , to a very real physics model which takes away the feeling of artificial limits.Where necessary , limits can be placed on the gaming through outside factors , e.g .
in a military game , unacceptable civilian deaths leading to failure , or in a GTA type game , the feds arriving.I think to make the experience feel unlimited , these limits need to be applied through such in-game factors , rather than certain skyscrapers being magically indestructible.It should be easy in most cases to work the story to provide the necessary incentives , say putting one of your side 's key characters in the skyscraper with the bad guys , preventing all-out destruction.There does come a point to enjoyable gaming where we , the players , have to choose to embrace the story , rather than vandalizing the sandbox we are playing in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this actually is where gaming is going though, to a very real physics model which takes away the feeling of artificial limits.Where necessary, limits can be placed on the gaming through outside factors, e.g.
in a military game, unacceptable civilian deaths leading to failure, or in a GTA type game, the feds arriving.I think to make the experience feel unlimited, these limits need to be applied through such in-game factors, rather than certain skyscrapers being magically indestructible.It should be easy in most cases to work the story to provide the necessary incentives, say putting one of your side's key characters in the skyscraper with the bad guys, preventing all-out destruction.There does come a point to enjoyable gaming where we, the players, have to choose to embrace the story, rather than vandalizing the sandbox we are playing in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495697</id>
	<title>Re:Ballistics</title>
	<author>AndrewNeo</author>
	<datestamp>1246125540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the reason they behave this way is simply for performance reasons - Most guns are 'tracers', where they throw a trace line towards the next thing they'll hit, and cause it damage, along with playing animations and sounds and such. Converting each bullet fired into a tangible physics object would be a lot of processing work. Also, many games implement spraying so the bullets never actually go straight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the reason they behave this way is simply for performance reasons - Most guns are 'tracers ' , where they throw a trace line towards the next thing they 'll hit , and cause it damage , along with playing animations and sounds and such .
Converting each bullet fired into a tangible physics object would be a lot of processing work .
Also , many games implement spraying so the bullets never actually go straight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the reason they behave this way is simply for performance reasons - Most guns are 'tracers', where they throw a trace line towards the next thing they'll hit, and cause it damage, along with playing animations and sounds and such.
Converting each bullet fired into a tangible physics object would be a lot of processing work.
Also, many games implement spraying so the bullets never actually go straight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492755</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494067</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1246111620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What pisses me off is the ability of Engineers or repairers to have abilities that Human players don't have.<br>For instance in CoH:ToV you can't repair your own HQ. The AI can and does exactly that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What pisses me off is the ability of Engineers or repairers to have abilities that Human players do n't have.For instance in CoH : ToV you ca n't repair your own HQ .
The AI can and does exactly that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What pisses me off is the ability of Engineers or repairers to have abilities that Human players don't have.For instance in CoH:ToV you can't repair your own HQ.
The AI can and does exactly that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493123</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1246097760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand if you looked at ultima underworld which was one of the best games in the 90s to integrate physics, the game is a classic and everything afterwards in first person perspective after it was more or less a step back...<br>The main issue nowadays is that physics in most action games is only integrate the way you can blow up things, it becomes more interesting as soon as they get out of this stage by utilizing it as puzzle part or simply by trying to make a virtual world within the game like the ultimas did!<br>The problem is most games are not good to begin with and just to integrate physics to blow things up does not make them better!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand if you looked at ultima underworld which was one of the best games in the 90s to integrate physics , the game is a classic and everything afterwards in first person perspective after it was more or less a step back...The main issue nowadays is that physics in most action games is only integrate the way you can blow up things , it becomes more interesting as soon as they get out of this stage by utilizing it as puzzle part or simply by trying to make a virtual world within the game like the ultimas did ! The problem is most games are not good to begin with and just to integrate physics to blow things up does not make them better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand if you looked at ultima underworld which was one of the best games in the 90s to integrate physics, the game is a classic and everything afterwards in first person perspective after it was more or less a step back...The main issue nowadays is that physics in most action games is only integrate the way you can blow up things, it becomes more interesting as soon as they get out of this stage by utilizing it as puzzle part or simply by trying to make a virtual world within the game like the ultimas did!The problem is most games are not good to begin with and just to integrate physics to blow things up does not make them better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493187</id>
	<title>Gameplay != What big game studios want</title>
	<author>kripkenstein</author>
	<datestamp>1246098540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's gameplay that makes you come back, not reality.</p></div><p>100\% true. But major game titles are big business, and what they want is for you to play a new expensive game for a short while, then buy another. Your going back and playing games you already paid for gives them nothing, or worse than nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's gameplay that makes you come back , not reality.100 \ % true .
But major game titles are big business , and what they want is for you to play a new expensive game for a short while , then buy another .
Your going back and playing games you already paid for gives them nothing , or worse than nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's gameplay that makes you come back, not reality.100\% true.
But major game titles are big business, and what they want is for you to play a new expensive game for a short while, then buy another.
Your going back and playing games you already paid for gives them nothing, or worse than nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492457</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Way to Teach Actual Physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think that'll help very much. Ever watched someone try to play Mario Kart, and they just can't figure out how to take a jump or a turn? You'll always get those kinds of people; sometimes, they just don't <i>get</i> it, they can't learn how to play games and build logical mental constructs based on trial, observation and error. They just don't think that way.</p><p>Maybe it's politically incorrect to say this (and in all likelihood, unscientific as well, but I'm going with my gut): if you can't get it, then you'll probably never learn it, even if someone teaches it to you, so why even try. Even I myself wonder if I believe that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that 'll help very much .
Ever watched someone try to play Mario Kart , and they just ca n't figure out how to take a jump or a turn ?
You 'll always get those kinds of people ; sometimes , they just do n't get it , they ca n't learn how to play games and build logical mental constructs based on trial , observation and error .
They just do n't think that way.Maybe it 's politically incorrect to say this ( and in all likelihood , unscientific as well , but I 'm going with my gut ) : if you ca n't get it , then you 'll probably never learn it , even if someone teaches it to you , so why even try .
Even I myself wonder if I believe that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that'll help very much.
Ever watched someone try to play Mario Kart, and they just can't figure out how to take a jump or a turn?
You'll always get those kinds of people; sometimes, they just don't get it, they can't learn how to play games and build logical mental constructs based on trial, observation and error.
They just don't think that way.Maybe it's politically incorrect to say this (and in all likelihood, unscientific as well, but I'm going with my gut): if you can't get it, then you'll probably never learn it, even if someone teaches it to you, so why even try.
Even I myself wonder if I believe that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492755</id>
	<title>Ballistics</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1246093560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, would like to see bullets stop flying straight and true, unaffected by gravity or wind.  Marksmanship is a skill, it's not just placing the crosshairs on a target and pressing the mouse like some sort of flash game for 5-year-olds.  One of the worst, and I mean worst, features of Return to Castle Wolfenstein was the Panzerfaust.  Point and click, and the thing flies straight as an arrow (actually, straighter).  I'm sure a lot of the problem is that most computer nerds have never handled a firearm, and they have some mental model of how shooting works...mostly built out of old episodes of "T.J. Hooker" and similar cop shows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , would like to see bullets stop flying straight and true , unaffected by gravity or wind .
Marksmanship is a skill , it 's not just placing the crosshairs on a target and pressing the mouse like some sort of flash game for 5-year-olds .
One of the worst , and I mean worst , features of Return to Castle Wolfenstein was the Panzerfaust .
Point and click , and the thing flies straight as an arrow ( actually , straighter ) .
I 'm sure a lot of the problem is that most computer nerds have never handled a firearm , and they have some mental model of how shooting works...mostly built out of old episodes of " T.J. Hooker " and similar cop shows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, would like to see bullets stop flying straight and true, unaffected by gravity or wind.
Marksmanship is a skill, it's not just placing the crosshairs on a target and pressing the mouse like some sort of flash game for 5-year-olds.
One of the worst, and I mean worst, features of Return to Castle Wolfenstein was the Panzerfaust.
Point and click, and the thing flies straight as an arrow (actually, straighter).
I'm sure a lot of the problem is that most computer nerds have never handled a firearm, and they have some mental model of how shooting works...mostly built out of old episodes of "T.J. Hooker" and similar cop shows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28508723</id>
	<title>Re:Ballistics</title>
	<author>flewp</author>
	<datestamp>1246199220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except even those bullets that are "sprayed" ARE going straight - they're just leaving the gun at a slightly different angle than the other bullets, but their trajectory is still straight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except even those bullets that are " sprayed " ARE going straight - they 're just leaving the gun at a slightly different angle than the other bullets , but their trajectory is still straight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except even those bullets that are "sprayed" ARE going straight - they're just leaving the gun at a slightly different angle than the other bullets, but their trajectory is still straight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492691</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>banffbug</author>
	<datestamp>1246136100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...the classics like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye. </p></div><p>I was hoping you'd mention games from the commodore 64, not the other 64!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...the classics like Perfect Dark , The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye .
I was hoping you 'd mention games from the commodore 64 , not the other 64 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the classics like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye.
I was hoping you'd mention games from the commodore 64, not the other 64!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496303</id>
	<title>Re:Realistic Doesn't Sell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246131360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just curious:  Have you watched a film made since the 1980s?  Most of these are pretty outdated cliches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just curious : Have you watched a film made since the 1980s ?
Most of these are pretty outdated cliches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just curious:  Have you watched a film made since the 1980s?
Most of these are pretty outdated cliches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28500897</id>
	<title>Corny Acting</title>
	<author>BrightSpark</author>
	<datestamp>1246123140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is plenty software makers can do to make games more playable and enjoyable - start looking at the scripts, story play and character acting. The console gaming segment has made for fairly linear stories to get to check-points. Look, I'm not saying that the 80s games were terrific either with the "get object A and take to room B" gameplay, but there was only so much to stuff into 64Kb of memory. Some RPG open stories and environments, like Oblivion and Sacred show how characeters that want to explore and advance their character the way they want can do it. Far Cry 2 is a rare modern shooter that has the same concept.

I'm sure it is cheaper to explore this avenue and probably more succesful than to invest in working out how to get quad cores cranking. I'm still using DX9 and happy with it.

Now lets go get that Kilrathi scum, Paladin!</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is plenty software makers can do to make games more playable and enjoyable - start looking at the scripts , story play and character acting .
The console gaming segment has made for fairly linear stories to get to check-points .
Look , I 'm not saying that the 80s games were terrific either with the " get object A and take to room B " gameplay , but there was only so much to stuff into 64Kb of memory .
Some RPG open stories and environments , like Oblivion and Sacred show how characeters that want to explore and advance their character the way they want can do it .
Far Cry 2 is a rare modern shooter that has the same concept .
I 'm sure it is cheaper to explore this avenue and probably more succesful than to invest in working out how to get quad cores cranking .
I 'm still using DX9 and happy with it .
Now lets go get that Kilrathi scum , Paladin !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is plenty software makers can do to make games more playable and enjoyable - start looking at the scripts, story play and character acting.
The console gaming segment has made for fairly linear stories to get to check-points.
Look, I'm not saying that the 80s games were terrific either with the "get object A and take to room B" gameplay, but there was only so much to stuff into 64Kb of memory.
Some RPG open stories and environments, like Oblivion and Sacred show how characeters that want to explore and advance their character the way they want can do it.
Far Cry 2 is a rare modern shooter that has the same concept.
I'm sure it is cheaper to explore this avenue and probably more succesful than to invest in working out how to get quad cores cranking.
I'm still using DX9 and happy with it.
Now lets go get that Kilrathi scum, Paladin!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493889</id>
	<title>False</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246109220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God damnit, i hate people like you. Games werent better back then. It's a common mindset.Ever heard an old lady talking about how everything used to be bette? Ever heard your parents talking about how their generation were better? It's the same mindset. You tend to believe the games were superior simply because they are imprinted in your brain as good memories. Surely if you would have played Halo 3 as a kid you would in 10 years say that halo 3 was better than any "Modern" shooter. It's simple logic and it's also the truth. So get the fuck out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God damnit , i hate people like you .
Games werent better back then .
It 's a common mindset.Ever heard an old lady talking about how everything used to be bette ?
Ever heard your parents talking about how their generation were better ?
It 's the same mindset .
You tend to believe the games were superior simply because they are imprinted in your brain as good memories .
Surely if you would have played Halo 3 as a kid you would in 10 years say that halo 3 was better than any " Modern " shooter .
It 's simple logic and it 's also the truth .
So get the fuck out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God damnit, i hate people like you.
Games werent better back then.
It's a common mindset.Ever heard an old lady talking about how everything used to be bette?
Ever heard your parents talking about how their generation were better?
It's the same mindset.
You tend to believe the games were superior simply because they are imprinted in your brain as good memories.
Surely if you would have played Halo 3 as a kid you would in 10 years say that halo 3 was better than any "Modern" shooter.
It's simple logic and it's also the truth.
So get the fuck out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495811</id>
	<title>Re:Who Gives a Damn?</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1246126620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The thing that really counts is the plot and the game-play.</p></div><p>Yeah, but physics changes and enhances gameplay, as it allows the environment to react dynamically, instead of just in the few ways the designer intended. When done right, physics give you a more believable and interactive world. Of course when done wrong you end up with a stupid gimmick that is fun for five minutes and then gets boring.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing that really counts is the plot and the game-play.Yeah , but physics changes and enhances gameplay , as it allows the environment to react dynamically , instead of just in the few ways the designer intended .
When done right , physics give you a more believable and interactive world .
Of course when done wrong you end up with a stupid gimmick that is fun for five minutes and then gets boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing that really counts is the plot and the game-play.Yeah, but physics changes and enhances gameplay, as it allows the environment to react dynamically, instead of just in the few ways the designer intended.
When done right, physics give you a more believable and interactive world.
Of course when done wrong you end up with a stupid gimmick that is fun for five minutes and then gets boring.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494317</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>morari</author>
	<datestamp>1246113960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Compare modern first-person/third-person shooters and compare them to the classics like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye. They were so much fun because handling was so easy, you could move, you could strafe, etc. It was so much better!</p></div><p>I would not, <b>ever<b> say that a console-based FPS handles easily... especially not one using that hideous N64 controller.</b></b></p><p><b><b>Still, your point stands. Gameplay is more important. That said, extensively thought-out physics could go a long way in making or breaking the gameplay in some titles.</b></b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare modern first-person/third-person shooters and compare them to the classics like Perfect Dark , The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye .
They were so much fun because handling was so easy , you could move , you could strafe , etc .
It was so much better ! I would not , ever say that a console-based FPS handles easily... especially not one using that hideous N64 controller.Still , your point stands .
Gameplay is more important .
That said , extensively thought-out physics could go a long way in making or breaking the gameplay in some titles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compare modern first-person/third-person shooters and compare them to the classics like Perfect Dark, The Legend of Zelda or Goldeneye.
They were so much fun because handling was so easy, you could move, you could strafe, etc.
It was so much better!I would not, ever say that a console-based FPS handles easily... especially not one using that hideous N64 controller.Still, your point stands.
Gameplay is more important.
That said, extensively thought-out physics could go a long way in making or breaking the gameplay in some titles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495947</id>
	<title>Re:Realistic Doesn't Sell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246128060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]11. When jumping between buildings or platforms, nobody ever has a good margin: they always barely make it. Physical laws expand the width to be barely below the maximum of the hero.[/quote]</p><p>E.T. got this backwards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] 11 .
When jumping between buildings or platforms , nobody ever has a good margin : they always barely make it .
Physical laws expand the width to be barely below the maximum of the hero. [ /quote ] E.T .
got this backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]11.
When jumping between buildings or platforms, nobody ever has a good margin: they always barely make it.
Physical laws expand the width to be barely below the maximum of the hero.[/quote]E.T.
got this backwards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493133</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>gnud</author>
	<datestamp>1246097880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, a game like Deus Ex (which is a GREAT game) could have benefitted enormously from the player being able to, say, create a new door with some c4.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , a game like Deus Ex ( which is a GREAT game ) could have benefitted enormously from the player being able to , say , create a new door with some c4 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, a game like Deus Ex (which is a GREAT game) could have benefitted enormously from the player being able to, say, create a new door with some c4.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492405</id>
	<title>A similar tech advance...</title>
	<author>redbeardcanada</author>
	<datestamp>1246045980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I hope these guys working in a similar area are invited to be part of the panel:

<a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news\_briefs/new\_video\_game\_technology" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.theonion.com/content/news\_briefs/new\_video\_game\_technology</a> [theonion.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I hope these guys working in a similar area are invited to be part of the panel : http : //www.theonion.com/content/news \ _briefs/new \ _video \ _game \ _technology [ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I hope these guys working in a similar area are invited to be part of the panel:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news\_briefs/new\_video\_game\_technology [theonion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493145</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246098060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't really like advanced realistic-explosion-simulate-every-water-molecule physics myself. It seems like a substitute for gameplay these days. And god forbid the physics requires a whole bunch of libraries on operating systems I don't actually use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really like advanced realistic-explosion-simulate-every-water-molecule physics myself .
It seems like a substitute for gameplay these days .
And god forbid the physics requires a whole bunch of libraries on operating systems I do n't actually use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really like advanced realistic-explosion-simulate-every-water-molecule physics myself.
It seems like a substitute for gameplay these days.
And god forbid the physics requires a whole bunch of libraries on operating systems I don't actually use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495781</id>
	<title>Re:The player is the biggest problem with destruct</title>
	<author>SpectreBlofeld</author>
	<datestamp>1246126260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter how realistic they make the game, when you come to a locked door, you won't be able to get through it, despite the fact that you're carrying a crowbar/shotgun/friggin' rocket launcher, etc.</p><p>Fences that are taller than waist-high will post a problem, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how realistic they make the game , when you come to a locked door , you wo n't be able to get through it , despite the fact that you 're carrying a crowbar/shotgun/friggin ' rocket launcher , etc.Fences that are taller than waist-high will post a problem , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how realistic they make the game, when you come to a locked door, you won't be able to get through it, despite the fact that you're carrying a crowbar/shotgun/friggin' rocket launcher, etc.Fences that are taller than waist-high will post a problem, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492957</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Way to Teach Actual Physics</title>
	<author>johannesg</author>
	<datestamp>1246095600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the toughest aspects of calculus-based physics is teaching how to intuit it.  Space-based games (i. e., ones involving the behavior of light, planets, and other celestial entities) written to conform to actual physics laws would be a fun way to teach students how to intuit physics.</p></div><p>Do such games actually exist? Every title I can think of has blatantly bogus physics. Even when discounting FTL-travel (which I can forgive on the basis of no one living long enough to actually reach another star during their lifetimes otherwise), you often see simulations in which spaceships behave like planes: they bank, they share common orientation, their relative speed never exceeds something that is humanly understandable, etc.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This generation of students is just damned lucky to have access to such computing power.  In the old days, the most readily accessible computing power was an 8080 hobbyist board.  Simulating the universe on that is impossible.  The students of that era were stuck with just manipulating integrals and derivatives.</p><p>Life is unfair.  I hate it.</p></div><p>Should we get off your lawn now?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the toughest aspects of calculus-based physics is teaching how to intuit it .
Space-based games ( i. e. , ones involving the behavior of light , planets , and other celestial entities ) written to conform to actual physics laws would be a fun way to teach students how to intuit physics.Do such games actually exist ?
Every title I can think of has blatantly bogus physics .
Even when discounting FTL-travel ( which I can forgive on the basis of no one living long enough to actually reach another star during their lifetimes otherwise ) , you often see simulations in which spaceships behave like planes : they bank , they share common orientation , their relative speed never exceeds something that is humanly understandable , etc.This generation of students is just damned lucky to have access to such computing power .
In the old days , the most readily accessible computing power was an 8080 hobbyist board .
Simulating the universe on that is impossible .
The students of that era were stuck with just manipulating integrals and derivatives.Life is unfair .
I hate it.Should we get off your lawn now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the toughest aspects of calculus-based physics is teaching how to intuit it.
Space-based games (i. e., ones involving the behavior of light, planets, and other celestial entities) written to conform to actual physics laws would be a fun way to teach students how to intuit physics.Do such games actually exist?
Every title I can think of has blatantly bogus physics.
Even when discounting FTL-travel (which I can forgive on the basis of no one living long enough to actually reach another star during their lifetimes otherwise), you often see simulations in which spaceships behave like planes: they bank, they share common orientation, their relative speed never exceeds something that is humanly understandable, etc.This generation of students is just damned lucky to have access to such computing power.
In the old days, the most readily accessible computing power was an 8080 hobbyist board.
Simulating the universe on that is impossible.
The students of that era were stuck with just manipulating integrals and derivatives.Life is unfair.
I hate it.Should we get off your lawn now?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494079</id>
	<title>Social/Strategic "Physics"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a sucker for emergent gameplay.  It is enjoyable making my own doors and watching a structure crumble piece over piece in the new Red Faction.  I very much appreciate the connection they are trying to make between physics and emergent gameplay.  But, I am curious how far these physics could really take the player into emergent gameplay.</p><p>It seems like AI, obviously on an individual level, but perhaps even more so on a massive social and strategic level would seem to be much more fruitful for emergent gameplay.  I realize AI is not easy, but I can't help but think it couldn't be too hard to have a society or a strategy crumble the same way a Red Faction structure does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a sucker for emergent gameplay .
It is enjoyable making my own doors and watching a structure crumble piece over piece in the new Red Faction .
I very much appreciate the connection they are trying to make between physics and emergent gameplay .
But , I am curious how far these physics could really take the player into emergent gameplay.It seems like AI , obviously on an individual level , but perhaps even more so on a massive social and strategic level would seem to be much more fruitful for emergent gameplay .
I realize AI is not easy , but I ca n't help but think it could n't be too hard to have a society or a strategy crumble the same way a Red Faction structure does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a sucker for emergent gameplay.
It is enjoyable making my own doors and watching a structure crumble piece over piece in the new Red Faction.
I very much appreciate the connection they are trying to make between physics and emergent gameplay.
But, I am curious how far these physics could really take the player into emergent gameplay.It seems like AI, obviously on an individual level, but perhaps even more so on a massive social and strategic level would seem to be much more fruitful for emergent gameplay.
I realize AI is not easy, but I can't help but think it couldn't be too hard to have a society or a strategy crumble the same way a Red Faction structure does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493239</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Way to Teach Actual Physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246099260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old as it may be, Elite II makes a fair attempt at keeping within the bounds of Newtonian physics. And all on a single-density floppy drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old as it may be , Elite II makes a fair attempt at keeping within the bounds of Newtonian physics .
And all on a single-density floppy drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old as it may be, Elite II makes a fair attempt at keeping within the bounds of Newtonian physics.
And all on a single-density floppy drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492923</id>
	<title>the physics of you willy being destroyed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246095120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>imagine you willy being smacked until it bleeds</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>imagine you willy being smacked until it bleeds</tokentext>
<sentencetext>imagine you willy being smacked until it bleeds</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493713</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1246106520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem is that most of the big videogame companies would like to mimic big movie companies.</p><p>When they meet investors, they explain that they want to provide an experience similar to a movie, even though in my opinion, these are quite separate domains, but this makes the investors dream (and take out their cash).</p><p>I was a game programmer, and I stopped working in videogames mostly because the games I worked on were less and less funny to play as I was going older.</p><p>I remember one of my colleagues in 1985, who dreamt about a 'game' where you could walk into a city.<br>I guess he should be happy with Shenmue: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenmue" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenmue</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>But I still wonder what is funny in doing this ?</p><p>Real life is so fucking boring !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is that most of the big videogame companies would like to mimic big movie companies.When they meet investors , they explain that they want to provide an experience similar to a movie , even though in my opinion , these are quite separate domains , but this makes the investors dream ( and take out their cash ) .I was a game programmer , and I stopped working in videogames mostly because the games I worked on were less and less funny to play as I was going older.I remember one of my colleagues in 1985 , who dreamt about a 'game ' where you could walk into a city.I guess he should be happy with Shenmue : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenmue [ wikipedia.org ] But I still wonder what is funny in doing this ? Real life is so fucking boring !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is that most of the big videogame companies would like to mimic big movie companies.When they meet investors, they explain that they want to provide an experience similar to a movie, even though in my opinion, these are quite separate domains, but this makes the investors dream (and take out their cash).I was a game programmer, and I stopped working in videogames mostly because the games I worked on were less and less funny to play as I was going older.I remember one of my colleagues in 1985, who dreamt about a 'game' where you could walk into a city.I guess he should be happy with Shenmue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenmue [wikipedia.org]But I still wonder what is funny in doing this ?Real life is so fucking boring !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494481</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Way to Teach Actual Physics</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1246115340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hallelujah, if you want to understand orbital mechanics in an intuitive way, just mess around with a simulator like Orbit or even games such as Spacewar!</p><p>Yes, Spacewar!, the first computer game, from 1961. It actually wasn't that bad in the physics department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hallelujah , if you want to understand orbital mechanics in an intuitive way , just mess around with a simulator like Orbit or even games such as Spacewar ! Yes , Spacewar ! , the first computer game , from 1961 .
It actually was n't that bad in the physics department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hallelujah, if you want to understand orbital mechanics in an intuitive way, just mess around with a simulator like Orbit or even games such as Spacewar!Yes, Spacewar!, the first computer game, from 1961.
It actually wasn't that bad in the physics department.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494409</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Way to Teach Actual Physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246114740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-War\_(Independence\_War)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">I-War</a> [wikipedia.org] series is one of the few space combat games I've seen that adheres to Newtonian physics (apart from having two different forms of FTL drive). It also averts the usual silliness of having a high-tech spaceship and requiring pilots to manually aim at distant targets; automatic targeting is standard on most weapons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The I-War [ wikipedia.org ] series is one of the few space combat games I 've seen that adheres to Newtonian physics ( apart from having two different forms of FTL drive ) .
It also averts the usual silliness of having a high-tech spaceship and requiring pilots to manually aim at distant targets ; automatic targeting is standard on most weapons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The I-War [wikipedia.org] series is one of the few space combat games I've seen that adheres to Newtonian physics (apart from having two different forms of FTL drive).
It also averts the usual silliness of having a high-tech spaceship and requiring pilots to manually aim at distant targets; automatic targeting is standard on most weapons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492957</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496341</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>thesandtiger</author>
	<datestamp>1246131600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are some modern games that seem to have figured out how to have more realistic (in some ways) physics and outstanding control schemes.</p><p>Prototype is one example - you're capable of doing some REALLY crazy and physics defying stuff, but when you don't use any of the "special" powers or moves the physics tends to be more or less real. The engine lends itself to some emergent stuff. Another example is one of the Hulk games - I don't even bother with the missions in that one, I just piss the army off to the point where they're sending everything they've got at me, and then I beat them to death with their own people and vehicles. Great fun.</p><p>There are plenty of ways to give games realistic (or more realistic) physics and still have them be tremendous fun. There are quite a few of the modern games that are *damn* fun to play because of their physics. I suspect that the difference you're really getting at is that in the olden days there could be more of a focus on the game play since shiny rendering and physics engines weren't enough to sell a game. Fortunately, there are modern games with great gameplay AND all the shiny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some modern games that seem to have figured out how to have more realistic ( in some ways ) physics and outstanding control schemes.Prototype is one example - you 're capable of doing some REALLY crazy and physics defying stuff , but when you do n't use any of the " special " powers or moves the physics tends to be more or less real .
The engine lends itself to some emergent stuff .
Another example is one of the Hulk games - I do n't even bother with the missions in that one , I just piss the army off to the point where they 're sending everything they 've got at me , and then I beat them to death with their own people and vehicles .
Great fun.There are plenty of ways to give games realistic ( or more realistic ) physics and still have them be tremendous fun .
There are quite a few of the modern games that are * damn * fun to play because of their physics .
I suspect that the difference you 're really getting at is that in the olden days there could be more of a focus on the game play since shiny rendering and physics engines were n't enough to sell a game .
Fortunately , there are modern games with great gameplay AND all the shiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some modern games that seem to have figured out how to have more realistic (in some ways) physics and outstanding control schemes.Prototype is one example - you're capable of doing some REALLY crazy and physics defying stuff, but when you don't use any of the "special" powers or moves the physics tends to be more or less real.
The engine lends itself to some emergent stuff.
Another example is one of the Hulk games - I don't even bother with the missions in that one, I just piss the army off to the point where they're sending everything they've got at me, and then I beat them to death with their own people and vehicles.
Great fun.There are plenty of ways to give games realistic (or more realistic) physics and still have them be tremendous fun.
There are quite a few of the modern games that are *damn* fun to play because of their physics.
I suspect that the difference you're really getting at is that in the olden days there could be more of a focus on the game play since shiny rendering and physics engines weren't enough to sell a game.
Fortunately, there are modern games with great gameplay AND all the shiny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495379</id>
	<title>Re:Am I the only one</title>
	<author>Quantumstate</author>
	<datestamp>1246122960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think AI's are gong through a transition period where before they were almost entirely scripted so in an fps they wander around a set route until you spot them and then they perform the attack action.  Now they are trying to make the AI think more for itself so that you can get more interesting game play that adapts to what you do.  The problem is that the new stuff is pretty difficult so you get quite a few issues like you say because the testers cannot pick out and fix all of the little problems because the system is complicated and hard to understand.  If you ever look at a system like that you will realise how hard it is to fix issues because you get a lot of chaos so reproducing an issue is difficult let alone fixing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think AI 's are gong through a transition period where before they were almost entirely scripted so in an fps they wander around a set route until you spot them and then they perform the attack action .
Now they are trying to make the AI think more for itself so that you can get more interesting game play that adapts to what you do .
The problem is that the new stuff is pretty difficult so you get quite a few issues like you say because the testers can not pick out and fix all of the little problems because the system is complicated and hard to understand .
If you ever look at a system like that you will realise how hard it is to fix issues because you get a lot of chaos so reproducing an issue is difficult let alone fixing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think AI's are gong through a transition period where before they were almost entirely scripted so in an fps they wander around a set route until you spot them and then they perform the attack action.
Now they are trying to make the AI think more for itself so that you can get more interesting game play that adapts to what you do.
The problem is that the new stuff is pretty difficult so you get quite a few issues like you say because the testers cannot pick out and fix all of the little problems because the system is complicated and hard to understand.
If you ever look at a system like that you will realise how hard it is to fix issues because you get a lot of chaos so reproducing an issue is difficult let alone fixing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493007</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492815</id>
	<title>-.- sigh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246094040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is stupid. Who cares about the physics in games. If you're coding for physics instead of for the games speed/fun then you are doing it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is stupid .
Who cares about the physics in games .
If you 're coding for physics instead of for the games speed/fun then you are doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is stupid.
Who cares about the physics in games.
If you're coding for physics instead of for the games speed/fun then you are doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493053</id>
	<title>Re:More Realistic != More Fun</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1246096740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of a great parody of Trespasser that involved a futile (live action) attempt to stack coke cans... wish I could find the video, Google is failing me... anyone?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of a great parody of Trespasser that involved a futile ( live action ) attempt to stack coke cans... wish I could find the video , Google is failing me... anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of a great parody of Trespasser that involved a futile (live action) attempt to stack coke cans... wish I could find the video, Google is failing me... anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493325</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1246100460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm the first person to dream of games made of trillions of individual atoms and realtime raytracing, but sad to say, I agree with you. I think games can have the best of all worlds - simple control mechanics, luscious, AND clearly defined, detailed graphics (rather than greyish, over texture-mapped, cookie cutter style 3D objects), and 'abstract realism' which looks convincing and often colorful, rather than just trying to imitate this world.</p><p>Music in games is the same now. It must be 'real' (usually bland) orchestral stuff, rather than a melody which is fun and memorable to listen to like many of the older games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the first person to dream of games made of trillions of individual atoms and realtime raytracing , but sad to say , I agree with you .
I think games can have the best of all worlds - simple control mechanics , luscious , AND clearly defined , detailed graphics ( rather than greyish , over texture-mapped , cookie cutter style 3D objects ) , and 'abstract realism ' which looks convincing and often colorful , rather than just trying to imitate this world.Music in games is the same now .
It must be 'real ' ( usually bland ) orchestral stuff , rather than a melody which is fun and memorable to listen to like many of the older games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the first person to dream of games made of trillions of individual atoms and realtime raytracing, but sad to say, I agree with you.
I think games can have the best of all worlds - simple control mechanics, luscious, AND clearly defined, detailed graphics (rather than greyish, over texture-mapped, cookie cutter style 3D objects), and 'abstract realism' which looks convincing and often colorful, rather than just trying to imitate this world.Music in games is the same now.
It must be 'real' (usually bland) orchestral stuff, rather than a melody which is fun and memorable to listen to like many of the older games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28502451</id>
	<title>Re:Realistic Doesn't Sell</title>
	<author>whatever3003</author>
	<datestamp>1246190460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>gawd. It's "straight" not "strait".</htmltext>
<tokenext>gawd .
It 's " straight " not " strait " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gawd.
It's "straight" not "strait".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492229</id>
	<title>Two acronyms</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246044180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GTA MMORPG</p><p>there's your 'WoW' killer.</p><p>figure out how to do that and it will have far more impact than having physics a little more realistic in some situations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GTA MMORPGthere 's your 'WoW ' killer.figure out how to do that and it will have far more impact than having physics a little more realistic in some situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GTA MMORPGthere's your 'WoW' killer.figure out how to do that and it will have far more impact than having physics a little more realistic in some situations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495039</id>
	<title>Re:The player is the biggest problem with destruct</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1246120320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you've either got arbitrary restrictions or arbitrary game ending scenarios because I just happened to collapse a skyscraper or fourty that the plot needs.</p></div><p>Well, do it like in the real world. If the bad guys headquarter gets blown up before some story mission, relocate him to a different building. Its not like reality stops working just because some building gets blown up, people work around it, construction workers repair it, police mean jail the person who did it and so on, a video game can do much of the same, especially when it is an open world game to begin with. Its also a simple matter of economy, blowing up big stuff requires lots of explosives, simply don't give the player a way to obtain them or just rebuild stuff on the right side of the map, while the player is blowing stuff up on the left. A single player can't level a whole world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 've either got arbitrary restrictions or arbitrary game ending scenarios because I just happened to collapse a skyscraper or fourty that the plot needs.Well , do it like in the real world .
If the bad guys headquarter gets blown up before some story mission , relocate him to a different building .
Its not like reality stops working just because some building gets blown up , people work around it , construction workers repair it , police mean jail the person who did it and so on , a video game can do much of the same , especially when it is an open world game to begin with .
Its also a simple matter of economy , blowing up big stuff requires lots of explosives , simply do n't give the player a way to obtain them or just rebuild stuff on the right side of the map , while the player is blowing stuff up on the left .
A single player ca n't level a whole world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you've either got arbitrary restrictions or arbitrary game ending scenarios because I just happened to collapse a skyscraper or fourty that the plot needs.Well, do it like in the real world.
If the bad guys headquarter gets blown up before some story mission, relocate him to a different building.
Its not like reality stops working just because some building gets blown up, people work around it, construction workers repair it, police mean jail the person who did it and so on, a video game can do much of the same, especially when it is an open world game to begin with.
Its also a simple matter of economy, blowing up big stuff requires lots of explosives, simply don't give the player a way to obtain them or just rebuild stuff on the right side of the map, while the player is blowing stuff up on the left.
A single player can't level a whole world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28500543</id>
	<title>Re:The player is the biggest problem with destruct</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246120080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where necessary, limits can be placed on the gaming through outside factors, e.g. in a military game, unacceptable civilian deaths leading to failure, or in a GTA type game, the feds arriving.</p></div><p>Dude, have you ever played GTA?  The feds <em>can</em> arrive, and I'll tell you what it means: free tanks!  Woohoo!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where necessary , limits can be placed on the gaming through outside factors , e.g .
in a military game , unacceptable civilian deaths leading to failure , or in a GTA type game , the feds arriving.Dude , have you ever played GTA ?
The feds can arrive , and I 'll tell you what it means : free tanks !
Woohoo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where necessary, limits can be placed on the gaming through outside factors, e.g.
in a military game, unacceptable civilian deaths leading to failure, or in a GTA type game, the feds arriving.Dude, have you ever played GTA?
The feds can arrive, and I'll tell you what it means: free tanks!
Woohoo!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492475</id>
	<title>Re:Nice Way to Teach Actual Physics</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1246133160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't worry, for whatever reason this generation of students doesn't yet have the software to simulate physics for the purposes of learning. We do have software to make manipulating integrals and derivatives easier, but it doesn't become useful until quite late. Really it's still overhead projectors and acetone slides, you're not missing much, but hopefully that is yet to change</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , for whatever reason this generation of students does n't yet have the software to simulate physics for the purposes of learning .
We do have software to make manipulating integrals and derivatives easier , but it does n't become useful until quite late .
Really it 's still overhead projectors and acetone slides , you 're not missing much , but hopefully that is yet to change</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, for whatever reason this generation of students doesn't yet have the software to simulate physics for the purposes of learning.
We do have software to make manipulating integrals and derivatives easier, but it doesn't become useful until quite late.
Really it's still overhead projectors and acetone slides, you're not missing much, but hopefully that is yet to change</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492823</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1246094100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, physics can add fun. While Crazy Machines didn't benefit from improving the physics over The Incredible Machine games like Red Faction Guerilla turn the physics into a major gameplay element, letting you disintegrate the ground under an enemy's feet or enter a building through a wall with your sledgehammer (or vaporize an enemy in cover along with what he's hiding behind). I also really liked NyxQuest: Kindred Spirits (formerly Icarian) with its puzzles about moving blocks around your character.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , physics can add fun .
While Crazy Machines did n't benefit from improving the physics over The Incredible Machine games like Red Faction Guerilla turn the physics into a major gameplay element , letting you disintegrate the ground under an enemy 's feet or enter a building through a wall with your sledgehammer ( or vaporize an enemy in cover along with what he 's hiding behind ) .
I also really liked NyxQuest : Kindred Spirits ( formerly Icarian ) with its puzzles about moving blocks around your character .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, physics can add fun.
While Crazy Machines didn't benefit from improving the physics over The Incredible Machine games like Red Faction Guerilla turn the physics into a major gameplay element, letting you disintegrate the ground under an enemy's feet or enter a building through a wall with your sledgehammer (or vaporize an enemy in cover along with what he's hiding behind).
I also really liked NyxQuest: Kindred Spirits (formerly Icarian) with its puzzles about moving blocks around your character.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28499839</id>
	<title>Re:Realistic Doesn't Sell</title>
	<author>Dutch Gun</author>
	<datestamp>1246114200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot a few:</p><p>12. Every car that crashes will explode.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 12a. Exception - if the hero is in the car, it will only leak gas.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 12b. In such a case, there will always be an ignition source nearby.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 12c. The gas will always run toward the ignition source.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 12d. The gas will ignite only when the hero has just gotten free of the car, and is running away.</p><p>13. Heroes can outrun an explosive blast</p><p>14. Bullets don't fly straight for bad guys.</p><p>Optional Cartoon Physics Module:</p><p>1. You won't fall off a cliff until you realize there is no solid ground beneath you.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1a. Attempts to run back to solid ground will be successfully unless you look down<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1b. Bonus points if you are the one to point out to your adversary that he has no ground beneath him.</p><p>2.  Getting crushed by massive objects results not in death or serious injury, but an overall bodily compression with a look strikingly similar to an accordion.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2a.  Bonus points will be awarded if victim puts up a tiny umbrella shortly before impact.</p><p>3.  Accidental exposure to high explosives will result in no injury except for a blackening of face, mussing of hair, and tattering of clothes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot a few : 12 .
Every car that crashes will explode .
    12a .
Exception - if the hero is in the car , it will only leak gas .
    12b .
In such a case , there will always be an ignition source nearby .
    12c .
The gas will always run toward the ignition source .
    12d .
The gas will ignite only when the hero has just gotten free of the car , and is running away.13 .
Heroes can outrun an explosive blast14 .
Bullets do n't fly straight for bad guys.Optional Cartoon Physics Module : 1 .
You wo n't fall off a cliff until you realize there is no solid ground beneath you .
    1a .
Attempts to run back to solid ground will be successfully unless you look down     1b .
Bonus points if you are the one to point out to your adversary that he has no ground beneath him.2 .
Getting crushed by massive objects results not in death or serious injury , but an overall bodily compression with a look strikingly similar to an accordion .
    2a .
Bonus points will be awarded if victim puts up a tiny umbrella shortly before impact.3 .
Accidental exposure to high explosives will result in no injury except for a blackening of face , mussing of hair , and tattering of clothes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot a few:12.
Every car that crashes will explode.
    12a.
Exception - if the hero is in the car, it will only leak gas.
    12b.
In such a case, there will always be an ignition source nearby.
    12c.
The gas will always run toward the ignition source.
    12d.
The gas will ignite only when the hero has just gotten free of the car, and is running away.13.
Heroes can outrun an explosive blast14.
Bullets don't fly straight for bad guys.Optional Cartoon Physics Module:1.
You won't fall off a cliff until you realize there is no solid ground beneath you.
    1a.
Attempts to run back to solid ground will be successfully unless you look down
    1b.
Bonus points if you are the one to point out to your adversary that he has no ground beneath him.2.
Getting crushed by massive objects results not in death or serious injury, but an overall bodily compression with a look strikingly similar to an accordion.
    2a.
Bonus points will be awarded if victim puts up a tiny umbrella shortly before impact.3.
Accidental exposure to high explosives will result in no injury except for a blackening of face, mussing of hair, and tattering of clothes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492813</id>
	<title>Re:No more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246093980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, and I'd go stronger than just less-high-fidelity 3d simulations. How about deliberately cartoony? 2d? Anything with a style and interesting gameplay is good as far as I'm concerned. Would <em>Braid</em> have gained anything by being 3d? To the extent that games are visual art as well as games, high-fidelity 3d simulations actually seem like they limit the degree of distinctive style that a game can bring. And a focus on them doesn't usually help gameplay either, because all sorts of cool ideas become too complicated to implement if you have to integrate them with some crazy physics engine with all sorts of edge cases. I've heard of even relatively simple stuff getting cut, like dumbing down NPC AI because it screwed up the pathfinding algorithm.</p><p>I'm not saying there's <em>no</em> place for the style of game that is basically an accurate physics simulation in which you can do things. But it's not clear to me that it's where the current best cost/reward tradeoff lies.</p><p>It seems at least a few other people agree, because many of the recent games that have created buzz have been based around something cool other than more-realistic graphics and physics. World of Goo was based heavily around a physics engine, for example, but a totally unrealistic one that gives it its characteristic style (and, incidentally, one they built with $10k).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , and I 'd go stronger than just less-high-fidelity 3d simulations .
How about deliberately cartoony ?
2d ? Anything with a style and interesting gameplay is good as far as I 'm concerned .
Would Braid have gained anything by being 3d ?
To the extent that games are visual art as well as games , high-fidelity 3d simulations actually seem like they limit the degree of distinctive style that a game can bring .
And a focus on them does n't usually help gameplay either , because all sorts of cool ideas become too complicated to implement if you have to integrate them with some crazy physics engine with all sorts of edge cases .
I 've heard of even relatively simple stuff getting cut , like dumbing down NPC AI because it screwed up the pathfinding algorithm.I 'm not saying there 's no place for the style of game that is basically an accurate physics simulation in which you can do things .
But it 's not clear to me that it 's where the current best cost/reward tradeoff lies.It seems at least a few other people agree , because many of the recent games that have created buzz have been based around something cool other than more-realistic graphics and physics .
World of Goo was based heavily around a physics engine , for example , but a totally unrealistic one that gives it its characteristic style ( and , incidentally , one they built with $ 10k ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, and I'd go stronger than just less-high-fidelity 3d simulations.
How about deliberately cartoony?
2d? Anything with a style and interesting gameplay is good as far as I'm concerned.
Would Braid have gained anything by being 3d?
To the extent that games are visual art as well as games, high-fidelity 3d simulations actually seem like they limit the degree of distinctive style that a game can bring.
And a focus on them doesn't usually help gameplay either, because all sorts of cool ideas become too complicated to implement if you have to integrate them with some crazy physics engine with all sorts of edge cases.
I've heard of even relatively simple stuff getting cut, like dumbing down NPC AI because it screwed up the pathfinding algorithm.I'm not saying there's no place for the style of game that is basically an accurate physics simulation in which you can do things.
But it's not clear to me that it's where the current best cost/reward tradeoff lies.It seems at least a few other people agree, because many of the recent games that have created buzz have been based around something cool other than more-realistic graphics and physics.
World of Goo was based heavily around a physics engine, for example, but a totally unrealistic one that gives it its characteristic style (and, incidentally, one they built with $10k).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493829</id>
	<title>Re:More Realistic != More Fun</title>
	<author>Jarnin</author>
	<datestamp>1246108260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Portal is probably the best example of physics designed around the game, not the other way around. Or maybe not. In either case, Portal was a blast even though it was probably one of the simplest, shortest games I've ever played.

You know what I'd love to see? A scifi game that actually played around with gravity. Every scifi game (where you can get out of a ship and run around) has the same gravity in every location. Take Mass Effect for example: You fly up to a planet and check it out: Most of them have near Earth gravity. Then there's a mission on Earths moon, and guess what? The Moon has the same gravity as Earth! Why? Oh, right, because the game engine only supports a single, unified gravity for any given environment.
This is why scifi games usually suck. When you can't even represent what it would be like to be in lower gravity, what's the friggin point of visiting other planets? How about space stations that use rotational gravity?

But think! These days maps are critically designed to have you go from A to B to C on the prescribed path through the prescribed targets. If you could jump up on a ridge and run past that, well, there goes a bunch of development hours down the tube. But how grand it would be! I miss the freedom of movement in games. The day I logged into a new game and I couldn't jump over a curb, I think I died a little.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Portal is probably the best example of physics designed around the game , not the other way around .
Or maybe not .
In either case , Portal was a blast even though it was probably one of the simplest , shortest games I 've ever played .
You know what I 'd love to see ?
A scifi game that actually played around with gravity .
Every scifi game ( where you can get out of a ship and run around ) has the same gravity in every location .
Take Mass Effect for example : You fly up to a planet and check it out : Most of them have near Earth gravity .
Then there 's a mission on Earths moon , and guess what ?
The Moon has the same gravity as Earth !
Why ? Oh , right , because the game engine only supports a single , unified gravity for any given environment .
This is why scifi games usually suck .
When you ca n't even represent what it would be like to be in lower gravity , what 's the friggin point of visiting other planets ?
How about space stations that use rotational gravity ?
But think !
These days maps are critically designed to have you go from A to B to C on the prescribed path through the prescribed targets .
If you could jump up on a ridge and run past that , well , there goes a bunch of development hours down the tube .
But how grand it would be !
I miss the freedom of movement in games .
The day I logged into a new game and I could n't jump over a curb , I think I died a little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Portal is probably the best example of physics designed around the game, not the other way around.
Or maybe not.
In either case, Portal was a blast even though it was probably one of the simplest, shortest games I've ever played.
You know what I'd love to see?
A scifi game that actually played around with gravity.
Every scifi game (where you can get out of a ship and run around) has the same gravity in every location.
Take Mass Effect for example: You fly up to a planet and check it out: Most of them have near Earth gravity.
Then there's a mission on Earths moon, and guess what?
The Moon has the same gravity as Earth!
Why? Oh, right, because the game engine only supports a single, unified gravity for any given environment.
This is why scifi games usually suck.
When you can't even represent what it would be like to be in lower gravity, what's the friggin point of visiting other planets?
How about space stations that use rotational gravity?
But think!
These days maps are critically designed to have you go from A to B to C on the prescribed path through the prescribed targets.
If you could jump up on a ridge and run past that, well, there goes a bunch of development hours down the tube.
But how grand it would be!
I miss the freedom of movement in games.
The day I logged into a new game and I couldn't jump over a curb, I think I died a little.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492401</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28499479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28508723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28499887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28500457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492957
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28498859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28499839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28500543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492813
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494961
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28498069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28502451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28497383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28497009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_0329207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28515075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28498859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28499479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28500457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493929
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494661
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28502451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28497009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28499839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28497383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28515075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493111
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28500543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28499887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28508723
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28492281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28496711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_0329207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28493007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28495379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28498069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_0329207.28494067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
