<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_30_0718203</id>
	<title>Decrying the Excessive Emulation of Reality In Games</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1269943800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An editorial at GameSetWatch makes the case that game developers' relentless drive to make games more real has <a href="http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/03/opinion\_playing\_god\_a\_call\_for.php">led to missed opportunities for creating unique fictional universes</a> that are perhaps more interesting than our own. Quoting:
<i>"Remember when the norm for a video game was a blue hedgehog that ran fast and collected rings and emeralds? Or a plumber that took mushrooms to become large, and grabbed a flower to throw fireballs? In reality they do none of those things, but in the name of a game, they make sense, inspire wonder, and create a new universe. ... We&rsquo;ve seen time and time again that the closer you try to emulate reality, the more the 'game' aspects begin to stick out. Invisible walls in <em>Final Fantasy</em>, or grenades spawning at your feet when you go the wrong way in <em>Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2</em> are examples of kicking the player out of that illusion of reality, and letting them know that yes, this is a game, and yes, the rules are designed to keep you in the space of this world, not the real world. In reality, as a soldier I could disobey my orders and go exploring around the other side. I could be cowardly and turn back to base. Games shouldn&rsquo;t have to plan for every eventuality, of course, but it&rsquo;s not so hard to create universes that are compelling but where the unusual, or even simple backtracking, is not so unfeasible."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An editorial at GameSetWatch makes the case that game developers ' relentless drive to make games more real has led to missed opportunities for creating unique fictional universes that are perhaps more interesting than our own .
Quoting : " Remember when the norm for a video game was a blue hedgehog that ran fast and collected rings and emeralds ?
Or a plumber that took mushrooms to become large , and grabbed a flower to throw fireballs ?
In reality they do none of those things , but in the name of a game , they make sense , inspire wonder , and create a new universe .
... We    ve seen time and time again that the closer you try to emulate reality , the more the 'game ' aspects begin to stick out .
Invisible walls in Final Fantasy , or grenades spawning at your feet when you go the wrong way in Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 2 are examples of kicking the player out of that illusion of reality , and letting them know that yes , this is a game , and yes , the rules are designed to keep you in the space of this world , not the real world .
In reality , as a soldier I could disobey my orders and go exploring around the other side .
I could be cowardly and turn back to base .
Games shouldn    t have to plan for every eventuality , of course , but it    s not so hard to create universes that are compelling but where the unusual , or even simple backtracking , is not so unfeasible .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An editorial at GameSetWatch makes the case that game developers' relentless drive to make games more real has led to missed opportunities for creating unique fictional universes that are perhaps more interesting than our own.
Quoting:
"Remember when the norm for a video game was a blue hedgehog that ran fast and collected rings and emeralds?
Or a plumber that took mushrooms to become large, and grabbed a flower to throw fireballs?
In reality they do none of those things, but in the name of a game, they make sense, inspire wonder, and create a new universe.
... We’ve seen time and time again that the closer you try to emulate reality, the more the 'game' aspects begin to stick out.
Invisible walls in Final Fantasy, or grenades spawning at your feet when you go the wrong way in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 are examples of kicking the player out of that illusion of reality, and letting them know that yes, this is a game, and yes, the rules are designed to keep you in the space of this world, not the real world.
In reality, as a soldier I could disobey my orders and go exploring around the other side.
I could be cowardly and turn back to base.
Games shouldn’t have to plan for every eventuality, of course, but it’s not so hard to create universes that are compelling but where the unusual, or even simple backtracking, is not so unfeasible.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668512</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1269952080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doing what everyone else is doing isn't exactly low on risk because you're going up against very strong competition and for most companies that competition will beat them (e.g. releasing your FPS alongside a Modern Warfare game). Very few companies are capable of beating that competition and even then there's the risk that you did something in the process wrong and your big expensive (because you cannot go against that competition on a limited budget) game flops. Doing what nobody else is doing is actually less risky because there is no competition so you can afford to scale back on many expenses you needed to compete and a flop is much easier to absorb. You also don't need to get as close to perfect as you do in a competitive market because your product stands without competition, there are many more things it has that the competition doesn't and if those turn out successful you will get a gigantic sales boost, possibly eclipsing most of the competitive markets in revenue and since you did it at a much lower budget your profits will be significantly bigger.</p><p>This is called the Blue Ocean Strategy, there are some business books on it. For a successful example you can look at the Nintendo DS, when that went up against the PSP it had weaker graphics (less expense on R&amp;D) but it turned out to be the winner because it had a touchscreen that the PSP didn't and because that allowed it to gain system sellers that the PSP could not support (Nintendogs, Brain Training, both of which are also examples of Blue Ocean games as they went into a fairly uncontested market and dominated it despite being fairly cheaply developed). Going neck to neck with the PSP by making a Game Boy with better graphics may have turned out differently but the DS won by offering so much more than the PSP did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing what everyone else is doing is n't exactly low on risk because you 're going up against very strong competition and for most companies that competition will beat them ( e.g .
releasing your FPS alongside a Modern Warfare game ) .
Very few companies are capable of beating that competition and even then there 's the risk that you did something in the process wrong and your big expensive ( because you can not go against that competition on a limited budget ) game flops .
Doing what nobody else is doing is actually less risky because there is no competition so you can afford to scale back on many expenses you needed to compete and a flop is much easier to absorb .
You also do n't need to get as close to perfect as you do in a competitive market because your product stands without competition , there are many more things it has that the competition does n't and if those turn out successful you will get a gigantic sales boost , possibly eclipsing most of the competitive markets in revenue and since you did it at a much lower budget your profits will be significantly bigger.This is called the Blue Ocean Strategy , there are some business books on it .
For a successful example you can look at the Nintendo DS , when that went up against the PSP it had weaker graphics ( less expense on R&amp;D ) but it turned out to be the winner because it had a touchscreen that the PSP did n't and because that allowed it to gain system sellers that the PSP could not support ( Nintendogs , Brain Training , both of which are also examples of Blue Ocean games as they went into a fairly uncontested market and dominated it despite being fairly cheaply developed ) .
Going neck to neck with the PSP by making a Game Boy with better graphics may have turned out differently but the DS won by offering so much more than the PSP did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing what everyone else is doing isn't exactly low on risk because you're going up against very strong competition and for most companies that competition will beat them (e.g.
releasing your FPS alongside a Modern Warfare game).
Very few companies are capable of beating that competition and even then there's the risk that you did something in the process wrong and your big expensive (because you cannot go against that competition on a limited budget) game flops.
Doing what nobody else is doing is actually less risky because there is no competition so you can afford to scale back on many expenses you needed to compete and a flop is much easier to absorb.
You also don't need to get as close to perfect as you do in a competitive market because your product stands without competition, there are many more things it has that the competition doesn't and if those turn out successful you will get a gigantic sales boost, possibly eclipsing most of the competitive markets in revenue and since you did it at a much lower budget your profits will be significantly bigger.This is called the Blue Ocean Strategy, there are some business books on it.
For a successful example you can look at the Nintendo DS, when that went up against the PSP it had weaker graphics (less expense on R&amp;D) but it turned out to be the winner because it had a touchscreen that the PSP didn't and because that allowed it to gain system sellers that the PSP could not support (Nintendogs, Brain Training, both of which are also examples of Blue Ocean games as they went into a fairly uncontested market and dominated it despite being fairly cheaply developed).
Going neck to neck with the PSP by making a Game Boy with better graphics may have turned out differently but the DS won by offering so much more than the PSP did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668288</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And because of this bigger risk, not enough sales, to little profit, etc... those games will eventually be written by hobbyists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And because of this bigger risk , not enough sales , to little profit , etc... those games will eventually be written by hobbyists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And because of this bigger risk, not enough sales, to little profit, etc... those games will eventually be written by hobbyists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668330</id>
	<title>I HATE invisible walls</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1269949800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are few more immersion-shattering elements.</p><p>So I plan: "This will be the right sniping spot. I will have them all right on the plate, and covered on their escape route too. The approach is covered, and the location provides decent cover behind these rocks. This should be easy then." Then - bump - invisible wall, border of the world. And I'm stuck with hopeless frontal attack which I barely survive.</p><p>Recently, I began playing Planeshift and learned how to find the perfect spots for mining. Unfortunately some of them are just past the invisible wall, leaving only crumbles for the poor in the open area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are few more immersion-shattering elements.So I plan : " This will be the right sniping spot .
I will have them all right on the plate , and covered on their escape route too .
The approach is covered , and the location provides decent cover behind these rocks .
This should be easy then .
" Then - bump - invisible wall , border of the world .
And I 'm stuck with hopeless frontal attack which I barely survive.Recently , I began playing Planeshift and learned how to find the perfect spots for mining .
Unfortunately some of them are just past the invisible wall , leaving only crumbles for the poor in the open area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are few more immersion-shattering elements.So I plan: "This will be the right sniping spot.
I will have them all right on the plate, and covered on their escape route too.
The approach is covered, and the location provides decent cover behind these rocks.
This should be easy then.
" Then - bump - invisible wall, border of the world.
And I'm stuck with hopeless frontal attack which I barely survive.Recently, I began playing Planeshift and learned how to find the perfect spots for mining.
Unfortunately some of them are just past the invisible wall, leaving only crumbles for the poor in the open area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668610</id>
	<title>A city o two minds.</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1269953340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key here is why  Second Life is popular for journalist.  How is that? is a very minor game, played by few people, that hype his number of accounts to pretend is big, still it get frontpage news often. Why is that? Is not that journalist are stupid,  is that theres a type of people where the virtual reality is much more atractive than something abstract.  The abstract shotter mean *nothing* to these people.  A game played by 80 millions is ignored, by one played by 120.000 becuase the first one is abstract, so It don't make sense to these people.</p><p>I don't claim the people that play realistic shotters can't play abstract shotters. I claim that theres a bias, a preference for the realist one. The realist one has more meaning, it make sense to these people, much more than the abstract one.</p><p>I will not say this is good or bad, but I will say is boring to see lots of similar raycasting engines. Theres very small variation *IN* the realistic shotter. The technology is not there to produce good voxel FPS's,  or cartoon rendering FPS's (other than maybe Borderlands). Not all abstraction will be good, but we live in a world where most videogames look alike, and try a type of realism, variation here will be rather good<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key here is why Second Life is popular for journalist .
How is that ?
is a very minor game , played by few people , that hype his number of accounts to pretend is big , still it get frontpage news often .
Why is that ?
Is not that journalist are stupid , is that theres a type of people where the virtual reality is much more atractive than something abstract .
The abstract shotter mean * nothing * to these people .
A game played by 80 millions is ignored , by one played by 120.000 becuase the first one is abstract , so It do n't make sense to these people.I do n't claim the people that play realistic shotters ca n't play abstract shotters .
I claim that theres a bias , a preference for the realist one .
The realist one has more meaning , it make sense to these people , much more than the abstract one.I will not say this is good or bad , but I will say is boring to see lots of similar raycasting engines .
Theres very small variation * IN * the realistic shotter .
The technology is not there to produce good voxel FPS 's , or cartoon rendering FPS 's ( other than maybe Borderlands ) .
Not all abstraction will be good , but we live in a world where most videogames look alike , and try a type of realism , variation here will be rather good : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key here is why  Second Life is popular for journalist.
How is that?
is a very minor game, played by few people, that hype his number of accounts to pretend is big, still it get frontpage news often.
Why is that?
Is not that journalist are stupid,  is that theres a type of people where the virtual reality is much more atractive than something abstract.
The abstract shotter mean *nothing* to these people.
A game played by 80 millions is ignored, by one played by 120.000 becuase the first one is abstract, so It don't make sense to these people.I don't claim the people that play realistic shotters can't play abstract shotters.
I claim that theres a bias, a preference for the realist one.
The realist one has more meaning, it make sense to these people, much more than the abstract one.I will not say this is good or bad, but I will say is boring to see lots of similar raycasting engines.
Theres very small variation *IN* the realistic shotter.
The technology is not there to produce good voxel FPS's,  or cartoon rendering FPS's (other than maybe Borderlands).
Not all abstraction will be good, but we live in a world where most videogames look alike, and try a type of realism, variation here will be rather good :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31676608</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>DrEldarion</author>
	<datestamp>1269940560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Easy - set up a marketplace and take a cut of all transactions. It's exactly what Google and Apple have done with app marketplaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Easy - set up a marketplace and take a cut of all transactions .
It 's exactly what Google and Apple have done with app marketplaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Easy - set up a marketplace and take a cut of all transactions.
It's exactly what Google and Apple have done with app marketplaces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31675088</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1269978240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Steam does a lot of things right, and Valve in general.  In fact, Team Fortress 2 is a very good example of how "good graphics" and "realistic graphics" aren't necessarily the same thing.  I don't think I've ever felt a game has earned my money so much as Portal has, Steam is basically DRM done right (as right as DRM can be done), and now they're bringing it all to OSX.  I love these guys.
</p><p>Not to go too off topic, but here's a good <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87pevh2Q0hg" title="youtube.com">interview</a> [youtube.com] with Gabe Newell where he talks about his approach to development, steam, piracy, and some other stuff.  I really like when he says, "When you look at our top ten issues on our list at any given point in time, piracy is almost never something that's on that list." He then goes on to explain his view that piracy is mostly the result of bad service.  I think this man has his priorities straight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Steam does a lot of things right , and Valve in general .
In fact , Team Fortress 2 is a very good example of how " good graphics " and " realistic graphics " are n't necessarily the same thing .
I do n't think I 've ever felt a game has earned my money so much as Portal has , Steam is basically DRM done right ( as right as DRM can be done ) , and now they 're bringing it all to OSX .
I love these guys .
Not to go too off topic , but here 's a good interview [ youtube.com ] with Gabe Newell where he talks about his approach to development , steam , piracy , and some other stuff .
I really like when he says , " When you look at our top ten issues on our list at any given point in time , piracy is almost never something that 's on that list .
" He then goes on to explain his view that piracy is mostly the result of bad service .
I think this man has his priorities straight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steam does a lot of things right, and Valve in general.
In fact, Team Fortress 2 is a very good example of how "good graphics" and "realistic graphics" aren't necessarily the same thing.
I don't think I've ever felt a game has earned my money so much as Portal has, Steam is basically DRM done right (as right as DRM can be done), and now they're bringing it all to OSX.
I love these guys.
Not to go too off topic, but here's a good interview [youtube.com] with Gabe Newell where he talks about his approach to development, steam, piracy, and some other stuff.
I really like when he says, "When you look at our top ten issues on our list at any given point in time, piracy is almost never something that's on that list.
" He then goes on to explain his view that piracy is mostly the result of bad service.
I think this man has his priorities straight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672314</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269968700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Steam deserves to succeed, and I hope they continue to do so, because they treat the customer just as good as they do the creator of game content.</p><p>I call BS. When I need to have an "always on" internet connection to play a single player game, and I get booted and LOSE PROGRESS if my router hiccups... that's not OK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Steam deserves to succeed , and I hope they continue to do so , because they treat the customer just as good as they do the creator of game content.I call BS .
When I need to have an " always on " internet connection to play a single player game , and I get booted and LOSE PROGRESS if my router hiccups... that 's not OK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Steam deserves to succeed, and I hope they continue to do so, because they treat the customer just as good as they do the creator of game content.I call BS.
When I need to have an "always on" internet connection to play a single player game, and I get booted and LOSE PROGRESS if my router hiccups... that's not OK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668592</id>
	<title>Re:Play ARMA2 instead</title>
	<author>Chrisq</author>
	<datestamp>1269953040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Exactly. The thing to realize is that almost no game these days tries to emulate reality,  instead they all emulate what one could call movie-reality or hyper-reality or whatever.</p></div><p>Hey, I've just designed a new race game that does emulate reality. When you crash a 10lb lump hammer is fired at your chest from the console to emulate hitting the steering column.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The thing to realize is that almost no game these days tries to emulate reality , instead they all emulate what one could call movie-reality or hyper-reality or whatever.Hey , I 've just designed a new race game that does emulate reality .
When you crash a 10lb lump hammer is fired at your chest from the console to emulate hitting the steering column .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The thing to realize is that almost no game these days tries to emulate reality,  instead they all emulate what one could call movie-reality or hyper-reality or whatever.Hey, I've just designed a new race game that does emulate reality.
When you crash a 10lb lump hammer is fired at your chest from the console to emulate hitting the steering column.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668442</id>
	<title>Next you'll say pop culture is not culture</title>
	<author>chichilalescu</author>
	<datestamp>1269951360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and so on.<br>what, just because you're *more* smarter than the rest of us, you think you can get us to pay for your investigation of the nature of reality?<br>look, they tell me enough about math and philosophy in school, i just want a place where i can shoot/dismember people, drive really fast, and not have society tell me it's wrong. is that ok?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/end sarcasm.</p><p>I agree that computer games could be much more. But the truth is that the people who could enjoy smarter games are already doing it.<br>By the way, if any of you has some time on their hands, please make a labyrinth in curved spaces (i know nothing of opengl, here's a link i found <a href="http://www.geometrygames.org/CurvedSpaces/" title="geometrygames.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.geometrygames.org/CurvedSpaces/</a> [geometrygames.org] ). Pretty please...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and so on.what , just because you 're * more * smarter than the rest of us , you think you can get us to pay for your investigation of the nature of reality ? look , they tell me enough about math and philosophy in school , i just want a place where i can shoot/dismember people , drive really fast , and not have society tell me it 's wrong .
is that ok ?
/end sarcasm.I agree that computer games could be much more .
But the truth is that the people who could enjoy smarter games are already doing it.By the way , if any of you has some time on their hands , please make a labyrinth in curved spaces ( i know nothing of opengl , here 's a link i found http : //www.geometrygames.org/CurvedSpaces/ [ geometrygames.org ] ) .
Pretty please.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and so on.what, just because you're *more* smarter than the rest of us, you think you can get us to pay for your investigation of the nature of reality?look, they tell me enough about math and philosophy in school, i just want a place where i can shoot/dismember people, drive really fast, and not have society tell me it's wrong.
is that ok?
/end sarcasm.I agree that computer games could be much more.
But the truth is that the people who could enjoy smarter games are already doing it.By the way, if any of you has some time on their hands, please make a labyrinth in curved spaces (i know nothing of opengl, here's a link i found http://www.geometrygames.org/CurvedSpaces/ [geometrygames.org] ).
Pretty please...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668254</id>
	<title>Re:Play ARMA2 instead</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1269948780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. The thing to realize is that almost no game these days tries to emulate reality,  instead they all emulate what one could call movie-reality or hyper-reality or whatever, i.e. that kind of reality where cars explode when you shot a few bullets and interesting things only happen when the game designer tells them to.</p><p>Games that actually try to emulate real reality, i.e. simulations, basically just get better for it, as a large part of emulating reality is the removal of artificial restrictions. Take flightsims for example or Operation Flashpoint/ARMA, those games don't have invisible walls, you can literally go into any direction for an hour and not see an end. What makes those games great is that all the interesting stuff that happens, happens due to the game mechanics, not duo to fake scripting events.</p><p>That said, I don't mind the Mario64 or Katamari style game, quite the opposite, but the thing that makes those games so great isn't just that its a colorful comic world, but also that they, just like a hard core sim, lack the artificial scripting madness that has invested so many of todays games, instead the games provide you with some core gameplay mechanics and everything that follows is basically a result of those. Its the player that plays those games and not the game designer that is playing the player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The thing to realize is that almost no game these days tries to emulate reality , instead they all emulate what one could call movie-reality or hyper-reality or whatever , i.e .
that kind of reality where cars explode when you shot a few bullets and interesting things only happen when the game designer tells them to.Games that actually try to emulate real reality , i.e .
simulations , basically just get better for it , as a large part of emulating reality is the removal of artificial restrictions .
Take flightsims for example or Operation Flashpoint/ARMA , those games do n't have invisible walls , you can literally go into any direction for an hour and not see an end .
What makes those games great is that all the interesting stuff that happens , happens due to the game mechanics , not duo to fake scripting events.That said , I do n't mind the Mario64 or Katamari style game , quite the opposite , but the thing that makes those games so great is n't just that its a colorful comic world , but also that they , just like a hard core sim , lack the artificial scripting madness that has invested so many of todays games , instead the games provide you with some core gameplay mechanics and everything that follows is basically a result of those .
Its the player that plays those games and not the game designer that is playing the player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The thing to realize is that almost no game these days tries to emulate reality,  instead they all emulate what one could call movie-reality or hyper-reality or whatever, i.e.
that kind of reality where cars explode when you shot a few bullets and interesting things only happen when the game designer tells them to.Games that actually try to emulate real reality, i.e.
simulations, basically just get better for it, as a large part of emulating reality is the removal of artificial restrictions.
Take flightsims for example or Operation Flashpoint/ARMA, those games don't have invisible walls, you can literally go into any direction for an hour and not see an end.
What makes those games great is that all the interesting stuff that happens, happens due to the game mechanics, not duo to fake scripting events.That said, I don't mind the Mario64 or Katamari style game, quite the opposite, but the thing that makes those games so great isn't just that its a colorful comic world, but also that they, just like a hard core sim, lack the artificial scripting madness that has invested so many of todays games, instead the games provide you with some core gameplay mechanics and everything that follows is basically a result of those.
Its the player that plays those games and not the game designer that is playing the player.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669096</id>
	<title>Re:I HATE invisible walls</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1269957060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your comment reminded me of this hilarious "Sims Horror Movie" video:<br><a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1922223" title="collegehumor.com" rel="nofollow">"There's no conceivable way to cross this gate."</a> [collegehumor.com]</p><p>Back when I played D&amp;D, the difference between a good and a bad dungeon master was that when playing with bad DM you would feel like you were more in a rail-quest and if you happened to do something the DM has not planned he would freak out. Great DMs accepted your choices and had a lot of resources to try to make the story flow smooth with your decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment reminded me of this hilarious " Sims Horror Movie " video : " There 's no conceivable way to cross this gate .
" [ collegehumor.com ] Back when I played D&amp;D , the difference between a good and a bad dungeon master was that when playing with bad DM you would feel like you were more in a rail-quest and if you happened to do something the DM has not planned he would freak out .
Great DMs accepted your choices and had a lot of resources to try to make the story flow smooth with your decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment reminded me of this hilarious "Sims Horror Movie" video:"There's no conceivable way to cross this gate.
" [collegehumor.com]Back when I played D&amp;D, the difference between a good and a bad dungeon master was that when playing with bad DM you would feel like you were more in a rail-quest and if you happened to do something the DM has not planned he would freak out.
Great DMs accepted your choices and had a lot of resources to try to make the story flow smooth with your decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31675262</id>
	<title>Re:I HATE invisible walls</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1269979140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They did a good job in the original Call of Duty when they (mostly) replaced invisible walls with mine fields.  It still kept the player in the bounded area, but the limitation fit the setting, so it didn't feel out of place.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did a good job in the original Call of Duty when they ( mostly ) replaced invisible walls with mine fields .
It still kept the player in the bounded area , but the limitation fit the setting , so it did n't feel out of place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did a good job in the original Call of Duty when they (mostly) replaced invisible walls with mine fields.
It still kept the player in the bounded area, but the limitation fit the setting, so it didn't feel out of place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668844</id>
	<title>Re:Is it my line now?</title>
	<author>bigstrat2003</author>
	<datestamp>1269955320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, TFA reminds me of a discussion I've had more than once with a friend of mine. Whenever he and I disagree on whether something is good in a game (example: CoD 4's hardcore mode), he'll usually defend it on the basis of "it's more realistic". My point to him, every time, is so what? It's not fun, and the goal isn't to be realistic, it's to be fun.</p><p>It would be extremely realistic if the game destroyed itself the first time you died, but people would be furious. <i>No one</i> actually wants a realistic game, although they might say they do. What they want is a game which has realistic elements which <i>make it more fun</i>. But most gamers don't think this through, so they think they want realism, when they would actually hate it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , TFA reminds me of a discussion I 've had more than once with a friend of mine .
Whenever he and I disagree on whether something is good in a game ( example : CoD 4 's hardcore mode ) , he 'll usually defend it on the basis of " it 's more realistic " .
My point to him , every time , is so what ?
It 's not fun , and the goal is n't to be realistic , it 's to be fun.It would be extremely realistic if the game destroyed itself the first time you died , but people would be furious .
No one actually wants a realistic game , although they might say they do .
What they want is a game which has realistic elements which make it more fun .
But most gamers do n't think this through , so they think they want realism , when they would actually hate it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, TFA reminds me of a discussion I've had more than once with a friend of mine.
Whenever he and I disagree on whether something is good in a game (example: CoD 4's hardcore mode), he'll usually defend it on the basis of "it's more realistic".
My point to him, every time, is so what?
It's not fun, and the goal isn't to be realistic, it's to be fun.It would be extremely realistic if the game destroyed itself the first time you died, but people would be furious.
No one actually wants a realistic game, although they might say they do.
What they want is a game which has realistic elements which make it more fun.
But most gamers don't think this through, so they think they want realism, when they would actually hate it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669534</id>
	<title>"Start Over" is unrealistic</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1269959460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But when I want realistic online warfare, I want just that, realism.</p></div><p>Like having to learn to walk? Or being killed in one hit and never being able to play again? Or being injured and ending up in a hospital for weeks or months, also unable to play? Technically, even "Start Over" is unrealistic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But when I want realistic online warfare , I want just that , realism.Like having to learn to walk ?
Or being killed in one hit and never being able to play again ?
Or being injured and ending up in a hospital for weeks or months , also unable to play ?
Technically , even " Start Over " is unrealistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But when I want realistic online warfare, I want just that, realism.Like having to learn to walk?
Or being killed in one hit and never being able to play again?
Or being injured and ending up in a hospital for weeks or months, also unable to play?
Technically, even "Start Over" is unrealistic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669104</id>
	<title>Re:Play ARMA2 instead</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1269957180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really my type of game, I'm too bad at spotting enemies before they shoot me and it often takes a LOOOOONG time to get back to where you died in ArmA2. I play Section 8 instead, when you die you just drop near where you're needed now and keep fighting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really my type of game , I 'm too bad at spotting enemies before they shoot me and it often takes a LOOOOONG time to get back to where you died in ArmA2 .
I play Section 8 instead , when you die you just drop near where you 're needed now and keep fighting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really my type of game, I'm too bad at spotting enemies before they shoot me and it often takes a LOOOOONG time to get back to where you died in ArmA2.
I play Section 8 instead, when you die you just drop near where you're needed now and keep fighting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669452</id>
	<title>Re:MW2 realism is a joke...</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1269959100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>submachineguns accurate to over a mile</p></div><p>The P90's maximum effective range is 5905 ft. Modern submachine guns in "long"-barreled versions can hit a target at a mile. Now you know.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>submachineguns accurate to over a mileThe P90 's maximum effective range is 5905 ft. Modern submachine guns in " long " -barreled versions can hit a target at a mile .
Now you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>submachineguns accurate to over a mileThe P90's maximum effective range is 5905 ft. Modern submachine guns in "long"-barreled versions can hit a target at a mile.
Now you know.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668326</id>
	<title>Re:Play ARMA2 instead</title>
	<author>lorenzo.boccaccia</author>
	<datestamp>1269949800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah - I play both and I hate when player on mw2 insist of playing it realistically and starts blabbing about balance, realism, no grenade launchers policies, no claymore, no anything that they can't learn how to counter and such.<br><br>Go play arma if you want a realistic military simulation and stop pretending that YOU are the only judge of how mw2 has to be played. That's how the game have been built.<br><br>The most amusing part is to see how "pro" league makes up their rules to force a style of play that the game is not suited for, just to use the latest iteration of a game that they don't like anyway (or they won't be changing it to play like arma), usually bragging that it takes less skill to use launchers and scopes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah - I play both and I hate when player on mw2 insist of playing it realistically and starts blabbing about balance , realism , no grenade launchers policies , no claymore , no anything that they ca n't learn how to counter and such.Go play arma if you want a realistic military simulation and stop pretending that YOU are the only judge of how mw2 has to be played .
That 's how the game have been built.The most amusing part is to see how " pro " league makes up their rules to force a style of play that the game is not suited for , just to use the latest iteration of a game that they do n't like anyway ( or they wo n't be changing it to play like arma ) , usually bragging that it takes less skill to use launchers and scopes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah - I play both and I hate when player on mw2 insist of playing it realistically and starts blabbing about balance, realism, no grenade launchers policies, no claymore, no anything that they can't learn how to counter and such.Go play arma if you want a realistic military simulation and stop pretending that YOU are the only judge of how mw2 has to be played.
That's how the game have been built.The most amusing part is to see how "pro" league makes up their rules to force a style of play that the game is not suited for, just to use the latest iteration of a game that they don't like anyway (or they won't be changing it to play like arma), usually bragging that it takes less skill to use launchers and scopes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668316</id>
	<title>exception... (closest?)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deus Ex</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deus Ex</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deus Ex</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31677598</id>
	<title>Play more games, dummy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269943620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong POV. You're not playing a new character, or yourself -- you are playing an avatar, aka RPG. If the character knows how to walk, there is no purpose in introducing a mechanic to learn how to walk.</p><p>BTW, the realistic FPS shooters have done what you said for over 10 years. Injured = bleeding, disabled, eventual death, first aid for minor wounds. Killed in one shot 400 yards = this is where strategy comes in. Death = you take control over another avatar (NPC), or are forced to observe your teammates for the remainder of the match (which can be hours).</p><p>Basically, you and the author of this article wrote from inexperience. MW2 is the Quake of yesterday. Required reading material: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical\_shooter" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Tactical shooters</a> [wikipedia.org]. I suggest you start with AA, ARMA, OFP, RO, RS, and VBS2 (or VBS1).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong POV .
You 're not playing a new character , or yourself -- you are playing an avatar , aka RPG .
If the character knows how to walk , there is no purpose in introducing a mechanic to learn how to walk.BTW , the realistic FPS shooters have done what you said for over 10 years .
Injured = bleeding , disabled , eventual death , first aid for minor wounds .
Killed in one shot 400 yards = this is where strategy comes in .
Death = you take control over another avatar ( NPC ) , or are forced to observe your teammates for the remainder of the match ( which can be hours ) .Basically , you and the author of this article wrote from inexperience .
MW2 is the Quake of yesterday .
Required reading material : Tactical shooters [ wikipedia.org ] .
I suggest you start with AA , ARMA , OFP , RO , RS , and VBS2 ( or VBS1 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong POV.
You're not playing a new character, or yourself -- you are playing an avatar, aka RPG.
If the character knows how to walk, there is no purpose in introducing a mechanic to learn how to walk.BTW, the realistic FPS shooters have done what you said for over 10 years.
Injured = bleeding, disabled, eventual death, first aid for minor wounds.
Killed in one shot 400 yards = this is where strategy comes in.
Death = you take control over another avatar (NPC), or are forced to observe your teammates for the remainder of the match (which can be hours).Basically, you and the author of this article wrote from inexperience.
MW2 is the Quake of yesterday.
Required reading material: Tactical shooters [wikipedia.org].
I suggest you start with AA, ARMA, OFP, RO, RS, and VBS2 (or VBS1).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669612</id>
	<title>When reality gets in the way of fun</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1269959940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the blue hedgehog is a CGA relic</p></div><p>There were odd-colored <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funny\_animal" title="wikipedia.org">cartoon animals</a> [wikipedia.org] long before video games were invented. Sonic games wouldn't have been as fun if Sonic looked and acted like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Igel01.jpg" title="wikipedia.org">a real hedgehog</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the blue hedgehog is a CGA relicThere were odd-colored cartoon animals [ wikipedia.org ] long before video games were invented .
Sonic games would n't have been as fun if Sonic looked and acted like a real hedgehog [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the blue hedgehog is a CGA relicThere were odd-colored cartoon animals [wikipedia.org] long before video games were invented.
Sonic games wouldn't have been as fun if Sonic looked and acted like a real hedgehog [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668472</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269951600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The issue with computer gaming today is that it needs a business model that sits halfway between commercial games companies and those who contribute to game-related projects freely.</p><p>The game companies are only interested in quick high-volumes sales within the first couple of weeks of a games launch...</p><p>Game programmers who write mods and levels often start off with great ideas but so few mods get fully finished, due mainly to under-estimation of the free time and resource that will ultimately be needed to complete the project...</p><p>The compromise would be for games companies to be more supportive of mod programmers and allow them to sell their mods at low cost whilst taking a cut themselves - maybe even sell third-party mods on their web sites. Hopefully, the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.</p><p>Of course, it will never happen in the real world because greedy games companies will see this as extending the shelf-life of games and won't want gamers buying mods instead of new games...</p></div><p>The developers of Europa Universalis III have actually allowed some moders to get access to the source-code of their previous game (Europa Universalis II) and they sell it online, splitting the profit.<br>http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-FTG/for-the-glory-a-europa-universalis-game</p><p>Although they don't have this with the latest engine/game, but they are really god at producing expansions that actually have new game-play mechanism and not just more units/scenarios as many other do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue with computer gaming today is that it needs a business model that sits halfway between commercial games companies and those who contribute to game-related projects freely.The game companies are only interested in quick high-volumes sales within the first couple of weeks of a games launch...Game programmers who write mods and levels often start off with great ideas but so few mods get fully finished , due mainly to under-estimation of the free time and resource that will ultimately be needed to complete the project...The compromise would be for games companies to be more supportive of mod programmers and allow them to sell their mods at low cost whilst taking a cut themselves - maybe even sell third-party mods on their web sites .
Hopefully , the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.Of course , it will never happen in the real world because greedy games companies will see this as extending the shelf-life of games and wo n't want gamers buying mods instead of new games...The developers of Europa Universalis III have actually allowed some moders to get access to the source-code of their previous game ( Europa Universalis II ) and they sell it online , splitting the profit.http : //www.gamersgate.com/DD-FTG/for-the-glory-a-europa-universalis-gameAlthough they do n't have this with the latest engine/game , but they are really god at producing expansions that actually have new game-play mechanism and not just more units/scenarios as many other do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue with computer gaming today is that it needs a business model that sits halfway between commercial games companies and those who contribute to game-related projects freely.The game companies are only interested in quick high-volumes sales within the first couple of weeks of a games launch...Game programmers who write mods and levels often start off with great ideas but so few mods get fully finished, due mainly to under-estimation of the free time and resource that will ultimately be needed to complete the project...The compromise would be for games companies to be more supportive of mod programmers and allow them to sell their mods at low cost whilst taking a cut themselves - maybe even sell third-party mods on their web sites.
Hopefully, the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.Of course, it will never happen in the real world because greedy games companies will see this as extending the shelf-life of games and won't want gamers buying mods instead of new games...The developers of Europa Universalis III have actually allowed some moders to get access to the source-code of their previous game (Europa Universalis II) and they sell it online, splitting the profit.http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-FTG/for-the-glory-a-europa-universalis-gameAlthough they don't have this with the latest engine/game, but they are really god at producing expansions that actually have new game-play mechanism and not just more units/scenarios as many other do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31680994</id>
	<title>Re:Emulating Reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269958980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sonic is a CGA relic? Really? Considering he was developed initially on SEGA consoles that didn't suffer from PC's CGA graphic limitations I find that hard to believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sonic is a CGA relic ?
Really ? Considering he was developed initially on SEGA consoles that did n't suffer from PC 's CGA graphic limitations I find that hard to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sonic is a CGA relic?
Really? Considering he was developed initially on SEGA consoles that didn't suffer from PC's CGA graphic limitations I find that hard to believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31677574</id>
	<title>Re:Desert Bus</title>
	<author>NekoIncardine</author>
	<datestamp>1269943500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not quite sure that "Funny" is the mod here. "Insightful", hell yes. Now, some of the replies? They get "funny."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite sure that " Funny " is the mod here .
" Insightful " , hell yes .
Now , some of the replies ?
They get " funny .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite sure that "Funny" is the mod here.
"Insightful", hell yes.
Now, some of the replies?
They get "funny.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668568</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>gary's mod</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>gary 's mod</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gary's mod</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672980</id>
	<title>Re:It's actually extremely hard.</title>
	<author>derinax</author>
	<datestamp>1269970860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hard, yes, but not impossible.  STALKER achieves most of this as an open-world shooter.  You are free to turn back to base at any time.  Hell, you are free to give it all up and just sell vodka to mercenaries, if that floats your boat.  Sure, there are still "game" limitations, but relatively few of them compared to any invisible-path or rail shooter like CoD.</p><p>It's a difficult game for the same reasons that it's a challenging open-world game.  You could be jumped by various things at any time, and you often don't have the weapons or ammunition you wished you had.  But it comes awfully close to this "reality" you speak of, if your reality involves mutants, anomalies, and government coverups in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.  In which case you're better off with a nice Mario game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hard , yes , but not impossible .
STALKER achieves most of this as an open-world shooter .
You are free to turn back to base at any time .
Hell , you are free to give it all up and just sell vodka to mercenaries , if that floats your boat .
Sure , there are still " game " limitations , but relatively few of them compared to any invisible-path or rail shooter like CoD.It 's a difficult game for the same reasons that it 's a challenging open-world game .
You could be jumped by various things at any time , and you often do n't have the weapons or ammunition you wished you had .
But it comes awfully close to this " reality " you speak of , if your reality involves mutants , anomalies , and government coverups in the Chernobyl exclusion zone .
In which case you 're better off with a nice Mario game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hard, yes, but not impossible.
STALKER achieves most of this as an open-world shooter.
You are free to turn back to base at any time.
Hell, you are free to give it all up and just sell vodka to mercenaries, if that floats your boat.
Sure, there are still "game" limitations, but relatively few of them compared to any invisible-path or rail shooter like CoD.It's a difficult game for the same reasons that it's a challenging open-world game.
You could be jumped by various things at any time, and you often don't have the weapons or ammunition you wished you had.
But it comes awfully close to this "reality" you speak of, if your reality involves mutants, anomalies, and government coverups in the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
In which case you're better off with a nice Mario game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668294</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31670180</id>
	<title>Re:MW2 realism is a joke...</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1269962520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want realism and you're playing on Arcade mode servers? Switch to hardcore mode, and turn off all the HUD junk.</p><p>The problem is everyone's opinion of 'realism' is different.. or rather, everyone's opinion of how to implement realism is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want realism and you 're playing on Arcade mode servers ?
Switch to hardcore mode , and turn off all the HUD junk.The problem is everyone 's opinion of 'realism ' is different.. or rather , everyone 's opinion of how to implement realism is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want realism and you're playing on Arcade mode servers?
Switch to hardcore mode, and turn off all the HUD junk.The problem is everyone's opinion of 'realism' is different.. or rather, everyone's opinion of how to implement realism is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672688</id>
	<title>Re:Is it my line now?</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1269969900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not just imagination, though: it also requires some degree of scientific knowledge to make your imagination believable enough.</p><p>That's the difference, for instance, between Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Final Fantasy VIII in spite of both being equally fictional: once you make a few concessions the SMAC world is relatively coherent and believable, whereas few over the age of 12 can play FF8 without asking why, in a world with modern weaponry such as sniper rifles and gatling guns, your character is a moron who fights with a goddamned sword and dates a chick with an arm-mounted <b>dog</b> cannon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just imagination , though : it also requires some degree of scientific knowledge to make your imagination believable enough.That 's the difference , for instance , between Sid Meier 's Alpha Centauri and Final Fantasy VIII in spite of both being equally fictional : once you make a few concessions the SMAC world is relatively coherent and believable , whereas few over the age of 12 can play FF8 without asking why , in a world with modern weaponry such as sniper rifles and gatling guns , your character is a moron who fights with a goddamned sword and dates a chick with an arm-mounted dog cannon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just imagination, though: it also requires some degree of scientific knowledge to make your imagination believable enough.That's the difference, for instance, between Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Final Fantasy VIII in spite of both being equally fictional: once you make a few concessions the SMAC world is relatively coherent and believable, whereas few over the age of 12 can play FF8 without asking why, in a world with modern weaponry such as sniper rifles and gatling guns, your character is a moron who fights with a goddamned sword and dates a chick with an arm-mounted dog cannon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669578</id>
	<title>I think TFA is on the right track, but...</title>
	<author>mindwanderer</author>
	<datestamp>1269959700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>one which will lead to the same place if developers aren't careful. Old games inspired people, took them to wholly different worlds because it left a lot to your imagination. It's curious to have come across this article today because just yesterday I was replaying half-life 2, felt intensely bored, and suddenly felt like playing the original quake. The premise is virtually identical: go in and shoot anything that moves until it stops moving. Yet in quake, in the back of my mind there were always these questions: Where am I? How old is this place? What manner of creatures have lived here? Is this on a different planet? A different galaxy? Because really, the game gives you no effing clues.
<br>
<br>These days I don't know if we're playing games anymore or if the games are playing us. Don't get me started on RPGs that throw lore at you like you have nothing better in your life to do than read crappy fiction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>one which will lead to the same place if developers are n't careful .
Old games inspired people , took them to wholly different worlds because it left a lot to your imagination .
It 's curious to have come across this article today because just yesterday I was replaying half-life 2 , felt intensely bored , and suddenly felt like playing the original quake .
The premise is virtually identical : go in and shoot anything that moves until it stops moving .
Yet in quake , in the back of my mind there were always these questions : Where am I ?
How old is this place ?
What manner of creatures have lived here ?
Is this on a different planet ?
A different galaxy ?
Because really , the game gives you no effing clues .
These days I do n't know if we 're playing games anymore or if the games are playing us .
Do n't get me started on RPGs that throw lore at you like you have nothing better in your life to do than read crappy fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>one which will lead to the same place if developers aren't careful.
Old games inspired people, took them to wholly different worlds because it left a lot to your imagination.
It's curious to have come across this article today because just yesterday I was replaying half-life 2, felt intensely bored, and suddenly felt like playing the original quake.
The premise is virtually identical: go in and shoot anything that moves until it stops moving.
Yet in quake, in the back of my mind there were always these questions: Where am I?
How old is this place?
What manner of creatures have lived here?
Is this on a different planet?
A different galaxy?
Because really, the game gives you no effing clues.
These days I don't know if we're playing games anymore or if the games are playing us.
Don't get me started on RPGs that throw lore at you like you have nothing better in your life to do than read crappy fiction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668346</id>
	<title>Re:I played a game once.</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1269949980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it's wxtremely immersive. I felt like I was right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it 's wxtremely immersive .
I felt like I was right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it's wxtremely immersive.
I felt like I was right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668294</id>
	<title>It's actually extremely hard.</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1269949260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually extremely hard to create such universes. No one has ever made one, as we speak. Not only there are hardware limitations (for example, a HL2 level takes almost all of 1 GB), but there are also software limitations. In order, for example, to have a successful "return-back-to-base" scenario, the programmers should encode a yet unseen AI into the program that turns the game into a war drama, instead of a fighting game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually extremely hard to create such universes .
No one has ever made one , as we speak .
Not only there are hardware limitations ( for example , a HL2 level takes almost all of 1 GB ) , but there are also software limitations .
In order , for example , to have a successful " return-back-to-base " scenario , the programmers should encode a yet unseen AI into the program that turns the game into a war drama , instead of a fighting game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually extremely hard to create such universes.
No one has ever made one, as we speak.
Not only there are hardware limitations (for example, a HL2 level takes almost all of 1 GB), but there are also software limitations.
In order, for example, to have a successful "return-back-to-base" scenario, the programmers should encode a yet unseen AI into the program that turns the game into a war drama, instead of a fighting game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668620</id>
	<title>Re:Play ARMA2 instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it seems that some people do get it after all.</p><p>Usually when I read into a discussion about what makes a game a great game, some clueless twit invariably starts talking about Half-Life and tram rides.</p><p>If people want to watch a movie, I'd very much prefer that they stay in their own medium and stop ruining games for those of us who actually enjoy games for the game mechanics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it seems that some people do get it after all.Usually when I read into a discussion about what makes a game a great game , some clueless twit invariably starts talking about Half-Life and tram rides.If people want to watch a movie , I 'd very much prefer that they stay in their own medium and stop ruining games for those of us who actually enjoy games for the game mechanics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it seems that some people do get it after all.Usually when I read into a discussion about what makes a game a great game, some clueless twit invariably starts talking about Half-Life and tram rides.If people want to watch a movie, I'd very much prefer that they stay in their own medium and stop ruining games for those of us who actually enjoy games for the game mechanics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672310</id>
	<title>rather have consistency not reality</title>
	<author>fikx</author>
	<datestamp>1269968700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worry about games in similar ways, but not sure if "realistic" games are what I worry about. I DO think  game dev's are putting out to many games based on stuff we have now. Those might be called realistic I guess. I'd rather see less games in game universes based on existing settings, but I include historical based games (WWI, WWII, Old west, medieval, etc.) as well as all the combat games that happen in settings too similar to what we have already, which to me includes all the modern warfare/battlefield/blah blah blah and I also include the futuristic and alternate future games (just like today, but a disaster happens!) that are just today's world with a theme slapped on them (pulse gun instead of pullets, but reacts the same way as bullets...).<br>
When people want more "realism" in games like FPS, physics based games, etc. I don't think realism, I just want the game rules to be consistent. invisible walls, oddball character behavior just to move you to the next section, plot devices that don't fit, all those things count as inconsistent to me (as well as breaking the physics engine for some scripted sequence or boss battle) are the things that tick me off in games. I don't care what weird game rules dev's come up with, as long as they don't change rules to make something more challenging mid-game or to get you in the right place for the story to go where they want it to...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worry about games in similar ways , but not sure if " realistic " games are what I worry about .
I DO think game dev 's are putting out to many games based on stuff we have now .
Those might be called realistic I guess .
I 'd rather see less games in game universes based on existing settings , but I include historical based games ( WWI , WWII , Old west , medieval , etc .
) as well as all the combat games that happen in settings too similar to what we have already , which to me includes all the modern warfare/battlefield/blah blah blah and I also include the futuristic and alternate future games ( just like today , but a disaster happens !
) that are just today 's world with a theme slapped on them ( pulse gun instead of pullets , but reacts the same way as bullets... ) .
When people want more " realism " in games like FPS , physics based games , etc .
I do n't think realism , I just want the game rules to be consistent .
invisible walls , oddball character behavior just to move you to the next section , plot devices that do n't fit , all those things count as inconsistent to me ( as well as breaking the physics engine for some scripted sequence or boss battle ) are the things that tick me off in games .
I do n't care what weird game rules dev 's come up with , as long as they do n't change rules to make something more challenging mid-game or to get you in the right place for the story to go where they want it to.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worry about games in similar ways, but not sure if "realistic" games are what I worry about.
I DO think  game dev's are putting out to many games based on stuff we have now.
Those might be called realistic I guess.
I'd rather see less games in game universes based on existing settings, but I include historical based games (WWI, WWII, Old west, medieval, etc.
) as well as all the combat games that happen in settings too similar to what we have already, which to me includes all the modern warfare/battlefield/blah blah blah and I also include the futuristic and alternate future games (just like today, but a disaster happens!
) that are just today's world with a theme slapped on them (pulse gun instead of pullets, but reacts the same way as bullets...).
When people want more "realism" in games like FPS, physics based games, etc.
I don't think realism, I just want the game rules to be consistent.
invisible walls, oddball character behavior just to move you to the next section, plot devices that don't fit, all those things count as inconsistent to me (as well as breaking the physics engine for some scripted sequence or boss battle) are the things that tick me off in games.
I don't care what weird game rules dev's come up with, as long as they don't change rules to make something more challenging mid-game or to get you in the right place for the story to go where they want it to...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178</id>
	<title>yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269947760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but creating an alternative appealing universe experience takes imagination, ingenuity, creativity, sometimes requires radical approach to ideas and expects thinking outside of the box.</p><p>Doing any of that increases the risk that the outcome will not be popular enough and will not succeed in terms of sales, this is serious business and money we are talking about here, what do you think this is, a game?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but creating an alternative appealing universe experience takes imagination , ingenuity , creativity , sometimes requires radical approach to ideas and expects thinking outside of the box.Doing any of that increases the risk that the outcome will not be popular enough and will not succeed in terms of sales , this is serious business and money we are talking about here , what do you think this is , a game ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but creating an alternative appealing universe experience takes imagination, ingenuity, creativity, sometimes requires radical approach to ideas and expects thinking outside of the box.Doing any of that increases the risk that the outcome will not be popular enough and will not succeed in terms of sales, this is serious business and money we are talking about here, what do you think this is, a game?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668922</id>
	<title>Re:From the opinion-piece-pulled-out-of-ass dept.</title>
	<author>zacronos</author>
	<datestamp>1269955980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see it as a little like the idea of an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny\_valley#Theoretical\_basis" title="wikipedia.org">uncanny valley</a> [wikipedia.org] for games.  If it's fictional enough, we don't care about whether it accurately matches reality -- it's more of an abstract game with a veneer of reality over it (i.e. we don't care that a mushroom really shouldn't make someone double in height, because underneath we know the mushroom is just an arbitrary visual label for a certain abstract powerup).  On the other hand, once it passes a certain threshold of realism such that the mechanics seem to be intended to resemble reality rather than being abstract and arbitrary, then the fact that it isn't totally realistic bothers us -- it's a game that resembles reality in many important ways, but which falls short of what we expect reality to allow in many other important ways.
<br> <br>
Being able to move forward but not back doesn't really bother us in Super Mario Brothers, but not being able to retreat in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 seems like an extremely artificial restriction in the context of a (somewhat) realistic game.  (Disclaimer, I've never played CoD:MW2, I'm just inferring from the summary.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see it as a little like the idea of an uncanny valley [ wikipedia.org ] for games .
If it 's fictional enough , we do n't care about whether it accurately matches reality -- it 's more of an abstract game with a veneer of reality over it ( i.e .
we do n't care that a mushroom really should n't make someone double in height , because underneath we know the mushroom is just an arbitrary visual label for a certain abstract powerup ) .
On the other hand , once it passes a certain threshold of realism such that the mechanics seem to be intended to resemble reality rather than being abstract and arbitrary , then the fact that it is n't totally realistic bothers us -- it 's a game that resembles reality in many important ways , but which falls short of what we expect reality to allow in many other important ways .
Being able to move forward but not back does n't really bother us in Super Mario Brothers , but not being able to retreat in Call of Duty : Modern Warfare 2 seems like an extremely artificial restriction in the context of a ( somewhat ) realistic game .
( Disclaimer , I 've never played CoD : MW2 , I 'm just inferring from the summary .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see it as a little like the idea of an uncanny valley [wikipedia.org] for games.
If it's fictional enough, we don't care about whether it accurately matches reality -- it's more of an abstract game with a veneer of reality over it (i.e.
we don't care that a mushroom really shouldn't make someone double in height, because underneath we know the mushroom is just an arbitrary visual label for a certain abstract powerup).
On the other hand, once it passes a certain threshold of realism such that the mechanics seem to be intended to resemble reality rather than being abstract and arbitrary, then the fact that it isn't totally realistic bothers us -- it's a game that resembles reality in many important ways, but which falls short of what we expect reality to allow in many other important ways.
Being able to move forward but not back doesn't really bother us in Super Mario Brothers, but not being able to retreat in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 seems like an extremely artificial restriction in the context of a (somewhat) realistic game.
(Disclaimer, I've never played CoD:MW2, I'm just inferring from the summary.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668168</id>
	<title>I played a game once.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269947580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Checkers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Checkers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Checkers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669182</id>
	<title>Re:Play ARMA2 instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269957600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just how do you counter a grenade launcher? Do you deny that it's the easiest thing in the world to aim and kill with?<br>I'd love to not complain about anything, if only there were nothing to complain about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just how do you counter a grenade launcher ?
Do you deny that it 's the easiest thing in the world to aim and kill with ? I 'd love to not complain about anything , if only there were nothing to complain about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just how do you counter a grenade launcher?
Do you deny that it's the easiest thing in the world to aim and kill with?I'd love to not complain about anything, if only there were nothing to complain about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668840</id>
	<title>Emulating Reality</title>
	<author>secondhand\_Buddah</author>
	<datestamp>1269955320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Talk about emulating reality. The diamonds and emeralds are an ASCII relic, while the blue hedgehog is a CGA relic. We inherited these game artefacts because of our limitations in emulating reality.  Give it time - the creativity will return, and when it does, it will probably be mind blowingly beautiful.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk about emulating reality .
The diamonds and emeralds are an ASCII relic , while the blue hedgehog is a CGA relic .
We inherited these game artefacts because of our limitations in emulating reality .
Give it time - the creativity will return , and when it does , it will probably be mind blowingly beautiful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk about emulating reality.
The diamonds and emeralds are an ASCII relic, while the blue hedgehog is a CGA relic.
We inherited these game artefacts because of our limitations in emulating reality.
Give it time - the creativity will return, and when it does, it will probably be mind blowingly beautiful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31671810</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>amplt1337</author>
	<datestamp>1269967260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The compromise would be for games companies to be more supportive of mod programmers and allow them to sell their mods at low cost whilst taking a cut themselves - maybe even sell third-party mods on their web sites. Hopefully, the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.</p><p>Of course, it will never happen in the real world because greedy games companies will see this as extending the shelf-life of games and won't want gamers buying mods instead of new games...</p></div><p>It really depends on the genre you're playing.  Strategy games in particular (I'm thinking EU, the Civ series, &amp; the like) have tended to be very modder-friendly.  Why?  Precisely because it extends the games' shelf life.  It makes you love the manufacturer's products and it means a longer tail in sales, all for work that's being done for free from people who really love the game.  As for centralizing mod repositories -- this is actually even in consideration for Civ V, with in-game access to Firaxis-hosted mods being one of the new selling points...</p><p>Now, you won't find this with games in other genres, but game companies are recognizing that user-generated content lets them sell access to something they don't create, and make money for nothing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The compromise would be for games companies to be more supportive of mod programmers and allow them to sell their mods at low cost whilst taking a cut themselves - maybe even sell third-party mods on their web sites .
Hopefully , the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.Of course , it will never happen in the real world because greedy games companies will see this as extending the shelf-life of games and wo n't want gamers buying mods instead of new games...It really depends on the genre you 're playing .
Strategy games in particular ( I 'm thinking EU , the Civ series , &amp; the like ) have tended to be very modder-friendly .
Why ? Precisely because it extends the games ' shelf life .
It makes you love the manufacturer 's products and it means a longer tail in sales , all for work that 's being done for free from people who really love the game .
As for centralizing mod repositories -- this is actually even in consideration for Civ V , with in-game access to Firaxis-hosted mods being one of the new selling points...Now , you wo n't find this with games in other genres , but game companies are recognizing that user-generated content lets them sell access to something they do n't create , and make money for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The compromise would be for games companies to be more supportive of mod programmers and allow them to sell their mods at low cost whilst taking a cut themselves - maybe even sell third-party mods on their web sites.
Hopefully, the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.Of course, it will never happen in the real world because greedy games companies will see this as extending the shelf-life of games and won't want gamers buying mods instead of new games...It really depends on the genre you're playing.
Strategy games in particular (I'm thinking EU, the Civ series, &amp; the like) have tended to be very modder-friendly.
Why?  Precisely because it extends the games' shelf life.
It makes you love the manufacturer's products and it means a longer tail in sales, all for work that's being done for free from people who really love the game.
As for centralizing mod repositories -- this is actually even in consideration for Civ V, with in-game access to Firaxis-hosted mods being one of the new selling points...Now, you won't find this with games in other genres, but game companies are recognizing that user-generated content lets them sell access to something they don't create, and make money for nothing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668518</id>
	<title>Kids love the lack of reality...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was chatting with my kid and his friends (11-13) about video games. I was saying how I hated games where you have to shoot someone more than once/twice (I only play hardcore (reality mode) on Modern Warfare 2). I was specifically making fun of Halo and no skill gamers. One kid piped up "why would I want to have it all real! Real is no fun!". Kids play with a big smile and want the fantastic, myself I play with a serious scowl and try real hard to outdo my last games performance. In other words I don't play at games, I try hard at games. Real effort is better rooted in reality unless playing to addictions like gear collectors. We play to hone what we are as a species, like a kitten chasing a floating leaf to hone hunting skills. The gear collectors are driven not by fun but hours of collecting (See work!). PVP reminds me of kids because of the way it plays out in some arenas with taunting and all the silly talking however... I've seen adults freak the f out over PVP games because of how much work/hours they put into character development. To sum up, you can change where we play (in game environment) but not what we are (hunter gatherers).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was chatting with my kid and his friends ( 11-13 ) about video games .
I was saying how I hated games where you have to shoot someone more than once/twice ( I only play hardcore ( reality mode ) on Modern Warfare 2 ) .
I was specifically making fun of Halo and no skill gamers .
One kid piped up " why would I want to have it all real !
Real is no fun ! " .
Kids play with a big smile and want the fantastic , myself I play with a serious scowl and try real hard to outdo my last games performance .
In other words I do n't play at games , I try hard at games .
Real effort is better rooted in reality unless playing to addictions like gear collectors .
We play to hone what we are as a species , like a kitten chasing a floating leaf to hone hunting skills .
The gear collectors are driven not by fun but hours of collecting ( See work ! ) .
PVP reminds me of kids because of the way it plays out in some arenas with taunting and all the silly talking however... I 've seen adults freak the f out over PVP games because of how much work/hours they put into character development .
To sum up , you can change where we play ( in game environment ) but not what we are ( hunter gatherers ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was chatting with my kid and his friends (11-13) about video games.
I was saying how I hated games where you have to shoot someone more than once/twice (I only play hardcore (reality mode) on Modern Warfare 2).
I was specifically making fun of Halo and no skill gamers.
One kid piped up "why would I want to have it all real!
Real is no fun!".
Kids play with a big smile and want the fantastic, myself I play with a serious scowl and try real hard to outdo my last games performance.
In other words I don't play at games, I try hard at games.
Real effort is better rooted in reality unless playing to addictions like gear collectors.
We play to hone what we are as a species, like a kitten chasing a floating leaf to hone hunting skills.
The gear collectors are driven not by fun but hours of collecting (See work!).
PVP reminds me of kids because of the way it plays out in some arenas with taunting and all the silly talking however... I've seen adults freak the f out over PVP games because of how much work/hours they put into character development.
To sum up, you can change where we play (in game environment) but not what we are (hunter gatherers).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668280</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>quantumpineal</author>
	<datestamp>1269949080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'Fictional Physics' of the old retro games or games from the Atari and Amiga era are still more playable to me than allot of the newer games coming out that seem to be striving for greater realism or emphasis on more accurate guns or other things that were probably accurate enough in the last game. I loved the games that came out around the millennium, they had allot of imagination and innovation. its all a bit stale now, allot of gamers I know are saying the same. (need more and better RPG elements in games imo)</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Fictional Physics ' of the old retro games or games from the Atari and Amiga era are still more playable to me than allot of the newer games coming out that seem to be striving for greater realism or emphasis on more accurate guns or other things that were probably accurate enough in the last game .
I loved the games that came out around the millennium , they had allot of imagination and innovation .
its all a bit stale now , allot of gamers I know are saying the same .
( need more and better RPG elements in games imo )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Fictional Physics' of the old retro games or games from the Atari and Amiga era are still more playable to me than allot of the newer games coming out that seem to be striving for greater realism or emphasis on more accurate guns or other things that were probably accurate enough in the last game.
I loved the games that came out around the millennium, they had allot of imagination and innovation.
its all a bit stale now, allot of gamers I know are saying the same.
(need more and better RPG elements in games imo)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31673588</id>
	<title>How real is real enough?</title>
	<author>Leo Sasquatch</author>
	<datestamp>1269972720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What constitutes 'realism' in the first place?  I remember being very impressed with the guard's walk-cycle animations on GoldenEye years ago, but I also feared that when I dropped a guard with a headshot, I might go over to him and find the wallet had fallen out of his pocket, to display the photo of his wife and kids and I'd never be able to play the game again.
<br> <br>
Do you want to be able to get forensic on the results of a sniper shot ("Look! Sinuses!")?  Does having a car's brake discs glow red under heavy braking in a race game make any appreciable difference to the game, especially if the 'realism' is thwarted somewhat by the usual drawback of 'licensed cars'='no damage modelling'?  Does accurately mapping the tread pattern in GT5 actually have any effect on the car's handling?
<br> <br>
I don't know if I could handle genuine AI in video games.  I think I have a hard enough time with Artificial Stupidity.  There are already games with CPU enemies that can see your muzzle-flash from 800 yards away, and shoot you in the chin from the same range.  I've just been playing Uncharted 2, and if the guards and enemies actually knew how to use cover and flanking manoeuvres, you could never actually progress past the first level.  When it's you and a pistol against multiple enemies with armour, shotguns and grenade launchers, they can't be allowed to be particularly bright, or they will be as unbeatable as they would be in real life.
<br> <br>
What does bother me is the level of stupidity on the civilians in some sandbox games.  How many times have citizens in GTA walked past 10 yards away, oblivious to the fact that I'm murdering someone in broad daylight?   At least in Prototype, the citizens will react if you 'hulk out' in front of them and run away, but leave the area, go back 30 seconds later, and everybody's walking around perfectly normally, like they hadn't just seen me beat someone to death with their own spleen.  And how 'realistic' were the GTA series anyway, where there was nobody under the age of 18 in the whole city, and no schools, so there was no way you could ever kill a child.
<br> <br>
I seem to recall that games like Theme Park etc. have little personal 'scripts' running for all the patrons of the park - how hungry they are, how bored, thirsty and the like.  Would it be possible to have the same for a sandbox city, even down to your approval rating, in a superhero game?  Crush one too many criminals with a squad car, and have to go rogue and vigilante, instead of being the media's latest craze.
<br> <br>
Realism is difficult - I appreciate this.  Designing a world to give players maximum freedom is much more complex than the very tightly-controlled worlds we're currently being offered, where wood does not burn, glass does not break, and a rocket-launcher will not break through a wooden door.  As long as we're willing to accept these strictures and just keep buying and playing the latest iteration of whatever 3D engine is the current hot property, there is no reason whatsoever for any games company to attempt to offer us any semblance of true realism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What constitutes 'realism ' in the first place ?
I remember being very impressed with the guard 's walk-cycle animations on GoldenEye years ago , but I also feared that when I dropped a guard with a headshot , I might go over to him and find the wallet had fallen out of his pocket , to display the photo of his wife and kids and I 'd never be able to play the game again .
Do you want to be able to get forensic on the results of a sniper shot ( " Look !
Sinuses ! " ) ? Does having a car 's brake discs glow red under heavy braking in a race game make any appreciable difference to the game , especially if the 'realism ' is thwarted somewhat by the usual drawback of 'licensed cars ' = 'no damage modelling ' ?
Does accurately mapping the tread pattern in GT5 actually have any effect on the car 's handling ?
I do n't know if I could handle genuine AI in video games .
I think I have a hard enough time with Artificial Stupidity .
There are already games with CPU enemies that can see your muzzle-flash from 800 yards away , and shoot you in the chin from the same range .
I 've just been playing Uncharted 2 , and if the guards and enemies actually knew how to use cover and flanking manoeuvres , you could never actually progress past the first level .
When it 's you and a pistol against multiple enemies with armour , shotguns and grenade launchers , they ca n't be allowed to be particularly bright , or they will be as unbeatable as they would be in real life .
What does bother me is the level of stupidity on the civilians in some sandbox games .
How many times have citizens in GTA walked past 10 yards away , oblivious to the fact that I 'm murdering someone in broad daylight ?
At least in Prototype , the citizens will react if you 'hulk out ' in front of them and run away , but leave the area , go back 30 seconds later , and everybody 's walking around perfectly normally , like they had n't just seen me beat someone to death with their own spleen .
And how 'realistic ' were the GTA series anyway , where there was nobody under the age of 18 in the whole city , and no schools , so there was no way you could ever kill a child .
I seem to recall that games like Theme Park etc .
have little personal 'scripts ' running for all the patrons of the park - how hungry they are , how bored , thirsty and the like .
Would it be possible to have the same for a sandbox city , even down to your approval rating , in a superhero game ?
Crush one too many criminals with a squad car , and have to go rogue and vigilante , instead of being the media 's latest craze .
Realism is difficult - I appreciate this .
Designing a world to give players maximum freedom is much more complex than the very tightly-controlled worlds we 're currently being offered , where wood does not burn , glass does not break , and a rocket-launcher will not break through a wooden door .
As long as we 're willing to accept these strictures and just keep buying and playing the latest iteration of whatever 3D engine is the current hot property , there is no reason whatsoever for any games company to attempt to offer us any semblance of true realism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What constitutes 'realism' in the first place?
I remember being very impressed with the guard's walk-cycle animations on GoldenEye years ago, but I also feared that when I dropped a guard with a headshot, I might go over to him and find the wallet had fallen out of his pocket, to display the photo of his wife and kids and I'd never be able to play the game again.
Do you want to be able to get forensic on the results of a sniper shot ("Look!
Sinuses!")?  Does having a car's brake discs glow red under heavy braking in a race game make any appreciable difference to the game, especially if the 'realism' is thwarted somewhat by the usual drawback of 'licensed cars'='no damage modelling'?
Does accurately mapping the tread pattern in GT5 actually have any effect on the car's handling?
I don't know if I could handle genuine AI in video games.
I think I have a hard enough time with Artificial Stupidity.
There are already games with CPU enemies that can see your muzzle-flash from 800 yards away, and shoot you in the chin from the same range.
I've just been playing Uncharted 2, and if the guards and enemies actually knew how to use cover and flanking manoeuvres, you could never actually progress past the first level.
When it's you and a pistol against multiple enemies with armour, shotguns and grenade launchers, they can't be allowed to be particularly bright, or they will be as unbeatable as they would be in real life.
What does bother me is the level of stupidity on the civilians in some sandbox games.
How many times have citizens in GTA walked past 10 yards away, oblivious to the fact that I'm murdering someone in broad daylight?
At least in Prototype, the citizens will react if you 'hulk out' in front of them and run away, but leave the area, go back 30 seconds later, and everybody's walking around perfectly normally, like they hadn't just seen me beat someone to death with their own spleen.
And how 'realistic' were the GTA series anyway, where there was nobody under the age of 18 in the whole city, and no schools, so there was no way you could ever kill a child.
I seem to recall that games like Theme Park etc.
have little personal 'scripts' running for all the patrons of the park - how hungry they are, how bored, thirsty and the like.
Would it be possible to have the same for a sandbox city, even down to your approval rating, in a superhero game?
Crush one too many criminals with a squad car, and have to go rogue and vigilante, instead of being the media's latest craze.
Realism is difficult - I appreciate this.
Designing a world to give players maximum freedom is much more complex than the very tightly-controlled worlds we're currently being offered, where wood does not burn, glass does not break, and a rocket-launcher will not break through a wooden door.
As long as we're willing to accept these strictures and just keep buying and playing the latest iteration of whatever 3D engine is the current hot property, there is no reason whatsoever for any games company to attempt to offer us any semblance of true realism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668336</id>
	<title>Old discussion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269949860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>REALLY old discussion.. Similar comments could be read in game magazines when the Amiga was the hottest thing around (late 1980s). People new to gaming tend to prefer realism while long time gamers consider playability more important. Personally I still remember paradroid  on the 64 and the amount of time I spend with it. Realism? Not really. Absorbing gameplay? Definitely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>REALLY old discussion.. Similar comments could be read in game magazines when the Amiga was the hottest thing around ( late 1980s ) .
People new to gaming tend to prefer realism while long time gamers consider playability more important .
Personally I still remember paradroid on the 64 and the amount of time I spend with it .
Realism ? Not really .
Absorbing gameplay ?
Definitely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>REALLY old discussion.. Similar comments could be read in game magazines when the Amiga was the hottest thing around (late 1980s).
People new to gaming tend to prefer realism while long time gamers consider playability more important.
Personally I still remember paradroid  on the 64 and the amount of time I spend with it.
Realism? Not really.
Absorbing gameplay?
Definitely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668616</id>
	<title>This whole argument is silly...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269953400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of realism you need should match the story and setting and playfulness of your game. Sure sonic's style works for sonic. Mw2's style works for mw2.<br>It's true that games won't come even close to matching reality any time soon, despite how many wide-eyed optimists point at the past and extrapolate into the future, it just<br>won't happen like that. But becoming realistic enough is important for MW2 because it's supposed to be a modern wargame based in locales that exist, with<br>"real" forces like the USA and Russia. What's the point of doing the very same game but with the "unreal" forces of Chacoogaville and Wallcot's Group? It is needless work<br>to make things unreal and then work on them enough to make them come to life. Sticking with real life as a base is a perfectly commendable goal, for a story that is set in real life.</p><p>If he's arguing that video games *should* be unrealistic because they will never be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/real/ then he's wasting his breath. Being close enough is good enough. But on the<br>other hand if he is decrying the lack of unrealistic games, then more power to him, they're a style that does not deserve to go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of realism you need should match the story and setting and playfulness of your game .
Sure sonic 's style works for sonic .
Mw2 's style works for mw2.It 's true that games wo n't come even close to matching reality any time soon , despite how many wide-eyed optimists point at the past and extrapolate into the future , it justwo n't happen like that .
But becoming realistic enough is important for MW2 because it 's supposed to be a modern wargame based in locales that exist , with " real " forces like the USA and Russia .
What 's the point of doing the very same game but with the " unreal " forces of Chacoogaville and Wallcot 's Group ?
It is needless workto make things unreal and then work on them enough to make them come to life .
Sticking with real life as a base is a perfectly commendable goal , for a story that is set in real life.If he 's arguing that video games * should * be unrealistic because they will never be /real/ then he 's wasting his breath .
Being close enough is good enough .
But on theother hand if he is decrying the lack of unrealistic games , then more power to him , they 're a style that does not deserve to go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of realism you need should match the story and setting and playfulness of your game.
Sure sonic's style works for sonic.
Mw2's style works for mw2.It's true that games won't come even close to matching reality any time soon, despite how many wide-eyed optimists point at the past and extrapolate into the future, it justwon't happen like that.
But becoming realistic enough is important for MW2 because it's supposed to be a modern wargame based in locales that exist, with"real" forces like the USA and Russia.
What's the point of doing the very same game but with the "unreal" forces of Chacoogaville and Wallcot's Group?
It is needless workto make things unreal and then work on them enough to make them come to life.
Sticking with real life as a base is a perfectly commendable goal, for a story that is set in real life.If he's arguing that video games *should* be unrealistic because they will never be /real/ then he's wasting his breath.
Being close enough is good enough.
But on theother hand if he is decrying the lack of unrealistic games, then more power to him, they're a style that does not deserve to go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668312</id>
	<title>MW2 realism is a joke...</title>
	<author>HopefulIntern</author>
	<datestamp>1269949620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, when I play a game like an FPS, I want realism. By that I mean good graphics, physics, sound, etc. Others argue that "graphics dont make a game good" etc. I agree that good graphics alone don't make a game good, but to me, they are an essential part. Playing Sonic the Hedgehog is different than an FPS. Nothing is meant to be real, so realism isn't an issue. But when I want realistic online warfare, I want just that, realism.<br> <br>

Silly me, I actually got MW2 thinking it would be a realistic tactical shooter. I was deeply disappointed (especially since MW1 touched on it quite nicely).
Dual-wielding sawn-off shotguns, firing grenades at a conflict area having only your team mates survive and the structures intact, submachineguns accurate to over a mile....It is more like a Die Hard film (where I am a bad guy..).  And i got the game for PC, so I can't even trade it in.<br> <br>
I love playing Bad Company 2. Although I struggle with it, I find it much more enjoyable. Graphics are decent (but not dazzling, I admit) but the sound is incredible; gunfire changes pitch/tone when heard from further away, the crack and hiss of a sniper shot that just missed your head...I actually get startled, my blood pumps, adrenaline rushes! The game is not without its faults, I have used a high powered sniper rifle and hit an opponent three times without going down (though this may be related to lag). Still, for those after realism, a much better game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , when I play a game like an FPS , I want realism .
By that I mean good graphics , physics , sound , etc .
Others argue that " graphics dont make a game good " etc .
I agree that good graphics alone do n't make a game good , but to me , they are an essential part .
Playing Sonic the Hedgehog is different than an FPS .
Nothing is meant to be real , so realism is n't an issue .
But when I want realistic online warfare , I want just that , realism .
Silly me , I actually got MW2 thinking it would be a realistic tactical shooter .
I was deeply disappointed ( especially since MW1 touched on it quite nicely ) .
Dual-wielding sawn-off shotguns , firing grenades at a conflict area having only your team mates survive and the structures intact , submachineguns accurate to over a mile....It is more like a Die Hard film ( where I am a bad guy.. ) .
And i got the game for PC , so I ca n't even trade it in .
I love playing Bad Company 2 .
Although I struggle with it , I find it much more enjoyable .
Graphics are decent ( but not dazzling , I admit ) but the sound is incredible ; gunfire changes pitch/tone when heard from further away , the crack and hiss of a sniper shot that just missed your head...I actually get startled , my blood pumps , adrenaline rushes !
The game is not without its faults , I have used a high powered sniper rifle and hit an opponent three times without going down ( though this may be related to lag ) .
Still , for those after realism , a much better game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, when I play a game like an FPS, I want realism.
By that I mean good graphics, physics, sound, etc.
Others argue that "graphics dont make a game good" etc.
I agree that good graphics alone don't make a game good, but to me, they are an essential part.
Playing Sonic the Hedgehog is different than an FPS.
Nothing is meant to be real, so realism isn't an issue.
But when I want realistic online warfare, I want just that, realism.
Silly me, I actually got MW2 thinking it would be a realistic tactical shooter.
I was deeply disappointed (especially since MW1 touched on it quite nicely).
Dual-wielding sawn-off shotguns, firing grenades at a conflict area having only your team mates survive and the structures intact, submachineguns accurate to over a mile....It is more like a Die Hard film (where I am a bad guy..).
And i got the game for PC, so I can't even trade it in.
I love playing Bad Company 2.
Although I struggle with it, I find it much more enjoyable.
Graphics are decent (but not dazzling, I admit) but the sound is incredible; gunfire changes pitch/tone when heard from further away, the crack and hiss of a sniper shot that just missed your head...I actually get startled, my blood pumps, adrenaline rushes!
The game is not without its faults, I have used a high powered sniper rifle and hit an opponent three times without going down (though this may be related to lag).
Still, for those after realism, a much better game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668358</id>
	<title>Re:Play ARMA2 instead</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1269950220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, I hate when games restrict your environment. Operation Flashpoint possibly still ranks as my favourite game experience ever. I started playing Just Cause 2 yesterday and it's amazing too, you can go anywhere, and while you can't do all the same things you can do in say GTA: San Andreas, you have some even cooler stuff like a grappling hook and an infinite amount of paragliders, which you can use together as a very unique mode of transport.. there are a lot of realistic elements to the game, but it is combined well with unrealistic elements like that to make it more fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , I hate when games restrict your environment .
Operation Flashpoint possibly still ranks as my favourite game experience ever .
I started playing Just Cause 2 yesterday and it 's amazing too , you can go anywhere , and while you ca n't do all the same things you can do in say GTA : San Andreas , you have some even cooler stuff like a grappling hook and an infinite amount of paragliders , which you can use together as a very unique mode of transport.. there are a lot of realistic elements to the game , but it is combined well with unrealistic elements like that to make it more fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, I hate when games restrict your environment.
Operation Flashpoint possibly still ranks as my favourite game experience ever.
I started playing Just Cause 2 yesterday and it's amazing too, you can go anywhere, and while you can't do all the same things you can do in say GTA: San Andreas, you have some even cooler stuff like a grappling hook and an infinite amount of paragliders, which you can use together as a very unique mode of transport.. there are a lot of realistic elements to the game, but it is combined well with unrealistic elements like that to make it more fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31670576</id>
	<title>So you're a competitive gamer, huh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269963840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, then, are you playing a game with no dedicated server support, no real anti-cheat system, with flawed and random gameplay?</p><p>Hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're playing a terrible game that caters to casual players who have no actual interest in being competitive and spending long hours in front of their monitors / TVs in order to get good at it. Unless you're completely new to gaming and/or really slow, there is no learning curve whatsoever and not much skill required to play it; by employing a large number of luck-based elements (spread coupled with "realistic" damage, unlocks etc.), the "skill ceiling" has been effectively lowered to the point no one can get "too good" at the game, so that any person playing it can win once in a while.</p><p>If you really are a competitive player, do yourself a favor and try playing some of the oldschool deathmatch type games like Quake (Quake Live is free and pretty active). See how you stack up against some of the low-tier pub players after months of rigorous training in MW2. Try playing in some of the higher tiers, get totally slaughtered. Watch some demos from professional gamers recorded at large lan events, and keep in mind that any of those pros could single-handedly wipe the floor with all the players you struggled against on pub servers without even flinching. Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, RTCW/ET are the games that actually require skill to play and reward you if you put some time into training etc.</p><p>There's room for casual games like MW2/BFBC2/Halo etc. and I've got nothing against them, but saying that they require any real skill, dedication, patience etc. to be good at is just laughable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , then , are you playing a game with no dedicated server support , no real anti-cheat system , with flawed and random gameplay ? Hate to be the one to break it to you , but you 're playing a terrible game that caters to casual players who have no actual interest in being competitive and spending long hours in front of their monitors / TVs in order to get good at it .
Unless you 're completely new to gaming and/or really slow , there is no learning curve whatsoever and not much skill required to play it ; by employing a large number of luck-based elements ( spread coupled with " realistic " damage , unlocks etc .
) , the " skill ceiling " has been effectively lowered to the point no one can get " too good " at the game , so that any person playing it can win once in a while.If you really are a competitive player , do yourself a favor and try playing some of the oldschool deathmatch type games like Quake ( Quake Live is free and pretty active ) .
See how you stack up against some of the low-tier pub players after months of rigorous training in MW2 .
Try playing in some of the higher tiers , get totally slaughtered .
Watch some demos from professional gamers recorded at large lan events , and keep in mind that any of those pros could single-handedly wipe the floor with all the players you struggled against on pub servers without even flinching .
Quake , Unreal Tournament , Tribes , RTCW/ET are the games that actually require skill to play and reward you if you put some time into training etc.There 's room for casual games like MW2/BFBC2/Halo etc .
and I 've got nothing against them , but saying that they require any real skill , dedication , patience etc .
to be good at is just laughable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, then, are you playing a game with no dedicated server support, no real anti-cheat system, with flawed and random gameplay?Hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're playing a terrible game that caters to casual players who have no actual interest in being competitive and spending long hours in front of their monitors / TVs in order to get good at it.
Unless you're completely new to gaming and/or really slow, there is no learning curve whatsoever and not much skill required to play it; by employing a large number of luck-based elements (spread coupled with "realistic" damage, unlocks etc.
), the "skill ceiling" has been effectively lowered to the point no one can get "too good" at the game, so that any person playing it can win once in a while.If you really are a competitive player, do yourself a favor and try playing some of the oldschool deathmatch type games like Quake (Quake Live is free and pretty active).
See how you stack up against some of the low-tier pub players after months of rigorous training in MW2.
Try playing in some of the higher tiers, get totally slaughtered.
Watch some demos from professional gamers recorded at large lan events, and keep in mind that any of those pros could single-handedly wipe the floor with all the players you struggled against on pub servers without even flinching.
Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, RTCW/ET are the games that actually require skill to play and reward you if you put some time into training etc.There's room for casual games like MW2/BFBC2/Halo etc.
and I've got nothing against them, but saying that they require any real skill, dedication, patience etc.
to be good at is just laughable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186</id>
	<title>Play ARMA2 instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269947820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that's why you should play ARMA2 as opposed to MW2 which is the iphone of games, i.e crap, cant wait when Bobby at Activision lose the MW IP<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's why you should play ARMA2 as opposed to MW2 which is the iphone of games , i.e crap , cant wait when Bobby at Activision lose the MW IP : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's why you should play ARMA2 as opposed to MW2 which is the iphone of games, i.e crap, cant wait when Bobby at Activision lose the MW IP :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668204</id>
	<title>Desert Bus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The perfect model of this concept is the game Desert Bus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert\_Bus#Desert\_Bus).  The wikipedia article doesn't focus on it much, but my impression was that the point of this game was to illustrate how realism and fun are not always aligned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The perfect model of this concept is the game Desert Bus ( http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert \ _Bus # Desert \ _Bus ) .
The wikipedia article does n't focus on it much , but my impression was that the point of this game was to illustrate how realism and fun are not always aligned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The perfect model of this concept is the game Desert Bus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert\_Bus#Desert\_Bus).
The wikipedia article doesn't focus on it much, but my impression was that the point of this game was to illustrate how realism and fun are not always aligned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669322</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1269958440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, takes a while.  Most don't make it.  A rare few do.  Might I point out <a href="http://www.thief2x.com/" title="thief2x.com">T2X: Shadows of the Metal Age</a> [thief2x.com]?</p><p>It's a Thief 2 mod, complete with its own story, dialog, textures and models, and even movies.</p><p>Still, it's a pretty old game.  Does anyone know of a similar effort for anything more recent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , takes a while .
Most do n't make it .
A rare few do .
Might I point out T2X : Shadows of the Metal Age [ thief2x.com ] ? It 's a Thief 2 mod , complete with its own story , dialog , textures and models , and even movies.Still , it 's a pretty old game .
Does anyone know of a similar effort for anything more recent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, takes a while.
Most don't make it.
A rare few do.
Might I point out T2X: Shadows of the Metal Age [thief2x.com]?It's a Thief 2 mod, complete with its own story, dialog, textures and models, and even movies.Still, it's a pretty old game.
Does anyone know of a similar effort for anything more recent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668400</id>
	<title>Two Stories...</title>
	<author>shoemakc</author>
	<datestamp>1269950820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...posted two stories after the headline "Haptic Gaming Vest Simulates Punches, Shots, Stabbing". That's just funny. -Chris</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...posted two stories after the headline " Haptic Gaming Vest Simulates Punches , Shots , Stabbing " .
That 's just funny .
-Chris</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...posted two stories after the headline "Haptic Gaming Vest Simulates Punches, Shots, Stabbing".
That's just funny.
-Chris</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269948420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue with computer gaming today is that it needs a business model that sits halfway between commercial games companies and those who contribute to game-related projects freely.</p><p>The game companies are only interested in quick high-volumes sales within the first couple of weeks of a games launch...</p><p>Game programmers who write mods and levels often start off with great ideas but so few mods get fully finished, due mainly to under-estimation of the free time and resource that will ultimately be needed to complete the project...</p><p>The compromise would be for games companies to be more supportive of mod programmers and allow them to sell their mods at low cost whilst taking a cut themselves - maybe even sell third-party mods on their web sites. Hopefully, the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.</p><p>Of course, it will never happen in the real world because greedy games companies will see this as extending the shelf-life of games and won't want gamers buying mods instead of new games...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue with computer gaming today is that it needs a business model that sits halfway between commercial games companies and those who contribute to game-related projects freely.The game companies are only interested in quick high-volumes sales within the first couple of weeks of a games launch...Game programmers who write mods and levels often start off with great ideas but so few mods get fully finished , due mainly to under-estimation of the free time and resource that will ultimately be needed to complete the project...The compromise would be for games companies to be more supportive of mod programmers and allow them to sell their mods at low cost whilst taking a cut themselves - maybe even sell third-party mods on their web sites .
Hopefully , the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.Of course , it will never happen in the real world because greedy games companies will see this as extending the shelf-life of games and wo n't want gamers buying mods instead of new games.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue with computer gaming today is that it needs a business model that sits halfway between commercial games companies and those who contribute to game-related projects freely.The game companies are only interested in quick high-volumes sales within the first couple of weeks of a games launch...Game programmers who write mods and levels often start off with great ideas but so few mods get fully finished, due mainly to under-estimation of the free time and resource that will ultimately be needed to complete the project...The compromise would be for games companies to be more supportive of mod programmers and allow them to sell their mods at low cost whilst taking a cut themselves - maybe even sell third-party mods on their web sites.
Hopefully, the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.Of course, it will never happen in the real world because greedy games companies will see this as extending the shelf-life of games and won't want gamers buying mods instead of new games...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669090</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>Pharmboy</author>
	<datestamp>1269957060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Team Fortress Classic, Day of Defeat, and as someone pointed out, Counter Strike were originally done on the old HL engine.</p><p>The newer Source engine was designed specifically for that, AND to produce lower cost games that might not be as polished as full titles, but worth the lower price (The Ship, Garry's Mod) as well as create interesting free games that are pure mods.  Steam has been doing it, AND created a digital delivery system that has effective enough DRM that isn't as draconian as other systems.  They get the majority of my gaming dollars because I can install on multiple computers (but play on one at a time), they autoinstall, they are a great value (hello, Orange Box?), and they *do* protect game makers ability to make a profit while still providing a reasonable price to the consumer.</p><p>To me, Gabe has found a perfect balance between consumer and provider, and provides lots of free trials, lets you *give* extra games you get when you buy a package that has a game that you already own, etc.  Plus I never install a CD to play, never worry about losing or scratching the CD, and they have great sales, from 10\% to 75\% off on a regular basis.  Steam <b>deserves</b> to succeed, and I hope they continue to do so, because they treat the customer just as good as they do the creator of game content.  It isn't perfect, but it is evolving, and doing so in a good way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Team Fortress Classic , Day of Defeat , and as someone pointed out , Counter Strike were originally done on the old HL engine.The newer Source engine was designed specifically for that , AND to produce lower cost games that might not be as polished as full titles , but worth the lower price ( The Ship , Garry 's Mod ) as well as create interesting free games that are pure mods .
Steam has been doing it , AND created a digital delivery system that has effective enough DRM that is n't as draconian as other systems .
They get the majority of my gaming dollars because I can install on multiple computers ( but play on one at a time ) , they autoinstall , they are a great value ( hello , Orange Box ?
) , and they * do * protect game makers ability to make a profit while still providing a reasonable price to the consumer.To me , Gabe has found a perfect balance between consumer and provider , and provides lots of free trials , lets you * give * extra games you get when you buy a package that has a game that you already own , etc .
Plus I never install a CD to play , never worry about losing or scratching the CD , and they have great sales , from 10 \ % to 75 \ % off on a regular basis .
Steam deserves to succeed , and I hope they continue to do so , because they treat the customer just as good as they do the creator of game content .
It is n't perfect , but it is evolving , and doing so in a good way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Team Fortress Classic, Day of Defeat, and as someone pointed out, Counter Strike were originally done on the old HL engine.The newer Source engine was designed specifically for that, AND to produce lower cost games that might not be as polished as full titles, but worth the lower price (The Ship, Garry's Mod) as well as create interesting free games that are pure mods.
Steam has been doing it, AND created a digital delivery system that has effective enough DRM that isn't as draconian as other systems.
They get the majority of my gaming dollars because I can install on multiple computers (but play on one at a time), they autoinstall, they are a great value (hello, Orange Box?
), and they *do* protect game makers ability to make a profit while still providing a reasonable price to the consumer.To me, Gabe has found a perfect balance between consumer and provider, and provides lots of free trials, lets you *give* extra games you get when you buy a package that has a game that you already own, etc.
Plus I never install a CD to play, never worry about losing or scratching the CD, and they have great sales, from 10\% to 75\% off on a regular basis.
Steam deserves to succeed, and I hope they continue to do so, because they treat the customer just as good as they do the creator of game content.
It isn't perfect, but it is evolving, and doing so in a good way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668530</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1269952320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>not a heap.  my gf is living proof that soem shitty one-button game (iphone touch screen to turn/jump games) can sell just fine if they're cutsey and aimed at the non-hardcore mobile gamer market.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Besides, if i wanted to play reality, i'd go outside.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>not a heap .
my gf is living proof that soem shitty one-button game ( iphone touch screen to turn/jump games ) can sell just fine if they 're cutsey and aimed at the non-hardcore mobile gamer market .
Besides , if i wanted to play reality , i 'd go outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not a heap.
my gf is living proof that soem shitty one-button game (iphone touch screen to turn/jump games) can sell just fine if they're cutsey and aimed at the non-hardcore mobile gamer market.
Besides, if i wanted to play reality, i'd go outside.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672638</id>
	<title>Take Those Old Records Off The Shelf</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269969780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, the cinema was never the same when they added sound.  Going color was kicking a dead horse when it was down.  Now this 3D stuff, did you see what it did to Avatar, completely ruined it, that would have been much better served in black and white with no sound but a live piano, let me tell you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , the cinema was never the same when they added sound .
Going color was kicking a dead horse when it was down .
Now this 3D stuff , did you see what it did to Avatar , completely ruined it , that would have been much better served in black and white with no sound but a live piano , let me tell you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, the cinema was never the same when they added sound.
Going color was kicking a dead horse when it was down.
Now this 3D stuff, did you see what it did to Avatar, completely ruined it, that would have been much better served in black and white with no sound but a live piano, let me tell you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31670672</id>
	<title>Er...</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1269964080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember when the norm for a video game was a blue hedgehog that ran fast and collected rings and emeralds?</p></div><p>And now we have sexy blue Asari commandos quickly kicking ass and collecting names.</p><p>Personally, I'd call that an improvement, but each to his own.</p><p>My last five "big" games were Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Bioshock 2, Demon's Souls and Final Fantasy 13, so I'm not real clear on the whole "games are too realistic" concept. Dozens of alien races, 15th century Italy, a dying undersea city, a demon haunted world and cell powered Final Fantasy psychedelia- yeah, I can just walk out my door and see all that.</p><p>Maybe I'd feel differently if I played endless FPS games day in and day out, but then then the article switches to complain that they are not real enough, so who even knows WTF they are babbling about.</p><p>You want real? Go outside. Or join the Army. Real enough for you yet? Or just have a friend pop a cap in you when you get snipered in a game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember when the norm for a video game was a blue hedgehog that ran fast and collected rings and emeralds ? And now we have sexy blue Asari commandos quickly kicking ass and collecting names.Personally , I 'd call that an improvement , but each to his own.My last five " big " games were Mass Effect 2 , Assassin 's Creed 2 , Bioshock 2 , Demon 's Souls and Final Fantasy 13 , so I 'm not real clear on the whole " games are too realistic " concept .
Dozens of alien races , 15th century Italy , a dying undersea city , a demon haunted world and cell powered Final Fantasy psychedelia- yeah , I can just walk out my door and see all that.Maybe I 'd feel differently if I played endless FPS games day in and day out , but then then the article switches to complain that they are not real enough , so who even knows WTF they are babbling about.You want real ?
Go outside .
Or join the Army .
Real enough for you yet ?
Or just have a friend pop a cap in you when you get snipered in a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember when the norm for a video game was a blue hedgehog that ran fast and collected rings and emeralds?And now we have sexy blue Asari commandos quickly kicking ass and collecting names.Personally, I'd call that an improvement, but each to his own.My last five "big" games were Mass Effect 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Bioshock 2, Demon's Souls and Final Fantasy 13, so I'm not real clear on the whole "games are too realistic" concept.
Dozens of alien races, 15th century Italy, a dying undersea city, a demon haunted world and cell powered Final Fantasy psychedelia- yeah, I can just walk out my door and see all that.Maybe I'd feel differently if I played endless FPS games day in and day out, but then then the article switches to complain that they are not real enough, so who even knows WTF they are babbling about.You want real?
Go outside.
Or join the Army.
Real enough for you yet?
Or just have a friend pop a cap in you when you get snipered in a game.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668356</id>
	<title>Don't see the problem</title>
	<author>Seyren</author>
	<datestamp>1269950160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Games with real world settings are just hot right now, that's all. It's not like nobody's been making games in fantasy settings recently either, look at dragon age, mass effect, zeno clash, god of war etc. TFA makes it sound like games not based in reality are super rare or something right now, which isn't true at all. Maybe the author was grasping at straws trying to make a deadline or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games with real world settings are just hot right now , that 's all .
It 's not like nobody 's been making games in fantasy settings recently either , look at dragon age , mass effect , zeno clash , god of war etc .
TFA makes it sound like games not based in reality are super rare or something right now , which is n't true at all .
Maybe the author was grasping at straws trying to make a deadline or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games with real world settings are just hot right now, that's all.
It's not like nobody's been making games in fantasy settings recently either, look at dragon age, mass effect, zeno clash, god of war etc.
TFA makes it sound like games not based in reality are super rare or something right now, which isn't true at all.
Maybe the author was grasping at straws trying to make a deadline or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31678324</id>
	<title>Re:I HATE invisible walls</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1269946680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That ok, at some point Planeshift's 1998 graphics will start to appear quaint rather than just ugly and your expectation of reality will go away<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That ok , at some point Planeshift 's 1998 graphics will start to appear quaint rather than just ugly and your expectation of reality will go away ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That ok, at some point Planeshift's 1998 graphics will start to appear quaint rather than just ugly and your expectation of reality will go away ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669108</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269957180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;'Fictional Physics' of the old retro games or games from the Atari and Amiga era are still more playable to me than allot of the newer games coming out<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;</p><p>Agreed.  This is why I got my hands on an old Commodore=64.  I can't do any useful work with it anymore (well except word processing), but it makes a great game console.  5000+ games and I've barely scratched the surface.  The Super Nintendo and PS1 also had a lot of good 2D-based games.</p><p>It seems lately the old "modern" games I still enjoy are RPGs (for their story) and Nintendo/Sega games that explore imaginative concepts rather than reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; 'Fictional Physics ' of the old retro games or games from the Atari and Amiga era are still more playable to me than allot of the newer games coming out &gt; &gt; &gt; Agreed .
This is why I got my hands on an old Commodore = 64 .
I ca n't do any useful work with it anymore ( well except word processing ) , but it makes a great game console .
5000 + games and I 've barely scratched the surface .
The Super Nintendo and PS1 also had a lot of good 2D-based games.It seems lately the old " modern " games I still enjoy are RPGs ( for their story ) and Nintendo/Sega games that explore imaginative concepts rather than reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;'Fictional Physics' of the old retro games or games from the Atari and Amiga era are still more playable to me than allot of the newer games coming out&gt;&gt;&gt;Agreed.
This is why I got my hands on an old Commodore=64.
I can't do any useful work with it anymore (well except word processing), but it makes a great game console.
5000+ games and I've barely scratched the surface.
The Super Nintendo and PS1 also had a lot of good 2D-based games.It seems lately the old "modern" games I still enjoy are RPGs (for their story) and Nintendo/Sega games that explore imaginative concepts rather than reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668210</id>
	<title>From the opinion-piece-pulled-out-of-ass dept.</title>
	<author>BenevolentP</author>
	<datestamp>1269948240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, what? The article summary starts with "too realistic" then suddenly turns to "not realistic enough" in terms of open-world gameplay. I dont really get the point, if there is one.</p><p>Im pretty happy not every game is a sandbox game, which mostly try to do everything but do everything mediocre (GTA, Oblivion etc).</p><p>BTW, nothing in doom kept me from staying cowardly in the first room of e1m1, not moving, shivering.</p><p>All with real world consequences if i choose so (boredom and starvation).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , what ?
The article summary starts with " too realistic " then suddenly turns to " not realistic enough " in terms of open-world gameplay .
I dont really get the point , if there is one.Im pretty happy not every game is a sandbox game , which mostly try to do everything but do everything mediocre ( GTA , Oblivion etc ) .BTW , nothing in doom kept me from staying cowardly in the first room of e1m1 , not moving , shivering.All with real world consequences if i choose so ( boredom and starvation ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, what?
The article summary starts with "too realistic" then suddenly turns to "not realistic enough" in terms of open-world gameplay.
I dont really get the point, if there is one.Im pretty happy not every game is a sandbox game, which mostly try to do everything but do everything mediocre (GTA, Oblivion etc).BTW, nothing in doom kept me from staying cowardly in the first room of e1m1, not moving, shivering.All with real world consequences if i choose so (boredom and starvation).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668698</id>
	<title>Re:Play ARMA2 instead</title>
	<author>Shadow of Eternity</author>
	<datestamp>1269954120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ArmA is no more realistic than Modern Warfare 2. The only difference is that where MW2 went for hollywood-reality through "cinematic" special effects ArmA went for armchair-reality through deliberate obfuscation.</p><p>It's not any more realistic to make the player's avatar an incompetent cripple with no sense of proprioception and no representation of things you'd obviously know in reality than it is to tell them exactly how many more times they can get shot before dying and how many bullets are left in the current magazine.</p><p>The only difference is that a lot of people assume that because one of them is more obfuscated than the other it must therefore be closer to reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ArmA is no more realistic than Modern Warfare 2 .
The only difference is that where MW2 went for hollywood-reality through " cinematic " special effects ArmA went for armchair-reality through deliberate obfuscation.It 's not any more realistic to make the player 's avatar an incompetent cripple with no sense of proprioception and no representation of things you 'd obviously know in reality than it is to tell them exactly how many more times they can get shot before dying and how many bullets are left in the current magazine.The only difference is that a lot of people assume that because one of them is more obfuscated than the other it must therefore be closer to reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ArmA is no more realistic than Modern Warfare 2.
The only difference is that where MW2 went for hollywood-reality through "cinematic" special effects ArmA went for armchair-reality through deliberate obfuscation.It's not any more realistic to make the player's avatar an incompetent cripple with no sense of proprioception and no representation of things you'd obviously know in reality than it is to tell them exactly how many more times they can get shot before dying and how many bullets are left in the current magazine.The only difference is that a lot of people assume that because one of them is more obfuscated than the other it must therefore be closer to reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669528</id>
	<title>Bioware and Rockstar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>For all the griping about RPG elements missing from games and immersion and realism, not a single word about Bioware that I can see and only a passing reference to Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto Series. Really?<br><br>GTA4: Liberty City is insanely big, open world, no invisible borders, and fairly realistic physics, except that you--and to a lesser degree other characters--can take a slightly higher beating than in real life and survive. This is the closest you can get to "real", until Red Dead Redemption comes out.<br><br>Bioware, Mass Effect 1/2: gold standard for RPGs. Runner up: Dragon Age. Your actions shape the story outcome, responses, and so on. Leveling shapes the nature and tone of your character in play and combat.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all the griping about RPG elements missing from games and immersion and realism , not a single word about Bioware that I can see and only a passing reference to Rockstar 's Grand Theft Auto Series .
Really ? GTA4 : Liberty City is insanely big , open world , no invisible borders , and fairly realistic physics , except that you--and to a lesser degree other characters--can take a slightly higher beating than in real life and survive .
This is the closest you can get to " real " , until Red Dead Redemption comes out.Bioware , Mass Effect 1/2 : gold standard for RPGs .
Runner up : Dragon Age .
Your actions shape the story outcome , responses , and so on .
Leveling shapes the nature and tone of your character in play and combat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all the griping about RPG elements missing from games and immersion and realism, not a single word about Bioware that I can see and only a passing reference to Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto Series.
Really?GTA4: Liberty City is insanely big, open world, no invisible borders, and fairly realistic physics, except that you--and to a lesser degree other characters--can take a slightly higher beating than in real life and survive.
This is the closest you can get to "real", until Red Dead Redemption comes out.Bioware, Mass Effect 1/2: gold standard for RPGs.
Runner up: Dragon Age.
Your actions shape the story outcome, responses, and so on.
Leveling shapes the nature and tone of your character in play and combat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668224</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1269948360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone has their idea on what makes a game good for them and everyone has an idea on what makes a game bad for them and they're all right in their respective opinions for a single player: themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone has their idea on what makes a game good for them and everyone has an idea on what makes a game bad for them and they 're all right in their respective opinions for a single player : themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone has their idea on what makes a game good for them and everyone has an idea on what makes a game bad for them and they're all right in their respective opinions for a single player: themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31707212</id>
	<title>Re:MW2 realism is a joke...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1270228380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you tried Arma 2 or Operation Flashpoint. If you like realism, those are the perfect games for you.<br>But of course, them being just as frustrating as suddenly becoming a soldier in the real world, the question is, if they are still games, or rather simulations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried Arma 2 or Operation Flashpoint .
If you like realism , those are the perfect games for you.But of course , them being just as frustrating as suddenly becoming a soldier in the real world , the question is , if they are still games , or rather simulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried Arma 2 or Operation Flashpoint.
If you like realism, those are the perfect games for you.But of course, them being just as frustrating as suddenly becoming a soldier in the real world, the question is, if they are still games, or rather simulations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31671316</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1269966060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>protect game makers ability to make a profit while still providing a reasonable price to the consumer.</i>
<p>
I agree with most of what you said apart from that bit.
</p><p>
Prices for new games on Steam are nothing short of a scam. A game that costs the RRP/MSRP on Steam can be had from a store typically for 30\% less. For example Batman Arkham Asylum Game of the Year Edition is 49.99 on Steam, and 32.49 on Play.com - 35\% less. Battlefield Bad Company 2 is 49.99 on Steam and 35.49 on Play.com - 30\% less.
</p><p>
That's even with the added burden of stocking, middlemen, production and postage that a physical game entails. I don't accept the argument that its publishers setting the prices either. Even Valve's own games like Left 4 Dead 2 are cheaper to buy in physical form than online. Digital downloads should be cheaper not more expensive. There are occasionally good deals, especially on old titles but forget it for the new stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>protect game makers ability to make a profit while still providing a reasonable price to the consumer .
I agree with most of what you said apart from that bit .
Prices for new games on Steam are nothing short of a scam .
A game that costs the RRP/MSRP on Steam can be had from a store typically for 30 \ % less .
For example Batman Arkham Asylum Game of the Year Edition is 49.99 on Steam , and 32.49 on Play.com - 35 \ % less .
Battlefield Bad Company 2 is 49.99 on Steam and 35.49 on Play.com - 30 \ % less .
That 's even with the added burden of stocking , middlemen , production and postage that a physical game entails .
I do n't accept the argument that its publishers setting the prices either .
Even Valve 's own games like Left 4 Dead 2 are cheaper to buy in physical form than online .
Digital downloads should be cheaper not more expensive .
There are occasionally good deals , especially on old titles but forget it for the new stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>protect game makers ability to make a profit while still providing a reasonable price to the consumer.
I agree with most of what you said apart from that bit.
Prices for new games on Steam are nothing short of a scam.
A game that costs the RRP/MSRP on Steam can be had from a store typically for 30\% less.
For example Batman Arkham Asylum Game of the Year Edition is 49.99 on Steam, and 32.49 on Play.com - 35\% less.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 is 49.99 on Steam and 35.49 on Play.com - 30\% less.
That's even with the added burden of stocking, middlemen, production and postage that a physical game entails.
I don't accept the argument that its publishers setting the prices either.
Even Valve's own games like Left 4 Dead 2 are cheaper to buy in physical form than online.
Digital downloads should be cheaper not more expensive.
There are occasionally good deals, especially on old titles but forget it for the new stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669090</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668360</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269950220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the companies allowed and even supported anyone making a mod, how would they be able to sell their DLC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the companies allowed and even supported anyone making a mod , how would they be able to sell their DLC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the companies allowed and even supported anyone making a mod, how would they be able to sell their DLC?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672564</id>
	<title>Yawn...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269969540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I want to play crappy cell shaded cartoony looking games, I'll pull out one of my old 16b era computers, or if I wanted to play a platformer or some other type of game that he espouses I'd pull out a handheld console.</p><p>Bottom line here, IS the HOLY GRAIL of gaming is MORE REALISTIC looking games.  I looked forward for years to advances in GPUs as they improved their ability to render game in something other than some shitty cartoonish pixelized way.  Sure some games ARE btter off being rendered less realistically, but bottom line here is that there just aren't many of them where it would work or is what I would want to see, e.g. TF2 of course that suffers from a whole host of crappy gameplay mechanic changes from TFC anyways, which I still play regularly along with Fortress Forever.</p><p>I mean could you imagine Arma or many of the RPGs with crappy cartoony gfx?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want to play crappy cell shaded cartoony looking games , I 'll pull out one of my old 16b era computers , or if I wanted to play a platformer or some other type of game that he espouses I 'd pull out a handheld console.Bottom line here , IS the HOLY GRAIL of gaming is MORE REALISTIC looking games .
I looked forward for years to advances in GPUs as they improved their ability to render game in something other than some shitty cartoonish pixelized way .
Sure some games ARE btter off being rendered less realistically , but bottom line here is that there just are n't many of them where it would work or is what I would want to see , e.g .
TF2 of course that suffers from a whole host of crappy gameplay mechanic changes from TFC anyways , which I still play regularly along with Fortress Forever.I mean could you imagine Arma or many of the RPGs with crappy cartoony gfx ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want to play crappy cell shaded cartoony looking games, I'll pull out one of my old 16b era computers, or if I wanted to play a platformer or some other type of game that he espouses I'd pull out a handheld console.Bottom line here, IS the HOLY GRAIL of gaming is MORE REALISTIC looking games.
I looked forward for years to advances in GPUs as they improved their ability to render game in something other than some shitty cartoonish pixelized way.
Sure some games ARE btter off being rendered less realistically, but bottom line here is that there just aren't many of them where it would work or is what I would want to see, e.g.
TF2 of course that suffers from a whole host of crappy gameplay mechanic changes from TFC anyways, which I still play regularly along with Fortress Forever.I mean could you imagine Arma or many of the RPGs with crappy cartoony gfx?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31675194</id>
	<title>Re:Kids love the lack of reality...</title>
	<author>Reapy</author>
	<datestamp>1269978780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Each game trains specific skills. Your mentality playing the game has nothing to do with how fast your character can die in it. An FPS where you die quickly with one shot teaches you to play differently then a halo style game. I tend to be a fan of the ghost recon/ravenshield type games (well in the past) and even on n64 I would want to play bond on the 1 shot 1 kill mode. I liked it because I couldn't track and aim players that well.</p><p>In those games you sneak around, are clever, keep your weapon pointed to be the first guy to shoot on target. In a halo game, you need to track your target and keep sustained fire on them. It is a different skill to put a person down in a multishot game, and I would even say it requires better aim, because headshots become even more important when the chest shots will keep people alive twice as long. In the 'realistic' game you just hit them first and you win basically, spray in the chest, maybe get a headshot, no biggie, get the drop on them.</p><p>But people's attitudes when they play are different. Some people like to push themselves to become great, to always do better, other people just hop on and play, and some just get good enough to beat the masses and avoid the talent. It is like this in every game.</p><p>At the end of the day we'll never have an environment immersive enough to be reality on current hardware, a mouse, keyboard, screen, and headphones are not enough. You can rotate your head without changing your body orientation and you have peripheral vision, and that nice 6th sense which puts the hairs on the back of your neck up. Moreover, in a video game it doesn't take physical fitness into account, which is probably one of the largest factors in some types of actions that games simulate.</p><p>Anyway, you can be a competitor in any game, not just one that lets you die in one hit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Each game trains specific skills .
Your mentality playing the game has nothing to do with how fast your character can die in it .
An FPS where you die quickly with one shot teaches you to play differently then a halo style game .
I tend to be a fan of the ghost recon/ravenshield type games ( well in the past ) and even on n64 I would want to play bond on the 1 shot 1 kill mode .
I liked it because I could n't track and aim players that well.In those games you sneak around , are clever , keep your weapon pointed to be the first guy to shoot on target .
In a halo game , you need to track your target and keep sustained fire on them .
It is a different skill to put a person down in a multishot game , and I would even say it requires better aim , because headshots become even more important when the chest shots will keep people alive twice as long .
In the 'realistic ' game you just hit them first and you win basically , spray in the chest , maybe get a headshot , no biggie , get the drop on them.But people 's attitudes when they play are different .
Some people like to push themselves to become great , to always do better , other people just hop on and play , and some just get good enough to beat the masses and avoid the talent .
It is like this in every game.At the end of the day we 'll never have an environment immersive enough to be reality on current hardware , a mouse , keyboard , screen , and headphones are not enough .
You can rotate your head without changing your body orientation and you have peripheral vision , and that nice 6th sense which puts the hairs on the back of your neck up .
Moreover , in a video game it does n't take physical fitness into account , which is probably one of the largest factors in some types of actions that games simulate.Anyway , you can be a competitor in any game , not just one that lets you die in one hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each game trains specific skills.
Your mentality playing the game has nothing to do with how fast your character can die in it.
An FPS where you die quickly with one shot teaches you to play differently then a halo style game.
I tend to be a fan of the ghost recon/ravenshield type games (well in the past) and even on n64 I would want to play bond on the 1 shot 1 kill mode.
I liked it because I couldn't track and aim players that well.In those games you sneak around, are clever, keep your weapon pointed to be the first guy to shoot on target.
In a halo game, you need to track your target and keep sustained fire on them.
It is a different skill to put a person down in a multishot game, and I would even say it requires better aim, because headshots become even more important when the chest shots will keep people alive twice as long.
In the 'realistic' game you just hit them first and you win basically, spray in the chest, maybe get a headshot, no biggie, get the drop on them.But people's attitudes when they play are different.
Some people like to push themselves to become great, to always do better, other people just hop on and play, and some just get good enough to beat the masses and avoid the talent.
It is like this in every game.At the end of the day we'll never have an environment immersive enough to be reality on current hardware, a mouse, keyboard, screen, and headphones are not enough.
You can rotate your head without changing your body orientation and you have peripheral vision, and that nice 6th sense which puts the hairs on the back of your neck up.
Moreover, in a video game it doesn't take physical fitness into account, which is probably one of the largest factors in some types of actions that games simulate.Anyway, you can be a competitor in any game, not just one that lets you die in one hit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31674770</id>
	<title>Re:Bioware and Rockstar</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1269976860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>GTA4: Liberty City is insanely big, open world, no invisible borders,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>Not quite, GTA4 lacks persistence. Vehicles might disappear when you look into the other direction and missions are completly inaccessible unless triggered by a cutscene. Its kind of a bummer when you shall kill some thugs, but you can't shot them from a distance, as they are not even there unless you get close enough and the script triggers inserts them into the gaming world. The GTA-kind of open world games are really just simple linear games that share the same huge level for each mission, but between missions everything is basically reset to zero. Also the ending of GTA4 sucked a lot and the lack of choice in the outcome was annoying, but thats another story.</p><p>With Mass Effect I kind of agree, those games are amazing, but more because of the good story then RPG or choice. In Mass Effect 1 people got annoyed by the Mako driving and the inventory, in Mass Effect 2 then, instead of improving the issues, they ripped them out completly. You can't even upgrade the armor of your team mates anymore. Thus reducing the rather open RPG game world of ME1 to a rather small set of linear levels, you still can take the levels in different orders, but the levels themselves are very linear and flat in ME2. Choice in Mass Effect is also an illusion, you have basically the choice between playing a nice guy or an asshole, but you can really chose to actually do anything that will impact the story.</p><p>In the end it really comes down to expectations, when one has played the likes of Elite, XCom, Syndicate or EF2000 well over a decade ago, I just expect more from my games in 2010. And as much as I love Mass Effect, its basically just Wing Commander with space marines instead of fighter pilots, thats not a bad thing, but neither something that goes beyond games of the past. In terms of graphics and physics games have improved a lot, but in terms of what your character is allowed to do in the game world very little has changed in a long while.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>GTA4 : Liberty City is insanely big , open world , no invisible borders , ...Not quite , GTA4 lacks persistence .
Vehicles might disappear when you look into the other direction and missions are completly inaccessible unless triggered by a cutscene .
Its kind of a bummer when you shall kill some thugs , but you ca n't shot them from a distance , as they are not even there unless you get close enough and the script triggers inserts them into the gaming world .
The GTA-kind of open world games are really just simple linear games that share the same huge level for each mission , but between missions everything is basically reset to zero .
Also the ending of GTA4 sucked a lot and the lack of choice in the outcome was annoying , but thats another story.With Mass Effect I kind of agree , those games are amazing , but more because of the good story then RPG or choice .
In Mass Effect 1 people got annoyed by the Mako driving and the inventory , in Mass Effect 2 then , instead of improving the issues , they ripped them out completly .
You ca n't even upgrade the armor of your team mates anymore .
Thus reducing the rather open RPG game world of ME1 to a rather small set of linear levels , you still can take the levels in different orders , but the levels themselves are very linear and flat in ME2 .
Choice in Mass Effect is also an illusion , you have basically the choice between playing a nice guy or an asshole , but you can really chose to actually do anything that will impact the story.In the end it really comes down to expectations , when one has played the likes of Elite , XCom , Syndicate or EF2000 well over a decade ago , I just expect more from my games in 2010 .
And as much as I love Mass Effect , its basically just Wing Commander with space marines instead of fighter pilots , thats not a bad thing , but neither something that goes beyond games of the past .
In terms of graphics and physics games have improved a lot , but in terms of what your character is allowed to do in the game world very little has changed in a long while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GTA4: Liberty City is insanely big, open world, no invisible borders, ...Not quite, GTA4 lacks persistence.
Vehicles might disappear when you look into the other direction and missions are completly inaccessible unless triggered by a cutscene.
Its kind of a bummer when you shall kill some thugs, but you can't shot them from a distance, as they are not even there unless you get close enough and the script triggers inserts them into the gaming world.
The GTA-kind of open world games are really just simple linear games that share the same huge level for each mission, but between missions everything is basically reset to zero.
Also the ending of GTA4 sucked a lot and the lack of choice in the outcome was annoying, but thats another story.With Mass Effect I kind of agree, those games are amazing, but more because of the good story then RPG or choice.
In Mass Effect 1 people got annoyed by the Mako driving and the inventory, in Mass Effect 2 then, instead of improving the issues, they ripped them out completly.
You can't even upgrade the armor of your team mates anymore.
Thus reducing the rather open RPG game world of ME1 to a rather small set of linear levels, you still can take the levels in different orders, but the levels themselves are very linear and flat in ME2.
Choice in Mass Effect is also an illusion, you have basically the choice between playing a nice guy or an asshole, but you can really chose to actually do anything that will impact the story.In the end it really comes down to expectations, when one has played the likes of Elite, XCom, Syndicate or EF2000 well over a decade ago, I just expect more from my games in 2010.
And as much as I love Mass Effect, its basically just Wing Commander with space marines instead of fighter pilots, thats not a bad thing, but neither something that goes beyond games of the past.
In terms of graphics and physics games have improved a lot, but in terms of what your character is allowed to do in the game world very little has changed in a long while.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668378</id>
	<title>in fact...</title>
	<author>naz404</author>
	<datestamp>1269950580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In reality, as a soldier I could disobey my orders and go exploring around the other side. I could be cowardly and turn back to base.</p></div><p>In fact, I can even start shooting my own teammates when they aren't looking just for fun!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In reality , as a soldier I could disobey my orders and go exploring around the other side .
I could be cowardly and turn back to base.In fact , I can even start shooting my own teammates when they are n't looking just for fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In reality, as a soldier I could disobey my orders and go exploring around the other side.
I could be cowardly and turn back to base.In fact, I can even start shooting my own teammates when they aren't looking just for fun!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668340</id>
	<title>Is it my line now?</title>
	<author>Windwraith</author>
	<datestamp>1269949920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As game maker, I completely agree.<br>Gamisms are a good thing while reality is usually a burden. Of course it has its place in simulators, and mild levels of realism can be interesting (for example in robots, which I like to articulate in intricate forms), but videogames...they allow us to throw wild levels of nonsense and make them work. Gamisms allow our character to take a fireball to the face or defying death with credits, blessings or potions. It's convenient unless you aim to do a faithful simulation of reality.<br>But I think there aren't as many "fantastic" worlds because they require more imagination at work. Structuring a realistic city and putting it into the game is easier than inventing a different sort of world. You can use your mental image of a city, and the workforce will have less trouble adapting to that idea. In 2D it was easier to do because it was all drawn and required less detail and interaction.</p><p>The title is a reference to a game that used complete surreality as a plot device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As game maker , I completely agree.Gamisms are a good thing while reality is usually a burden .
Of course it has its place in simulators , and mild levels of realism can be interesting ( for example in robots , which I like to articulate in intricate forms ) , but videogames...they allow us to throw wild levels of nonsense and make them work .
Gamisms allow our character to take a fireball to the face or defying death with credits , blessings or potions .
It 's convenient unless you aim to do a faithful simulation of reality.But I think there are n't as many " fantastic " worlds because they require more imagination at work .
Structuring a realistic city and putting it into the game is easier than inventing a different sort of world .
You can use your mental image of a city , and the workforce will have less trouble adapting to that idea .
In 2D it was easier to do because it was all drawn and required less detail and interaction.The title is a reference to a game that used complete surreality as a plot device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As game maker, I completely agree.Gamisms are a good thing while reality is usually a burden.
Of course it has its place in simulators, and mild levels of realism can be interesting (for example in robots, which I like to articulate in intricate forms), but videogames...they allow us to throw wild levels of nonsense and make them work.
Gamisms allow our character to take a fireball to the face or defying death with credits, blessings or potions.
It's convenient unless you aim to do a faithful simulation of reality.But I think there aren't as many "fantastic" worlds because they require more imagination at work.
Structuring a realistic city and putting it into the game is easier than inventing a different sort of world.
You can use your mental image of a city, and the workforce will have less trouble adapting to that idea.
In 2D it was easier to do because it was all drawn and required less detail and interaction.The title is a reference to a game that used complete surreality as a plot device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31677254</id>
	<title>Amen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269942420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen to that!  I've been gaming since Intellivision was the thing and have been growing tired of the reality based games.  Tired of waiting for every other Final Fantasy, with the exception of X.  Hopefully this idea will catch and developers will take notice.  Enough is enough already, take the plunge, be creative, do things differently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen to that !
I 've been gaming since Intellivision was the thing and have been growing tired of the reality based games .
Tired of waiting for every other Final Fantasy , with the exception of X. Hopefully this idea will catch and developers will take notice .
Enough is enough already , take the plunge , be creative , do things differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen to that!
I've been gaming since Intellivision was the thing and have been growing tired of the reality based games.
Tired of waiting for every other Final Fantasy, with the exception of X.  Hopefully this idea will catch and developers will take notice.
Enough is enough already, take the plunge, be creative, do things differently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669052</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1269956760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Hopefully, the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.</i> </p><p>You are still underestimating the time and resources needed to produce a professional quality mod:</p><p>Story and script. Art design, Level design, Characters, props, and animation. Special effects. Music. Dialog and vocal performance...</p><p>It won't be enough to simply re-cycle the existing game assets: putting your American officer in a Nazi uniform and calling it a day.</p><p>Any significant departure from the main story line and setting has a very significant price.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully , the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects .
You are still underestimating the time and resources needed to produce a professional quality mod : Story and script .
Art design , Level design , Characters , props , and animation .
Special effects .
Music. Dialog and vocal performance...It wo n't be enough to simply re-cycle the existing game assets : putting your American officer in a Nazi uniform and calling it a day.Any significant departure from the main story line and setting has a very significant price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully, the remuneration that the games programmers would receive would be encouragement to complete more projects.
You are still underestimating the time and resources needed to produce a professional quality mod:Story and script.
Art design, Level design, Characters, props, and animation.
Special effects.
Music. Dialog and vocal performance...It won't be enough to simply re-cycle the existing game assets: putting your American officer in a Nazi uniform and calling it a day.Any significant departure from the main story line and setting has a very significant price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668584</id>
	<title>New Cap City?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269952980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I swear it was almost like being in New Caprica.  Even the death is real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear it was almost like being in New Caprica .
Even the death is real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear it was almost like being in New Caprica.
Even the death is real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668800</id>
	<title>FF13 is good in this regard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269955020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although it has its flaws, FF13's complete lack of realism makes for a very visceral and over-the-top experience. Anyone who has seen this game can tell the designers had a lot of fun and wore their anime influences on their sleeve. In battle, certain characters have an ability that can be used only at a certain period where an enemy is launched up in the air. Then they (and others, too) jump up after it and continue slashing away at it. While airborne, the enemy cannot do anything -- it is your chance to punish them. The game also grants the characters the ability to jump/fall quite high through a plot point. These two examples are in addition to the dragons, robots, ninjas, etc that are in all 'realistic' fantasy games it seems.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although it has its flaws , FF13 's complete lack of realism makes for a very visceral and over-the-top experience .
Anyone who has seen this game can tell the designers had a lot of fun and wore their anime influences on their sleeve .
In battle , certain characters have an ability that can be used only at a certain period where an enemy is launched up in the air .
Then they ( and others , too ) jump up after it and continue slashing away at it .
While airborne , the enemy can not do anything -- it is your chance to punish them .
The game also grants the characters the ability to jump/fall quite high through a plot point .
These two examples are in addition to the dragons , robots , ninjas , etc that are in all 'realistic ' fantasy games it seems .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although it has its flaws, FF13's complete lack of realism makes for a very visceral and over-the-top experience.
Anyone who has seen this game can tell the designers had a lot of fun and wore their anime influences on their sleeve.
In battle, certain characters have an ability that can be used only at a certain period where an enemy is launched up in the air.
Then they (and others, too) jump up after it and continue slashing away at it.
While airborne, the enemy cannot do anything -- it is your chance to punish them.
The game also grants the characters the ability to jump/fall quite high through a plot point.
These two examples are in addition to the dragons, robots, ninjas, etc that are in all 'realistic' fantasy games it seems.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669480</id>
	<title>Re:yes, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269959220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The issue with computer gaming today is that it needs a business model </i></p><p>I disagree, what it needs is a complete and utter lack of a business model. It needs people who aren't making games to sell, but making games to play. We need the gaming equivalent of a bar band, whose musicians are talented and creative but have a daytime job to pay the bills, who do it because they love music. We need people who want a game you can't buy.</p><p>We need the equivalent of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning. That was one funny movie! And it had no business model, just a bunch of people who wanted to make a movie.</p><p>The commercial aspects of computer games is what got me to stop buying them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue with computer gaming today is that it needs a business model I disagree , what it needs is a complete and utter lack of a business model .
It needs people who are n't making games to sell , but making games to play .
We need the gaming equivalent of a bar band , whose musicians are talented and creative but have a daytime job to pay the bills , who do it because they love music .
We need people who want a game you ca n't buy.We need the equivalent of Star Wreck : In the Pirkinning .
That was one funny movie !
And it had no business model , just a bunch of people who wanted to make a movie.The commercial aspects of computer games is what got me to stop buying them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue with computer gaming today is that it needs a business model I disagree, what it needs is a complete and utter lack of a business model.
It needs people who aren't making games to sell, but making games to play.
We need the gaming equivalent of a bar band, whose musicians are talented and creative but have a daytime job to pay the bills, who do it because they love music.
We need people who want a game you can't buy.We need the equivalent of Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning.
That was one funny movie!
And it had no business model, just a bunch of people who wanted to make a movie.The commercial aspects of computer games is what got me to stop buying them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668976</id>
	<title>Categorization fault - not 'games', FPS games</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1269956340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what is the guy complaining of afflicts fpses. in other gaming genres the opposite is true. extreme representation and simplification is done. like, in strategy games, for example medieval total war, a whole country, france, can be a single 'province', and you can attack and get all of iberia as a 'province', and then build 10 ships and go sail to levant and conquer jerusalem, syria, in one move. a lot of things are represented with 'points' and percentage modifiers rather than having any mechanic for them. even in the most realistic, well made titles as in paradox's games, you still have excess representation - the whole world is divided to provinces, and the victory and subsequent peace treaty and how much land is exchanged is decided upon the number and importance of provinces a side has, and the manpower each sides have. whereas in reality, you could get entirety of hungary after a decisive single war in the field, by treaty.</p><p>RTSes are even beyond that. you lump up whole battlecruisers as if they were small boats, a huge spaceship can hover over the city that produced it, which is much smaller than itself, tiny barracks can produce infantry units which appear 3-4 times their size on the map.</p><p>these are all minor stuff. but, when they add up, they totally change the atmosphere.</p><p>so, whereas there is a lot of sufferance due to realism in FPSes, there is another sufferance due to the lack of realism in other genres.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what is the guy complaining of afflicts fpses .
in other gaming genres the opposite is true .
extreme representation and simplification is done .
like , in strategy games , for example medieval total war , a whole country , france , can be a single 'province ' , and you can attack and get all of iberia as a 'province ' , and then build 10 ships and go sail to levant and conquer jerusalem , syria , in one move .
a lot of things are represented with 'points ' and percentage modifiers rather than having any mechanic for them .
even in the most realistic , well made titles as in paradox 's games , you still have excess representation - the whole world is divided to provinces , and the victory and subsequent peace treaty and how much land is exchanged is decided upon the number and importance of provinces a side has , and the manpower each sides have .
whereas in reality , you could get entirety of hungary after a decisive single war in the field , by treaty.RTSes are even beyond that .
you lump up whole battlecruisers as if they were small boats , a huge spaceship can hover over the city that produced it , which is much smaller than itself , tiny barracks can produce infantry units which appear 3-4 times their size on the map.these are all minor stuff .
but , when they add up , they totally change the atmosphere.so , whereas there is a lot of sufferance due to realism in FPSes , there is another sufferance due to the lack of realism in other genres .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is the guy complaining of afflicts fpses.
in other gaming genres the opposite is true.
extreme representation and simplification is done.
like, in strategy games, for example medieval total war, a whole country, france, can be a single 'province', and you can attack and get all of iberia as a 'province', and then build 10 ships and go sail to levant and conquer jerusalem, syria, in one move.
a lot of things are represented with 'points' and percentage modifiers rather than having any mechanic for them.
even in the most realistic, well made titles as in paradox's games, you still have excess representation - the whole world is divided to provinces, and the victory and subsequent peace treaty and how much land is exchanged is decided upon the number and importance of provinces a side has, and the manpower each sides have.
whereas in reality, you could get entirety of hungary after a decisive single war in the field, by treaty.RTSes are even beyond that.
you lump up whole battlecruisers as if they were small boats, a huge spaceship can hover over the city that produced it, which is much smaller than itself, tiny barracks can produce infantry units which appear 3-4 times their size on the map.these are all minor stuff.
but, when they add up, they totally change the atmosphere.so, whereas there is a lot of sufferance due to realism in FPSes, there is another sufferance due to the lack of realism in other genres.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668530
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31675088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31675262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31707212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31677574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31675194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31677598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31670576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31678324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31674770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31680994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31671316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31671810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31676608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31670180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_30_0718203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672688
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31674770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668226
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669052
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668360
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31676608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31671810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31671316
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31675088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31677574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31680994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31677598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31670180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31707212
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31672980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669104
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668698
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31673588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31678324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31675262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31669096
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_30_0718203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31668518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31670576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_30_0718203.31675194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
