<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_11_160251</id>
	<title>Does the Wii Provide A "Watered-Down" Game Experience?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1244736120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CNet is running a story inspired by comments from Ubisoft's Ben Mattes about <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506\_3-10261668-17.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1\_3-0-20">how the Wii affects game development</a>. When asked why there was no Wii version of <em>Prince of Persia</em>, Mattes said, "The reality is that from a technical standpoint, <a href="http://www.industrygamers.com/news/prince-of-persia-producer-on-lessons-learned-and-why-the-game-skipped-wii/">the Wii cannot do what we wanted the game to do</a>. The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience." The article goes on to look at a number of Wii games that are stripped-down versions of their Xbox 360 or PS3 counterparts. Of course, part of the Wii's drawing power is that it's much simpler than the other systems, and has brought casual gaming to millions more people than it would have otherwise. The question remains, as Kotaku points out, <a href="http://kotaku.com/5286512/the-smartest-playstation-executive-quote-ive-seen-in-a-long-time">whether the Wii's audience will persist</a> after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CNet is running a story inspired by comments from Ubisoft 's Ben Mattes about how the Wii affects game development .
When asked why there was no Wii version of Prince of Persia , Mattes said , " The reality is that from a technical standpoint , the Wii can not do what we wanted the game to do .
The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power ; the world size and dynamic loading , the draw distance , the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version , it would have been toned down , probably linear ; it would n't have been an open-world game , and so it would have been a very different experience .
" The article goes on to look at a number of Wii games that are stripped-down versions of their Xbox 360 or PS3 counterparts .
Of course , part of the Wii 's drawing power is that it 's much simpler than the other systems , and has brought casual gaming to millions more people than it would have otherwise .
The question remains , as Kotaku points out , whether the Wii 's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNet is running a story inspired by comments from Ubisoft's Ben Mattes about how the Wii affects game development.
When asked why there was no Wii version of Prince of Persia, Mattes said, "The reality is that from a technical standpoint, the Wii cannot do what we wanted the game to do.
The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience.
" The article goes on to look at a number of Wii games that are stripped-down versions of their Xbox 360 or PS3 counterparts.
Of course, part of the Wii's drawing power is that it's much simpler than the other systems, and has brought casual gaming to millions more people than it would have otherwise.
The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296697</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>RyoShin</author>
	<datestamp>1244745540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I won't argue against the fact that the specs are inferior to other consoles (anyone who would is insane), nor that the developers are misunderstanding/disregarding the system, but:</p><blockquote><div><p>When they ported Resident Evil 4 to the Wii with new controls, they managed to make it look worse than the original Gamecube version which could be run from the very same console.</p></div></blockquote><p>Can you cite areas where it looked worse? I played many dozens of hours of the Gamecube version (it was a damn good looking game then), and I've put many dozens of hours in the Wii version; if anything, the Wii version has had slight enhancements for graphics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wo n't argue against the fact that the specs are inferior to other consoles ( anyone who would is insane ) , nor that the developers are misunderstanding/disregarding the system , but : When they ported Resident Evil 4 to the Wii with new controls , they managed to make it look worse than the original Gamecube version which could be run from the very same console.Can you cite areas where it looked worse ?
I played many dozens of hours of the Gamecube version ( it was a damn good looking game then ) , and I 've put many dozens of hours in the Wii version ; if anything , the Wii version has had slight enhancements for graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I won't argue against the fact that the specs are inferior to other consoles (anyone who would is insane), nor that the developers are misunderstanding/disregarding the system, but:When they ported Resident Evil 4 to the Wii with new controls, they managed to make it look worse than the original Gamecube version which could be run from the very same console.Can you cite areas where it looked worse?
I played many dozens of hours of the Gamecube version (it was a damn good looking game then), and I've put many dozens of hours in the Wii version; if anything, the Wii version has had slight enhancements for graphics.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297729</id>
	<title>Re:As plainly as possible....</title>
	<author>Lockblade</author>
	<datestamp>1244749020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I seriously doubt that any of them would be interested in a Prince of Persia game. Just because everyone has a Wii doesn't mean that it's profitable to develop something for it. In this case, the publisher decided it wasn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I seriously doubt that any of them would be interested in a Prince of Persia game .
Just because everyone has a Wii does n't mean that it 's profitable to develop something for it .
In this case , the publisher decided it was n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I seriously doubt that any of them would be interested in a Prince of Persia game.
Just because everyone has a Wii doesn't mean that it's profitable to develop something for it.
In this case, the publisher decided it wasn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295639</id>
	<title>Why powerful game consoles are a good thing</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1244741760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience."</i></p><p>Then the platform is not your target. The Wii isn't about pushing the latest fast hardware to its very limits, just so you can push a ridiculous amount of polygons per second onto the screen. It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine. Remember the IBM XT? NES? Gameboy? Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text, running on a 10mhz processor.</p></div><p>More powerful machines give you the potential for different kinds of fun.  Could the NES have brought us "Katamari Damashii"?  Could the SNES have brought us "Little Big Planet"?  No.  These games are simply, fundamentally beyond the capabilities of that hardware.  Does this mean those machines weren't (or aren't) fun?  Of course not - because when those machines were current people wrote a lot of fun games for them <em>within the limitations of that hardware</em>.  But each time new powerful machines appear, they bring with them games that put that power to good use.</p><p>Now, someone writing games today can write software to fit the confines of the Wii, or they can develop for the other consoles.  The point of TFA is that the two approaches don't blend well - when you write a game with the capabilities of the 360 or PS3 in mind, it doesn't translate well to the Wii.  This is no different from saying that an NES game design wouldn't translate well to the Atari 2600 - the kinds of gameplay features you can incorporate and the quality of the overall experience are very much tied to the capabilities of the hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power ; the world size and dynamic loading , the draw distance , the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version , it would have been toned down , probably linear ; it would n't have been an open-world game , and so it would have been a very different experience .
" Then the platform is not your target .
The Wii is n't about pushing the latest fast hardware to its very limits , just so you can push a ridiculous amount of polygons per second onto the screen .
It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine .
Remember the IBM XT ?
NES ? Gameboy ?
Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text , running on a 10mhz processor.More powerful machines give you the potential for different kinds of fun .
Could the NES have brought us " Katamari Damashii " ?
Could the SNES have brought us " Little Big Planet " ?
No. These games are simply , fundamentally beyond the capabilities of that hardware .
Does this mean those machines were n't ( or are n't ) fun ?
Of course not - because when those machines were current people wrote a lot of fun games for them within the limitations of that hardware .
But each time new powerful machines appear , they bring with them games that put that power to good use.Now , someone writing games today can write software to fit the confines of the Wii , or they can develop for the other consoles .
The point of TFA is that the two approaches do n't blend well - when you write a game with the capabilities of the 360 or PS3 in mind , it does n't translate well to the Wii .
This is no different from saying that an NES game design would n't translate well to the Atari 2600 - the kinds of gameplay features you can incorporate and the quality of the overall experience are very much tied to the capabilities of the hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience.
"Then the platform is not your target.
The Wii isn't about pushing the latest fast hardware to its very limits, just so you can push a ridiculous amount of polygons per second onto the screen.
It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine.
Remember the IBM XT?
NES? Gameboy?
Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text, running on a 10mhz processor.More powerful machines give you the potential for different kinds of fun.
Could the NES have brought us "Katamari Damashii"?
Could the SNES have brought us "Little Big Planet"?
No.  These games are simply, fundamentally beyond the capabilities of that hardware.
Does this mean those machines weren't (or aren't) fun?
Of course not - because when those machines were current people wrote a lot of fun games for them within the limitations of that hardware.
But each time new powerful machines appear, they bring with them games that put that power to good use.Now, someone writing games today can write software to fit the confines of the Wii, or they can develop for the other consoles.
The point of TFA is that the two approaches don't blend well - when you write a game with the capabilities of the 360 or PS3 in mind, it doesn't translate well to the Wii.
This is no different from saying that an NES game design wouldn't translate well to the Atari 2600 - the kinds of gameplay features you can incorporate and the quality of the overall experience are very much tied to the capabilities of the hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295373</id>
	<title>Re:Give me a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But how many of its games are actually fun?

Super Smash Bro Brawl, Mario cart,  and a small few others?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But how many of its games are actually fun ?
Super Smash Bro Brawl , Mario cart , and a small few others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how many of its games are actually fun?
Super Smash Bro Brawl, Mario cart,  and a small few others?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296015</id>
	<title>Open World Experience?</title>
	<author>SageinaRage</author>
	<datestamp>1244743080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Rockstar managed to release San Andreas on the Playstation 2, a piece of hardware which was inferior to the gamecube, let alone the Wii, then I somehow doubt it's impossible to release an open world style game on the Wii.  This basically just sounds like they don't really know what they're doing, and are wasting processor cycles on things they really don't need.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Rockstar managed to release San Andreas on the Playstation 2 , a piece of hardware which was inferior to the gamecube , let alone the Wii , then I somehow doubt it 's impossible to release an open world style game on the Wii .
This basically just sounds like they do n't really know what they 're doing , and are wasting processor cycles on things they really do n't need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Rockstar managed to release San Andreas on the Playstation 2, a piece of hardware which was inferior to the gamecube, let alone the Wii, then I somehow doubt it's impossible to release an open world style game on the Wii.
This basically just sounds like they don't really know what they're doing, and are wasting processor cycles on things they really don't need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296931</id>
	<title>The Doom of the Wii?</title>
	<author>hellfire</author>
	<datestamp>1244746380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The doom of the Wii has been sealed by its user base and existing game library. It doesn't matter if the next Zelda game surpasses the Ocarina of Time or if the definitive FPS of our time is a Wii exclusive. Most existing Wii owners do not want "Triple A" titles or anything close to it. They want Cooking Mama and Wii Fit and Mario Kart, because that's want Nintendo has told them they want, and that's what they got and thats all they'll ever want now.</i></p><p>If the mass market is willing to shell out money for the Wii, and buy a few casual games, how does this cause the Wii's doom?  In the same paragraph you say the Wii is doomed and then explain why it's such a success?  Just because hardcore gamers don't like it doesn't mean that the Wii won't continue to expand in the future.</p><p>The Wii's success is because it's doing exactly what the hardcore gamer does not want it to do... cater to casual gamers.  That continues to be it's success and it will be a growth industry for the future as more people discover it.  The Wii is NOT where you want to play the latest God of War release, but frankly, what's to say that Cooking Mama isn't an interesting, fun and challenging game for 8 year olds?  For a family of 4 who have a weekly game night?  "Sorry" is a simple board game that is not for hard core chess players, but it is incredibly fun to play with the family.  This is exactly why the Wii is doing well and will continue to do well, because it's catering to a new market, and there's as of yet no "doom" forecasted.  Nintendo left the hardcore gamer market behind, and they like it that way just fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The doom of the Wii has been sealed by its user base and existing game library .
It does n't matter if the next Zelda game surpasses the Ocarina of Time or if the definitive FPS of our time is a Wii exclusive .
Most existing Wii owners do not want " Triple A " titles or anything close to it .
They want Cooking Mama and Wii Fit and Mario Kart , because that 's want Nintendo has told them they want , and that 's what they got and thats all they 'll ever want now.If the mass market is willing to shell out money for the Wii , and buy a few casual games , how does this cause the Wii 's doom ?
In the same paragraph you say the Wii is doomed and then explain why it 's such a success ?
Just because hardcore gamers do n't like it does n't mean that the Wii wo n't continue to expand in the future.The Wii 's success is because it 's doing exactly what the hardcore gamer does not want it to do... cater to casual gamers .
That continues to be it 's success and it will be a growth industry for the future as more people discover it .
The Wii is NOT where you want to play the latest God of War release , but frankly , what 's to say that Cooking Mama is n't an interesting , fun and challenging game for 8 year olds ?
For a family of 4 who have a weekly game night ?
" Sorry " is a simple board game that is not for hard core chess players , but it is incredibly fun to play with the family .
This is exactly why the Wii is doing well and will continue to do well , because it 's catering to a new market , and there 's as of yet no " doom " forecasted .
Nintendo left the hardcore gamer market behind , and they like it that way just fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The doom of the Wii has been sealed by its user base and existing game library.
It doesn't matter if the next Zelda game surpasses the Ocarina of Time or if the definitive FPS of our time is a Wii exclusive.
Most existing Wii owners do not want "Triple A" titles or anything close to it.
They want Cooking Mama and Wii Fit and Mario Kart, because that's want Nintendo has told them they want, and that's what they got and thats all they'll ever want now.If the mass market is willing to shell out money for the Wii, and buy a few casual games, how does this cause the Wii's doom?
In the same paragraph you say the Wii is doomed and then explain why it's such a success?
Just because hardcore gamers don't like it doesn't mean that the Wii won't continue to expand in the future.The Wii's success is because it's doing exactly what the hardcore gamer does not want it to do... cater to casual gamers.
That continues to be it's success and it will be a growth industry for the future as more people discover it.
The Wii is NOT where you want to play the latest God of War release, but frankly, what's to say that Cooking Mama isn't an interesting, fun and challenging game for 8 year olds?
For a family of 4 who have a weekly game night?
"Sorry" is a simple board game that is not for hard core chess players, but it is incredibly fun to play with the family.
This is exactly why the Wii is doing well and will continue to do well, because it's catering to a new market, and there's as of yet no "doom" forecasted.
Nintendo left the hardcore gamer market behind, and they like it that way just fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295861</id>
	<title>Re:sales of the wii</title>
	<author>ickpoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244742540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet it is still outselling the PS3 and 360 by huge margins.</p><p>What does that say about those consoles?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet it is still outselling the PS3 and 360 by huge margins.What does that say about those consoles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet it is still outselling the PS3 and 360 by huge margins.What does that say about those consoles?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296243</id>
	<title>Re:Is it a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244743920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly, I have played better 16-bit games than 99.999\% of the trash they release these days. Back in my day we were happy with 32,768 colours, up to 128 sprites and 4 background layers. Somehow that didn't stop them from making great games like Chrono Trigger, or Super Mario RPG. I suppose those were watered down games? Get off my lawn, dirty lying corporate whores from satans firey asshole.
<br>
Damn kids these days and their photo-realistic games, that are nothing more than follow the leader or collect x+100 number of purple vulvas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly , I have played better 16-bit games than 99.999 \ % of the trash they release these days .
Back in my day we were happy with 32,768 colours , up to 128 sprites and 4 background layers .
Somehow that did n't stop them from making great games like Chrono Trigger , or Super Mario RPG .
I suppose those were watered down games ?
Get off my lawn , dirty lying corporate whores from satans firey asshole .
Damn kids these days and their photo-realistic games , that are nothing more than follow the leader or collect x + 100 number of purple vulvas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly, I have played better 16-bit games than 99.999\% of the trash they release these days.
Back in my day we were happy with 32,768 colours, up to 128 sprites and 4 background layers.
Somehow that didn't stop them from making great games like Chrono Trigger, or Super Mario RPG.
I suppose those were watered down games?
Get off my lawn, dirty lying corporate whores from satans firey asshole.
Damn kids these days and their photo-realistic games, that are nothing more than follow the leader or collect x+100 number of purple vulvas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28300901</id>
	<title>Price &amp; space</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1244716980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities.</p></div><p>Its all about price and space.  I bought a Wii because it's cheap &amp; small; and I only use it about once a week.  I don't see myself ever getting a PS3 or 360 unless they're very cheap; and even then the prospect of having another THING in my living room, hooked up to my TV, is somewhat discouraging.</p><p>I might not represent all casual gamers; but I don't want to spend lots of money to have lots of boxes hooked up to my TV that I hardly use.  If you want to sell a game to me, you need to put it on hardware that's already in my living room.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question remains , as Kotaku points out , whether the Wii 's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities.Its all about price and space .
I bought a Wii because it 's cheap &amp; small ; and I only use it about once a week .
I do n't see myself ever getting a PS3 or 360 unless they 're very cheap ; and even then the prospect of having another THING in my living room , hooked up to my TV , is somewhat discouraging.I might not represent all casual gamers ; but I do n't want to spend lots of money to have lots of boxes hooked up to my TV that I hardly use .
If you want to sell a game to me , you need to put it on hardware that 's already in my living room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities.Its all about price and space.
I bought a Wii because it's cheap &amp; small; and I only use it about once a week.
I don't see myself ever getting a PS3 or 360 unless they're very cheap; and even then the prospect of having another THING in my living room, hooked up to my TV, is somewhat discouraging.I might not represent all casual gamers; but I don't want to spend lots of money to have lots of boxes hooked up to my TV that I hardly use.
If you want to sell a game to me, you need to put it on hardware that's already in my living room.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297041</id>
	<title>Basically same chip, different video</title>
	<author>GlobalMind</author>
	<datestamp>1244746740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The three consoles: Wii, Xbox, PS all use IBM chips. The Wii's version isn't as powerful as the CellBE used in the PS for example...and the video of the Wii isn't quite as high end.</p><p>But then again, it's a different device. Why does it need to be the same as the others? If you think it's watered down, then go use something else. Pretty simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The three consoles : Wii , Xbox , PS all use IBM chips .
The Wii 's version is n't as powerful as the CellBE used in the PS for example...and the video of the Wii is n't quite as high end.But then again , it 's a different device .
Why does it need to be the same as the others ?
If you think it 's watered down , then go use something else .
Pretty simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The three consoles: Wii, Xbox, PS all use IBM chips.
The Wii's version isn't as powerful as the CellBE used in the PS for example...and the video of the Wii isn't quite as high end.But then again, it's a different device.
Why does it need to be the same as the others?
If you think it's watered down, then go use something else.
Pretty simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28303501</id>
	<title>Re:GameCube Control - deserves its own top level.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244733420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RTFM - MarioKart has 3 different input options (Wimote/wheel, classic controller, and Gamecube controller). Just plug them in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFM - MarioKart has 3 different input options ( Wimote/wheel , classic controller , and Gamecube controller ) .
Just plug them in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFM - MarioKart has 3 different input options (Wimote/wheel, classic controller, and Gamecube controller).
Just plug them in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295195</id>
	<title>As plainly as possible....</title>
	<author>RabidMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244740260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that the Wii provides a different gaming experience.  It can be summarized thusly:</p><p>My mother owns a wii.  My father owns a wii.  My sister owns a wii.  My brother owns a Wii.  My cousin owns a Wii.  My 3 years old nephew uses a Wii.  My grandparents have played on a Wii.  Nursing homes have Wiis.</p><p>None of those people have PS3s or XBox.</p><p>Call it watered down, call it casual gaming, call it whatever.  It appeals to the masses in a way that the other gaming systems don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that the Wii provides a different gaming experience .
It can be summarized thusly : My mother owns a wii .
My father owns a wii .
My sister owns a wii .
My brother owns a Wii .
My cousin owns a Wii .
My 3 years old nephew uses a Wii .
My grandparents have played on a Wii .
Nursing homes have Wiis.None of those people have PS3s or XBox.Call it watered down , call it casual gaming , call it whatever .
It appeals to the masses in a way that the other gaming systems do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that the Wii provides a different gaming experience.
It can be summarized thusly:My mother owns a wii.
My father owns a wii.
My sister owns a wii.
My brother owns a Wii.
My cousin owns a Wii.
My 3 years old nephew uses a Wii.
My grandparents have played on a Wii.
Nursing homes have Wiis.None of those people have PS3s or XBox.Call it watered down, call it casual gaming, call it whatever.
It appeals to the masses in a way that the other gaming systems don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295801</id>
	<title>'highly advanced' lulz</title>
	<author>rkanodia</author>
	<datestamp>1244742300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My masochistic nature forced me to play all the way through that game despite it being insanely repetitive.</p><p>I have no idea what this guy is talking about when he says Elika has an advanced AI.  She follows you around when you walk.  Sometimes, she'll get out of your way if you backtrack.  When you are doing acrobatics, she follows you step-for-step.  Then, when you fall, there's a cutscene where she catches you.  Also, when you reach certain points in the level, she has dialogue.  That's it.  I would be rather surprised if a Super NES lacked the computational power to move her around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My masochistic nature forced me to play all the way through that game despite it being insanely repetitive.I have no idea what this guy is talking about when he says Elika has an advanced AI .
She follows you around when you walk .
Sometimes , she 'll get out of your way if you backtrack .
When you are doing acrobatics , she follows you step-for-step .
Then , when you fall , there 's a cutscene where she catches you .
Also , when you reach certain points in the level , she has dialogue .
That 's it .
I would be rather surprised if a Super NES lacked the computational power to move her around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My masochistic nature forced me to play all the way through that game despite it being insanely repetitive.I have no idea what this guy is talking about when he says Elika has an advanced AI.
She follows you around when you walk.
Sometimes, she'll get out of your way if you backtrack.
When you are doing acrobatics, she follows you step-for-step.
Then, when you fall, there's a cutscene where she catches you.
Also, when you reach certain points in the level, she has dialogue.
That's it.
I would be rather surprised if a Super NES lacked the computational power to move her around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296979</id>
	<title>Re:The controller is what makes it casual.</title>
	<author>GMFTatsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1244746500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It helps too that every Wii game *has* to take that motion controller into account somehow.  I suspect it inspires more ideas than not.</p><p>Other consoles are tacking motion controllers on way too far down the road.  I doubt many developers will take advantage of it, meaning there won't be much reason to pick one up, meaning it'll become a paperweight.</p><p>For motion control games, you go the Wii.  Nintendo broke that ground wide open from the start.</p><p>The next versions of the XBox and PS will have to have motion control from the start in order to gain any traction on that ground.  They might be better off innovating a new control system themselves and building it in on Day 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It helps too that every Wii game * has * to take that motion controller into account somehow .
I suspect it inspires more ideas than not.Other consoles are tacking motion controllers on way too far down the road .
I doubt many developers will take advantage of it , meaning there wo n't be much reason to pick one up , meaning it 'll become a paperweight.For motion control games , you go the Wii .
Nintendo broke that ground wide open from the start.The next versions of the XBox and PS will have to have motion control from the start in order to gain any traction on that ground .
They might be better off innovating a new control system themselves and building it in on Day 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It helps too that every Wii game *has* to take that motion controller into account somehow.
I suspect it inspires more ideas than not.Other consoles are tacking motion controllers on way too far down the road.
I doubt many developers will take advantage of it, meaning there won't be much reason to pick one up, meaning it'll become a paperweight.For motion control games, you go the Wii.
Nintendo broke that ground wide open from the start.The next versions of the XBox and PS will have to have motion control from the start in order to gain any traction on that ground.
They might be better off innovating a new control system themselves and building it in on Day 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295519</id>
	<title>Re:News Flash.</title>
	<author>n30na</author>
	<datestamp>1244741340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, i agree, <i>D13 H4rD G4M3RZ</i> are far too fat to play Wii games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , i agree , D13 H4rD G4M3RZ are far too fat to play Wii games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, i agree, D13 H4rD G4M3RZ are far too fat to play Wii games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296635</id>
	<title>Re:News Flash.</title>
	<author>kellyb9</author>
	<datestamp>1244745300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's what the X-Box 360, PS3, and PC are for. The Wii is for people who want to play games they can quickly pick up and put down.</p></div><p>The Wii is just a system. The fact of the matter is they should look into designing games for more hardcore gamers, and this is one of my biggest problems with the Wii. It's the single largest reason that I opt to play my 360 over my Wii. Not because of the technological differences, just because as hardcore gamer I assumed the Wii platform allowed for a more in-depth gaming experience. I have yet to see that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what the X-Box 360 , PS3 , and PC are for .
The Wii is for people who want to play games they can quickly pick up and put down.The Wii is just a system .
The fact of the matter is they should look into designing games for more hardcore gamers , and this is one of my biggest problems with the Wii .
It 's the single largest reason that I opt to play my 360 over my Wii .
Not because of the technological differences , just because as hardcore gamer I assumed the Wii platform allowed for a more in-depth gaming experience .
I have yet to see that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what the X-Box 360, PS3, and PC are for.
The Wii is for people who want to play games they can quickly pick up and put down.The Wii is just a system.
The fact of the matter is they should look into designing games for more hardcore gamers, and this is one of my biggest problems with the Wii.
It's the single largest reason that I opt to play my 360 over my Wii.
Not because of the technological differences, just because as hardcore gamer I assumed the Wii platform allowed for a more in-depth gaming experience.
I have yet to see that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</id>
	<title>Silk Purse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244741220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wii itself is not the problem. It's technical specs are not the problem. The problem is the people making games for it and their overall lackluster approach to the whole process. Nintendo and their marketing are to blame for this.</p><p>When they ported Resident Evil 4 to the Wii with new controls, they managed to make it look <b>worse</b> than the original Gamecube version <i>which could be run from the very same console</i>. This is typical of the kind of shoddy workmanship that is put into most Wii games. Games like Mario Galaxy and Metroid show what the Wii is capable of if effort is put in, but most developers aren't willing to go to such lengths.</p><p>It's not just graphics. The overall quality of Wii games is consistently lower than the average for PS2, DS and Gamecube titles. Games are short, rely too much on motion control, lack additional content and generally fall far below the value for money mark. Universally, developers have decided that Wii owners are 4-10 year olds and soccer moms who will spend $60 and 60 minutes on a game before becoming bored. The way you have to flail your arms about to play some titles, I can't say I really blame them.</p><p>As an experiment, the Wii has both hugely succeeded and epically failed. Yes, it has succeeded in selling game consoles to a massively wider mainstream market. But it has also succeeded in proving that in any industry, the mainstream market does not desire quality. The mainstream wants crud. They spend huge amounts on sugary gop and if you serve them up sirloin they'll complain because they prefer the slop.</p><p>The doom of the Wii has been sealed by its user base and existing game library. It doesn't matter if the next Zelda game surpasses the Ocarina of Time or if the definitive FPS of our time is a Wii exclusive. Most existing Wii owners do not want "Triple A" titles or anything close to it. They want Cooking Mama and Wii Fit and Mario Kart, because that's want Nintendo has told them they want, and that's what they got and thats all they'll ever want now.</p><p>So, no developer is really going to spend the effort making a quality Wii title. They're going to make crud. As times passed, this became a self fulfilling prophecy to the point that normal video game players stopped buying Wii's or sold them. The fate of Madworld, poor as it was, is indicative of this trend. It's now a vicious circle which the Wii, and probably Nintendo, have no hope of ever escaping.</p><p>The Wii could have been a success story. Ultimately, graphics don't count for a awful lot when it comes to quality titles, and the breadth and depth of titles on the PS2 prove what can be done with limited hardware. Alas, the Wii did not take this route. Instead of providing affordable quality, it has provided cheap, and you got what you paid for.</p><p>It didn't have to be like this. The Wii could have been the next PS2. But it isn't. Instead it's the next MySpace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii itself is not the problem .
It 's technical specs are not the problem .
The problem is the people making games for it and their overall lackluster approach to the whole process .
Nintendo and their marketing are to blame for this.When they ported Resident Evil 4 to the Wii with new controls , they managed to make it look worse than the original Gamecube version which could be run from the very same console .
This is typical of the kind of shoddy workmanship that is put into most Wii games .
Games like Mario Galaxy and Metroid show what the Wii is capable of if effort is put in , but most developers are n't willing to go to such lengths.It 's not just graphics .
The overall quality of Wii games is consistently lower than the average for PS2 , DS and Gamecube titles .
Games are short , rely too much on motion control , lack additional content and generally fall far below the value for money mark .
Universally , developers have decided that Wii owners are 4-10 year olds and soccer moms who will spend $ 60 and 60 minutes on a game before becoming bored .
The way you have to flail your arms about to play some titles , I ca n't say I really blame them.As an experiment , the Wii has both hugely succeeded and epically failed .
Yes , it has succeeded in selling game consoles to a massively wider mainstream market .
But it has also succeeded in proving that in any industry , the mainstream market does not desire quality .
The mainstream wants crud .
They spend huge amounts on sugary gop and if you serve them up sirloin they 'll complain because they prefer the slop.The doom of the Wii has been sealed by its user base and existing game library .
It does n't matter if the next Zelda game surpasses the Ocarina of Time or if the definitive FPS of our time is a Wii exclusive .
Most existing Wii owners do not want " Triple A " titles or anything close to it .
They want Cooking Mama and Wii Fit and Mario Kart , because that 's want Nintendo has told them they want , and that 's what they got and thats all they 'll ever want now.So , no developer is really going to spend the effort making a quality Wii title .
They 're going to make crud .
As times passed , this became a self fulfilling prophecy to the point that normal video game players stopped buying Wii 's or sold them .
The fate of Madworld , poor as it was , is indicative of this trend .
It 's now a vicious circle which the Wii , and probably Nintendo , have no hope of ever escaping.The Wii could have been a success story .
Ultimately , graphics do n't count for a awful lot when it comes to quality titles , and the breadth and depth of titles on the PS2 prove what can be done with limited hardware .
Alas , the Wii did not take this route .
Instead of providing affordable quality , it has provided cheap , and you got what you paid for.It did n't have to be like this .
The Wii could have been the next PS2 .
But it is n't .
Instead it 's the next MySpace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii itself is not the problem.
It's technical specs are not the problem.
The problem is the people making games for it and their overall lackluster approach to the whole process.
Nintendo and their marketing are to blame for this.When they ported Resident Evil 4 to the Wii with new controls, they managed to make it look worse than the original Gamecube version which could be run from the very same console.
This is typical of the kind of shoddy workmanship that is put into most Wii games.
Games like Mario Galaxy and Metroid show what the Wii is capable of if effort is put in, but most developers aren't willing to go to such lengths.It's not just graphics.
The overall quality of Wii games is consistently lower than the average for PS2, DS and Gamecube titles.
Games are short, rely too much on motion control, lack additional content and generally fall far below the value for money mark.
Universally, developers have decided that Wii owners are 4-10 year olds and soccer moms who will spend $60 and 60 minutes on a game before becoming bored.
The way you have to flail your arms about to play some titles, I can't say I really blame them.As an experiment, the Wii has both hugely succeeded and epically failed.
Yes, it has succeeded in selling game consoles to a massively wider mainstream market.
But it has also succeeded in proving that in any industry, the mainstream market does not desire quality.
The mainstream wants crud.
They spend huge amounts on sugary gop and if you serve them up sirloin they'll complain because they prefer the slop.The doom of the Wii has been sealed by its user base and existing game library.
It doesn't matter if the next Zelda game surpasses the Ocarina of Time or if the definitive FPS of our time is a Wii exclusive.
Most existing Wii owners do not want "Triple A" titles or anything close to it.
They want Cooking Mama and Wii Fit and Mario Kart, because that's want Nintendo has told them they want, and that's what they got and thats all they'll ever want now.So, no developer is really going to spend the effort making a quality Wii title.
They're going to make crud.
As times passed, this became a self fulfilling prophecy to the point that normal video game players stopped buying Wii's or sold them.
The fate of Madworld, poor as it was, is indicative of this trend.
It's now a vicious circle which the Wii, and probably Nintendo, have no hope of ever escaping.The Wii could have been a success story.
Ultimately, graphics don't count for a awful lot when it comes to quality titles, and the breadth and depth of titles on the PS2 prove what can be done with limited hardware.
Alas, the Wii did not take this route.
Instead of providing affordable quality, it has provided cheap, and you got what you paid for.It didn't have to be like this.
The Wii could have been the next PS2.
But it isn't.
Instead it's the next MySpace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296253</id>
	<title>Re:Is it a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1244743980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No More Heroes on the Wii was a decent sandbox game. I'm sure a couple iterations of the engine with better streaming could lead to bigger and more detailed worlds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No More Heroes on the Wii was a decent sandbox game .
I 'm sure a couple iterations of the engine with better streaming could lead to bigger and more detailed worlds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No More Heroes on the Wii was a decent sandbox game.
I'm sure a couple iterations of the engine with better streaming could lead to bigger and more detailed worlds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295987</id>
	<title>My wife and daughter are not gamers...</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244743020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yet they enjoy the Wii.  They have no interest in high frame rates or high resolution gaming, but they do like Wii Fit, Wii sports, and a couple of kids games.</p><p>Would either of these two have the slightest interest in PS3 or Xbox360?  I don't know about the PS3, but we had a 360 and returned it since no one (in our household) had any interest in it.</p><p>Wii opened up consoles to non-gamers, and that is a huge accomplishment.  It may even drive future sales of more advanced consoles as the 3-10 year old Wii customers grow into teenagers.</p><p>Making consoles accessible to moms and kids isn't a bad strategy.  Mom remembers the fun she had with the Wii, and when the future teenager asks for PS5 or Xbox720, mom might just be more open to buying it.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yet they enjoy the Wii .
They have no interest in high frame rates or high resolution gaming , but they do like Wii Fit , Wii sports , and a couple of kids games.Would either of these two have the slightest interest in PS3 or Xbox360 ?
I do n't know about the PS3 , but we had a 360 and returned it since no one ( in our household ) had any interest in it.Wii opened up consoles to non-gamers , and that is a huge accomplishment .
It may even drive future sales of more advanced consoles as the 3-10 year old Wii customers grow into teenagers.Making consoles accessible to moms and kids is n't a bad strategy .
Mom remembers the fun she had with the Wii , and when the future teenager asks for PS5 or Xbox720 , mom might just be more open to buying it.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yet they enjoy the Wii.
They have no interest in high frame rates or high resolution gaming, but they do like Wii Fit, Wii sports, and a couple of kids games.Would either of these two have the slightest interest in PS3 or Xbox360?
I don't know about the PS3, but we had a 360 and returned it since no one (in our household) had any interest in it.Wii opened up consoles to non-gamers, and that is a huge accomplishment.
It may even drive future sales of more advanced consoles as the 3-10 year old Wii customers grow into teenagers.Making consoles accessible to moms and kids isn't a bad strategy.
Mom remembers the fun she had with the Wii, and when the future teenager asks for PS5 or Xbox720, mom might just be more open to buying it.-ted</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296815</id>
	<title>You know the problem with Monoply?</title>
	<author>gurps\_npc</author>
	<datestamp>1244745960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no ability to frame your opponents and send them to jail.
You also can't jump in a car and go on a killing spree.
You know the problem with Grand Theft Auto (all versions)? Even if you hook up your Guitar hero guitar, they don't provide the codes to let you try and play along with the theme song.
<p>Wii is not and never has been a platform designed for high end graphics.   Similarly it's competiots are not capable of duplicating the Wii's intense interacttion (at least not yet - they are working on a camera based system).
</p><p>Stop demanding that your car have the ability to fly like a plane unless you are also willing to demand that the plane fit in your driveway.   Or better yet, accept the fact that cars are cars and planes are planes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no ability to frame your opponents and send them to jail .
You also ca n't jump in a car and go on a killing spree .
You know the problem with Grand Theft Auto ( all versions ) ?
Even if you hook up your Guitar hero guitar , they do n't provide the codes to let you try and play along with the theme song .
Wii is not and never has been a platform designed for high end graphics .
Similarly it 's competiots are not capable of duplicating the Wii 's intense interacttion ( at least not yet - they are working on a camera based system ) .
Stop demanding that your car have the ability to fly like a plane unless you are also willing to demand that the plane fit in your driveway .
Or better yet , accept the fact that cars are cars and planes are planes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no ability to frame your opponents and send them to jail.
You also can't jump in a car and go on a killing spree.
You know the problem with Grand Theft Auto (all versions)?
Even if you hook up your Guitar hero guitar, they don't provide the codes to let you try and play along with the theme song.
Wii is not and never has been a platform designed for high end graphics.
Similarly it's competiots are not capable of duplicating the Wii's intense interacttion (at least not yet - they are working on a camera based system).
Stop demanding that your car have the ability to fly like a plane unless you are also willing to demand that the plane fit in your driveway.
Or better yet, accept the fact that cars are cars and planes are planes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296711</id>
	<title>The Wii is just different</title>
	<author>infalliable</author>
	<datestamp>1244745600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Water down isn't the right word.  It provides a different game experience.</p><p>The Wii is not optimized for the latest and greatest games.  It doesn't have much more power than the previous Gamecube.  So if you look at processor power, polygon counts, and other performance/hardware metrics then the Wii does produce a lesser "experience."</p><p>What the Wii does have is a new and unique control scheme.  For some games it works, for some it doesn't.  Part of this is the publishers fault for not really considering the control schemes, part of it is the limitations of the Wii, such as button placements/numbers and control accuracy.</p><p>For the games that do work with the Wii, the control scheme is superior to the competitors and also less "scary" to the non-gamer/casual gamer population.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Water down is n't the right word .
It provides a different game experience.The Wii is not optimized for the latest and greatest games .
It does n't have much more power than the previous Gamecube .
So if you look at processor power , polygon counts , and other performance/hardware metrics then the Wii does produce a lesser " experience .
" What the Wii does have is a new and unique control scheme .
For some games it works , for some it does n't .
Part of this is the publishers fault for not really considering the control schemes , part of it is the limitations of the Wii , such as button placements/numbers and control accuracy.For the games that do work with the Wii , the control scheme is superior to the competitors and also less " scary " to the non-gamer/casual gamer population .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Water down isn't the right word.
It provides a different game experience.The Wii is not optimized for the latest and greatest games.
It doesn't have much more power than the previous Gamecube.
So if you look at processor power, polygon counts, and other performance/hardware metrics then the Wii does produce a lesser "experience.
"What the Wii does have is a new and unique control scheme.
For some games it works, for some it doesn't.
Part of this is the publishers fault for not really considering the control schemes, part of it is the limitations of the Wii, such as button placements/numbers and control accuracy.For the games that do work with the Wii, the control scheme is superior to the competitors and also less "scary" to the non-gamer/casual gamer population.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295837</id>
	<title>Wii is more of a workout machine than a console</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1244742420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>check out the bestselling Will products on Amazon. It's EA Sports Active at #1 followed by the Wii Fit. I bet a large percentage of the user base buys it to work out and gaming for their kids a distant second.</p><p>new version of Fit is coming out in a few months followed by an update to EA Sports Active around the holiday season. Take a guess of what the best selling products for the Wii will be for the next year.</p><p>and other than a workout machine it's to relive your childhood via Rockband and Guitar Hero</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>check out the bestselling Will products on Amazon .
It 's EA Sports Active at # 1 followed by the Wii Fit .
I bet a large percentage of the user base buys it to work out and gaming for their kids a distant second.new version of Fit is coming out in a few months followed by an update to EA Sports Active around the holiday season .
Take a guess of what the best selling products for the Wii will be for the next year.and other than a workout machine it 's to relive your childhood via Rockband and Guitar Hero</tokentext>
<sentencetext>check out the bestselling Will products on Amazon.
It's EA Sports Active at #1 followed by the Wii Fit.
I bet a large percentage of the user base buys it to work out and gaming for their kids a distant second.new version of Fit is coming out in a few months followed by an update to EA Sports Active around the holiday season.
Take a guess of what the best selling products for the Wii will be for the next year.and other than a workout machine it's to relive your childhood via Rockband and Guitar Hero</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296593</id>
	<title>By the time Xbox has a good casual experiance...</title>
	<author>cdpage</author>
	<datestamp>1244745180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...Systems will be looking at their next iteration. That being said, Nintendo will have the processing power like the rest of them... and the point will void.<br><br>I don't expect to see same experiance for PS3 or Xbox till X-mas of 2010.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Systems will be looking at their next iteration .
That being said , Nintendo will have the processing power like the rest of them... and the point will void.I do n't expect to see same experiance for PS3 or Xbox till X-mas of 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Systems will be looking at their next iteration.
That being said, Nintendo will have the processing power like the rest of them... and the point will void.I don't expect to see same experiance for PS3 or Xbox till X-mas of 2010.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296839</id>
	<title>Limitations</title>
	<author>KingPin27</author>
	<datestamp>1244746080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alot of the limitations I've had with loading times and playability have been overcome with a softmod -- easily acheived through various means.  I've added a 640Gig USB2.0 HDD to my WII which allows me to keep a backup of my regular stock of games - since doing this my loading times have decreased significantly.  So wouldn't the WII benefit greatly from supporting additional hardware or upgrading the ability of their current stock?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alot of the limitations I 've had with loading times and playability have been overcome with a softmod -- easily acheived through various means .
I 've added a 640Gig USB2.0 HDD to my WII which allows me to keep a backup of my regular stock of games - since doing this my loading times have decreased significantly .
So would n't the WII benefit greatly from supporting additional hardware or upgrading the ability of their current stock ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alot of the limitations I've had with loading times and playability have been overcome with a softmod -- easily acheived through various means.
I've added a 640Gig USB2.0 HDD to my WII which allows me to keep a backup of my regular stock of games - since doing this my loading times have decreased significantly.
So wouldn't the WII benefit greatly from supporting additional hardware or upgrading the ability of their current stock?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28308593</id>
	<title>Re:Give me a break</title>
	<author>donaldm</author>
	<datestamp>1244823060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine. Remember the IBM XT? NES? Gameboy? Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text, running on a 10mhz processor.</p></div><p>I totally agree but what really constitutes a fun game since a game that is fun for one person may not be fun to another. Ever played a game called <a href="http://www.wichman.org/roguehistory.html" title="wichman.org"> <b>Rogue</b> </a> [wichman.org] now that was an addictive fun game dating form the very early 1980's. If you want you can still play it <a href="http://www.hexatron.com/rogue/" title="hexatron.com"> <b>today</b> </a> [hexatron.com] in all its high resolution ASCII character graphics. What really made Rogue fun (again subjective) was that every time you played the game it played differently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine .
Remember the IBM XT ?
NES ? Gameboy ?
Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text , running on a 10mhz processor.I totally agree but what really constitutes a fun game since a game that is fun for one person may not be fun to another .
Ever played a game called Rogue [ wichman.org ] now that was an addictive fun game dating form the very early 1980 's .
If you want you can still play it today [ hexatron.com ] in all its high resolution ASCII character graphics .
What really made Rogue fun ( again subjective ) was that every time you played the game it played differently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine.
Remember the IBM XT?
NES? Gameboy?
Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text, running on a 10mhz processor.I totally agree but what really constitutes a fun game since a game that is fun for one person may not be fun to another.
Ever played a game called  Rogue  [wichman.org] now that was an addictive fun game dating form the very early 1980's.
If you want you can still play it  today  [hexatron.com] in all its high resolution ASCII character graphics.
What really made Rogue fun (again subjective) was that every time you played the game it played differently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296183</id>
	<title>Re:News Flash.</title>
	<author>dontPanik</author>
	<datestamp>1244743740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(Score -1: WHOOOOSH)<br>
<br>
The point of the article isn't "DUR TEH WII IS WEEK", the point is that with Sony and Microsoft debuting motion control sensors (which are the basis of the Wii experience), the Wii won't have anything to make itself stand out from the crowd.<br>
<br>
Now I'm not saying this is a valid argument. It depends on Sony and Microsoft's motion controllers to be successful (a long shot) and it forgets that the Wii has the Nintendo cast of characters at its disposal (which is a big deal for moving units). But it's an interesting argument.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Score -1 : WHOOOOSH ) The point of the article is n't " DUR TEH WII IS WEEK " , the point is that with Sony and Microsoft debuting motion control sensors ( which are the basis of the Wii experience ) , the Wii wo n't have anything to make itself stand out from the crowd .
Now I 'm not saying this is a valid argument .
It depends on Sony and Microsoft 's motion controllers to be successful ( a long shot ) and it forgets that the Wii has the Nintendo cast of characters at its disposal ( which is a big deal for moving units ) .
But it 's an interesting argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Score -1: WHOOOOSH)

The point of the article isn't "DUR TEH WII IS WEEK", the point is that with Sony and Microsoft debuting motion control sensors (which are the basis of the Wii experience), the Wii won't have anything to make itself stand out from the crowd.
Now I'm not saying this is a valid argument.
It depends on Sony and Microsoft's motion controllers to be successful (a long shot) and it forgets that the Wii has the Nintendo cast of characters at its disposal (which is a big deal for moving units).
But it's an interesting argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297443</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>SocietyoftheFist</author>
	<datestamp>1244747940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sound very bitter.  Why so bitter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound very bitter .
Why so bitter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound very bitter.
Why so bitter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296283</id>
	<title>Re:Of course it does.</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1244744100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I just have never understood the appeal of console gaming.</p><p>*snip* The PC is not only a much better gaming platform, it is multi-functional.</p><p>*snip*</p></div><p>Sigh.  You have the answer right there in front of you, but you can't see it.</p><p>The multi-functional nature of the PC gets in the way of gaming, particularly if other people are involved.  Move out of your mother's basement, start a family and you'll begin to understand. </p><p>First, the multi-functional nature of the PC means there will be conflicts regarding it's use.  "Daddy - I want to play my game now!!!!"  "Sorry, dear, Daddy has to meet his deadline.  Go read a book or something."  "Waaah!  You suck, Daddy!"  The more functions a PC can carry out, the more conflicts will be encountered.  Which leads to the next point.</p><p>Multi-purpose PCs are expensive compared to dedicated gaming consoles.  Sure, the conflicts mentioned above can be alleviated by buying more PCs, but they cost more.  And they tend to be bigger, require more space etc.  Yeah, you could save on a monitor by hooking it up to the tv, but then you are conflicting with TV watching.  See above.  Consoles aren't cheap, but they are priced comfortably enough to be affordable.</p><p>Multi-purpose PCs are more complicated.  Even if you just use the installed OS and do nothing but gaming, you still have to install the game, manage drivers, find the game icon etc.  And you won't just be using the PC for gaming, so there will be other stuff to think about.  Contrast that with a console:  Turn on.  Insert disk. Play.</p><p>Multi-purpose PCs are more useful, so more crucial.  I use my PCs for work, personal business (home finances, medical stuff via the web etc), research, entertainment etc.  I'm not willing to allow DRM on to my system just to play a game.  There is too much at stake if the game or the DRM messes the system up or opens up the system to spyware and such.  That's not going to happen.  A dedicated gaming console is separate, thus isolated from all the important stuff that happens in life when not wasting time playing games.  If something goes wrong, nothing of value is lost.  Press reset and keep playing.</p><p>PC's tend to provide single user experiences.  Game consoles connect to the home entertainment system, so can be enjoyed by the entire family.  Yeah, you can hook your PC up to the tv, but then you run into the conflicting uses problem mentioned above, or the costs-too-much problem if you're just going to play games. </p><p>I was and am still a PC gamer.  I resisted consoles for a long time, but eventually realized their value and where they fit into the grand scheme of things.  With the rise of stronger and more pervasive DRM in recent years, my PC game purchases have dwindled to nothing, so consoles are even more appealing.  A $49 original Xbox and a handful of games from the closeout bin are just as much fun to play as the latest whizzbang title for the PC.  Who knew?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just have never understood the appeal of console gaming .
* snip * The PC is not only a much better gaming platform , it is multi-functional. * snip * Sigh .
You have the answer right there in front of you , but you ca n't see it.The multi-functional nature of the PC gets in the way of gaming , particularly if other people are involved .
Move out of your mother 's basement , start a family and you 'll begin to understand .
First , the multi-functional nature of the PC means there will be conflicts regarding it 's use .
" Daddy - I want to play my game now ! ! ! !
" " Sorry , dear , Daddy has to meet his deadline .
Go read a book or something .
" " Waaah !
You suck , Daddy !
" The more functions a PC can carry out , the more conflicts will be encountered .
Which leads to the next point.Multi-purpose PCs are expensive compared to dedicated gaming consoles .
Sure , the conflicts mentioned above can be alleviated by buying more PCs , but they cost more .
And they tend to be bigger , require more space etc .
Yeah , you could save on a monitor by hooking it up to the tv , but then you are conflicting with TV watching .
See above .
Consoles are n't cheap , but they are priced comfortably enough to be affordable.Multi-purpose PCs are more complicated .
Even if you just use the installed OS and do nothing but gaming , you still have to install the game , manage drivers , find the game icon etc .
And you wo n't just be using the PC for gaming , so there will be other stuff to think about .
Contrast that with a console : Turn on .
Insert disk .
Play.Multi-purpose PCs are more useful , so more crucial .
I use my PCs for work , personal business ( home finances , medical stuff via the web etc ) , research , entertainment etc .
I 'm not willing to allow DRM on to my system just to play a game .
There is too much at stake if the game or the DRM messes the system up or opens up the system to spyware and such .
That 's not going to happen .
A dedicated gaming console is separate , thus isolated from all the important stuff that happens in life when not wasting time playing games .
If something goes wrong , nothing of value is lost .
Press reset and keep playing.PC 's tend to provide single user experiences .
Game consoles connect to the home entertainment system , so can be enjoyed by the entire family .
Yeah , you can hook your PC up to the tv , but then you run into the conflicting uses problem mentioned above , or the costs-too-much problem if you 're just going to play games .
I was and am still a PC gamer .
I resisted consoles for a long time , but eventually realized their value and where they fit into the grand scheme of things .
With the rise of stronger and more pervasive DRM in recent years , my PC game purchases have dwindled to nothing , so consoles are even more appealing .
A $ 49 original Xbox and a handful of games from the closeout bin are just as much fun to play as the latest whizzbang title for the PC .
Who knew ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just have never understood the appeal of console gaming.
*snip* The PC is not only a much better gaming platform, it is multi-functional.*snip*Sigh.
You have the answer right there in front of you, but you can't see it.The multi-functional nature of the PC gets in the way of gaming, particularly if other people are involved.
Move out of your mother's basement, start a family and you'll begin to understand.
First, the multi-functional nature of the PC means there will be conflicts regarding it's use.
"Daddy - I want to play my game now!!!!
"  "Sorry, dear, Daddy has to meet his deadline.
Go read a book or something.
"  "Waaah!
You suck, Daddy!
"  The more functions a PC can carry out, the more conflicts will be encountered.
Which leads to the next point.Multi-purpose PCs are expensive compared to dedicated gaming consoles.
Sure, the conflicts mentioned above can be alleviated by buying more PCs, but they cost more.
And they tend to be bigger, require more space etc.
Yeah, you could save on a monitor by hooking it up to the tv, but then you are conflicting with TV watching.
See above.
Consoles aren't cheap, but they are priced comfortably enough to be affordable.Multi-purpose PCs are more complicated.
Even if you just use the installed OS and do nothing but gaming, you still have to install the game, manage drivers, find the game icon etc.
And you won't just be using the PC for gaming, so there will be other stuff to think about.
Contrast that with a console:  Turn on.
Insert disk.
Play.Multi-purpose PCs are more useful, so more crucial.
I use my PCs for work, personal business (home finances, medical stuff via the web etc), research, entertainment etc.
I'm not willing to allow DRM on to my system just to play a game.
There is too much at stake if the game or the DRM messes the system up or opens up the system to spyware and such.
That's not going to happen.
A dedicated gaming console is separate, thus isolated from all the important stuff that happens in life when not wasting time playing games.
If something goes wrong, nothing of value is lost.
Press reset and keep playing.PC's tend to provide single user experiences.
Game consoles connect to the home entertainment system, so can be enjoyed by the entire family.
Yeah, you can hook your PC up to the tv, but then you run into the conflicting uses problem mentioned above, or the costs-too-much problem if you're just going to play games.
I was and am still a PC gamer.
I resisted consoles for a long time, but eventually realized their value and where they fit into the grand scheme of things.
With the rise of stronger and more pervasive DRM in recent years, my PC game purchases have dwindled to nothing, so consoles are even more appealing.
A $49 original Xbox and a handful of games from the closeout bin are just as much fun to play as the latest whizzbang title for the PC.
Who knew?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295459</id>
	<title>Of course it does.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244741040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just have never understood the appeal of console gaming.</p><p>I started out gaming on an Atari 2600.  Since that day, I have been buying better and better computing hardware for playing games.  The PC is not only a much better gaming platform, it is multi-functional.</p><p>Consoles are like going backwards to me.  I do not understand the appeal.  Anything a console can do a PC can do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just have never understood the appeal of console gaming.I started out gaming on an Atari 2600 .
Since that day , I have been buying better and better computing hardware for playing games .
The PC is not only a much better gaming platform , it is multi-functional.Consoles are like going backwards to me .
I do not understand the appeal .
Anything a console can do a PC can do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just have never understood the appeal of console gaming.I started out gaming on an Atari 2600.
Since that day, I have been buying better and better computing hardware for playing games.
The PC is not only a much better gaming platform, it is multi-functional.Consoles are like going backwards to me.
I do not understand the appeal.
Anything a console can do a PC can do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28305871</id>
	<title>Re:GameCube Control - deserves its own top level.</title>
	<author>mrb000gus</author>
	<datestamp>1244806440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm... Mario Kart Wii supports the gamecube controller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm... Mario Kart Wii supports the gamecube controller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm... Mario Kart Wii supports the gamecube controller.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295445</id>
	<title>Metroid: Other M</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244741040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the next Metroid done by Team Ninja is a watered-down gaming experience, then you can keep your Xbox 360 and PS3 games.</p><p>Any idiot can code games for powerful systems, wasted cycles and inefficient code still runs fast enough. So why don't you just admit that your programmers are too incompetent to code for less powerful hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the next Metroid done by Team Ninja is a watered-down gaming experience , then you can keep your Xbox 360 and PS3 games.Any idiot can code games for powerful systems , wasted cycles and inefficient code still runs fast enough .
So why do n't you just admit that your programmers are too incompetent to code for less powerful hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the next Metroid done by Team Ninja is a watered-down gaming experience, then you can keep your Xbox 360 and PS3 games.Any idiot can code games for powerful systems, wasted cycles and inefficient code still runs fast enough.
So why don't you just admit that your programmers are too incompetent to code for less powerful hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295921</id>
	<title>Re:News Flash.</title>
	<author>LWATCDR</author>
	<datestamp>1244742780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The good thing about the Wii is that Nintendo didn't make it bleeding edge.  Sony and Microsoft are talking about a 10 year life for the 360 and PS3. Nintendo can if they need to make a Wii that could probably beat both those consoles right now and still sell it $249.  The Wii uses a single PPC core so throw a multicore on it. No hard drive? Why use a hard drive? Put 8 or 10 GB of flash on it. ATI could provide a new GPU next week that would blow away the old one. Include the new WiiMotion with the new Wiimote and You have the new Wii HD. It will run cooler and quiter than the 360 and have more games than the PS3<br>What is really nice is that Nintendo doesn't have the massive RnD costs of the Cell to recover so it could build a new console tomarrow.<br>I don't think people would even get all that upset over buying a new one. They line up for each new flavor of Gameboy. And if Nintendo wanted to get into the "media" side of it. Just get Hulu, NetFlix, and buy Boxee.<br>Big N jumps to the front again.<br>Of course people may keep buying the Wii for a very long time. But Nintendo doesn't seem to let things sit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The good thing about the Wii is that Nintendo did n't make it bleeding edge .
Sony and Microsoft are talking about a 10 year life for the 360 and PS3 .
Nintendo can if they need to make a Wii that could probably beat both those consoles right now and still sell it $ 249 .
The Wii uses a single PPC core so throw a multicore on it .
No hard drive ?
Why use a hard drive ?
Put 8 or 10 GB of flash on it .
ATI could provide a new GPU next week that would blow away the old one .
Include the new WiiMotion with the new Wiimote and You have the new Wii HD .
It will run cooler and quiter than the 360 and have more games than the PS3What is really nice is that Nintendo does n't have the massive RnD costs of the Cell to recover so it could build a new console tomarrow.I do n't think people would even get all that upset over buying a new one .
They line up for each new flavor of Gameboy .
And if Nintendo wanted to get into the " media " side of it .
Just get Hulu , NetFlix , and buy Boxee.Big N jumps to the front again.Of course people may keep buying the Wii for a very long time .
But Nintendo does n't seem to let things sit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The good thing about the Wii is that Nintendo didn't make it bleeding edge.
Sony and Microsoft are talking about a 10 year life for the 360 and PS3.
Nintendo can if they need to make a Wii that could probably beat both those consoles right now and still sell it $249.
The Wii uses a single PPC core so throw a multicore on it.
No hard drive?
Why use a hard drive?
Put 8 or 10 GB of flash on it.
ATI could provide a new GPU next week that would blow away the old one.
Include the new WiiMotion with the new Wiimote and You have the new Wii HD.
It will run cooler and quiter than the 360 and have more games than the PS3What is really nice is that Nintendo doesn't have the massive RnD costs of the Cell to recover so it could build a new console tomarrow.I don't think people would even get all that upset over buying a new one.
They line up for each new flavor of Gameboy.
And if Nintendo wanted to get into the "media" side of it.
Just get Hulu, NetFlix, and buy Boxee.Big N jumps to the front again.Of course people may keep buying the Wii for a very long time.
But Nintendo doesn't seem to let things sit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296293</id>
	<title>Why not develope for the Wii 1st.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244744100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do developers do things backwards? Why do they target games for 2 consoles that are so far behind the leading console in sales? Wouldn't you make more $$$ if you created the game and targeted it for the Wii? and then port it to the other consoles?

My guess is that developers are having the same problem they have always had. They struggle to make the game play fun. Few games have had great fun game play on the 360 or PS3. They sell games by having pretty pictures, and meaning less features, (like the more amazing AI you've ever seen, yet no AI in any game ever produced has been worth a crap).

It is a much more difficult task to create a fun game. So developer default to the "easiest to impress" platform.

The Wii is out selling the 360 and PS3 by a large margin, it has the largest user base of any of the current gen consoles. Yet it is an after thought for most developers.

I bet the game developers are just happy that the publishers are ignorant of marketing and business, so they don't have to make the games fun, they can just keep trying to out geek each other.

Would I like the Wii to have HD graphics, crazy poly counts, life like AI, ect....YES!!!!, but not at the expense of Fun, or the game play....Give me fun every time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do developers do things backwards ?
Why do they target games for 2 consoles that are so far behind the leading console in sales ?
Would n't you make more $ $ $ if you created the game and targeted it for the Wii ?
and then port it to the other consoles ?
My guess is that developers are having the same problem they have always had .
They struggle to make the game play fun .
Few games have had great fun game play on the 360 or PS3 .
They sell games by having pretty pictures , and meaning less features , ( like the more amazing AI you 've ever seen , yet no AI in any game ever produced has been worth a crap ) .
It is a much more difficult task to create a fun game .
So developer default to the " easiest to impress " platform .
The Wii is out selling the 360 and PS3 by a large margin , it has the largest user base of any of the current gen consoles .
Yet it is an after thought for most developers .
I bet the game developers are just happy that the publishers are ignorant of marketing and business , so they do n't have to make the games fun , they can just keep trying to out geek each other .
Would I like the Wii to have HD graphics , crazy poly counts , life like AI , ect....YES ! ! !
! , but not at the expense of Fun , or the game play....Give me fun every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do developers do things backwards?
Why do they target games for 2 consoles that are so far behind the leading console in sales?
Wouldn't you make more $$$ if you created the game and targeted it for the Wii?
and then port it to the other consoles?
My guess is that developers are having the same problem they have always had.
They struggle to make the game play fun.
Few games have had great fun game play on the 360 or PS3.
They sell games by having pretty pictures, and meaning less features, (like the more amazing AI you've ever seen, yet no AI in any game ever produced has been worth a crap).
It is a much more difficult task to create a fun game.
So developer default to the "easiest to impress" platform.
The Wii is out selling the 360 and PS3 by a large margin, it has the largest user base of any of the current gen consoles.
Yet it is an after thought for most developers.
I bet the game developers are just happy that the publishers are ignorant of marketing and business, so they don't have to make the games fun, they can just keep trying to out geek each other.
Would I like the Wii to have HD graphics, crazy poly counts, life like AI, ect....YES!!!
!, but not at the expense of Fun, or the game play....Give me fun every time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298023</id>
	<title>Re:The controller is what makes it casual.</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1244750040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wii: A, B, D-pad, 1, 2, Home, +, -, nunchuck top button, nunchuck bottom button, nunchuck analog stick, pointer, accelerometer. 13.</p><p>360: left stick, right stick, D-pad, start, back, A, B, X, Y, left trigger, left button, right trigger, right button. 13.</p><p>You were saying?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wii : A , B , D-pad , 1 , 2 , Home , + , - , nunchuck top button , nunchuck bottom button , nunchuck analog stick , pointer , accelerometer .
13.360 : left stick , right stick , D-pad , start , back , A , B , X , Y , left trigger , left button , right trigger , right button .
13.You were saying ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wii: A, B, D-pad, 1, 2, Home, +, -, nunchuck top button, nunchuck bottom button, nunchuck analog stick, pointer, accelerometer.
13.360: left stick, right stick, D-pad, start, back, A, B, X, Y, left trigger, left button, right trigger, right button.
13.You were saying?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295931</id>
	<title>"Games are not meant to be complex"</title>
	<author>Tetsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1244742840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Games are NOT meant to be complex.</p></div><p>That's just one perspective, isn't it?</p><p>Personally I find that when there's a game I can invest myself in a bit, the payoff, the enjoyment I derive from doing well in the game, is worth it.  For instance, I really enjoyed the old simulator-style games that were on the PC, before the first Playstation really took off.  The games weren't as "smooth" and as generally accessible as console games tended to be - the player was expected to immerse themselves, to a certain extent, in the intricacies of the game.  And that was part of the fun, part of the fantasy.</p><p>Saying that games are not meant to be complex - it ignores the long tradition of very popular complex games.  RPGs, CCG, really old stuff like Chess or Go - games that either have a lot of complex rules, or a simple set of rules from when complex strategies emerge.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Games are NOT meant to be complex.That 's just one perspective , is n't it ? Personally I find that when there 's a game I can invest myself in a bit , the payoff , the enjoyment I derive from doing well in the game , is worth it .
For instance , I really enjoyed the old simulator-style games that were on the PC , before the first Playstation really took off .
The games were n't as " smooth " and as generally accessible as console games tended to be - the player was expected to immerse themselves , to a certain extent , in the intricacies of the game .
And that was part of the fun , part of the fantasy.Saying that games are not meant to be complex - it ignores the long tradition of very popular complex games .
RPGs , CCG , really old stuff like Chess or Go - games that either have a lot of complex rules , or a simple set of rules from when complex strategies emerge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games are NOT meant to be complex.That's just one perspective, isn't it?Personally I find that when there's a game I can invest myself in a bit, the payoff, the enjoyment I derive from doing well in the game, is worth it.
For instance, I really enjoyed the old simulator-style games that were on the PC, before the first Playstation really took off.
The games weren't as "smooth" and as generally accessible as console games tended to be - the player was expected to immerse themselves, to a certain extent, in the intricacies of the game.
And that was part of the fun, part of the fantasy.Saying that games are not meant to be complex - it ignores the long tradition of very popular complex games.
RPGs, CCG, really old stuff like Chess or Go - games that either have a lot of complex rules, or a simple set of rules from when complex strategies emerge.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298865</id>
	<title>Elusive Wii Hate</title>
	<author>WaroDaBeast</author>
	<datestamp>1244752980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What strikes me as a gamer is the lack of interest for the Wii because of its lower specifications. Alright, so it has a lower clocked CPU, a less capable GPU, and less RAM overall; should this be the reason why game developers shy away from the platform, thinking gamers won't accept graphically watered-down games in comparison with Sony's and Microsoft's consoles?(*) I can't help but think that the "HD" letters must have hit the gamers' minds pretty hard, because I remember seeing screenshots from <i>Deus Ex</i> and <i>Quake III</i> on the PS2, and those didn't look glorious in any way. Not to mention <i>Black &amp; White</i> on the PS1. So, let me repeat this one more time: the "high-definition" buzzword, to me, is very likely to be the cause of such a lack of interest towards the Wii.<br> <br> <br>(*)Don't you love those super duper long questions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What strikes me as a gamer is the lack of interest for the Wii because of its lower specifications .
Alright , so it has a lower clocked CPU , a less capable GPU , and less RAM overall ; should this be the reason why game developers shy away from the platform , thinking gamers wo n't accept graphically watered-down games in comparison with Sony 's and Microsoft 's consoles ?
( * ) I ca n't help but think that the " HD " letters must have hit the gamers ' minds pretty hard , because I remember seeing screenshots from Deus Ex and Quake III on the PS2 , and those did n't look glorious in any way .
Not to mention Black &amp; White on the PS1 .
So , let me repeat this one more time : the " high-definition " buzzword , to me , is very likely to be the cause of such a lack of interest towards the Wii .
( * ) Do n't you love those super duper long questions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What strikes me as a gamer is the lack of interest for the Wii because of its lower specifications.
Alright, so it has a lower clocked CPU, a less capable GPU, and less RAM overall; should this be the reason why game developers shy away from the platform, thinking gamers won't accept graphically watered-down games in comparison with Sony's and Microsoft's consoles?
(*) I can't help but think that the "HD" letters must have hit the gamers' minds pretty hard, because I remember seeing screenshots from Deus Ex and Quake III on the PS2, and those didn't look glorious in any way.
Not to mention Black &amp; White on the PS1.
So, let me repeat this one more time: the "high-definition" buzzword, to me, is very likely to be the cause of such a lack of interest towards the Wii.
(*)Don't you love those super duper long questions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295239</id>
	<title>A matter of how you look at it</title>
	<author>oneirophrenos</author>
	<datestamp>1244740380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess you could flip the flamebait around and ask do PS3 and XBOX360 provide watered-down game experiences for offering games that depend on pretty graphics and not enjoyable gameplay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you could flip the flamebait around and ask do PS3 and XBOX360 provide watered-down game experiences for offering games that depend on pretty graphics and not enjoyable gameplay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you could flip the flamebait around and ask do PS3 and XBOX360 provide watered-down game experiences for offering games that depend on pretty graphics and not enjoyable gameplay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296483</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244744820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately the same can be said for almost ALL the consoles. On XBOX and PS3 the games may LOOK good but there is little game play. It used to take me months to finish a game and I spent most of my time playing. Today I have very little time to play and I finish the games in weeks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately the same can be said for almost ALL the consoles .
On XBOX and PS3 the games may LOOK good but there is little game play .
It used to take me months to finish a game and I spent most of my time playing .
Today I have very little time to play and I finish the games in weeks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately the same can be said for almost ALL the consoles.
On XBOX and PS3 the games may LOOK good but there is little game play.
It used to take me months to finish a game and I spent most of my time playing.
Today I have very little time to play and I finish the games in weeks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295805</id>
	<title>Watered Down? Absolutely Yes!</title>
	<author>Drone69</author>
	<datestamp>1244742300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take Top Spin 3 for example. I'm a huge fan of the series, having both previous tennis games on the XBox &amp; subsequent 360. Then when TS3 was released I immediately jumped on the Wii version figuring it would be quite engaging with the Wii controllers. Imagine my surprise once I started up the game that there was no provision made to create your own player. A week later ended up buying the 360 version on sale and it has twice the features as it's Wii counterpart.

Wii = kids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take Top Spin 3 for example .
I 'm a huge fan of the series , having both previous tennis games on the XBox &amp; subsequent 360 .
Then when TS3 was released I immediately jumped on the Wii version figuring it would be quite engaging with the Wii controllers .
Imagine my surprise once I started up the game that there was no provision made to create your own player .
A week later ended up buying the 360 version on sale and it has twice the features as it 's Wii counterpart .
Wii = kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take Top Spin 3 for example.
I'm a huge fan of the series, having both previous tennis games on the XBox &amp; subsequent 360.
Then when TS3 was released I immediately jumped on the Wii version figuring it would be quite engaging with the Wii controllers.
Imagine my surprise once I started up the game that there was no provision made to create your own player.
A week later ended up buying the 360 version on sale and it has twice the features as it's Wii counterpart.
Wii = kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298543</id>
	<title>New Wii can't have N64 issues</title>
	<author>Xistenz99</author>
	<datestamp>1244751900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Nintendo 64 had same issues, third party developers couldn't port games to the N64 because of space limitations, now it may be graphical limitations and also space limitations that force those developers only on PS3 and XBOX360.  The current Wii is obviously doing great with first party titles, but I really worry about the new Wii, it must be able to compete with at least the PS3 in hardware specs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Nintendo 64 had same issues , third party developers could n't port games to the N64 because of space limitations , now it may be graphical limitations and also space limitations that force those developers only on PS3 and XBOX360 .
The current Wii is obviously doing great with first party titles , but I really worry about the new Wii , it must be able to compete with at least the PS3 in hardware specs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Nintendo 64 had same issues, third party developers couldn't port games to the N64 because of space limitations, now it may be graphical limitations and also space limitations that force those developers only on PS3 and XBOX360.
The current Wii is obviously doing great with first party titles, but I really worry about the new Wii, it must be able to compete with at least the PS3 in hardware specs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298197</id>
	<title>Gameplay...it's all comes back to what's fun</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1244750580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Someone earlier identified the developer's "poor AI" argument as a red herring, and they were absolutely spot on, but I would take their line of argumentation in a different direction.
<br>
<br>
If anything, the developer needed to call out the lack of power on the Wii in order to hide the fact that if the game <i>had</i> been ported to the Wii, it would have had nothing going for it at all.  At least on the PC/PS3/360, it was graphically gorgeous, but the gameplay was lacking, the story was subpar, and the experience was altogether repetitive and boring.  Sure, it was fun for awhile, but all of the people I've talked to agree that the game did not live up to the hype and that it was not as fun as past titles in the series (standard disclaimers apply that this is merely anecdotal evidence and not indicative of the experience for everyone).
<br>
<br>
Given that the Wii has subpar hardware by modern standards, and this is true for nearly any title on the Wii, the focus falls on solid gameplay and the "fun factor".  Solid graphics on other systems can enhance enjoyment, but they rarely <i>create</i> enjoyment.  If you stripped away the graphics of the game, such that the worlds had shorter draw distances, the characters could not be as animated, and the polygon count had to be lowered, I'm of the opinion that there just wouldn't be much else to catch and hold the attention of the gamer.  For a game that relies so heavily on the graphics as a selling point, not only would the developer need to "water down" the game to make it simply run on the Wii, they would also need to significantly rework the game in order to make it enjoyable, period.
<br>
<br>
In a case like that, it's easier to blame the console's lack of power than your development teams' lack of innovation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone earlier identified the developer 's " poor AI " argument as a red herring , and they were absolutely spot on , but I would take their line of argumentation in a different direction .
If anything , the developer needed to call out the lack of power on the Wii in order to hide the fact that if the game had been ported to the Wii , it would have had nothing going for it at all .
At least on the PC/PS3/360 , it was graphically gorgeous , but the gameplay was lacking , the story was subpar , and the experience was altogether repetitive and boring .
Sure , it was fun for awhile , but all of the people I 've talked to agree that the game did not live up to the hype and that it was not as fun as past titles in the series ( standard disclaimers apply that this is merely anecdotal evidence and not indicative of the experience for everyone ) .
Given that the Wii has subpar hardware by modern standards , and this is true for nearly any title on the Wii , the focus falls on solid gameplay and the " fun factor " .
Solid graphics on other systems can enhance enjoyment , but they rarely create enjoyment .
If you stripped away the graphics of the game , such that the worlds had shorter draw distances , the characters could not be as animated , and the polygon count had to be lowered , I 'm of the opinion that there just would n't be much else to catch and hold the attention of the gamer .
For a game that relies so heavily on the graphics as a selling point , not only would the developer need to " water down " the game to make it simply run on the Wii , they would also need to significantly rework the game in order to make it enjoyable , period .
In a case like that , it 's easier to blame the console 's lack of power than your development teams ' lack of innovation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone earlier identified the developer's "poor AI" argument as a red herring, and they were absolutely spot on, but I would take their line of argumentation in a different direction.
If anything, the developer needed to call out the lack of power on the Wii in order to hide the fact that if the game had been ported to the Wii, it would have had nothing going for it at all.
At least on the PC/PS3/360, it was graphically gorgeous, but the gameplay was lacking, the story was subpar, and the experience was altogether repetitive and boring.
Sure, it was fun for awhile, but all of the people I've talked to agree that the game did not live up to the hype and that it was not as fun as past titles in the series (standard disclaimers apply that this is merely anecdotal evidence and not indicative of the experience for everyone).
Given that the Wii has subpar hardware by modern standards, and this is true for nearly any title on the Wii, the focus falls on solid gameplay and the "fun factor".
Solid graphics on other systems can enhance enjoyment, but they rarely create enjoyment.
If you stripped away the graphics of the game, such that the worlds had shorter draw distances, the characters could not be as animated, and the polygon count had to be lowered, I'm of the opinion that there just wouldn't be much else to catch and hold the attention of the gamer.
For a game that relies so heavily on the graphics as a selling point, not only would the developer need to "water down" the game to make it simply run on the Wii, they would also need to significantly rework the game in order to make it enjoyable, period.
In a case like that, it's easier to blame the console's lack of power than your development teams' lack of innovation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296493</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>spinkham</author>
	<datestamp>1244744880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Strangely enough, the WII has the the same number of exclusive titles rated 90+ on metacritic as PS3(4), and sightly less then Xbox360 (5).  In pure 90+ games, it ranks last (Wii- 8, PS3- 12, Xbox360-16), but many of those are games that you can play on PC, Xbox360, and PS3, with my preference being for the PC.</p><p>90\% of games made for any system are crap, and nintendo definitely has their share of them, but there's good games there too.  Most all of them are nintendo first party titles, but that's same as it ever was...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strangely enough , the WII has the the same number of exclusive titles rated 90 + on metacritic as PS3 ( 4 ) , and sightly less then Xbox360 ( 5 ) .
In pure 90 + games , it ranks last ( Wii- 8 , PS3- 12 , Xbox360-16 ) , but many of those are games that you can play on PC , Xbox360 , and PS3 , with my preference being for the PC.90 \ % of games made for any system are crap , and nintendo definitely has their share of them , but there 's good games there too .
Most all of them are nintendo first party titles , but that 's same as it ever was.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strangely enough, the WII has the the same number of exclusive titles rated 90+ on metacritic as PS3(4), and sightly less then Xbox360 (5).
In pure 90+ games, it ranks last (Wii- 8, PS3- 12, Xbox360-16), but many of those are games that you can play on PC, Xbox360, and PS3, with my preference being for the PC.90\% of games made for any system are crap, and nintendo definitely has their share of them, but there's good games there too.
Most all of them are nintendo first party titles, but that's same as it ever was...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295125</id>
	<title>Watered Down</title>
	<author>Niris</author>
	<datestamp>1244740080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure the graphics and whatnot aren't the same as the PS or XBox, but half the fun of the Wii is the moving around and simplicity of a lot of the games. Group bowling on the Wii when drunk with school friends just can't be beat .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure the graphics and whatnot are n't the same as the PS or XBox , but half the fun of the Wii is the moving around and simplicity of a lot of the games .
Group bowling on the Wii when drunk with school friends just ca n't be beat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure the graphics and whatnot aren't the same as the PS or XBox, but half the fun of the Wii is the moving around and simplicity of a lot of the games.
Group bowling on the Wii when drunk with school friends just can't be beat .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296571</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>Yhippa</author>
	<datestamp>1244745120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't necessarily think that the mainstream likes junk (or low quality games).  The Wii brought in a lot of people new to gaming and the fact that they are using motion controls is a good enough experience for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't necessarily think that the mainstream likes junk ( or low quality games ) .
The Wii brought in a lot of people new to gaming and the fact that they are using motion controls is a good enough experience for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't necessarily think that the mainstream likes junk (or low quality games).
The Wii brought in a lot of people new to gaming and the fact that they are using motion controls is a good enough experience for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295181</id>
	<title>Small, low-power, quiet, cheap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other consoles may get the controllers and games for more casual pastimes, but the Wii will hold the market of people who do not want elaborate, graphics-intensive game experiences and prefer casual gaming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other consoles may get the controllers and games for more casual pastimes , but the Wii will hold the market of people who do not want elaborate , graphics-intensive game experiences and prefer casual gaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other consoles may get the controllers and games for more casual pastimes, but the Wii will hold the market of people who do not want elaborate, graphics-intensive game experiences and prefer casual gaming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28301915</id>
	<title>Casual gaming?</title>
	<author>tgibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1244721300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities</p></div></blockquote><p>The real question is whether they will be able to match the Wii's casual gaming price.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The question remains , as Kotaku points out , whether the Wii 's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilitiesThe real question is whether they will be able to match the Wii 's casual gaming price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilitiesThe real question is whether they will be able to match the Wii's casual gaming price.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297587</id>
	<title>The reason to buy a Wii</title>
	<author>Bohnanza</author>
	<datestamp>1244748480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason to buy a Wii is to be able to play Nintendo games. You can't play Nintendo games on an Xbox or Playstation no matter what kind of controller they offer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason to buy a Wii is to be able to play Nintendo games .
You ca n't play Nintendo games on an Xbox or Playstation no matter what kind of controller they offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason to buy a Wii is to be able to play Nintendo games.
You can't play Nintendo games on an Xbox or Playstation no matter what kind of controller they offer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297669</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>Bohnanza</author>
	<datestamp>1244748840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The Wii could have been a success story" <p>
It wasn't?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The Wii could have been a success story " It was n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The Wii could have been a success story" 
It wasn't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299851</id>
	<title>i suppose the main thing is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244713320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I trust Nintendo. I played their games when I was 8, when I was 16, when I was 20, and I bought a Wii when I was 25.</p><p>Sony represents all that is soulless and wrong, and I would never even consider buying anything from them.</p><p>Microsoft has surprised me, the XBox is better than I expected, but in the end it's basically still a broken computer. I have a computer already, and I do "serious" (heh) gaming on the computer, like I've always done.</p><p>Mostly the console development studios are full of morons, but I guess that helps when they're catering to the typical Playstation gamer, who is also a moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I trust Nintendo .
I played their games when I was 8 , when I was 16 , when I was 20 , and I bought a Wii when I was 25.Sony represents all that is soulless and wrong , and I would never even consider buying anything from them.Microsoft has surprised me , the XBox is better than I expected , but in the end it 's basically still a broken computer .
I have a computer already , and I do " serious " ( heh ) gaming on the computer , like I 've always done.Mostly the console development studios are full of morons , but I guess that helps when they 're catering to the typical Playstation gamer , who is also a moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I trust Nintendo.
I played their games when I was 8, when I was 16, when I was 20, and I bought a Wii when I was 25.Sony represents all that is soulless and wrong, and I would never even consider buying anything from them.Microsoft has surprised me, the XBox is better than I expected, but in the end it's basically still a broken computer.
I have a computer already, and I do "serious" (heh) gaming on the computer, like I've always done.Mostly the console development studios are full of morons, but I guess that helps when they're catering to the typical Playstation gamer, who is also a moron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295811</id>
	<title>Chicken Shoot</title>
	<author>British</author>
	<datestamp>1244742360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A friend of mine once bought "Chicken Shoot" and showed me the box. From the silly artwork on the box and simple concept(shooting livestock), it looked like it was from a timewarp from 2 decades ago. No, not every game has to be as complex as Final Fantasy, but I just can't imagine spending $60 on a fowl carnage game, ie an updated Duck Hunt. With the popularity of the Wii, it seems to be nothing but kiddie shovelware titles, when I would rather play Fallout 3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine once bought " Chicken Shoot " and showed me the box .
From the silly artwork on the box and simple concept ( shooting livestock ) , it looked like it was from a timewarp from 2 decades ago .
No , not every game has to be as complex as Final Fantasy , but I just ca n't imagine spending $ 60 on a fowl carnage game , ie an updated Duck Hunt .
With the popularity of the Wii , it seems to be nothing but kiddie shovelware titles , when I would rather play Fallout 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine once bought "Chicken Shoot" and showed me the box.
From the silly artwork on the box and simple concept(shooting livestock), it looked like it was from a timewarp from 2 decades ago.
No, not every game has to be as complex as Final Fantasy, but I just can't imagine spending $60 on a fowl carnage game, ie an updated Duck Hunt.
With the popularity of the Wii, it seems to be nothing but kiddie shovelware titles, when I would rather play Fallout 3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295493</id>
	<title>Gamers just don't get it</title>
	<author>jayhawk88</author>
	<datestamp>1244741220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We, as "hardcore" gamers, are trying so hard to wrap our heads around what Nintendo is doing with the Wii. We don't get it. All the time it's "Why don't they have better games for it", "They're toys, people don't play them after a couple months", "Would the experience be watered down" or "What happens when casual games catch up on the 360/PS3". We're trying to fit the round Wii into our traditional square "Gamers" hole and it just doesn't fit.</p><p>The truth of the matter is that Nintendo doesn't care about us anymore. Now, that's a little bit of hyperbole of course, but the truth of the matter is that Nintendo figured out that the so called "casual gamers" were ready, willing, and able to spend just as much on their hobby as the hardcore. In other words, they were ready to move past Minesweeper and freebie Popcap games, and try games that offered considerably better gameplay, yet didn't necessarily require you to memorize complex combos or secret techniques to be successful. Hence, the Wii and it's motion controls, and the type of games it specializes in.</p><p>Is the Wii underpowered compared to the 360 or PS3? Probably. Does the motion control present a challenge to companies who are so used to d-pads and analog sticks and such? It seems like it. But if you're Nintendo, who cares? They sold 50 million of them. It's already sold better than the original XBox, 360, PS3, GameCube, SNES, <i>2600</i>, and anything Sega has ever put out.</p><p>Nintendo doesn't care if hardcore's don't like the Wii. It's the 9th or 10th best selling console of all time regardless. The Wii isn't coming to us; it's up to us to decide if we want to come to the Wii (pun intended). There are still plenty of fun, unique, challenging games available for the Wii (even though they might not resemble the games you're used to playing), with surely many more to come. Whether you choose to embrace this or not is of course your choice, but it's time to stop wishing/hoping/demanding that the Wii is going to fit into your hole (again with the puns).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We , as " hardcore " gamers , are trying so hard to wrap our heads around what Nintendo is doing with the Wii .
We do n't get it .
All the time it 's " Why do n't they have better games for it " , " They 're toys , people do n't play them after a couple months " , " Would the experience be watered down " or " What happens when casual games catch up on the 360/PS3 " .
We 're trying to fit the round Wii into our traditional square " Gamers " hole and it just does n't fit.The truth of the matter is that Nintendo does n't care about us anymore .
Now , that 's a little bit of hyperbole of course , but the truth of the matter is that Nintendo figured out that the so called " casual gamers " were ready , willing , and able to spend just as much on their hobby as the hardcore .
In other words , they were ready to move past Minesweeper and freebie Popcap games , and try games that offered considerably better gameplay , yet did n't necessarily require you to memorize complex combos or secret techniques to be successful .
Hence , the Wii and it 's motion controls , and the type of games it specializes in.Is the Wii underpowered compared to the 360 or PS3 ?
Probably. Does the motion control present a challenge to companies who are so used to d-pads and analog sticks and such ?
It seems like it .
But if you 're Nintendo , who cares ?
They sold 50 million of them .
It 's already sold better than the original XBox , 360 , PS3 , GameCube , SNES , 2600 , and anything Sega has ever put out.Nintendo does n't care if hardcore 's do n't like the Wii .
It 's the 9th or 10th best selling console of all time regardless .
The Wii is n't coming to us ; it 's up to us to decide if we want to come to the Wii ( pun intended ) .
There are still plenty of fun , unique , challenging games available for the Wii ( even though they might not resemble the games you 're used to playing ) , with surely many more to come .
Whether you choose to embrace this or not is of course your choice , but it 's time to stop wishing/hoping/demanding that the Wii is going to fit into your hole ( again with the puns ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We, as "hardcore" gamers, are trying so hard to wrap our heads around what Nintendo is doing with the Wii.
We don't get it.
All the time it's "Why don't they have better games for it", "They're toys, people don't play them after a couple months", "Would the experience be watered down" or "What happens when casual games catch up on the 360/PS3".
We're trying to fit the round Wii into our traditional square "Gamers" hole and it just doesn't fit.The truth of the matter is that Nintendo doesn't care about us anymore.
Now, that's a little bit of hyperbole of course, but the truth of the matter is that Nintendo figured out that the so called "casual gamers" were ready, willing, and able to spend just as much on their hobby as the hardcore.
In other words, they were ready to move past Minesweeper and freebie Popcap games, and try games that offered considerably better gameplay, yet didn't necessarily require you to memorize complex combos or secret techniques to be successful.
Hence, the Wii and it's motion controls, and the type of games it specializes in.Is the Wii underpowered compared to the 360 or PS3?
Probably. Does the motion control present a challenge to companies who are so used to d-pads and analog sticks and such?
It seems like it.
But if you're Nintendo, who cares?
They sold 50 million of them.
It's already sold better than the original XBox, 360, PS3, GameCube, SNES, 2600, and anything Sega has ever put out.Nintendo doesn't care if hardcore's don't like the Wii.
It's the 9th or 10th best selling console of all time regardless.
The Wii isn't coming to us; it's up to us to decide if we want to come to the Wii (pun intended).
There are still plenty of fun, unique, challenging games available for the Wii (even though they might not resemble the games you're used to playing), with surely many more to come.
Whether you choose to embrace this or not is of course your choice, but it's time to stop wishing/hoping/demanding that the Wii is going to fit into your hole (again with the puns).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298419</id>
	<title>Re:Give me a break</title>
	<author>elcid73</author>
	<datestamp>1244751420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, I found Prince of Persia to be very beautiful, but nearly as repetitive as Mass Effect.  I certainly raised my eyebrow at the "Elika's AI" as I don't remember it adding much value to the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , I found Prince of Persia to be very beautiful , but nearly as repetitive as Mass Effect .
I certainly raised my eyebrow at the " Elika 's AI " as I do n't remember it adding much value to the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, I found Prince of Persia to be very beautiful, but nearly as repetitive as Mass Effect.
I certainly raised my eyebrow at the "Elika's AI" as I don't remember it adding much value to the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295449</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296125</id>
	<title>Re:Sure are a lot of butthurt Wii fans here</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1244743500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The PS3 and 360 can handle casual games.</p></div><p>But they'd never attempt to make that their main market. The PS3 and 360 have been made <em>dependent</em> on catering to hardcore gamers, because casual gamers simply will not tolerate the combination of mechanical noise they emit, the 50\% hardware failure rate of the 360, or the 200-300W they consume.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The PS3 and 360 can handle casual games.But they 'd never attempt to make that their main market .
The PS3 and 360 have been made dependent on catering to hardcore gamers , because casual gamers simply will not tolerate the combination of mechanical noise they emit , the 50 \ % hardware failure rate of the 360 , or the 200-300W they consume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The PS3 and 360 can handle casual games.But they'd never attempt to make that their main market.
The PS3 and 360 have been made dependent on catering to hardcore gamers, because casual gamers simply will not tolerate the combination of mechanical noise they emit, the 50\% hardware failure rate of the 360, or the 200-300W they consume.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296379</id>
	<title>Its mostly about user expectations and marketing</title>
	<author>LordZardoz</author>
	<datestamp>1244744400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Games that are going to be marketed as having great graphics and advanced features are not going to be made on the Wii because there is no way to have it look good in a side by side comparison with a PS3 / Xbox360 game.  it is hard to brag about how good your game looks if it looks very much like something that was made about 5 years ago.</p><p>There are also other issues.</p><p>
&nbsp; - Large worlds take a great deal of memory for textures, and level geometry.  You can do this better on the 360 / PS3<br>
&nbsp; - Wii has a flash drive, so while you can save games, you cannot use it for virtual memory or caching from the disk.<br>
&nbsp; - Motion controls simply do not adapt very well and are not necessary to GTA3 type games, and the Wii-mote + Nunchuk does not have optimally placed buttons for most 'hard core' type games.<br>
&nbsp; - While not dominant, the 360 and PS3 still have a substantial chunk of the market, having retained most of the core users from the previous generation.<br>
&nbsp; - Nintendo's online policies suck for online multi-player.</p><p>So basically, you could try to put a core game out on the game out on the Wii, and end up with a stripped down version that is simply not as good as it would be on the PS3 or Xbox 360.  Your sales wont be quite so strong as the typical Wii Fit customer is not going to give a damn about your action heavy game.  And it wont be as technically advanced as you would like because the platform cannot support the bleeding edge.  On top of that, attempts to replace an action that is best handled with a single button press with a motion control usually end up feeling very inelegant, so its possible that your game will suck because the control interface is not ideal.</p><p>Right now it is just more effective to put out certain types of games on the Xbox360 and PS3.  But if Nintendo can hold its current lead into the next hardware generation, things will get better on Nintendo's platforms.</p><p>END COMMUNICATION</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games that are going to be marketed as having great graphics and advanced features are not going to be made on the Wii because there is no way to have it look good in a side by side comparison with a PS3 / Xbox360 game .
it is hard to brag about how good your game looks if it looks very much like something that was made about 5 years ago.There are also other issues .
  - Large worlds take a great deal of memory for textures , and level geometry .
You can do this better on the 360 / PS3   - Wii has a flash drive , so while you can save games , you can not use it for virtual memory or caching from the disk .
  - Motion controls simply do not adapt very well and are not necessary to GTA3 type games , and the Wii-mote + Nunchuk does not have optimally placed buttons for most 'hard core ' type games .
  - While not dominant , the 360 and PS3 still have a substantial chunk of the market , having retained most of the core users from the previous generation .
  - Nintendo 's online policies suck for online multi-player.So basically , you could try to put a core game out on the game out on the Wii , and end up with a stripped down version that is simply not as good as it would be on the PS3 or Xbox 360 .
Your sales wont be quite so strong as the typical Wii Fit customer is not going to give a damn about your action heavy game .
And it wont be as technically advanced as you would like because the platform can not support the bleeding edge .
On top of that , attempts to replace an action that is best handled with a single button press with a motion control usually end up feeling very inelegant , so its possible that your game will suck because the control interface is not ideal.Right now it is just more effective to put out certain types of games on the Xbox360 and PS3 .
But if Nintendo can hold its current lead into the next hardware generation , things will get better on Nintendo 's platforms.END COMMUNICATION</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games that are going to be marketed as having great graphics and advanced features are not going to be made on the Wii because there is no way to have it look good in a side by side comparison with a PS3 / Xbox360 game.
it is hard to brag about how good your game looks if it looks very much like something that was made about 5 years ago.There are also other issues.
  - Large worlds take a great deal of memory for textures, and level geometry.
You can do this better on the 360 / PS3
  - Wii has a flash drive, so while you can save games, you cannot use it for virtual memory or caching from the disk.
  - Motion controls simply do not adapt very well and are not necessary to GTA3 type games, and the Wii-mote + Nunchuk does not have optimally placed buttons for most 'hard core' type games.
  - While not dominant, the 360 and PS3 still have a substantial chunk of the market, having retained most of the core users from the previous generation.
  - Nintendo's online policies suck for online multi-player.So basically, you could try to put a core game out on the game out on the Wii, and end up with a stripped down version that is simply not as good as it would be on the PS3 or Xbox 360.
Your sales wont be quite so strong as the typical Wii Fit customer is not going to give a damn about your action heavy game.
And it wont be as technically advanced as you would like because the platform cannot support the bleeding edge.
On top of that, attempts to replace an action that is best handled with a single button press with a motion control usually end up feeling very inelegant, so its possible that your game will suck because the control interface is not ideal.Right now it is just more effective to put out certain types of games on the Xbox360 and PS3.
But if Nintendo can hold its current lead into the next hardware generation, things will get better on Nintendo's platforms.END COMMUNICATION</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298485</id>
	<title>price matters</title>
	<author>Shads</author>
	<datestamp>1244751660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes it will persist because a lot of it is due to price... $400 for a console is absurd.</p><p>You can have a ton of fun with a wii just like a 360 or ps3. They each have their strong and weak points but in the end it comes down to fun and graphics isn't necessarily the top of the fun list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes it will persist because a lot of it is due to price... $ 400 for a console is absurd.You can have a ton of fun with a wii just like a 360 or ps3 .
They each have their strong and weak points but in the end it comes down to fun and graphics is n't necessarily the top of the fun list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes it will persist because a lot of it is due to price... $400 for a console is absurd.You can have a ton of fun with a wii just like a 360 or ps3.
They each have their strong and weak points but in the end it comes down to fun and graphics isn't necessarily the top of the fun list.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298169</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>infalliable</author>
	<datestamp>1244750460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is somewhat true, the majority of the Wii titles are pure garbage with motion controls.<br>.<br>However, look at many of the best selling games on the other consoles.  Sure the excellent games sell well.  But just about every movie tie-in is absolutely terrible, and gets panned by the game media, yet consistently sell well enough to be in the top in terms of sales volume.<br>.<br>To some extent it is not a Wii problem exclusively.  Although, the Wii seems to be even worse than the rest.  Wii Fit is a mid-quality program.  It is unique, but it is insanely shallow.  It doesn't even let you make your own workouts and save them.  Yet it is one of the best selling titles month after month.<br>.</p><p>90\% of the titles for the Wii do seem to be shovelware with motion controls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is somewhat true , the majority of the Wii titles are pure garbage with motion controls..However , look at many of the best selling games on the other consoles .
Sure the excellent games sell well .
But just about every movie tie-in is absolutely terrible , and gets panned by the game media , yet consistently sell well enough to be in the top in terms of sales volume..To some extent it is not a Wii problem exclusively .
Although , the Wii seems to be even worse than the rest .
Wii Fit is a mid-quality program .
It is unique , but it is insanely shallow .
It does n't even let you make your own workouts and save them .
Yet it is one of the best selling titles month after month..90 \ % of the titles for the Wii do seem to be shovelware with motion controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is somewhat true, the majority of the Wii titles are pure garbage with motion controls..However, look at many of the best selling games on the other consoles.
Sure the excellent games sell well.
But just about every movie tie-in is absolutely terrible, and gets panned by the game media, yet consistently sell well enough to be in the top in terms of sales volume..To some extent it is not a Wii problem exclusively.
Although, the Wii seems to be even worse than the rest.
Wii Fit is a mid-quality program.
It is unique, but it is insanely shallow.
It doesn't even let you make your own workouts and save them.
Yet it is one of the best selling titles month after month..90\% of the titles for the Wii do seem to be shovelware with motion controls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296469</id>
	<title>Dear Mr. Mattes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244744760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of whining, how about a little creative thinking outside the (x)box?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of whining , how about a little creative thinking outside the ( x ) box ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of whining, how about a little creative thinking outside the (x)box?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28302245</id>
	<title>Making games for Wii is too risky</title>
	<author>Jackyshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1244723460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the game developers and publishers, the issue with Wii is that its audience (light gamers) are largely unpredictable. Publishers dont know what kind of Wii games would definitely make money. The hardcore gamers (x360, PS3 owners) are a lot more predictable and easier to make money off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the game developers and publishers , the issue with Wii is that its audience ( light gamers ) are largely unpredictable .
Publishers dont know what kind of Wii games would definitely make money .
The hardcore gamers ( x360 , PS3 owners ) are a lot more predictable and easier to make money off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the game developers and publishers, the issue with Wii is that its audience (light gamers) are largely unpredictable.
Publishers dont know what kind of Wii games would definitely make money.
The hardcore gamers (x360, PS3 owners) are a lot more predictable and easier to make money off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297525</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1244748240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well glad that is over!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well glad that is over !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well glad that is over!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296389</id>
	<title>Re:As plainly as possible....</title>
	<author>DreadPiratePizz</author>
	<datestamp>1244744400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And why is that in and of itself admirable? Stupid date movies appeal to the masses, but they don't push the art of cinema. As an aging young adult, I like my entertainment to increase in thoughtfulness and complexity as time goes on in order to keep myself interested, and as far as I can tell, that's not something the wii is doing. Johnathan Blow says that Braid, a game that was definitely unique, couldn't be done on the wii due to hardware limitations revolving around the rewind mechanic (the core of the game). Katamari Damacy was only possible once something like the PS2 came along and could process all those 3D objects. These types of games were only made possible because of the new hardware. So when Nintendo doesn't update their hardware, they're not going to get any of these new types of games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And why is that in and of itself admirable ?
Stupid date movies appeal to the masses , but they do n't push the art of cinema .
As an aging young adult , I like my entertainment to increase in thoughtfulness and complexity as time goes on in order to keep myself interested , and as far as I can tell , that 's not something the wii is doing .
Johnathan Blow says that Braid , a game that was definitely unique , could n't be done on the wii due to hardware limitations revolving around the rewind mechanic ( the core of the game ) .
Katamari Damacy was only possible once something like the PS2 came along and could process all those 3D objects .
These types of games were only made possible because of the new hardware .
So when Nintendo does n't update their hardware , they 're not going to get any of these new types of games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And why is that in and of itself admirable?
Stupid date movies appeal to the masses, but they don't push the art of cinema.
As an aging young adult, I like my entertainment to increase in thoughtfulness and complexity as time goes on in order to keep myself interested, and as far as I can tell, that's not something the wii is doing.
Johnathan Blow says that Braid, a game that was definitely unique, couldn't be done on the wii due to hardware limitations revolving around the rewind mechanic (the core of the game).
Katamari Damacy was only possible once something like the PS2 came along and could process all those 3D objects.
These types of games were only made possible because of the new hardware.
So when Nintendo doesn't update their hardware, they're not going to get any of these new types of games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28300879</id>
	<title>Ironic article</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1244716860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The irony of this article is that Ubi has been one of the best 3rd party devs on the system. Sure they have had some shovelware, but they have already released some great games. I would have be far less surprised if this comment came from THQ or EA- two companies that basically just port their PS2 games and add a waggle. Ubisoft of all people should understand the Wii.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The irony of this article is that Ubi has been one of the best 3rd party devs on the system .
Sure they have had some shovelware , but they have already released some great games .
I would have be far less surprised if this comment came from THQ or EA- two companies that basically just port their PS2 games and add a waggle .
Ubisoft of all people should understand the Wii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The irony of this article is that Ubi has been one of the best 3rd party devs on the system.
Sure they have had some shovelware, but they have already released some great games.
I would have be far less surprised if this comment came from THQ or EA- two companies that basically just port their PS2 games and add a waggle.
Ubisoft of all people should understand the Wii.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296465</id>
	<title>Re:As plainly as possible....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244744700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. I bought a PS3 last year and all we do on it is play Blu-Rays.  There are dozens of new games for the PS3 -- and they're all the same fighting crap.  Who needs 55 clones of God of War, Left 4 Dead and the rest of them? If "hardcore games" = fighting games, and that's ALL we get, the platform deserves to die.</p><p>I really wanted Little Big Planet to be a good casual game, but it was too difficult.  Why aren't there casual games for the PS3?  Sims3 is coming, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I bought a PS3 last year and all we do on it is play Blu-Rays .
There are dozens of new games for the PS3 -- and they 're all the same fighting crap .
Who needs 55 clones of God of War , Left 4 Dead and the rest of them ?
If " hardcore games " = fighting games , and that 's ALL we get , the platform deserves to die.I really wanted Little Big Planet to be a good casual game , but it was too difficult .
Why are n't there casual games for the PS3 ?
Sims3 is coming , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I bought a PS3 last year and all we do on it is play Blu-Rays.
There are dozens of new games for the PS3 -- and they're all the same fighting crap.
Who needs 55 clones of God of War, Left 4 Dead and the rest of them?
If "hardcore games" = fighting games, and that's ALL we get, the platform deserves to die.I really wanted Little Big Planet to be a good casual game, but it was too difficult.
Why aren't there casual games for the PS3?
Sims3 is coming, I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295341</id>
	<title>sales of the wii</title>
	<author>markringen</author>
	<datestamp>1244740680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>sales of the wii has gone from 1million a month to 80,000 a month.
that's worse than the dreamcast slump.
they end up in a closest unused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sales of the wii has gone from 1million a month to 80,000 a month .
that 's worse than the dreamcast slump .
they end up in a closest unused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sales of the wii has gone from 1million a month to 80,000 a month.
that's worse than the dreamcast slump.
they end up in a closest unused.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28314897</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244805300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I've heard this before... The Wii has forgotten that I'm their target demographic!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Well, you're not. When they focused on "you" they came in third behind the XBox and the PS2. Nintendo isn't a giant mega corporation that can afford to lose millions early on and hope to make it back later. "You" the core gamer chose other options.</p><p>So Nintendo was left with a choice - to compete for the 'core' audience against two giants with far more resources at their disposal, or find a different target demographic.</p><p>They chose the second option. And while the quote from the article states that you can't ignore the 'core' audience in favor of a large, but potentially fickle one and expect to survive... Well, catering to the core audience wasn't exactly a winning strategy for Nintendo either.</p><p>You say that the Wii could have been a success story - how exactly do you see them having been more successful? By going with the strategy they lost with on the GameCube?</p><p>Honestly, while I wish the Wii had more titles that catered to me instead of 'non-gamers' I can scarcely blame them for choosing a strategy that has been very successful for them rather than rewarding the 'core' gamers for their loyalty - or lack there of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I 've heard this before... The Wii has forgotten that I 'm their target demographic !
... Well , you 're not .
When they focused on " you " they came in third behind the XBox and the PS2 .
Nintendo is n't a giant mega corporation that can afford to lose millions early on and hope to make it back later .
" You " the core gamer chose other options.So Nintendo was left with a choice - to compete for the 'core ' audience against two giants with far more resources at their disposal , or find a different target demographic.They chose the second option .
And while the quote from the article states that you ca n't ignore the 'core ' audience in favor of a large , but potentially fickle one and expect to survive... Well , catering to the core audience was n't exactly a winning strategy for Nintendo either.You say that the Wii could have been a success story - how exactly do you see them having been more successful ?
By going with the strategy they lost with on the GameCube ? Honestly , while I wish the Wii had more titles that catered to me instead of 'non-gamers ' I can scarcely blame them for choosing a strategy that has been very successful for them rather than rewarding the 'core ' gamers for their loyalty - or lack there of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I've heard this before... The Wii has forgotten that I'm their target demographic!
... Well, you're not.
When they focused on "you" they came in third behind the XBox and the PS2.
Nintendo isn't a giant mega corporation that can afford to lose millions early on and hope to make it back later.
"You" the core gamer chose other options.So Nintendo was left with a choice - to compete for the 'core' audience against two giants with far more resources at their disposal, or find a different target demographic.They chose the second option.
And while the quote from the article states that you can't ignore the 'core' audience in favor of a large, but potentially fickle one and expect to survive... Well, catering to the core audience wasn't exactly a winning strategy for Nintendo either.You say that the Wii could have been a success story - how exactly do you see them having been more successful?
By going with the strategy they lost with on the GameCube?Honestly, while I wish the Wii had more titles that catered to me instead of 'non-gamers' I can scarcely blame them for choosing a strategy that has been very successful for them rather than rewarding the 'core' gamers for their loyalty - or lack there of.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299167</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244710800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll take the simple, low-graphics Wii bowling over any magical alien world crap.  Ya know why?  Because it's a lot like real bowling.  A good "real" bowler will always win on Wii.  First time I played Wii bowling, I wiped the floor with guys who had been playing it for months.</p><p>And you know what?  Wii bowling is still fun and will always be fun....because bowling is fun.  The Wii works enough like the real thing that you can forget you're playing a game SYSTEM and just play like you'd play the real game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take the simple , low-graphics Wii bowling over any magical alien world crap .
Ya know why ?
Because it 's a lot like real bowling .
A good " real " bowler will always win on Wii .
First time I played Wii bowling , I wiped the floor with guys who had been playing it for months.And you know what ?
Wii bowling is still fun and will always be fun....because bowling is fun .
The Wii works enough like the real thing that you can forget you 're playing a game SYSTEM and just play like you 'd play the real game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take the simple, low-graphics Wii bowling over any magical alien world crap.
Ya know why?
Because it's a lot like real bowling.
A good "real" bowler will always win on Wii.
First time I played Wii bowling, I wiped the floor with guys who had been playing it for months.And you know what?
Wii bowling is still fun and will always be fun....because bowling is fun.
The Wii works enough like the real thing that you can forget you're playing a game SYSTEM and just play like you'd play the real game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28301365</id>
	<title>Specifically written wii games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244718840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a PC and love gaming on it - ie.. Fallout 3 etc..</p><p>But i also have a wii and love playing mario kart, zelda, mario galaxy, wii sports, raving rabbids, bomberman with mates, it much  more fun, fantastic for a night with a few beers</p><p>I went to a party last saturday and they had a PS3 setup, 1 person was playing and that was it, the rest were bored, not even fun to watch.</p><p>I think PS3 or XBOX 360 are great alternatives to a PC, but are not in the same class as the Wii</p><p>The wii is definately underpowered, i played need for speed undercover on it for about 5 minutes then turned it off in disgust, the PC Version is brilliant.</p><p>Games specifically made for wii are generally good (except those shitty 3rd party ones to make $$)<br>Ported games are generally crap (due to them being watered down to lower hardware than they were designed for)</p><p>Thanks for reading</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a PC and love gaming on it - ie.. Fallout 3 etc..But i also have a wii and love playing mario kart , zelda , mario galaxy , wii sports , raving rabbids , bomberman with mates , it much more fun , fantastic for a night with a few beersI went to a party last saturday and they had a PS3 setup , 1 person was playing and that was it , the rest were bored , not even fun to watch.I think PS3 or XBOX 360 are great alternatives to a PC , but are not in the same class as the WiiThe wii is definately underpowered , i played need for speed undercover on it for about 5 minutes then turned it off in disgust , the PC Version is brilliant.Games specifically made for wii are generally good ( except those shitty 3rd party ones to make $ $ ) Ported games are generally crap ( due to them being watered down to lower hardware than they were designed for ) Thanks for reading</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a PC and love gaming on it - ie.. Fallout 3 etc..But i also have a wii and love playing mario kart, zelda, mario galaxy, wii sports, raving rabbids, bomberman with mates, it much  more fun, fantastic for a night with a few beersI went to a party last saturday and they had a PS3 setup, 1 person was playing and that was it, the rest were bored, not even fun to watch.I think PS3 or XBOX 360 are great alternatives to a PC, but are not in the same class as the WiiThe wii is definately underpowered, i played need for speed undercover on it for about 5 minutes then turned it off in disgust, the PC Version is brilliant.Games specifically made for wii are generally good (except those shitty 3rd party ones to make $$)Ported games are generally crap (due to them being watered down to lower hardware than they were designed for)Thanks for reading</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295187</id>
	<title>Why not look at it from another point of view?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course it provides a 'watered down' experience - when the games in question are ports of the PS3 or the Xbox 360.  The hardware and capabilities of the machine cannot compare, so the developers have to shoehorn the equivalent game into the Wii's specs and in the process, trim it down.

If you look at individual titles made for the Wii (not ports of other console's games) then no, I really don't think the experience is watered down.  Games are games, and people (should) be playing them for the enjoyment and competition.  Maybe we should ask the question about some other consoles games that rely so much on graphics that the point of the game is lost and the entertainment factor is lost.  Is this a watered down games experience?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it provides a 'watered down ' experience - when the games in question are ports of the PS3 or the Xbox 360 .
The hardware and capabilities of the machine can not compare , so the developers have to shoehorn the equivalent game into the Wii 's specs and in the process , trim it down .
If you look at individual titles made for the Wii ( not ports of other console 's games ) then no , I really do n't think the experience is watered down .
Games are games , and people ( should ) be playing them for the enjoyment and competition .
Maybe we should ask the question about some other consoles games that rely so much on graphics that the point of the game is lost and the entertainment factor is lost .
Is this a watered down games experience ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it provides a 'watered down' experience - when the games in question are ports of the PS3 or the Xbox 360.
The hardware and capabilities of the machine cannot compare, so the developers have to shoehorn the equivalent game into the Wii's specs and in the process, trim it down.
If you look at individual titles made for the Wii (not ports of other console's games) then no, I really don't think the experience is watered down.
Games are games, and people (should) be playing them for the enjoyment and competition.
Maybe we should ask the question about some other consoles games that rely so much on graphics that the point of the game is lost and the entertainment factor is lost.
Is this a watered down games experience?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297159</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh sweet redemption</title>
	<author>GMFTatsujin</author>
	<datestamp>1244747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There should be, however, a +1 Stop Being Such an Asshole.</p><p>Seriously, man.  Dial back on the defensive hostility.  Put those claws away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be , however , a + 1 Stop Being Such an Asshole.Seriously , man .
Dial back on the defensive hostility .
Put those claws away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be, however, a +1 Stop Being Such an Asshole.Seriously, man.
Dial back on the defensive hostility.
Put those claws away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295475</id>
	<title>The controller is what makes it casual.</title>
	<author>neo</author>
	<datestamp>1244741160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wii controller is what allows it to be casual.  Casual gamers do not want a controller with more than 2 buttons and 1 directional controller.  Look at the PSP or X-Box controller and it's simply not casual.  Game controllers for casual gamers should be no more complicated than the controls for driving a car.  Anything beyond that is too much to learn and casual gamers aren't about steep learning curves.</p><p>Unless X-Box and PSP come out with simplified controllers (like the Guitars in Guitar Hero) then you wont see casual gamers moving over even if the games are simplified.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii controller is what allows it to be casual .
Casual gamers do not want a controller with more than 2 buttons and 1 directional controller .
Look at the PSP or X-Box controller and it 's simply not casual .
Game controllers for casual gamers should be no more complicated than the controls for driving a car .
Anything beyond that is too much to learn and casual gamers are n't about steep learning curves.Unless X-Box and PSP come out with simplified controllers ( like the Guitars in Guitar Hero ) then you wont see casual gamers moving over even if the games are simplified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii controller is what allows it to be casual.
Casual gamers do not want a controller with more than 2 buttons and 1 directional controller.
Look at the PSP or X-Box controller and it's simply not casual.
Game controllers for casual gamers should be no more complicated than the controls for driving a car.
Anything beyond that is too much to learn and casual gamers aren't about steep learning curves.Unless X-Box and PSP come out with simplified controllers (like the Guitars in Guitar Hero) then you wont see casual gamers moving over even if the games are simplified.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295049</id>
	<title>does an iphone....</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1244739840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>provide a watered down computing experience?</p><p>Wii's are fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>provide a watered down computing experience ? Wii 's are fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>provide a watered down computing experience?Wii's are fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28303993</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>ADRA</author>
	<datestamp>1244737080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the same argument that I have about consoles in general vs. PC gaming. Suck it up. You can't have a happy medium between the best development platform vs. financially success. I know the Wii will never play games that are capable on PS3/360, just as I'd know that there are games that PC's games that will never play properly on PS3/360's. That's life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the same argument that I have about consoles in general vs. PC gaming .
Suck it up .
You ca n't have a happy medium between the best development platform vs. financially success .
I know the Wii will never play games that are capable on PS3/360 , just as I 'd know that there are games that PC 's games that will never play properly on PS3/360 's .
That 's life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the same argument that I have about consoles in general vs. PC gaming.
Suck it up.
You can't have a happy medium between the best development platform vs. financially success.
I know the Wii will never play games that are capable on PS3/360, just as I'd know that there are games that PC's games that will never play properly on PS3/360's.
That's life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28301919</id>
	<title>Say what?</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1244721360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Wii is a "watered-down" game experience, what is a non-watered down game experience? If anything, one would think that Nintendo's competitors are guilty of watering down gaming with multimedia - half of the console's functions have nothing to do with games and then the games are often like movies themselves (you're watering down gaming Kojima!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P). The only conclusion I can really make about this is that the question must have been designed to prove that yes, stupid questions do in fact exist. If anyone has a monopoly on the "game experience" it's Nintendo, not some dweeby video game version of the critic (it stinks!). I'm not even a big fan of the Wii, but I've never understood being ultra-critical of another's recreation, especially when it's something as base as video game console x vs. y. Is Pepsi a watered down Coca-Cola?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Wii is a " watered-down " game experience , what is a non-watered down game experience ?
If anything , one would think that Nintendo 's competitors are guilty of watering down gaming with multimedia - half of the console 's functions have nothing to do with games and then the games are often like movies themselves ( you 're watering down gaming Kojima !
: P ) . The only conclusion I can really make about this is that the question must have been designed to prove that yes , stupid questions do in fact exist .
If anyone has a monopoly on the " game experience " it 's Nintendo , not some dweeby video game version of the critic ( it stinks ! ) .
I 'm not even a big fan of the Wii , but I 've never understood being ultra-critical of another 's recreation , especially when it 's something as base as video game console x vs. y. Is Pepsi a watered down Coca-Cola ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Wii is a "watered-down" game experience, what is a non-watered down game experience?
If anything, one would think that Nintendo's competitors are guilty of watering down gaming with multimedia - half of the console's functions have nothing to do with games and then the games are often like movies themselves (you're watering down gaming Kojima!
:P). The only conclusion I can really make about this is that the question must have been designed to prove that yes, stupid questions do in fact exist.
If anyone has a monopoly on the "game experience" it's Nintendo, not some dweeby video game version of the critic (it stinks!).
I'm not even a big fan of the Wii, but I've never understood being ultra-critical of another's recreation, especially when it's something as base as video game console x vs. y. Is Pepsi a watered down Coca-Cola?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295291</id>
	<title>Um, no</title>
	<author>SIR\_Taco</author>
	<datestamp>1244740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wii doesn't provide a "watered-down" game experience.</p><p>The developers who port a game to the Wii as an after-thought provide a "watered-down" game experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii does n't provide a " watered-down " game experience.The developers who port a game to the Wii as an after-thought provide a " watered-down " game experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii doesn't provide a "watered-down" game experience.The developers who port a game to the Wii as an after-thought provide a "watered-down" game experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295249</id>
	<title>Wii is the only current system I have</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244740380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I spend more time playing with my Xbox, PC, and even my Pocket PC (lately anyway) than with my Wii. Yet, the Wii is the only system of the current generation that I've bothered to buy. I bought it basically because of Wii Fit; <em>that</em> is why Microsoft is now, for me, a viable competitor what with their new MoCap stuff. I find it easiest to play casual games on Pocket PC or PC; both of these are always on (or sleeping) and I don't have to fight with anyone to get access to the display device.</p><p>The thing that's yet kept me from buying an Xbox has actually been the lack of Blu-Ray support. The PS3 is not a compelling enough package to me even <em>with</em> one, but the Xbox 360 would be. Unfortunately, it's not really on the list of things to do over at Microsoft. I guess they'll have to knock my socks <em>completely</em> off with their new motion capture equipment in order to pull me in.</p><p>("Robbie Bach, president of Microsoft's Entertainment &amp; Devices Division" <a href="http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/943/943425p1.html" title="ign.com">is a complete moron</a> [ign.com] BTW. No Blu-Ray for Xbox 360 because <em>current players don't want it</em>. Guess what? Those players that want Blu-Ray in their console <em>bought a PS3</em>. Maybe someone who isn't one of your customers now <em>would be</em> if you sold them what they want to buy. Nobody asked for HD-DVD, lots of people have asked for Blu-Ray.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I spend more time playing with my Xbox , PC , and even my Pocket PC ( lately anyway ) than with my Wii .
Yet , the Wii is the only system of the current generation that I 've bothered to buy .
I bought it basically because of Wii Fit ; that is why Microsoft is now , for me , a viable competitor what with their new MoCap stuff .
I find it easiest to play casual games on Pocket PC or PC ; both of these are always on ( or sleeping ) and I do n't have to fight with anyone to get access to the display device.The thing that 's yet kept me from buying an Xbox has actually been the lack of Blu-Ray support .
The PS3 is not a compelling enough package to me even with one , but the Xbox 360 would be .
Unfortunately , it 's not really on the list of things to do over at Microsoft .
I guess they 'll have to knock my socks completely off with their new motion capture equipment in order to pull me in .
( " Robbie Bach , president of Microsoft 's Entertainment &amp; Devices Division " is a complete moron [ ign.com ] BTW .
No Blu-Ray for Xbox 360 because current players do n't want it .
Guess what ?
Those players that want Blu-Ray in their console bought a PS3 .
Maybe someone who is n't one of your customers now would be if you sold them what they want to buy .
Nobody asked for HD-DVD , lots of people have asked for Blu-Ray .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spend more time playing with my Xbox, PC, and even my Pocket PC (lately anyway) than with my Wii.
Yet, the Wii is the only system of the current generation that I've bothered to buy.
I bought it basically because of Wii Fit; that is why Microsoft is now, for me, a viable competitor what with their new MoCap stuff.
I find it easiest to play casual games on Pocket PC or PC; both of these are always on (or sleeping) and I don't have to fight with anyone to get access to the display device.The thing that's yet kept me from buying an Xbox has actually been the lack of Blu-Ray support.
The PS3 is not a compelling enough package to me even with one, but the Xbox 360 would be.
Unfortunately, it's not really on the list of things to do over at Microsoft.
I guess they'll have to knock my socks completely off with their new motion capture equipment in order to pull me in.
("Robbie Bach, president of Microsoft's Entertainment &amp; Devices Division" is a complete moron [ign.com] BTW.
No Blu-Ray for Xbox 360 because current players don't want it.
Guess what?
Those players that want Blu-Ray in their console bought a PS3.
Maybe someone who isn't one of your customers now would be if you sold them what they want to buy.
Nobody asked for HD-DVD, lots of people have asked for Blu-Ray.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28301297</id>
	<title>What the crap? Elika? That sophisticated?</title>
	<author>BitwizeGHC</author>
	<datestamp>1244718540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A version of <i>Prince of Persia</i> (2008) with the AI for "Tails" from <i>Sonic</i> driving the Elika character would have served us as well. Elika wasn't a companion; she was a prop. She magically appeared when you needed to use her to clear a long-distance jump, and similarly instantly teleported when you cratered.</p><p>Heck, <i>The Sands of Time</i> on PS2, a far less powerful hardware profile than the Wii, had a far more interesting in-game companion in Farah. And that's to say nothing of Team Ico's PS2 games, both of which featured companions that were both integral to gameplay and displayed sophisticated behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A version of Prince of Persia ( 2008 ) with the AI for " Tails " from Sonic driving the Elika character would have served us as well .
Elika was n't a companion ; she was a prop .
She magically appeared when you needed to use her to clear a long-distance jump , and similarly instantly teleported when you cratered.Heck , The Sands of Time on PS2 , a far less powerful hardware profile than the Wii , had a far more interesting in-game companion in Farah .
And that 's to say nothing of Team Ico 's PS2 games , both of which featured companions that were both integral to gameplay and displayed sophisticated behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A version of Prince of Persia (2008) with the AI for "Tails" from Sonic driving the Elika character would have served us as well.
Elika wasn't a companion; she was a prop.
She magically appeared when you needed to use her to clear a long-distance jump, and similarly instantly teleported when you cratered.Heck, The Sands of Time on PS2, a far less powerful hardware profile than the Wii, had a far more interesting in-game companion in Farah.
And that's to say nothing of Team Ico's PS2 games, both of which featured companions that were both integral to gameplay and displayed sophisticated behavior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295393</id>
	<title>Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am one of those that doesn't give two shits how many polygons does the animation have. I find shooters to be utterly boring. Finally, since Ubisoft put their mitts on Heroes of Might and Magic, they (IMHO) devastated the game, which used to be fun - now it's just a big 3D graphic masturbation (I hate when I can't rotate the view in any way, to see what is the path a creature can walk on).</p><p>If the typical Wii user is like me, Ubisoft should keep the hell out of it. Ubisoft wouldn't know a fun game if it hit them in the collective head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am one of those that does n't give two shits how many polygons does the animation have .
I find shooters to be utterly boring .
Finally , since Ubisoft put their mitts on Heroes of Might and Magic , they ( IMHO ) devastated the game , which used to be fun - now it 's just a big 3D graphic masturbation ( I hate when I ca n't rotate the view in any way , to see what is the path a creature can walk on ) .If the typical Wii user is like me , Ubisoft should keep the hell out of it .
Ubisoft would n't know a fun game if it hit them in the collective head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am one of those that doesn't give two shits how many polygons does the animation have.
I find shooters to be utterly boring.
Finally, since Ubisoft put their mitts on Heroes of Might and Magic, they (IMHO) devastated the game, which used to be fun - now it's just a big 3D graphic masturbation (I hate when I can't rotate the view in any way, to see what is the path a creature can walk on).If the typical Wii user is like me, Ubisoft should keep the hell out of it.
Ubisoft wouldn't know a fun game if it hit them in the collective head.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297411</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>SPY\_jmr1</author>
	<datestamp>1244747760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While your point on developer effort is valid (I don't know the validity of your RE4 anecdote, but if true, shame on them), the whole tone of the post came off sounding to me like the guy in this comic. <a href="http://xkcd.com/359/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/359/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p>Basically, how does other people having fun in their own way diminish you having fun in your own way?</p><p>If nothing else, the intertubes should have taught us by now, that on almost any large scale, people are going to find entertaining things that others never even imagined.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While your point on developer effort is valid ( I do n't know the validity of your RE4 anecdote , but if true , shame on them ) , the whole tone of the post came off sounding to me like the guy in this comic .
http : //xkcd.com/359/ [ xkcd.com ] Basically , how does other people having fun in their own way diminish you having fun in your own way ? If nothing else , the intertubes should have taught us by now , that on almost any large scale , people are going to find entertaining things that others never even imagined .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While your point on developer effort is valid (I don't know the validity of your RE4 anecdote, but if true, shame on them), the whole tone of the post came off sounding to me like the guy in this comic.
http://xkcd.com/359/ [xkcd.com]Basically, how does other people having fun in their own way diminish you having fun in your own way?If nothing else, the intertubes should have taught us by now, that on almost any large scale, people are going to find entertaining things that others never even imagined.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295269</id>
	<title>Wii Aqua</title>
	<author>NickyGotz22</author>
	<datestamp>1244740500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, Wii has now announced the release of 'Wii Aqua' in order to help its MANY over weight users make the most of their useless WiiFits (most likely being used as a foot rest) and drowned themselves to insure the ultimate 'Watered-Down' gaming experience</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , Wii has now announced the release of 'Wii Aqua ' in order to help its MANY over weight users make the most of their useless WiiFits ( most likely being used as a foot rest ) and drowned themselves to insure the ultimate 'Watered-Down ' gaming experience</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, Wii has now announced the release of 'Wii Aqua' in order to help its MANY over weight users make the most of their useless WiiFits (most likely being used as a foot rest) and drowned themselves to insure the ultimate 'Watered-Down' gaming experience</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298891</id>
	<title>The Definition of "Gamer"</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1244753100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read a bunch of posts in this thread where people want to draw a line between casual folks and "gamers". The intent is to belittle the more casual player. The problem is that "gamer" is a meaningless title.<br> <br>

Who's a gamer? Is the guy who plays WoW once a week a gamer? Probably not if you ask somebody who plays every night and has 100 days on his main character. Is THAT guy a gamer? Probably not if you ask an asian Starcraft master who practices 10 hours a day and competes in arena matches.<br> <br>

I contend that anybody who plays ANY game is a "gamer".<br> <br>

Does the Wii provide a "Watered-Down" game experience? Doubtful, unless you're hung up on making sure that your hardware is the latest and greatest, that every pixel is too small to see, and that each surround speaker is perfectly adjusted relative to the seat position... in which case it's possible you're enjoying your PS3/Xbox360/PC games LESS than my uncritical nephew who is perfectly happy playing Rock Band on his Wii through TV speakers.<br> <br>

Certainly his experience isn't watered down. He's having a grand time. He doesn't need techno-pricks coming along to explain to him why he should be dissatisfied.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read a bunch of posts in this thread where people want to draw a line between casual folks and " gamers " .
The intent is to belittle the more casual player .
The problem is that " gamer " is a meaningless title .
Who 's a gamer ?
Is the guy who plays WoW once a week a gamer ?
Probably not if you ask somebody who plays every night and has 100 days on his main character .
Is THAT guy a gamer ?
Probably not if you ask an asian Starcraft master who practices 10 hours a day and competes in arena matches .
I contend that anybody who plays ANY game is a " gamer " .
Does the Wii provide a " Watered-Down " game experience ?
Doubtful , unless you 're hung up on making sure that your hardware is the latest and greatest , that every pixel is too small to see , and that each surround speaker is perfectly adjusted relative to the seat position... in which case it 's possible you 're enjoying your PS3/Xbox360/PC games LESS than my uncritical nephew who is perfectly happy playing Rock Band on his Wii through TV speakers .
Certainly his experience is n't watered down .
He 's having a grand time .
He does n't need techno-pricks coming along to explain to him why he should be dissatisfied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read a bunch of posts in this thread where people want to draw a line between casual folks and "gamers".
The intent is to belittle the more casual player.
The problem is that "gamer" is a meaningless title.
Who's a gamer?
Is the guy who plays WoW once a week a gamer?
Probably not if you ask somebody who plays every night and has 100 days on his main character.
Is THAT guy a gamer?
Probably not if you ask an asian Starcraft master who practices 10 hours a day and competes in arena matches.
I contend that anybody who plays ANY game is a "gamer".
Does the Wii provide a "Watered-Down" game experience?
Doubtful, unless you're hung up on making sure that your hardware is the latest and greatest, that every pixel is too small to see, and that each surround speaker is perfectly adjusted relative to the seat position... in which case it's possible you're enjoying your PS3/Xbox360/PC games LESS than my uncritical nephew who is perfectly happy playing Rock Band on his Wii through TV speakers.
Certainly his experience isn't watered down.
He's having a grand time.
He doesn't need techno-pricks coming along to explain to him why he should be dissatisfied.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121</id>
	<title>Give me a break</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience."</i> <br> <br>Then the platform is not your target. The Wii isn't about pushing the latest fast hardware to its very limits, just so you can push a ridiculous amount of polygons per second onto the screen. It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine. Remember the IBM XT? NES? Gameboy? Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text, running on a  10mhz processor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power ; the world size and dynamic loading , the draw distance , the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version , it would have been toned down , probably linear ; it would n't have been an open-world game , and so it would have been a very different experience .
" Then the platform is not your target .
The Wii is n't about pushing the latest fast hardware to its very limits , just so you can push a ridiculous amount of polygons per second onto the screen .
It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine .
Remember the IBM XT ?
NES ? Gameboy ?
Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text , running on a 10mhz processor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AI of Elika was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience.
"  Then the platform is not your target.
The Wii isn't about pushing the latest fast hardware to its very limits, just so you can push a ridiculous amount of polygons per second onto the screen.
It is about making games that are fun... and you can CERTAINLY do that within the confines of just about any machine.
Remember the IBM XT?
NES? Gameboy?
Some of the best games I ever played had nothing but text, running on a  10mhz processor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297435</id>
	<title>Will the Wii audience persist?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1244747880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wii: $250 PS3: $400 XBox 360: $400<br> <br>
Yes, there will always be a large slice of parents willing to pop for $250 for their kids, but not willing to spend $400. Especially knowing that the games themselves are cheaper for the Wii.<br> <br>
Does the Wii have limitations? Yes. Compared to PS3 and XBox, the graphics suck. The lack of disk storage means nobody provides much downloadable content, even though from a hardware standpoint adding an external USB drive would be trivial. Rock Band and Guitar Hero for the Wii really are watered-down version (again, no downloadable content). Cooperative play usually isn't very good on the Wii (split screen used for multiplayer Mario Kart lacks large enough field of view to anticipate obstacles, for exampe.)<br> <br>
Guess which console I own? That's right, the Wii. Because, for my budget and intended audience (my eight year old) it is the best choice! I love stupid games like Mario Kart and Excite Truck, and titles like Galaxy, Stryker, Brawl, Force Unleashed, Lego Starwars, etc. are quite enjoyable for kids. There will always be a market for Wii. It is not targeted at hardcore gamers, but then most hardcore gamers will buy not only a game PC but also a PS3, XBox360, and Wii, and play on each system the games that work best on that system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wii : $ 250 PS3 : $ 400 XBox 360 : $ 400 Yes , there will always be a large slice of parents willing to pop for $ 250 for their kids , but not willing to spend $ 400 .
Especially knowing that the games themselves are cheaper for the Wii .
Does the Wii have limitations ?
Yes. Compared to PS3 and XBox , the graphics suck .
The lack of disk storage means nobody provides much downloadable content , even though from a hardware standpoint adding an external USB drive would be trivial .
Rock Band and Guitar Hero for the Wii really are watered-down version ( again , no downloadable content ) .
Cooperative play usually is n't very good on the Wii ( split screen used for multiplayer Mario Kart lacks large enough field of view to anticipate obstacles , for exampe .
) Guess which console I own ?
That 's right , the Wii .
Because , for my budget and intended audience ( my eight year old ) it is the best choice !
I love stupid games like Mario Kart and Excite Truck , and titles like Galaxy , Stryker , Brawl , Force Unleashed , Lego Starwars , etc .
are quite enjoyable for kids .
There will always be a market for Wii .
It is not targeted at hardcore gamers , but then most hardcore gamers will buy not only a game PC but also a PS3 , XBox360 , and Wii , and play on each system the games that work best on that system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wii: $250 PS3: $400 XBox 360: $400 
Yes, there will always be a large slice of parents willing to pop for $250 for their kids, but not willing to spend $400.
Especially knowing that the games themselves are cheaper for the Wii.
Does the Wii have limitations?
Yes. Compared to PS3 and XBox, the graphics suck.
The lack of disk storage means nobody provides much downloadable content, even though from a hardware standpoint adding an external USB drive would be trivial.
Rock Band and Guitar Hero for the Wii really are watered-down version (again, no downloadable content).
Cooperative play usually isn't very good on the Wii (split screen used for multiplayer Mario Kart lacks large enough field of view to anticipate obstacles, for exampe.
) 
Guess which console I own?
That's right, the Wii.
Because, for my budget and intended audience (my eight year old) it is the best choice!
I love stupid games like Mario Kart and Excite Truck, and titles like Galaxy, Stryker, Brawl, Force Unleashed, Lego Starwars, etc.
are quite enjoyable for kids.
There will always be a market for Wii.
It is not targeted at hardcore gamers, but then most hardcore gamers will buy not only a game PC but also a PS3, XBox360, and Wii, and play on each system the games that work best on that system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295667</id>
	<title>Re:There is a diff between life and a Game</title>
	<author>spyrochaete</author>
	<datestamp>1244741880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a ton of early games that were extremely popular yet fairly complex.  For example, SimCity, MS Flight Simulator, Test Drive, Zork, and King's Quest.  The capabilities of the platform are irrelevant.  A poor workman blames his tools.</p><p>Marry Shelley wrote Frankenstein with a quill by candlelight.  Charlie Chaplin acted in movies with no sound.  I think Ubisoft can manage a game about a jumping boy with a seventh-generation, games-dedicated computer system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a ton of early games that were extremely popular yet fairly complex .
For example , SimCity , MS Flight Simulator , Test Drive , Zork , and King 's Quest .
The capabilities of the platform are irrelevant .
A poor workman blames his tools.Marry Shelley wrote Frankenstein with a quill by candlelight .
Charlie Chaplin acted in movies with no sound .
I think Ubisoft can manage a game about a jumping boy with a seventh-generation , games-dedicated computer system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a ton of early games that were extremely popular yet fairly complex.
For example, SimCity, MS Flight Simulator, Test Drive, Zork, and King's Quest.
The capabilities of the platform are irrelevant.
A poor workman blames his tools.Marry Shelley wrote Frankenstein with a quill by candlelight.
Charlie Chaplin acted in movies with no sound.
I think Ubisoft can manage a game about a jumping boy with a seventh-generation, games-dedicated computer system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295849</id>
	<title>Re:Why not look at it from another point of view?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244742480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Games are games, and people (should) be playing them for the enjoyment and competition.  Maybe we should ask the question about some other consoles games that rely so much on graphics that the point of the game is lost and the entertainment factor is lost. Is this a watered down games experience?</i></p><p>Certainly when graphics are used <i>in place of</i> figuring out how to make the game fun or unique, sure.</p><p>But good graphics, long view distances yielding open worlds (that have good graphics at the same time), and good AI (which I'm equating with complex and cpu-intensive, but that's not a bad assumption with AI), are <i>good</i> things to have in a good game.</p><p>Just like motion controls can be either hacked-on waggle designed to cash in on the Wii, or they can be immersive and fun in ways the other consoles can't provide.</p><p>I'm not going to come out either way, because I think pointing the finger in either direction is silly.  So they can't make a Prince of Persia game for the Wii that matches their vision.  That's fine, more power (heh) to them as far as making that vision a reality.  On the other hand, nobody can make an FPS for those other consoles that doesn't make me want to go an a real-life killing spree.  They're <i>different</i> and neither is inherently bad.  The Wii has enough power to make good games (unless you think no good games existed prior to the release of the Xbox360), and the controller is a great new way to play games, while on the other hand the other consoles have more power to explore games that really do need more power.</p><p>So yeah, games are games, and having *gasp* different games on different systems that do different things is not a bad thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games are games , and people ( should ) be playing them for the enjoyment and competition .
Maybe we should ask the question about some other consoles games that rely so much on graphics that the point of the game is lost and the entertainment factor is lost .
Is this a watered down games experience ? Certainly when graphics are used in place of figuring out how to make the game fun or unique , sure.But good graphics , long view distances yielding open worlds ( that have good graphics at the same time ) , and good AI ( which I 'm equating with complex and cpu-intensive , but that 's not a bad assumption with AI ) , are good things to have in a good game.Just like motion controls can be either hacked-on waggle designed to cash in on the Wii , or they can be immersive and fun in ways the other consoles ca n't provide.I 'm not going to come out either way , because I think pointing the finger in either direction is silly .
So they ca n't make a Prince of Persia game for the Wii that matches their vision .
That 's fine , more power ( heh ) to them as far as making that vision a reality .
On the other hand , nobody can make an FPS for those other consoles that does n't make me want to go an a real-life killing spree .
They 're different and neither is inherently bad .
The Wii has enough power to make good games ( unless you think no good games existed prior to the release of the Xbox360 ) , and the controller is a great new way to play games , while on the other hand the other consoles have more power to explore games that really do need more power.So yeah , games are games , and having * gasp * different games on different systems that do different things is not a bad thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games are games, and people (should) be playing them for the enjoyment and competition.
Maybe we should ask the question about some other consoles games that rely so much on graphics that the point of the game is lost and the entertainment factor is lost.
Is this a watered down games experience?Certainly when graphics are used in place of figuring out how to make the game fun or unique, sure.But good graphics, long view distances yielding open worlds (that have good graphics at the same time), and good AI (which I'm equating with complex and cpu-intensive, but that's not a bad assumption with AI), are good things to have in a good game.Just like motion controls can be either hacked-on waggle designed to cash in on the Wii, or they can be immersive and fun in ways the other consoles can't provide.I'm not going to come out either way, because I think pointing the finger in either direction is silly.
So they can't make a Prince of Persia game for the Wii that matches their vision.
That's fine, more power (heh) to them as far as making that vision a reality.
On the other hand, nobody can make an FPS for those other consoles that doesn't make me want to go an a real-life killing spree.
They're different and neither is inherently bad.
The Wii has enough power to make good games (unless you think no good games existed prior to the release of the Xbox360), and the controller is a great new way to play games, while on the other hand the other consoles have more power to explore games that really do need more power.So yeah, games are games, and having *gasp* different games on different systems that do different things is not a bad thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299805</id>
	<title>Re:There is a diff between life and a Game</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1244713200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And thats why D&amp;D, and other rule-based tabletop/pen &amp; paper games were not invented, much less popular.</p><p>Good games should be simple to learn, but really insanely complex to master, like Tetris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And thats why D&amp;D , and other rule-based tabletop/pen &amp; paper games were not invented , much less popular.Good games should be simple to learn , but really insanely complex to master , like Tetris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thats why D&amp;D, and other rule-based tabletop/pen &amp; paper games were not invented, much less popular.Good games should be simple to learn, but really insanely complex to master, like Tetris.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299909</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh sweet redemption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244713500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many, many people (not children) are not looking for game experiences.  They get plenty of experiences from this other activity called life.  What they are looking for is a few minutes of diversion, which the Wii provides nicely.  Could the other platforms also provide this?  Of course.  Do they?  Nope.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many , many people ( not children ) are not looking for game experiences .
They get plenty of experiences from this other activity called life .
What they are looking for is a few minutes of diversion , which the Wii provides nicely .
Could the other platforms also provide this ?
Of course .
Do they ?
Nope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many, many people (not children) are not looking for game experiences.
They get plenty of experiences from this other activity called life.
What they are looking for is a few minutes of diversion, which the Wii provides nicely.
Could the other platforms also provide this?
Of course.
Do they?
Nope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296217</id>
	<title>Of course it does.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244743860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why all we end up with is shitty repetitive remakes of the same dull old party games over and over again.</p><p>The Wii is so weak when it comes to processing power TFA is right - it can't even handle AI that's even semi-interesting to play against.</p><p>It's an idiot box, a system with dumb AI and a dumb, purile, non-interesting gaming experience, for dumb people.</p><p>Fortunately for Nintendo, the world has plenty of dumb people however so it serves them well financially.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why all we end up with is shitty repetitive remakes of the same dull old party games over and over again.The Wii is so weak when it comes to processing power TFA is right - it ca n't even handle AI that 's even semi-interesting to play against.It 's an idiot box , a system with dumb AI and a dumb , purile , non-interesting gaming experience , for dumb people.Fortunately for Nintendo , the world has plenty of dumb people however so it serves them well financially .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why all we end up with is shitty repetitive remakes of the same dull old party games over and over again.The Wii is so weak when it comes to processing power TFA is right - it can't even handle AI that's even semi-interesting to play against.It's an idiot box, a system with dumb AI and a dumb, purile, non-interesting gaming experience, for dumb people.Fortunately for Nintendo, the world has plenty of dumb people however so it serves them well financially.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296213</id>
	<title>What crap...</title>
	<author>rthille</author>
	<datestamp>1244743860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first Prince of Persia I played was on my Apple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//e.  Games should be about playability, not whiz-bang graphics.  My friend showed me the hot game for is PS2 when it was still the hot game console, and I was dumbfounded by how weak the game was for playability and how long on boring movie-like transition scenes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first Prince of Persia I played was on my Apple //e .
Games should be about playability , not whiz-bang graphics .
My friend showed me the hot game for is PS2 when it was still the hot game console , and I was dumbfounded by how weak the game was for playability and how long on boring movie-like transition scenes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first Prince of Persia I played was on my Apple //e.
Games should be about playability, not whiz-bang graphics.
My friend showed me the hot game for is PS2 when it was still the hot game console, and I was dumbfounded by how weak the game was for playability and how long on boring movie-like transition scenes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297095</id>
	<title>GameCube Control - deserves its own top level.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244746860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's been mentioned above, in replies mostly, but one of the most overlooked things about the Wii is that it supports GameCube games, controls, and even memory cards!</p><p>There's no reason why they can't make Wii games that require a GameCube control, still being manufactured by 3rd parties and I have a feeling Nintendo still has the technology to make Wavebirds, maybe even versions that are Bluetooth or at minimum plug into the Wiimote.  There's no reason they can't put a little Gamecube control pictogram on the front of a game package like they did with Zapper pictograms way back in the NES days.</p><p>I'm not rushing to pick up a Wii, I don't have any "modern" consoles unless you count portables and the PS2.  Part of the reason I'm not rushing to a Wii is I really don't want to swing the fool control around.  I've played it, I've liked some of the games, but even on my DS I tend to chose titles that don't overly require use of the touch screen.  I like traditional input methods.  While I was playing Mario Kart for the Wii I was actually longing for my Gamecube Control.  I'm not saying the Wiimote/nunchuck don't have their place, I would love to play a lightsabre/sword game with that setup (if they ever actually make a really good one) but overall the Wii will remain the casual gamer system in my mind until they embrace tradition on a few titles.  I don't think they'll lose their casual gamers if they make a few hardcore games to, especially if they're plainly marked as such.  It may actually improve their market share a bit.  As it stands I would rather have a PS3 than a Wii, and I'm a long time Nintendo fan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been mentioned above , in replies mostly , but one of the most overlooked things about the Wii is that it supports GameCube games , controls , and even memory cards ! There 's no reason why they ca n't make Wii games that require a GameCube control , still being manufactured by 3rd parties and I have a feeling Nintendo still has the technology to make Wavebirds , maybe even versions that are Bluetooth or at minimum plug into the Wiimote .
There 's no reason they ca n't put a little Gamecube control pictogram on the front of a game package like they did with Zapper pictograms way back in the NES days.I 'm not rushing to pick up a Wii , I do n't have any " modern " consoles unless you count portables and the PS2 .
Part of the reason I 'm not rushing to a Wii is I really do n't want to swing the fool control around .
I 've played it , I 've liked some of the games , but even on my DS I tend to chose titles that do n't overly require use of the touch screen .
I like traditional input methods .
While I was playing Mario Kart for the Wii I was actually longing for my Gamecube Control .
I 'm not saying the Wiimote/nunchuck do n't have their place , I would love to play a lightsabre/sword game with that setup ( if they ever actually make a really good one ) but overall the Wii will remain the casual gamer system in my mind until they embrace tradition on a few titles .
I do n't think they 'll lose their casual gamers if they make a few hardcore games to , especially if they 're plainly marked as such .
It may actually improve their market share a bit .
As it stands I would rather have a PS3 than a Wii , and I 'm a long time Nintendo fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been mentioned above, in replies mostly, but one of the most overlooked things about the Wii is that it supports GameCube games, controls, and even memory cards!There's no reason why they can't make Wii games that require a GameCube control, still being manufactured by 3rd parties and I have a feeling Nintendo still has the technology to make Wavebirds, maybe even versions that are Bluetooth or at minimum plug into the Wiimote.
There's no reason they can't put a little Gamecube control pictogram on the front of a game package like they did with Zapper pictograms way back in the NES days.I'm not rushing to pick up a Wii, I don't have any "modern" consoles unless you count portables and the PS2.
Part of the reason I'm not rushing to a Wii is I really don't want to swing the fool control around.
I've played it, I've liked some of the games, but even on my DS I tend to chose titles that don't overly require use of the touch screen.
I like traditional input methods.
While I was playing Mario Kart for the Wii I was actually longing for my Gamecube Control.
I'm not saying the Wiimote/nunchuck don't have their place, I would love to play a lightsabre/sword game with that setup (if they ever actually make a really good one) but overall the Wii will remain the casual gamer system in my mind until they embrace tradition on a few titles.
I don't think they'll lose their casual gamers if they make a few hardcore games to, especially if they're plainly marked as such.
It may actually improve their market share a bit.
As it stands I would rather have a PS3 than a Wii, and I'm a long time Nintendo fan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28305111</id>
	<title>Re:Why not look at it from another point of view?</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1244839440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course it provides a 'watered down' experience - when the games in question are ports of the PS3 or the Xbox 360. The hardware and capabilities of the machine cannot compare, so the developers have to shoehorn the equivalent game into the Wii's specs and in the process, trim it down. If you look at individual titles made for the Wii (not ports of other console's games) then no, I really don't think the experience is watered down. Games are games, and people (should) be playing them for the enjoyment and competition. Maybe we should ask the question about some other consoles games that rely so much on graphics that the point of the game is lost and the entertainment factor is lost. Is this a watered down games experience?</p></div><p>You almost hit the nail on the head. The most clear example is the comparison between Nintendo own games which are *designed* from the ground up to exploit the interface capabilities offered by the Wii. In addition, the few games made from third parties (e.g. Red Steel) which where designed thinking on the Wii interface capabilities.</p><p>That, compared to the dozens of "ports" from other consoles which completely miss the point of the Wii. It would be *super-sweet* (Cartman voice =oP) if for each game a third party plans to port, they would get a dedicated development team to re-think the game *from the ground up*.</p><p>Of course the Wii won't offer the same game experience... but IMHO it *could* offer a BETTER game experience (for the same games) than the other consoles if the interface capabilities where well exploited.</p><p>Unfortunately for me, that is just wishful thinking, And I am stuck with playing the next mario, zelda,metroid  and wii-minigames game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course it provides a 'watered down ' experience - when the games in question are ports of the PS3 or the Xbox 360 .
The hardware and capabilities of the machine can not compare , so the developers have to shoehorn the equivalent game into the Wii 's specs and in the process , trim it down .
If you look at individual titles made for the Wii ( not ports of other console 's games ) then no , I really do n't think the experience is watered down .
Games are games , and people ( should ) be playing them for the enjoyment and competition .
Maybe we should ask the question about some other consoles games that rely so much on graphics that the point of the game is lost and the entertainment factor is lost .
Is this a watered down games experience ? You almost hit the nail on the head .
The most clear example is the comparison between Nintendo own games which are * designed * from the ground up to exploit the interface capabilities offered by the Wii .
In addition , the few games made from third parties ( e.g .
Red Steel ) which where designed thinking on the Wii interface capabilities.That , compared to the dozens of " ports " from other consoles which completely miss the point of the Wii .
It would be * super-sweet * ( Cartman voice = oP ) if for each game a third party plans to port , they would get a dedicated development team to re-think the game * from the ground up * .Of course the Wii wo n't offer the same game experience... but IMHO it * could * offer a BETTER game experience ( for the same games ) than the other consoles if the interface capabilities where well exploited.Unfortunately for me , that is just wishful thinking , And I am stuck with playing the next mario , zelda,metroid and wii-minigames game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course it provides a 'watered down' experience - when the games in question are ports of the PS3 or the Xbox 360.
The hardware and capabilities of the machine cannot compare, so the developers have to shoehorn the equivalent game into the Wii's specs and in the process, trim it down.
If you look at individual titles made for the Wii (not ports of other console's games) then no, I really don't think the experience is watered down.
Games are games, and people (should) be playing them for the enjoyment and competition.
Maybe we should ask the question about some other consoles games that rely so much on graphics that the point of the game is lost and the entertainment factor is lost.
Is this a watered down games experience?You almost hit the nail on the head.
The most clear example is the comparison between Nintendo own games which are *designed* from the ground up to exploit the interface capabilities offered by the Wii.
In addition, the few games made from third parties (e.g.
Red Steel) which where designed thinking on the Wii interface capabilities.That, compared to the dozens of "ports" from other consoles which completely miss the point of the Wii.
It would be *super-sweet* (Cartman voice =oP) if for each game a third party plans to port, they would get a dedicated development team to re-think the game *from the ground up*.Of course the Wii won't offer the same game experience... but IMHO it *could* offer a BETTER game experience (for the same games) than the other consoles if the interface capabilities where well exploited.Unfortunately for me, that is just wishful thinking, And I am stuck with playing the next mario, zelda,metroid  and wii-minigames game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296981</id>
	<title>Re:As plainly as possible....</title>
	<author>tuffy</author>
	<datestamp>1244746500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>And the question the publishers are asking themselves is "Is your Mother/Father/Sister/Brother/Cousin/Nursing home" going to buy my games.
</i></p><p><i>
From attach rates the answer is generally no.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
From the article: "If a hardware system is doing gangbuster sales, then the tie ratio can go down even if there are lots of overall sales."
</p><p>
The fact is, the Wii generates lots of overall game sales, but its tie ratio is relatively low because it moves so much hardware.  That makes it an attractive system for publishers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And the question the publishers are asking themselves is " Is your Mother/Father/Sister/Brother/Cousin/Nursing home " going to buy my games .
From attach rates the answer is generally no .
From the article : " If a hardware system is doing gangbuster sales , then the tie ratio can go down even if there are lots of overall sales .
" The fact is , the Wii generates lots of overall game sales , but its tie ratio is relatively low because it moves so much hardware .
That makes it an attractive system for publishers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And the question the publishers are asking themselves is "Is your Mother/Father/Sister/Brother/Cousin/Nursing home" going to buy my games.
From attach rates the answer is generally no.
From the article: "If a hardware system is doing gangbuster sales, then the tie ratio can go down even if there are lots of overall sales.
"

The fact is, the Wii generates lots of overall game sales, but its tie ratio is relatively low because it moves so much hardware.
That makes it an attractive system for publishers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28304849</id>
	<title>Better graphics != better games</title>
	<author>dolphino</author>
	<datestamp>1244748660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do developers keep trying to convince us what is wrong with the highest selling console? (sales in the U.S., 2008, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console\_wars#United\_States\_sales\_figures" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console\_wars#United\_States\_sales\_figures</a> [wikipedia.org])</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do developers keep trying to convince us what is wrong with the highest selling console ?
( sales in the U.S. , 2008 , http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console \ _wars # United \ _States \ _sales \ _figures [ wikipedia.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do developers keep trying to convince us what is wrong with the highest selling console?
(sales in the U.S., 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console\_wars#United\_States\_sales\_figures [wikipedia.org])</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295841</id>
	<title>Re:Sure are a lot of butthurt Wii fans here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244742480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the point.  Read the title of the article.  The consensus seems to be that the imagination and ability of developers is watered-down, not the Wii itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point .
Read the title of the article .
The consensus seems to be that the imagination and ability of developers is watered-down , not the Wii itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point.
Read the title of the article.
The consensus seems to be that the imagination and ability of developers is watered-down, not the Wii itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296671</id>
	<title>Hardware is always limitting</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1244745420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can rant all day long about how simple can be fun, please then go and play a printer based game. Oh okay, hercules graphics then.
</p><p>Even the so called simple games have moved on. How many would still play an LCD game today?
</p><p>Take even simple Chess games. Used to be that a chess game only had a "calculator" on the side, that forced you to enter the moves you made on a keypad. More modern ones registered the moves and the chess board and showed you on the board the computers moves. Even more advancement and the computer becomes a robot capable of making its own moves. Does this change the game? No, but it makes it more fun.
</p><p>Simple platform games are better if the number of colors is enough to not hurt your eyes, if the amount of memory is large enough the game doesn't need to spend 10 minutes reading tape to load the next screen, if the interface can register more then one button being pressed at the time. All of these things were once true. When people talk about the NES and retro gaming, they are just showing hor terribly young they are.
</p><p>The Wii stood in place. Nintendo lost the previous generation but has managed to find an odd space where their console is "good" enough. The PS2 after all still gets games released as well, so how bad can it be? But the low costs comes as a high price. Games that thrive on advances in tech can't run on it. You just can't do GTA4 on the Wii. You can do GTA2 on the Wii, but GTA is a game that is essentially the same just made better, more enjoybale by ever advancing hardware that cane make the world you play in richer and more involving. A sidescrolling platform game does not require to much horsepower, but a racer where the roads have only two angles (flat and 45 degrees) (A simcity inspired racer did this) is just not going to be as fun as a game where the roads are smooth curves. The sims is more fun with more realistic looking humans, with angled walls, with better AI. Doesn't mean the original game wasn't fun, but time moves on. Once the T-Ford was a good car, by today's standards, it isn't. Nostaligia is good but there is a reason for progress.
</p><p>I don't think the Wii is holding back gaming however. The Wii has its own market of casual gamers who only buy the occasional game. The so called hardcore market just doesn't sell on the Wii and has no buyers that own a Wii. The next Rockstar game will be for the big consoles only because if you want an endless desert and realistic horses, then the Wii just doesn't deliver.
</p><p>The Wii holds gaming back in the same way that the Smart holds back super-cars. Different market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can rant all day long about how simple can be fun , please then go and play a printer based game .
Oh okay , hercules graphics then .
Even the so called simple games have moved on .
How many would still play an LCD game today ?
Take even simple Chess games .
Used to be that a chess game only had a " calculator " on the side , that forced you to enter the moves you made on a keypad .
More modern ones registered the moves and the chess board and showed you on the board the computers moves .
Even more advancement and the computer becomes a robot capable of making its own moves .
Does this change the game ?
No , but it makes it more fun .
Simple platform games are better if the number of colors is enough to not hurt your eyes , if the amount of memory is large enough the game does n't need to spend 10 minutes reading tape to load the next screen , if the interface can register more then one button being pressed at the time .
All of these things were once true .
When people talk about the NES and retro gaming , they are just showing hor terribly young they are .
The Wii stood in place .
Nintendo lost the previous generation but has managed to find an odd space where their console is " good " enough .
The PS2 after all still gets games released as well , so how bad can it be ?
But the low costs comes as a high price .
Games that thrive on advances in tech ca n't run on it .
You just ca n't do GTA4 on the Wii .
You can do GTA2 on the Wii , but GTA is a game that is essentially the same just made better , more enjoybale by ever advancing hardware that cane make the world you play in richer and more involving .
A sidescrolling platform game does not require to much horsepower , but a racer where the roads have only two angles ( flat and 45 degrees ) ( A simcity inspired racer did this ) is just not going to be as fun as a game where the roads are smooth curves .
The sims is more fun with more realistic looking humans , with angled walls , with better AI .
Does n't mean the original game was n't fun , but time moves on .
Once the T-Ford was a good car , by today 's standards , it is n't .
Nostaligia is good but there is a reason for progress .
I do n't think the Wii is holding back gaming however .
The Wii has its own market of casual gamers who only buy the occasional game .
The so called hardcore market just does n't sell on the Wii and has no buyers that own a Wii .
The next Rockstar game will be for the big consoles only because if you want an endless desert and realistic horses , then the Wii just does n't deliver .
The Wii holds gaming back in the same way that the Smart holds back super-cars .
Different market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can rant all day long about how simple can be fun, please then go and play a printer based game.
Oh okay, hercules graphics then.
Even the so called simple games have moved on.
How many would still play an LCD game today?
Take even simple Chess games.
Used to be that a chess game only had a "calculator" on the side, that forced you to enter the moves you made on a keypad.
More modern ones registered the moves and the chess board and showed you on the board the computers moves.
Even more advancement and the computer becomes a robot capable of making its own moves.
Does this change the game?
No, but it makes it more fun.
Simple platform games are better if the number of colors is enough to not hurt your eyes, if the amount of memory is large enough the game doesn't need to spend 10 minutes reading tape to load the next screen, if the interface can register more then one button being pressed at the time.
All of these things were once true.
When people talk about the NES and retro gaming, they are just showing hor terribly young they are.
The Wii stood in place.
Nintendo lost the previous generation but has managed to find an odd space where their console is "good" enough.
The PS2 after all still gets games released as well, so how bad can it be?
But the low costs comes as a high price.
Games that thrive on advances in tech can't run on it.
You just can't do GTA4 on the Wii.
You can do GTA2 on the Wii, but GTA is a game that is essentially the same just made better, more enjoybale by ever advancing hardware that cane make the world you play in richer and more involving.
A sidescrolling platform game does not require to much horsepower, but a racer where the roads have only two angles (flat and 45 degrees) (A simcity inspired racer did this) is just not going to be as fun as a game where the roads are smooth curves.
The sims is more fun with more realistic looking humans, with angled walls, with better AI.
Doesn't mean the original game wasn't fun, but time moves on.
Once the T-Ford was a good car, by today's standards, it isn't.
Nostaligia is good but there is a reason for progress.
I don't think the Wii is holding back gaming however.
The Wii has its own market of casual gamers who only buy the occasional game.
The so called hardcore market just doesn't sell on the Wii and has no buyers that own a Wii.
The next Rockstar game will be for the big consoles only because if you want an endless desert and realistic horses, then the Wii just doesn't deliver.
The Wii holds gaming back in the same way that the Smart holds back super-cars.
Different market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28304763</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244747040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well it didn't help that Madworld was boring and repetitive.</p><p>Since you've compared Mario Kart to Cooking Mama and Wii Fit, I've come to a conclusion.  Either you have zero friends, or you don't understand what a fun game is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well it did n't help that Madworld was boring and repetitive.Since you 've compared Mario Kart to Cooking Mama and Wii Fit , I 've come to a conclusion .
Either you have zero friends , or you do n't understand what a fun game is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well it didn't help that Madworld was boring and repetitive.Since you've compared Mario Kart to Cooking Mama and Wii Fit, I've come to a conclusion.
Either you have zero friends, or you don't understand what a fun game is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295729</id>
	<title>um</title>
	<author>xenolion</author>
	<datestamp>1244742060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do believe that the Wii was created for casual gamers not hardcore. They wanted to get the part of the market that just wants to pick up the controller play for an hour or less then leave. Just look at the high selling titles besides Nintendo ones all are party type games. The game creators are just whining cause its not what they are use to, its too different for them to understand not everyone out there is a die hard gamer. I own a Wii, 360 and PC each one was created with a different idea and aimed at a different crowd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do believe that the Wii was created for casual gamers not hardcore .
They wanted to get the part of the market that just wants to pick up the controller play for an hour or less then leave .
Just look at the high selling titles besides Nintendo ones all are party type games .
The game creators are just whining cause its not what they are use to , its too different for them to understand not everyone out there is a die hard gamer .
I own a Wii , 360 and PC each one was created with a different idea and aimed at a different crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do believe that the Wii was created for casual gamers not hardcore.
They wanted to get the part of the market that just wants to pick up the controller play for an hour or less then leave.
Just look at the high selling titles besides Nintendo ones all are party type games.
The game creators are just whining cause its not what they are use to, its too different for them to understand not everyone out there is a die hard gamer.
I own a Wii, 360 and PC each one was created with a different idea and aimed at a different crowd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296485</id>
	<title>Re:Um, no</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1244744820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. The problem is the Wii can't accommodate the games design as implemented by the Xbox 360 or the Playstation 3; translation "We can't bang out a quick port to increase our sales base. Sorry, Wii-users."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
The problem is the Wii ca n't accommodate the games design as implemented by the Xbox 360 or the Playstation 3 ; translation " We ca n't bang out a quick port to increase our sales base .
Sorry , Wii-users .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
The problem is the Wii can't accommodate the games design as implemented by the Xbox 360 or the Playstation 3; translation "We can't bang out a quick port to increase our sales base.
Sorry, Wii-users.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295361</id>
	<title>Sure are a lot of butthurt Wii fans here</title>
	<author>Knara</author>
	<datestamp>1244740740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.  The article is pretty straightforward and asks a pretty simple question.
</p><p>The bunch of posts here whinging about how the Wii is superiorblahblahblahwhargarbl are stupid.  The Wii can't handle games that require a certain amount of storage and a ton of processing power.  The PS3 and 360 can handle casual games.
</p><p>It'd be a lot easier for the latter to develop a larger casual games base, than the Wii to start being able to handle games that require beefier hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
The article is pretty straightforward and asks a pretty simple question .
The bunch of posts here whinging about how the Wii is superiorblahblahblahwhargarbl are stupid .
The Wii ca n't handle games that require a certain amount of storage and a ton of processing power .
The PS3 and 360 can handle casual games .
It 'd be a lot easier for the latter to develop a larger casual games base , than the Wii to start being able to handle games that require beefier hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
The article is pretty straightforward and asks a pretty simple question.
The bunch of posts here whinging about how the Wii is superiorblahblahblahwhargarbl are stupid.
The Wii can't handle games that require a certain amount of storage and a ton of processing power.
The PS3 and 360 can handle casual games.
It'd be a lot easier for the latter to develop a larger casual games base, than the Wii to start being able to handle games that require beefier hardware.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297407</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244747760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget that a lot of people just aren't into more FPS with more dazzling graphics. I couldn't care less about first-person shooter games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget that a lot of people just are n't into more FPS with more dazzling graphics .
I could n't care less about first-person shooter games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget that a lot of people just aren't into more FPS with more dazzling graphics.
I couldn't care less about first-person shooter games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299163</id>
	<title>Amusing...</title>
	<author>scot4875</author>
	<datestamp>1244710800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find this developer's whining particularly amusing, as the new Prince of Persia (while a decent game) felt like a watered down version of Sands of Time.</p><p>Now, I can understand that managing two sets of resources is probably not worth the effort, given the fact that the PS3 and 360 are so much more powerful.  It would essentially be the same as building the same game twice.  But the Wii's hardware really does not limit anything that was done in the new PoP except polygon count and texture resolution.</p><p>--Jeremy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this developer 's whining particularly amusing , as the new Prince of Persia ( while a decent game ) felt like a watered down version of Sands of Time.Now , I can understand that managing two sets of resources is probably not worth the effort , given the fact that the PS3 and 360 are so much more powerful .
It would essentially be the same as building the same game twice .
But the Wii 's hardware really does not limit anything that was done in the new PoP except polygon count and texture resolution.--Jeremy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this developer's whining particularly amusing, as the new Prince of Persia (while a decent game) felt like a watered down version of Sands of Time.Now, I can understand that managing two sets of resources is probably not worth the effort, given the fact that the PS3 and 360 are so much more powerful.
It would essentially be the same as building the same game twice.
But the Wii's hardware really does not limit anything that was done in the new PoP except polygon count and texture resolution.--Jeremy</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296097</id>
	<title>Re:Is it a bad thing?</title>
	<author>Giant Electronic Bra</author>
	<datestamp>1244743380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you sit down to design the same piece of software for 2 platforms, and one of them has 500\% of the processing, memory, etc resources of the other one, you may well be able to implement your software on both of them. The more capable system will require much less work unless the program is fairly trivial. While the developers on the less capable system are trying to figure out some clever way to wedge 2 more things into memory and speed up some code loop enough to be usable (or heaven forbid find 10 concurrency bugs that don't show up on the fatter system because it has less load), the team blessed with that fatter system will instead be doing something else. Like perhaps improving the game itself.</p><p>So it is not all so clear cut. Generally games have a fairly fixed budget. If you have to spend most of that budget cramming stuff into the lesser hardware platform you will spend a lot less of it on making a more interesting game.</p><p>Not that I have anything against the Wii or think it particularly doesn't have equally good games, but they are going to be increasingly not running the most complex games on it. Basically the Wii will be obsolescent long before the PS3. Maybe Nintendo has a better strategy by getting it out first and concentrating on other features besides horsepower. So far they are going well. Its nice that all of these options exist anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you sit down to design the same piece of software for 2 platforms , and one of them has 500 \ % of the processing , memory , etc resources of the other one , you may well be able to implement your software on both of them .
The more capable system will require much less work unless the program is fairly trivial .
While the developers on the less capable system are trying to figure out some clever way to wedge 2 more things into memory and speed up some code loop enough to be usable ( or heaven forbid find 10 concurrency bugs that do n't show up on the fatter system because it has less load ) , the team blessed with that fatter system will instead be doing something else .
Like perhaps improving the game itself.So it is not all so clear cut .
Generally games have a fairly fixed budget .
If you have to spend most of that budget cramming stuff into the lesser hardware platform you will spend a lot less of it on making a more interesting game.Not that I have anything against the Wii or think it particularly does n't have equally good games , but they are going to be increasingly not running the most complex games on it .
Basically the Wii will be obsolescent long before the PS3 .
Maybe Nintendo has a better strategy by getting it out first and concentrating on other features besides horsepower .
So far they are going well .
Its nice that all of these options exist anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you sit down to design the same piece of software for 2 platforms, and one of them has 500\% of the processing, memory, etc resources of the other one, you may well be able to implement your software on both of them.
The more capable system will require much less work unless the program is fairly trivial.
While the developers on the less capable system are trying to figure out some clever way to wedge 2 more things into memory and speed up some code loop enough to be usable (or heaven forbid find 10 concurrency bugs that don't show up on the fatter system because it has less load), the team blessed with that fatter system will instead be doing something else.
Like perhaps improving the game itself.So it is not all so clear cut.
Generally games have a fairly fixed budget.
If you have to spend most of that budget cramming stuff into the lesser hardware platform you will spend a lot less of it on making a more interesting game.Not that I have anything against the Wii or think it particularly doesn't have equally good games, but they are going to be increasingly not running the most complex games on it.
Basically the Wii will be obsolescent long before the PS3.
Maybe Nintendo has a better strategy by getting it out first and concentrating on other features besides horsepower.
So far they are going well.
Its nice that all of these options exist anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28304615</id>
	<title>Re:Its the games ..</title>
	<author>Spit</author>
	<datestamp>1244745300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My opinion is that the Wii's primary marketing goal is to play on consumers' insecurities. Wii fit and brain age et al are targeted at the fact that most people could probably use some exercise, physical and mental. Some people do buy Wii to play the excellent exclusive titles, but I think most Wiis end up gathering dust with the encyclopedia, trainer bike/treadmill and pilates DVDs.</p><p>The Wii charts correlate with my opinion, as does the published attach rates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My opinion is that the Wii 's primary marketing goal is to play on consumers ' insecurities .
Wii fit and brain age et al are targeted at the fact that most people could probably use some exercise , physical and mental .
Some people do buy Wii to play the excellent exclusive titles , but I think most Wiis end up gathering dust with the encyclopedia , trainer bike/treadmill and pilates DVDs.The Wii charts correlate with my opinion , as does the published attach rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My opinion is that the Wii's primary marketing goal is to play on consumers' insecurities.
Wii fit and brain age et al are targeted at the fact that most people could probably use some exercise, physical and mental.
Some people do buy Wii to play the excellent exclusive titles, but I think most Wiis end up gathering dust with the encyclopedia, trainer bike/treadmill and pilates DVDs.The Wii charts correlate with my opinion, as does the published attach rates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295259</id>
	<title>Wii vs others</title>
	<author>Psychotic\_Wrath</author>
	<datestamp>1244740440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel like Nintendo spent more time on making the wii revolutionary than they spent on making the wii the next big box with a ton of processors and a good graphics chip. That wasn't the purpose of the wii. The Wii was made to be something different. It was different and it is fun. I suspect that there will be  another "wii" that hasthe graphics that are appreciated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel like Nintendo spent more time on making the wii revolutionary than they spent on making the wii the next big box with a ton of processors and a good graphics chip .
That was n't the purpose of the wii .
The Wii was made to be something different .
It was different and it is fun .
I suspect that there will be another " wii " that hasthe graphics that are appreciated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel like Nintendo spent more time on making the wii revolutionary than they spent on making the wii the next big box with a ton of processors and a good graphics chip.
That wasn't the purpose of the wii.
The Wii was made to be something different.
It was different and it is fun.
I suspect that there will be  another "wii" that hasthe graphics that are appreciated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295573</id>
	<title>future of Wii</title>
	<author>ThumperByTrade</author>
	<datestamp>1244741520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities."<br>
<br>
People act like Nintendo can't make a more powerful version of the Wii. They got a good market share by providing a fun and unique gaming experience at a price that most people can afford. Releasing another version of the console that has the power of a PS3 is easy to do and if that's what it takes to compete, I'm sure they will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The question remains , as Kotaku points out , whether the Wii 's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities .
" People act like Nintendo ca n't make a more powerful version of the Wii .
They got a good market share by providing a fun and unique gaming experience at a price that most people can afford .
Releasing another version of the console that has the power of a PS3 is easy to do and if that 's what it takes to compete , I 'm sure they will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The question remains, as Kotaku points out, whether the Wii's audience will persist after the other systems match its casual-gaming capabilities.
"

People act like Nintendo can't make a more powerful version of the Wii.
They got a good market share by providing a fun and unique gaming experience at a price that most people can afford.
Releasing another version of the console that has the power of a PS3 is easy to do and if that's what it takes to compete, I'm sure they will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28302637</id>
	<title>Re:Give me a break</title>
	<author>xouumalperxe</author>
	<datestamp>1244726040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's plenty of "fun" stuff that can only be had on the Wii, and other stuff where the Wii has a palpable edge.</p><p>Let's start with games that can't be reproduced on other consoles without mangling their control scheme: Wii Sports, Trauma Centre, House of the Dead Overkill come to mind (though games like the latter typically include a dedicated lightgun).</p><p>Multi-platform games with well thought-out Wii control schemes are real value-add: Resident Evil 4 works great, Okami is pretty good, and from what I understand FIFA and PES use the pointer to great effect.</p><p>Then there are games that just use the motion sensor as a (fun!) gimmick -- these are easy enough to reproduce in some fashion or another. Mercury Meltdown Revolution is a good example of a well thought-out game based on the motion sensitivity of the controller that could be done on the Sixaxis just as easily. Mini-games like Raving Rabbits or Warioware, or any of the umpteen others are really just that, mini-games, and motion control is pure gimmick there.</p><p>Then there's the first/second party exclusives: Metroid and Zelda come to mind, as do the several Mario games (I'm partial to Mario Galaxy, but that's something else). These are not so much games at which the Wii excels as they are marketed only for the Wii, so they don't really count I guess...</p><p>Finally, there are games like Guitar Hero (I love Guitar Hero, btw). The control scheme is the same across all platforms, and I guess that, nominally, the Wii is the worst platform to run it on, as it would have better graphics on the 360 or the PS3 -- but does it actually <i>matter</i>? I'll accept that The Force Unleashed looks <i>a lot</i> better on the higher end consoles than on the Wii, and that it might influence the enjoyment of the game, but for Guitar Hero, all that matters is that the freaking fretboard is legible. The rest is just a distraction.</p><p>All in all, though, I find that what makes the Wii's controller truly great is not motion sensing, but the pointer. It's like having a gamepad and a mouse at the same time, and the games I feel best use the Wii's controller all capitalize on that (RE4, Trauma Center and Mario Galaxy spring to mind)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's plenty of " fun " stuff that can only be had on the Wii , and other stuff where the Wii has a palpable edge.Let 's start with games that ca n't be reproduced on other consoles without mangling their control scheme : Wii Sports , Trauma Centre , House of the Dead Overkill come to mind ( though games like the latter typically include a dedicated lightgun ) .Multi-platform games with well thought-out Wii control schemes are real value-add : Resident Evil 4 works great , Okami is pretty good , and from what I understand FIFA and PES use the pointer to great effect.Then there are games that just use the motion sensor as a ( fun !
) gimmick -- these are easy enough to reproduce in some fashion or another .
Mercury Meltdown Revolution is a good example of a well thought-out game based on the motion sensitivity of the controller that could be done on the Sixaxis just as easily .
Mini-games like Raving Rabbits or Warioware , or any of the umpteen others are really just that , mini-games , and motion control is pure gimmick there.Then there 's the first/second party exclusives : Metroid and Zelda come to mind , as do the several Mario games ( I 'm partial to Mario Galaxy , but that 's something else ) .
These are not so much games at which the Wii excels as they are marketed only for the Wii , so they do n't really count I guess...Finally , there are games like Guitar Hero ( I love Guitar Hero , btw ) .
The control scheme is the same across all platforms , and I guess that , nominally , the Wii is the worst platform to run it on , as it would have better graphics on the 360 or the PS3 -- but does it actually matter ?
I 'll accept that The Force Unleashed looks a lot better on the higher end consoles than on the Wii , and that it might influence the enjoyment of the game , but for Guitar Hero , all that matters is that the freaking fretboard is legible .
The rest is just a distraction.All in all , though , I find that what makes the Wii 's controller truly great is not motion sensing , but the pointer .
It 's like having a gamepad and a mouse at the same time , and the games I feel best use the Wii 's controller all capitalize on that ( RE4 , Trauma Center and Mario Galaxy spring to mind )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's plenty of "fun" stuff that can only be had on the Wii, and other stuff where the Wii has a palpable edge.Let's start with games that can't be reproduced on other consoles without mangling their control scheme: Wii Sports, Trauma Centre, House of the Dead Overkill come to mind (though games like the latter typically include a dedicated lightgun).Multi-platform games with well thought-out Wii control schemes are real value-add: Resident Evil 4 works great, Okami is pretty good, and from what I understand FIFA and PES use the pointer to great effect.Then there are games that just use the motion sensor as a (fun!
) gimmick -- these are easy enough to reproduce in some fashion or another.
Mercury Meltdown Revolution is a good example of a well thought-out game based on the motion sensitivity of the controller that could be done on the Sixaxis just as easily.
Mini-games like Raving Rabbits or Warioware, or any of the umpteen others are really just that, mini-games, and motion control is pure gimmick there.Then there's the first/second party exclusives: Metroid and Zelda come to mind, as do the several Mario games (I'm partial to Mario Galaxy, but that's something else).
These are not so much games at which the Wii excels as they are marketed only for the Wii, so they don't really count I guess...Finally, there are games like Guitar Hero (I love Guitar Hero, btw).
The control scheme is the same across all platforms, and I guess that, nominally, the Wii is the worst platform to run it on, as it would have better graphics on the 360 or the PS3 -- but does it actually matter?
I'll accept that The Force Unleashed looks a lot better on the higher end consoles than on the Wii, and that it might influence the enjoyment of the game, but for Guitar Hero, all that matters is that the freaking fretboard is legible.
The rest is just a distraction.All in all, though, I find that what makes the Wii's controller truly great is not motion sensing, but the pointer.
It's like having a gamepad and a mouse at the same time, and the games I feel best use the Wii's controller all capitalize on that (RE4, Trauma Center and Mario Galaxy spring to mind)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299073</id>
	<title>Re:Give me a break</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1244753640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem was that the latest prince of persia was not even fun, btw. whoever hired the actor for the prince should be hit with rotten eggs for at least a week, the same goes for the game designer who basically designed the same level 23 times with different graphics and forced you to beat every boss about 5 times without change of strategy!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem was that the latest prince of persia was not even fun , btw .
whoever hired the actor for the prince should be hit with rotten eggs for at least a week , the same goes for the game designer who basically designed the same level 23 times with different graphics and forced you to beat every boss about 5 times without change of strategy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem was that the latest prince of persia was not even fun, btw.
whoever hired the actor for the prince should be hit with rotten eggs for at least a week, the same goes for the game designer who basically designed the same level 23 times with different graphics and forced you to beat every boss about 5 times without change of strategy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297835</id>
	<title>from TFA:</title>
	<author>pulse2600</author>
	<datestamp>1244749380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The watering-down of titles for the Wii certainly isn't universal. Almost every game released by Nintendo is solid. The story lines are outstanding, the controls capture the essence of the Wiimote, and the graphics are just fine.
Super Mario Galaxy and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess immediately come to mind when I think of Wii games that aren't watered down. They are stellar titles that anyone should play. And they match any full-featured game on other consoles.
The same can be said for the vast majority of titles built exclusively for the Wii. Punch Out was great. Wii Sports provides an incredibly fun experience. Simply put, there are a variety of compelling games on the Wii that still make it a worthwhile console.
But unfortunately, the vast majority of those full-feature Wii games have been developed by Nintendo. The reality is that many third-party developers haven't been able to capture the true power of the Wii and thus water down their games to bring them to the popular console. If gamers want the best experience for those games, they'll need to play them on another console."</p></div></blockquote><p>
So in other words, the problem is not the Wii, it's the capability of the developers? Why is it the Wii's fault that third party developers water down games because they can't
develop properly for the Wii? Do third party developers not have all the tools, knowledge, etc they need to develop for the Wii? Is Nintendo holding back on third party developers to ensure Nintendo always publishes the "best" titles (I hope not!) Based on this paragraph, I am led to believe that Nintendo is perfectly capable of writing awesome games for the Wii while everyone else is incapable of doing the same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The watering-down of titles for the Wii certainly is n't universal .
Almost every game released by Nintendo is solid .
The story lines are outstanding , the controls capture the essence of the Wiimote , and the graphics are just fine .
Super Mario Galaxy and The Legend of Zelda : Twilight Princess immediately come to mind when I think of Wii games that are n't watered down .
They are stellar titles that anyone should play .
And they match any full-featured game on other consoles .
The same can be said for the vast majority of titles built exclusively for the Wii .
Punch Out was great .
Wii Sports provides an incredibly fun experience .
Simply put , there are a variety of compelling games on the Wii that still make it a worthwhile console .
But unfortunately , the vast majority of those full-feature Wii games have been developed by Nintendo .
The reality is that many third-party developers have n't been able to capture the true power of the Wii and thus water down their games to bring them to the popular console .
If gamers want the best experience for those games , they 'll need to play them on another console .
" So in other words , the problem is not the Wii , it 's the capability of the developers ?
Why is it the Wii 's fault that third party developers water down games because they ca n't develop properly for the Wii ?
Do third party developers not have all the tools , knowledge , etc they need to develop for the Wii ?
Is Nintendo holding back on third party developers to ensure Nintendo always publishes the " best " titles ( I hope not !
) Based on this paragraph , I am led to believe that Nintendo is perfectly capable of writing awesome games for the Wii while everyone else is incapable of doing the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The watering-down of titles for the Wii certainly isn't universal.
Almost every game released by Nintendo is solid.
The story lines are outstanding, the controls capture the essence of the Wiimote, and the graphics are just fine.
Super Mario Galaxy and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess immediately come to mind when I think of Wii games that aren't watered down.
They are stellar titles that anyone should play.
And they match any full-featured game on other consoles.
The same can be said for the vast majority of titles built exclusively for the Wii.
Punch Out was great.
Wii Sports provides an incredibly fun experience.
Simply put, there are a variety of compelling games on the Wii that still make it a worthwhile console.
But unfortunately, the vast majority of those full-feature Wii games have been developed by Nintendo.
The reality is that many third-party developers haven't been able to capture the true power of the Wii and thus water down their games to bring them to the popular console.
If gamers want the best experience for those games, they'll need to play them on another console.
"
So in other words, the problem is not the Wii, it's the capability of the developers?
Why is it the Wii's fault that third party developers water down games because they can't
develop properly for the Wii?
Do third party developers not have all the tools, knowledge, etc they need to develop for the Wii?
Is Nintendo holding back on third party developers to ensure Nintendo always publishes the "best" titles (I hope not!
) Based on this paragraph, I am led to believe that Nintendo is perfectly capable of writing awesome games for the Wii while everyone else is incapable of doing the same.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297163</id>
	<title>Re:There is a diff between life and a Game</title>
	<author>immcintosh</author>
	<datestamp>1244747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gonna have to call nonsense on this one.  How are we defining "earliest games?"  Have you ever played Nethack?  Like it or not, it's probably logged more man-hours being played than any other computer game in history, and if you don't think it's complex, you're crazy.  The only things games are "meant" to be is fun.  If complexities are fun, then they should be complex.  If simplicity is fun, then simple.  Simple as that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gon na have to call nonsense on this one .
How are we defining " earliest games ?
" Have you ever played Nethack ?
Like it or not , it 's probably logged more man-hours being played than any other computer game in history , and if you do n't think it 's complex , you 're crazy .
The only things games are " meant " to be is fun .
If complexities are fun , then they should be complex .
If simplicity is fun , then simple .
Simple as that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gonna have to call nonsense on this one.
How are we defining "earliest games?
"  Have you ever played Nethack?
Like it or not, it's probably logged more man-hours being played than any other computer game in history, and if you don't think it's complex, you're crazy.
The only things games are "meant" to be is fun.
If complexities are fun, then they should be complex.
If simplicity is fun, then simple.
Simple as that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297265</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244747400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"the WII almost requires you to use the motion capture controller"</p><p>No, it doesn't.  The Wii has the same digital and analog pads and plenty of buttons, just like the controllers of past.</p><p>What do you mean by "almost requires"???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" the WII almost requires you to use the motion capture controller " No , it does n't .
The Wii has the same digital and analog pads and plenty of buttons , just like the controllers of past.What do you mean by " almost requires " ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the WII almost requires you to use the motion capture controller"No, it doesn't.
The Wii has the same digital and analog pads and plenty of buttons, just like the controllers of past.What do you mean by "almost requires"??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295279</id>
	<title>Is it a bad thing?</title>
	<author>TinBromide</author>
	<datestamp>1244740500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>While certain games (mostly sandbox) require massive ram, processing power, etc to stay competitive (Dead Rising), is it a bad thing that there is a less capable gaming platform out there? Yes, while games like Cooking Mama, Wii Fit, and Mario Party are watering down gaming, the graphics limitations aren't necessarily the cause here. <br> <br> I wonder what the development cost for a top notch wii game is. I wonder if its less than one for the PC or other newest gen console. I get the feeling that the reduced graphics and memory put a limit on how many nosehairs you need to bump map for the protagonist. Hopefully, the reduced hardware capabilities mean that the devs don't have to shoot for photorealism and don't need the huge teams to create content. The reduced hardware capabilities = less people required to push a system's graphics to its limit and you don't need a stadium full of graphic artists, AI programmers, mappers, and the more technical side of development just to keep up with the competition. Hopefully this reduced cost will allow GOOD (key word here, as in not bad or cheap) developers to focus more time on building more maps, fleshing out the story more, and generally trading graphics for immersion/world/playtime. I realize that last sentiment is wishful thinking, but a nerd can hope, right?
<br> <br>I fired up AVP2 not too long ago and it was still a very enjoyable experience. There are also wii games that are very enjoyable. You don't need to have the world painted in photo-realistic brown rubble to have an enjoyable experience. You also don't need to be looking at characters so realistic they're this side of the uncanny valley to suspend belief into believing that something is trying to kill you and facehump your friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While certain games ( mostly sandbox ) require massive ram , processing power , etc to stay competitive ( Dead Rising ) , is it a bad thing that there is a less capable gaming platform out there ?
Yes , while games like Cooking Mama , Wii Fit , and Mario Party are watering down gaming , the graphics limitations are n't necessarily the cause here .
I wonder what the development cost for a top notch wii game is .
I wonder if its less than one for the PC or other newest gen console .
I get the feeling that the reduced graphics and memory put a limit on how many nosehairs you need to bump map for the protagonist .
Hopefully , the reduced hardware capabilities mean that the devs do n't have to shoot for photorealism and do n't need the huge teams to create content .
The reduced hardware capabilities = less people required to push a system 's graphics to its limit and you do n't need a stadium full of graphic artists , AI programmers , mappers , and the more technical side of development just to keep up with the competition .
Hopefully this reduced cost will allow GOOD ( key word here , as in not bad or cheap ) developers to focus more time on building more maps , fleshing out the story more , and generally trading graphics for immersion/world/playtime .
I realize that last sentiment is wishful thinking , but a nerd can hope , right ?
I fired up AVP2 not too long ago and it was still a very enjoyable experience .
There are also wii games that are very enjoyable .
You do n't need to have the world painted in photo-realistic brown rubble to have an enjoyable experience .
You also do n't need to be looking at characters so realistic they 're this side of the uncanny valley to suspend belief into believing that something is trying to kill you and facehump your friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While certain games (mostly sandbox) require massive ram, processing power, etc to stay competitive (Dead Rising), is it a bad thing that there is a less capable gaming platform out there?
Yes, while games like Cooking Mama, Wii Fit, and Mario Party are watering down gaming, the graphics limitations aren't necessarily the cause here.
I wonder what the development cost for a top notch wii game is.
I wonder if its less than one for the PC or other newest gen console.
I get the feeling that the reduced graphics and memory put a limit on how many nosehairs you need to bump map for the protagonist.
Hopefully, the reduced hardware capabilities mean that the devs don't have to shoot for photorealism and don't need the huge teams to create content.
The reduced hardware capabilities = less people required to push a system's graphics to its limit and you don't need a stadium full of graphic artists, AI programmers, mappers, and the more technical side of development just to keep up with the competition.
Hopefully this reduced cost will allow GOOD (key word here, as in not bad or cheap) developers to focus more time on building more maps, fleshing out the story more, and generally trading graphics for immersion/world/playtime.
I realize that last sentiment is wishful thinking, but a nerd can hope, right?
I fired up AVP2 not too long ago and it was still a very enjoyable experience.
There are also wii games that are very enjoyable.
You don't need to have the world painted in photo-realistic brown rubble to have an enjoyable experience.
You also don't need to be looking at characters so realistic they're this side of the uncanny valley to suspend belief into believing that something is trying to kill you and facehump your friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28300433</id>
	<title>Duke Nukem Forever</title>
	<author>B00KER</author>
	<datestamp>1244715300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the Wii could play very well Duke Nukem Forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Wii could play very well Duke Nukem Forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Wii could play very well Duke Nukem Forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296591</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244745180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your frame of reference is obviously that of a "normal video game player."  You are not the Wii's target market, and thus you feel understandably disenfranchised.  I just cannot manage to see how appealing to the "mainstream market"  ie normal, everyday people, reflects a failure in development.  I also think that you drastically underestimate the number of shitty games for the PS2.  There were close to 2500 games made for that console, and if you think the average quality was that great, then you have never been in a gamestop bargain bin.</p><p>In writing this comment, I am aware of the fact that there are not as many top-quality wii games as I would have hoped or expected at this stage of development.  However, I think that the games designed specifically for the wii are fantastic, and I blame the deficit partially on poor ports and the cost barriers involved when companies decide to develop a title.  After all, if you were a developer, would it appear to be more cost effective to program for joysticks and buttons than a novel motion-capture interface?  Of course, because the title can be sold to PS3 and Xbox and PC users alike, and your staff likely has more experience in programing for these interfaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your frame of reference is obviously that of a " normal video game player .
" You are not the Wii 's target market , and thus you feel understandably disenfranchised .
I just can not manage to see how appealing to the " mainstream market " ie normal , everyday people , reflects a failure in development .
I also think that you drastically underestimate the number of shitty games for the PS2 .
There were close to 2500 games made for that console , and if you think the average quality was that great , then you have never been in a gamestop bargain bin.In writing this comment , I am aware of the fact that there are not as many top-quality wii games as I would have hoped or expected at this stage of development .
However , I think that the games designed specifically for the wii are fantastic , and I blame the deficit partially on poor ports and the cost barriers involved when companies decide to develop a title .
After all , if you were a developer , would it appear to be more cost effective to program for joysticks and buttons than a novel motion-capture interface ?
Of course , because the title can be sold to PS3 and Xbox and PC users alike , and your staff likely has more experience in programing for these interfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your frame of reference is obviously that of a "normal video game player.
"  You are not the Wii's target market, and thus you feel understandably disenfranchised.
I just cannot manage to see how appealing to the "mainstream market"  ie normal, everyday people, reflects a failure in development.
I also think that you drastically underestimate the number of shitty games for the PS2.
There were close to 2500 games made for that console, and if you think the average quality was that great, then you have never been in a gamestop bargain bin.In writing this comment, I am aware of the fact that there are not as many top-quality wii games as I would have hoped or expected at this stage of development.
However, I think that the games designed specifically for the wii are fantastic, and I blame the deficit partially on poor ports and the cost barriers involved when companies decide to develop a title.
After all, if you were a developer, would it appear to be more cost effective to program for joysticks and buttons than a novel motion-capture interface?
Of course, because the title can be sold to PS3 and Xbox and PC users alike, and your staff likely has more experience in programing for these interfaces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295677</id>
	<title>Re:News Flash.</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1244741880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The Wii is for people who want to play games they can quickly pick up and put down.</i></p><p>What does graphical ability have to do with the ability to pick up and put down a game quickly?  The two most addictive and hardcore games I have ever played are Nethack and Civilization 2.  Either of these could easily run on a Wii.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii is for people who want to play games they can quickly pick up and put down.What does graphical ability have to do with the ability to pick up and put down a game quickly ?
The two most addictive and hardcore games I have ever played are Nethack and Civilization 2 .
Either of these could easily run on a Wii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii is for people who want to play games they can quickly pick up and put down.What does graphical ability have to do with the ability to pick up and put down a game quickly?
The two most addictive and hardcore games I have ever played are Nethack and Civilization 2.
Either of these could easily run on a Wii.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299715</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244712840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are a HOMM fan, try King's Bounty: The Legend. King's Bounty was the game that the HOMM series spun off from originally, so you owe it to yourself to play if you're a fan of the genre. Note that in KB:TL, you can freely rotate and zoom the camera at any time.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Pick it up for $30 or so as a digital purchase. I bought my copy (by which I mean license to use a copy) from Impulse but many digital download services carry it.</p><p>PS, I disagree that Ubisoft ruined HOMM. NWC was losing it big time, HOMM IV was way too unbalanced (play a Necro; once you raise your first Vampire, it's game over; your army never shrinks, only grows as a result of battle) ) but HOMM V was actually pretty good in those terms. Each of the eight factions could dominate. Necromancy was brought under control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a HOMM fan , try King 's Bounty : The Legend .
King 's Bounty was the game that the HOMM series spun off from originally , so you owe it to yourself to play if you 're a fan of the genre .
Note that in KB : TL , you can freely rotate and zoom the camera at any time .
: ) Pick it up for $ 30 or so as a digital purchase .
I bought my copy ( by which I mean license to use a copy ) from Impulse but many digital download services carry it.PS , I disagree that Ubisoft ruined HOMM .
NWC was losing it big time , HOMM IV was way too unbalanced ( play a Necro ; once you raise your first Vampire , it 's game over ; your army never shrinks , only grows as a result of battle ) ) but HOMM V was actually pretty good in those terms .
Each of the eight factions could dominate .
Necromancy was brought under control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a HOMM fan, try King's Bounty: The Legend.
King's Bounty was the game that the HOMM series spun off from originally, so you owe it to yourself to play if you're a fan of the genre.
Note that in KB:TL, you can freely rotate and zoom the camera at any time.
:) Pick it up for $30 or so as a digital purchase.
I bought my copy (by which I mean license to use a copy) from Impulse but many digital download services carry it.PS, I disagree that Ubisoft ruined HOMM.
NWC was losing it big time, HOMM IV was way too unbalanced (play a Necro; once you raise your first Vampire, it's game over; your army never shrinks, only grows as a result of battle) ) but HOMM V was actually pretty good in those terms.
Each of the eight factions could dominate.
Necromancy was brought under control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298597</id>
	<title>Instead bitching about porting problems,</title>
	<author>Phizzle</author>
	<datestamp>1244752020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how about creating original content that plays to the Wii's strengths?</htmltext>
<tokenext>how about creating original content that plays to the Wii 's strengths ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about creating original content that plays to the Wii's strengths?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28305351</id>
	<title>Scribblenauts</title>
	<author>Adam Jorgensen</author>
	<datestamp>1244799240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Wii isn't powerful enough?

Really?

That's odd.

Because Scribblenauts on the DS was turning heads at E3 and the DS possesses a mere fraction of the power of the DS.

The same is true for all those classic, great games.

Here's a question. What do the following games have in common?

Doom
Star Control 2
NetHack
Baldur's Gate
Diablo
Sam and Max Hit the Road
Heroes of Might and Magic 3
Ultimate VII
Die By The Sword
Thief
Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space
DefCon
and a whole lot more in the same vein...

You guessed it! They're great games that would all run on the hardware the Wii provides.

The real problem is that most game devs these days are just completely full of shit while
at the same time lacking any semblance of the ability to write decent code, something
the previous generation of game devs had no problems with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii is n't powerful enough ?
Really ? That 's odd .
Because Scribblenauts on the DS was turning heads at E3 and the DS possesses a mere fraction of the power of the DS .
The same is true for all those classic , great games .
Here 's a question .
What do the following games have in common ?
Doom Star Control 2 NetHack Baldur 's Gate Diablo Sam and Max Hit the Road Heroes of Might and Magic 3 Ultimate VII Die By The Sword Thief Weird Worlds : Return to Infinite Space DefCon and a whole lot more in the same vein.. . You guessed it !
They 're great games that would all run on the hardware the Wii provides .
The real problem is that most game devs these days are just completely full of shit while at the same time lacking any semblance of the ability to write decent code , something the previous generation of game devs had no problems with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii isn't powerful enough?
Really?

That's odd.
Because Scribblenauts on the DS was turning heads at E3 and the DS possesses a mere fraction of the power of the DS.
The same is true for all those classic, great games.
Here's a question.
What do the following games have in common?
Doom
Star Control 2
NetHack
Baldur's Gate
Diablo
Sam and Max Hit the Road
Heroes of Might and Magic 3
Ultimate VII
Die By The Sword
Thief
Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space
DefCon
and a whole lot more in the same vein...

You guessed it!
They're great games that would all run on the hardware the Wii provides.
The real problem is that most game devs these days are just completely full of shit while
at the same time lacking any semblance of the ability to write decent code, something
the previous generation of game devs had no problems with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295619</id>
	<title>polygons and "open worlds"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244741700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*rolls eyes*<br>Yeah, because the experience is entirely about polygons and "open worlds".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* rolls eyes * Yeah , because the experience is entirely about polygons and " open worlds " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*rolls eyes*Yeah, because the experience is entirely about polygons and "open worlds".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296203</id>
	<title>Re:Sure are a lot of butthurt Wii fans here</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1244743800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Conduit. Look it up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Conduit .
Look it up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Conduit.
Look it up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295367</id>
	<title>Bollocks</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1244740740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree that most games on the Wii tend to be lacking in depth compared to the types of games that you get on other systems, I take issue with this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience."</p></div><p>If the DS and PSP can handle Grand Theft Auto III games including dynamic loading (the PSP definitely can, though I only noticed the DS version of GTA was out the other day and I don't feel the urge to dust off my DS to have a go of it), there's no reason at all that the Wii can't do dynamic loading too.</p><p>I agree that the AI would probably need optimisation/cutting back and the graphics would need simplified models and effects, but I expect they probably just don't consider it worth the time it would take to do all of that rather than it being impossible to create a game that approaches the same level of gameplay. Having said that, I haven't played any of the Prince of Persia games since the 2D original (and the HD remake). Perhaps the AI is something rather special, or there are hundreds of enemies to simulate at once? Attempting a situation like the last level of Heavenly Sword with literally thousands of enemies probably wouldn't be possible on the Wii without slowing to a crawl.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree that most games on the Wii tend to be lacking in depth compared to the types of games that you get on other systems , I take issue with this : If we had done a Wii version , it would have been toned down , probably linear ; it would n't have been an open-world game , and so it would have been a very different experience .
" If the DS and PSP can handle Grand Theft Auto III games including dynamic loading ( the PSP definitely can , though I only noticed the DS version of GTA was out the other day and I do n't feel the urge to dust off my DS to have a go of it ) , there 's no reason at all that the Wii ca n't do dynamic loading too.I agree that the AI would probably need optimisation/cutting back and the graphics would need simplified models and effects , but I expect they probably just do n't consider it worth the time it would take to do all of that rather than it being impossible to create a game that approaches the same level of gameplay .
Having said that , I have n't played any of the Prince of Persia games since the 2D original ( and the HD remake ) .
Perhaps the AI is something rather special , or there are hundreds of enemies to simulate at once ?
Attempting a situation like the last level of Heavenly Sword with literally thousands of enemies probably would n't be possible on the Wii without slowing to a crawl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree that most games on the Wii tend to be lacking in depth compared to the types of games that you get on other systems, I take issue with this:If we had done a Wii version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience.
"If the DS and PSP can handle Grand Theft Auto III games including dynamic loading (the PSP definitely can, though I only noticed the DS version of GTA was out the other day and I don't feel the urge to dust off my DS to have a go of it), there's no reason at all that the Wii can't do dynamic loading too.I agree that the AI would probably need optimisation/cutting back and the graphics would need simplified models and effects, but I expect they probably just don't consider it worth the time it would take to do all of that rather than it being impossible to create a game that approaches the same level of gameplay.
Having said that, I haven't played any of the Prince of Persia games since the 2D original (and the HD remake).
Perhaps the AI is something rather special, or there are hundreds of enemies to simulate at once?
Attempting a situation like the last level of Heavenly Sword with literally thousands of enemies probably wouldn't be possible on the Wii without slowing to a crawl.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297921</id>
	<title>Re:Why not look at it from another point of view?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244749740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, nobody can make an FPS for those other consoles that doesn't make me want to go an a real-life killing spree.</p></div><p>Wait... What?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , nobody can make an FPS for those other consoles that does n't make me want to go an a real-life killing spree.Wait... What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, nobody can make an FPS for those other consoles that doesn't make me want to go an a real-life killing spree.Wait... What?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28303459</id>
	<title>Re:A matter of how you look at it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244732880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never yet actually noticed any correlation between visual quality and game quality.  None at all.  Better looking games are neither more or less enjoyable than their more visually limited cousins.<br>It's entirely possible to make a good looking, fun game, and it's entirely possible to make a boring, derivative game with a five year old visual style.</p><p>People are making the \_assumption\_ that spending money on the technology side of the game somehow means the gameplay is going to suck, but I think you'll find that in the cases where the gameplay sucks, it's because the gameplay was always going to suck, and its not the graphics that have caused it, but the corporate culture of the development house, or publisher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never yet actually noticed any correlation between visual quality and game quality .
None at all .
Better looking games are neither more or less enjoyable than their more visually limited cousins.It 's entirely possible to make a good looking , fun game , and it 's entirely possible to make a boring , derivative game with a five year old visual style.People are making the \ _assumption \ _ that spending money on the technology side of the game somehow means the gameplay is going to suck , but I think you 'll find that in the cases where the gameplay sucks , it 's because the gameplay was always going to suck , and its not the graphics that have caused it , but the corporate culture of the development house , or publisher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never yet actually noticed any correlation between visual quality and game quality.
None at all.
Better looking games are neither more or less enjoyable than their more visually limited cousins.It's entirely possible to make a good looking, fun game, and it's entirely possible to make a boring, derivative game with a five year old visual style.People are making the \_assumption\_ that spending money on the technology side of the game somehow means the gameplay is going to suck, but I think you'll find that in the cases where the gameplay sucks, it's because the gameplay was always going to suck, and its not the graphics that have caused it, but the corporate culture of the development house, or publisher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296545</id>
	<title>Re:Ahh sweet redemption</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1244745000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dwarf Fortress doesn't have real-time physics or lighting and I would argue it is not a child's game.</p><p>The fact that you equate the graphics of a game with the complexity of the game says a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dwarf Fortress does n't have real-time physics or lighting and I would argue it is not a child 's game.The fact that you equate the graphics of a game with the complexity of the game says a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dwarf Fortress doesn't have real-time physics or lighting and I would argue it is not a child's game.The fact that you equate the graphics of a game with the complexity of the game says a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295165</id>
	<title>Prince Of Persia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That game wasn't exactly what I'd call non-linear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That game was n't exactly what I 'd call non-linear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That game wasn't exactly what I'd call non-linear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297945</id>
	<title>It's Ubisoft, they don't even make decent games.</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1244749800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Prince of Persia games haven't exactly been that great. They're just 3D games cashing in on an old popular game.
<br> <br>
To call the likes of Super Mario Galaxy watered down in comparison to Prince of Persia would just be idiotic.
<br> <br>
Sure a lot of 3rd party games are cheap rubbish but, that's what companies like Ubisoft specialise in, and shouldn't be used to gauge what fun can be had with the system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Prince of Persia games have n't exactly been that great .
They 're just 3D games cashing in on an old popular game .
To call the likes of Super Mario Galaxy watered down in comparison to Prince of Persia would just be idiotic .
Sure a lot of 3rd party games are cheap rubbish but , that 's what companies like Ubisoft specialise in , and should n't be used to gauge what fun can be had with the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Prince of Persia games haven't exactly been that great.
They're just 3D games cashing in on an old popular game.
To call the likes of Super Mario Galaxy watered down in comparison to Prince of Persia would just be idiotic.
Sure a lot of 3rd party games are cheap rubbish but, that's what companies like Ubisoft specialise in, and shouldn't be used to gauge what fun can be had with the system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296607</id>
	<title>Relativity</title>
	<author>Rutefoot</author>
	<datestamp>1244745240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My year old PC can out-perform a PS3 and XBox360, so does that mean that they're providing a 'watered-down' experience?<br> <br>Play Grand Theft Auto IV on even this most high-end PC and you'll see that is not the case.  Porting is the problem.<br> <br>
Sports analogy: Take a pro baseball player then stick them on a hockey rink and tell them to play right wing.  You'd expect crappy results of course.  The rules are different, the style of play is different and even the people out in the stands are different.  You can teach the left fielder to ice skate and even some basic puck handling, but no small amount of training will let him be as good as his teammates.  Why would we not expect the same crappy results from a ported game?  The key is obviously to either stick with one sport/system or, like Bo Jackson, from the very beginning work with both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My year old PC can out-perform a PS3 and XBox360 , so does that mean that they 're providing a 'watered-down ' experience ?
Play Grand Theft Auto IV on even this most high-end PC and you 'll see that is not the case .
Porting is the problem .
Sports analogy : Take a pro baseball player then stick them on a hockey rink and tell them to play right wing .
You 'd expect crappy results of course .
The rules are different , the style of play is different and even the people out in the stands are different .
You can teach the left fielder to ice skate and even some basic puck handling , but no small amount of training will let him be as good as his teammates .
Why would we not expect the same crappy results from a ported game ?
The key is obviously to either stick with one sport/system or , like Bo Jackson , from the very beginning work with both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My year old PC can out-perform a PS3 and XBox360, so does that mean that they're providing a 'watered-down' experience?
Play Grand Theft Auto IV on even this most high-end PC and you'll see that is not the case.
Porting is the problem.
Sports analogy: Take a pro baseball player then stick them on a hockey rink and tell them to play right wing.
You'd expect crappy results of course.
The rules are different, the style of play is different and even the people out in the stands are different.
You can teach the left fielder to ice skate and even some basic puck handling, but no small amount of training will let him be as good as his teammates.
Why would we not expect the same crappy results from a ported game?
The key is obviously to either stick with one sport/system or, like Bo Jackson, from the very beginning work with both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295629</id>
	<title>What about next gen wii</title>
	<author>wisesifu</author>
	<datestamp>1244741760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will this really be valid when the next Wii machine is released.  I mean for now it may have lower powered hardware, but will it always be the case?  I think that this was an experiment for nintendo.  Now that they know it has succeed I think the next version of the Wii will match performance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will this really be valid when the next Wii machine is released .
I mean for now it may have lower powered hardware , but will it always be the case ?
I think that this was an experiment for nintendo .
Now that they know it has succeed I think the next version of the Wii will match performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will this really be valid when the next Wii machine is released.
I mean for now it may have lower powered hardware, but will it always be the case?
I think that this was an experiment for nintendo.
Now that they know it has succeed I think the next version of the Wii will match performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298491</id>
	<title>The real question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244751660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The correct answer is yes neither the Xbox nor the PS will survive due to the watered down experience they offer when compared to the latest run of the mill PC with the cheapest of video cards, much less a high end PC.</p><p>That being said, no the Wii will probably not die out since its virtues lay in its interface and fun factor rather then how l33t its hardware. The next "Wii" will probably be another marginal upgrade and half the size it is currenty or even better DS sized.</p><p>The 360 and PS might survive the next round if they copy the Wii strategy to suck in more gamers, but they most undoubtably die out if someone finally creates a console easy installation interface, much like Steam and several others are doing in the PC market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The correct answer is yes neither the Xbox nor the PS will survive due to the watered down experience they offer when compared to the latest run of the mill PC with the cheapest of video cards , much less a high end PC.That being said , no the Wii will probably not die out since its virtues lay in its interface and fun factor rather then how l33t its hardware .
The next " Wii " will probably be another marginal upgrade and half the size it is currenty or even better DS sized.The 360 and PS might survive the next round if they copy the Wii strategy to suck in more gamers , but they most undoubtably die out if someone finally creates a console easy installation interface , much like Steam and several others are doing in the PC market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The correct answer is yes neither the Xbox nor the PS will survive due to the watered down experience they offer when compared to the latest run of the mill PC with the cheapest of video cards, much less a high end PC.That being said, no the Wii will probably not die out since its virtues lay in its interface and fun factor rather then how l33t its hardware.
The next "Wii" will probably be another marginal upgrade and half the size it is currenty or even better DS sized.The 360 and PS might survive the next round if they copy the Wii strategy to suck in more gamers, but they most undoubtably die out if someone finally creates a console easy installation interface, much like Steam and several others are doing in the PC market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295189</id>
	<title>There is a diff between life and a Game</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1244740200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Games are NOT meant to be complex.<br>Life is complex.<br>The reason the earliest games were a success were because they were simple.<br>Tennis, Mario etc.<br>Wii does not dumb down. It makes it interactive.<br>They must be fools to say Wii dumbs down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games are NOT meant to be complex.Life is complex.The reason the earliest games were a success were because they were simple.Tennis , Mario etc.Wii does not dumb down .
It makes it interactive.They must be fools to say Wii dumbs down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games are NOT meant to be complex.Life is complex.The reason the earliest games were a success were because they were simple.Tennis, Mario etc.Wii does not dumb down.
It makes it interactive.They must be fools to say Wii dumbs down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296075</id>
	<title>Re:As plainly as possible....</title>
	<author>feepness</author>
	<datestamp>1244743320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My mother owns a wii. My father owns a wii. My sister owns a wii. My brother owns a Wii. My cousin owns a Wii. My 3 years old nephew uses a Wii. My grandparents have played on a Wii. Nursing homes have Wiis.</p></div><p>And the question the publishers are asking themselves is "Is your Mother/Father/Sister/Brother/Cousin/Nursing home" going to buy my games.
<br> <br>
From attach rates the answer is generally <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news\_index.php?story=20988" title="gamasutra.com">no.</a> [gamasutra.com]
<br> <br>
Whether this is a self-fulfilling prophecy is irrelevant.  Third parties release poor games on the Wii because third party games don't sell well on the Wii because third parties release poor games on the Wii.  The result is still the same: Poor third party products and support for the Wii.
<br> <br>
Two years ago all we heard was how the PS3 was doomed to this publisher death spiral.  It appears the Wii has entered it instead.
<br> <br>
If you are comfortable only playing Nintendo's releases this isn't a problem for you.  If you are interested in a broader selection then you should probably look elsewhere.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My mother owns a wii .
My father owns a wii .
My sister owns a wii .
My brother owns a Wii .
My cousin owns a Wii .
My 3 years old nephew uses a Wii .
My grandparents have played on a Wii .
Nursing homes have Wiis.And the question the publishers are asking themselves is " Is your Mother/Father/Sister/Brother/Cousin/Nursing home " going to buy my games .
From attach rates the answer is generally no .
[ gamasutra.com ] Whether this is a self-fulfilling prophecy is irrelevant .
Third parties release poor games on the Wii because third party games do n't sell well on the Wii because third parties release poor games on the Wii .
The result is still the same : Poor third party products and support for the Wii .
Two years ago all we heard was how the PS3 was doomed to this publisher death spiral .
It appears the Wii has entered it instead .
If you are comfortable only playing Nintendo 's releases this is n't a problem for you .
If you are interested in a broader selection then you should probably look elsewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mother owns a wii.
My father owns a wii.
My sister owns a wii.
My brother owns a Wii.
My cousin owns a Wii.
My 3 years old nephew uses a Wii.
My grandparents have played on a Wii.
Nursing homes have Wiis.And the question the publishers are asking themselves is "Is your Mother/Father/Sister/Brother/Cousin/Nursing home" going to buy my games.
From attach rates the answer is generally no.
[gamasutra.com]
 
Whether this is a self-fulfilling prophecy is irrelevant.
Third parties release poor games on the Wii because third party games don't sell well on the Wii because third parties release poor games on the Wii.
The result is still the same: Poor third party products and support for the Wii.
Two years ago all we heard was how the PS3 was doomed to this publisher death spiral.
It appears the Wii has entered it instead.
If you are comfortable only playing Nintendo's releases this isn't a problem for you.
If you are interested in a broader selection then you should probably look elsewhere.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295467</id>
	<title>moron writer</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1244741100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously another journo-troll saying something stupid to get people worked up. Fuck it, I'll bite.</p><p>The gaming arms race has been about fancier graphics, bigger worlds, and more shiny. Consoles are fucking expensive these days! Seriously expensive. Games cost a mint and don't even get me started on the dev costs. GTAIV cost $100 million to make? Insane. Good game but insane. But this is the battle Sony and Microsoft wanted to fight.</p><p>Nintendo said "Hey, is shiny shooter 2.0 any better than shiny shooter 1.0? If the gameplay is pretty much the same but the graphics look better, does that make it more fun? What if all the budget was spent on the shiny and nothing was left to pay for fun?" So their idea was to not go for the high-end. There were two consoles already competing on shiny. Nintendo decided to do something very, very different with the motion controller.</p><p>What's the end result? Games unlike what's available on the other consoles, at least when it's done right. By keeping the specs on the machine down, not going HD, Nintendo said they were emphasizing affordability. It can certainly run games that would have been considered shiny last generation but it can't keep up with the ps3 and 360, it wasn't meant to. Complaining that the Wii can't handle a AAA title originally meant for those two systems is missing the point in the most spectacular fail tradition imaginable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously another journo-troll saying something stupid to get people worked up .
Fuck it , I 'll bite.The gaming arms race has been about fancier graphics , bigger worlds , and more shiny .
Consoles are fucking expensive these days !
Seriously expensive .
Games cost a mint and do n't even get me started on the dev costs .
GTAIV cost $ 100 million to make ?
Insane. Good game but insane .
But this is the battle Sony and Microsoft wanted to fight.Nintendo said " Hey , is shiny shooter 2.0 any better than shiny shooter 1.0 ?
If the gameplay is pretty much the same but the graphics look better , does that make it more fun ?
What if all the budget was spent on the shiny and nothing was left to pay for fun ?
" So their idea was to not go for the high-end .
There were two consoles already competing on shiny .
Nintendo decided to do something very , very different with the motion controller.What 's the end result ?
Games unlike what 's available on the other consoles , at least when it 's done right .
By keeping the specs on the machine down , not going HD , Nintendo said they were emphasizing affordability .
It can certainly run games that would have been considered shiny last generation but it ca n't keep up with the ps3 and 360 , it was n't meant to .
Complaining that the Wii ca n't handle a AAA title originally meant for those two systems is missing the point in the most spectacular fail tradition imaginable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously another journo-troll saying something stupid to get people worked up.
Fuck it, I'll bite.The gaming arms race has been about fancier graphics, bigger worlds, and more shiny.
Consoles are fucking expensive these days!
Seriously expensive.
Games cost a mint and don't even get me started on the dev costs.
GTAIV cost $100 million to make?
Insane. Good game but insane.
But this is the battle Sony and Microsoft wanted to fight.Nintendo said "Hey, is shiny shooter 2.0 any better than shiny shooter 1.0?
If the gameplay is pretty much the same but the graphics look better, does that make it more fun?
What if all the budget was spent on the shiny and nothing was left to pay for fun?
" So their idea was to not go for the high-end.
There were two consoles already competing on shiny.
Nintendo decided to do something very, very different with the motion controller.What's the end result?
Games unlike what's available on the other consoles, at least when it's done right.
By keeping the specs on the machine down, not going HD, Nintendo said they were emphasizing affordability.
It can certainly run games that would have been considered shiny last generation but it can't keep up with the ps3 and 360, it wasn't meant to.
Complaining that the Wii can't handle a AAA title originally meant for those two systems is missing the point in the most spectacular fail tradition imaginable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175</id>
	<title>News Flash.</title>
	<author>solios</author>
	<datestamp>1244740200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wii isn't designed for these kinds of games.</p><p>That's what the X-Box 360, PS3, and PC are for.  The Wii is for people who want to play games they can quickly pick up and put down.</p><p>D13 H4rD G4M3RZ are <i>NOT</i> the target audience.</p><p>(Score -1: Obvious)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii is n't designed for these kinds of games.That 's what the X-Box 360 , PS3 , and PC are for .
The Wii is for people who want to play games they can quickly pick up and put down.D13 H4rD G4M3RZ are NOT the target audience .
( Score -1 : Obvious )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii isn't designed for these kinds of games.That's what the X-Box 360, PS3, and PC are for.
The Wii is for people who want to play games they can quickly pick up and put down.D13 H4rD G4M3RZ are NOT the target audience.
(Score -1: Obvious)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295943</id>
	<title>Call of Duty Comparison</title>
	<author>fiznook29</author>
	<datestamp>1244742840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I bought the Wii for my kids.  They love it and I love playing with them.  I wanted to get a "real" game for myself and friends so I picked up Call of Duty for the Wii.  In short, it was awful to play co-op.  I controlled where we walked and we both had zappers(guns).  It was one screen instead of split screen!  I had similar experiences with other games.    It was the last straw for me and I saved up and bought a PS3 and now have a machine for me.  Bottom line in general terms:

Wii:  Family and Kids -
PS3/Xbox:  Hard core gamers.

One bonus...the Wii *is* very easily hacked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought the Wii for my kids .
They love it and I love playing with them .
I wanted to get a " real " game for myself and friends so I picked up Call of Duty for the Wii .
In short , it was awful to play co-op .
I controlled where we walked and we both had zappers ( guns ) .
It was one screen instead of split screen !
I had similar experiences with other games .
It was the last straw for me and I saved up and bought a PS3 and now have a machine for me .
Bottom line in general terms : Wii : Family and Kids - PS3/Xbox : Hard core gamers .
One bonus...the Wii * is * very easily hacked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought the Wii for my kids.
They love it and I love playing with them.
I wanted to get a "real" game for myself and friends so I picked up Call of Duty for the Wii.
In short, it was awful to play co-op.
I controlled where we walked and we both had zappers(guns).
It was one screen instead of split screen!
I had similar experiences with other games.
It was the last straw for me and I saved up and bought a PS3 and now have a machine for me.
Bottom line in general terms:

Wii:  Family and Kids -
PS3/Xbox:  Hard core gamers.
One bonus...the Wii *is* very easily hacked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28300905</id>
	<title>Re:moron writer</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1244717040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen, all I can say is thank god Unreal Engine 3 won't run on Wii. That shiny shit on everything just kills me. So much for realism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen , all I can say is thank god Unreal Engine 3 wo n't run on Wii .
That shiny shit on everything just kills me .
So much for realism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen, all I can say is thank god Unreal Engine 3 won't run on Wii.
That shiny shit on everything just kills me.
So much for realism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299107</id>
	<title>Two different worlds</title>
	<author>James Skarzinskas</author>
	<datestamp>1244753760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What we're really seeing here is a rapid progression towards a sort of unified, multi-platform "PC-lite" phenomenon. As you've mentioned, the line of distinction between Sony and Microsoft's offerings has blurred significantly in this past generation, but it's a line that's only going to become less and less defined from here on out. Game developers are simply refusing to commit to exclusivity (and why would they? When engines like Capcom's MT framework have been built from the ground up with ease of portability in mind, there's very little monetary enticement either Sony or Microsoft could feasibly offer that would outweigh the profits of a multi-platform release) and gamers are quickly coming to expect the same lineup from both Sony and Microsoft.</p><p>Additionally, the ancillary features of these modern consoles mimic those of home theater PCs. Microsoft and Sony are continually embracing the fact that future game consoles may simply be modern gaming PCs with an accessible, simplified, sleek user interfaces to wrap booting games, watching movies, and other trivial PC activities. For those major players, the divide between console gaming and PC gaming is rapidly vanishing. I've kind of gone off on a tangential rant here, sorry.</p><p>On the other hand, whether it's with respect to control gimmick or platform, Nintendo still lives in its own slice of alien world - and it's thriving there. Does the Wii provide a watered down experience? Well, technically, yes, but practically, it's just providing a different game experience. If you're trying to compare and contrast it with a beefy gaming rig or a 360 or what have you, you just have to remember where Nintendo is coming from - part of its design ethic is to take dated hardware, twist out a new spin on it, and make it relevant (and fun) today. Truth be told? Nintendo does a damn good job of it. Let's consider the following: at E3, Nintendo and Microsoft both showcased 2D platformer offerings for the coming year; Nintendo displayed New Super Mario Bros Wii, while Microsoft displayed its Metroid-inspired Shadow Complex. Which do you think is going to sell more, by millions? Which do you think will be more technically and visually appealing? Lastly, which will be the more *fun* "game experience"? These questions provide some real insight into the question this story is asking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What we 're really seeing here is a rapid progression towards a sort of unified , multi-platform " PC-lite " phenomenon .
As you 've mentioned , the line of distinction between Sony and Microsoft 's offerings has blurred significantly in this past generation , but it 's a line that 's only going to become less and less defined from here on out .
Game developers are simply refusing to commit to exclusivity ( and why would they ?
When engines like Capcom 's MT framework have been built from the ground up with ease of portability in mind , there 's very little monetary enticement either Sony or Microsoft could feasibly offer that would outweigh the profits of a multi-platform release ) and gamers are quickly coming to expect the same lineup from both Sony and Microsoft.Additionally , the ancillary features of these modern consoles mimic those of home theater PCs .
Microsoft and Sony are continually embracing the fact that future game consoles may simply be modern gaming PCs with an accessible , simplified , sleek user interfaces to wrap booting games , watching movies , and other trivial PC activities .
For those major players , the divide between console gaming and PC gaming is rapidly vanishing .
I 've kind of gone off on a tangential rant here , sorry.On the other hand , whether it 's with respect to control gimmick or platform , Nintendo still lives in its own slice of alien world - and it 's thriving there .
Does the Wii provide a watered down experience ?
Well , technically , yes , but practically , it 's just providing a different game experience .
If you 're trying to compare and contrast it with a beefy gaming rig or a 360 or what have you , you just have to remember where Nintendo is coming from - part of its design ethic is to take dated hardware , twist out a new spin on it , and make it relevant ( and fun ) today .
Truth be told ?
Nintendo does a damn good job of it .
Let 's consider the following : at E3 , Nintendo and Microsoft both showcased 2D platformer offerings for the coming year ; Nintendo displayed New Super Mario Bros Wii , while Microsoft displayed its Metroid-inspired Shadow Complex .
Which do you think is going to sell more , by millions ?
Which do you think will be more technically and visually appealing ?
Lastly , which will be the more * fun * " game experience " ?
These questions provide some real insight into the question this story is asking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What we're really seeing here is a rapid progression towards a sort of unified, multi-platform "PC-lite" phenomenon.
As you've mentioned, the line of distinction between Sony and Microsoft's offerings has blurred significantly in this past generation, but it's a line that's only going to become less and less defined from here on out.
Game developers are simply refusing to commit to exclusivity (and why would they?
When engines like Capcom's MT framework have been built from the ground up with ease of portability in mind, there's very little monetary enticement either Sony or Microsoft could feasibly offer that would outweigh the profits of a multi-platform release) and gamers are quickly coming to expect the same lineup from both Sony and Microsoft.Additionally, the ancillary features of these modern consoles mimic those of home theater PCs.
Microsoft and Sony are continually embracing the fact that future game consoles may simply be modern gaming PCs with an accessible, simplified, sleek user interfaces to wrap booting games, watching movies, and other trivial PC activities.
For those major players, the divide between console gaming and PC gaming is rapidly vanishing.
I've kind of gone off on a tangential rant here, sorry.On the other hand, whether it's with respect to control gimmick or platform, Nintendo still lives in its own slice of alien world - and it's thriving there.
Does the Wii provide a watered down experience?
Well, technically, yes, but practically, it's just providing a different game experience.
If you're trying to compare and contrast it with a beefy gaming rig or a 360 or what have you, you just have to remember where Nintendo is coming from - part of its design ethic is to take dated hardware, twist out a new spin on it, and make it relevant (and fun) today.
Truth be told?
Nintendo does a damn good job of it.
Let's consider the following: at E3, Nintendo and Microsoft both showcased 2D platformer offerings for the coming year; Nintendo displayed New Super Mario Bros Wii, while Microsoft displayed its Metroid-inspired Shadow Complex.
Which do you think is going to sell more, by millions?
Which do you think will be more technically and visually appealing?
Lastly, which will be the more *fun* "game experience"?
These questions provide some real insight into the question this story is asking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296395</id>
	<title>Ahh sweet redemption</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1244744460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The simple facts are these:  The wii is a child's toy compared to the PC, xbox360 and ps3.</p><p>It cannot provide the horsepower necessary to calculate real-time physics or lighting.  So it is stuck providing children's games of the same caliber it entered the market with.  The game experience cannot grow or blossom like other, more powerful consoles simply because they entered the market with hardware that was too weak to sustain it.  Technology changed in that time.  Games are doing more things.</p><p>Just because you disagree with what a game is, doesn't mean I'm wrong.  Games are not all about the game play, not any more.  Games are only about the game play once you reach the technical limitations of your hardware.  So, while it may be true for the wii, the other consoles and the PC are providing a much more rich experience.  Games now are as much about the music and visual effects as they are about the method of control, which has seen many new options in the past year.</p><p>The once-innovative wii controller no longer holds domain over motion controllers.  With the advent of project natal, sony's purple dildo controller, and the much anticipated Motus controler, the wii simply isn't necessary anymore.  So cry in your ramune and eat those last pocky.  Those days are over.</p><p>Of course all the nintendorks will mod me down, but remember there's no -1 disagree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The simple facts are these : The wii is a child 's toy compared to the PC , xbox360 and ps3.It can not provide the horsepower necessary to calculate real-time physics or lighting .
So it is stuck providing children 's games of the same caliber it entered the market with .
The game experience can not grow or blossom like other , more powerful consoles simply because they entered the market with hardware that was too weak to sustain it .
Technology changed in that time .
Games are doing more things.Just because you disagree with what a game is , does n't mean I 'm wrong .
Games are not all about the game play , not any more .
Games are only about the game play once you reach the technical limitations of your hardware .
So , while it may be true for the wii , the other consoles and the PC are providing a much more rich experience .
Games now are as much about the music and visual effects as they are about the method of control , which has seen many new options in the past year.The once-innovative wii controller no longer holds domain over motion controllers .
With the advent of project natal , sony 's purple dildo controller , and the much anticipated Motus controler , the wii simply is n't necessary anymore .
So cry in your ramune and eat those last pocky .
Those days are over.Of course all the nintendorks will mod me down , but remember there 's no -1 disagree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The simple facts are these:  The wii is a child's toy compared to the PC, xbox360 and ps3.It cannot provide the horsepower necessary to calculate real-time physics or lighting.
So it is stuck providing children's games of the same caliber it entered the market with.
The game experience cannot grow or blossom like other, more powerful consoles simply because they entered the market with hardware that was too weak to sustain it.
Technology changed in that time.
Games are doing more things.Just because you disagree with what a game is, doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Games are not all about the game play, not any more.
Games are only about the game play once you reach the technical limitations of your hardware.
So, while it may be true for the wii, the other consoles and the PC are providing a much more rich experience.
Games now are as much about the music and visual effects as they are about the method of control, which has seen many new options in the past year.The once-innovative wii controller no longer holds domain over motion controllers.
With the advent of project natal, sony's purple dildo controller, and the much anticipated Motus controler, the wii simply isn't necessary anymore.
So cry in your ramune and eat those last pocky.
Those days are over.Of course all the nintendorks will mod me down, but remember there's no -1 disagree.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295293</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>Manip</author>
	<datestamp>1244740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>The Megadrive, SNES, Cell Phones, and Game Boy all have exceptional games created for them. The only difference between those devices and the WII is that the WII almost requires you to use the motion capture controller and while we've spent over thirty years designing games using joysticks, controllers, and similarly keyboards this motion capture thing is still very new.</p><p>Let's also consider, that because out of the top three platforms only one supports motion capture, you might see less of a return on your investment as opposed to just creating a traditional game with existing code and hitting the 360, PS3, and PC.</p><p>TLDR:<br>
&nbsp; - Technology<br>
&nbsp; - Creativity<br>
&nbsp; - Existing Code / Legacy<br>
&nbsp; - And most of all MONEY</p><p>Stand in the way of exceptional games on the WII.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.The Megadrive , SNES , Cell Phones , and Game Boy all have exceptional games created for them .
The only difference between those devices and the WII is that the WII almost requires you to use the motion capture controller and while we 've spent over thirty years designing games using joysticks , controllers , and similarly keyboards this motion capture thing is still very new.Let 's also consider , that because out of the top three platforms only one supports motion capture , you might see less of a return on your investment as opposed to just creating a traditional game with existing code and hitting the 360 , PS3 , and PC.TLDR :   - Technology   - Creativity   - Existing Code / Legacy   - And most of all MONEYStand in the way of exceptional games on the WII .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.The Megadrive, SNES, Cell Phones, and Game Boy all have exceptional games created for them.
The only difference between those devices and the WII is that the WII almost requires you to use the motion capture controller and while we've spent over thirty years designing games using joysticks, controllers, and similarly keyboards this motion capture thing is still very new.Let's also consider, that because out of the top three platforms only one supports motion capture, you might see less of a return on your investment as opposed to just creating a traditional game with existing code and hitting the 360, PS3, and PC.TLDR:
  - Technology
  - Creativity
  - Existing Code / Legacy
  - And most of all MONEYStand in the way of exceptional games on the WII.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296717</id>
	<title>What would a more powerful Wii be like?</title>
	<author>flibbidyfloo</author>
	<datestamp>1244745600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nintendo could have easily made the Wii far more powerful, CPU, RAM, and graphics-wise. But then it would have cost far more, and would have lost one of the main reasons it sits in so many homes now. A lot of families bought the Wii for their kids for three main reasons: Price, N's kid-friendly reputation, and ease-of-use. Only the first factor would have changed with better hardware, but it would have made the decision a lot harder if it had debuted at $350+.</p><p>To be honest, most Wii games are crap. The Wii has fewer highly rated games than either of the other systems because while good developers are still figuring out how to make good games, the shelves are filling up with junk pushed out by opportunistic hacks with every kid-friendly IP license they can get their hands on.</p><p>But I bet if the Wii had the power of the X360, the main result would have been way more ports of standard games like PoP, and instead of complaining about RAM limitations, devs would be complaining about having to develop a new control scheme. At least this way they are forced to come up with new ideas instead of just rehashing all the same ones that are on the other two systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo could have easily made the Wii far more powerful , CPU , RAM , and graphics-wise .
But then it would have cost far more , and would have lost one of the main reasons it sits in so many homes now .
A lot of families bought the Wii for their kids for three main reasons : Price , N 's kid-friendly reputation , and ease-of-use .
Only the first factor would have changed with better hardware , but it would have made the decision a lot harder if it had debuted at $ 350 + .To be honest , most Wii games are crap .
The Wii has fewer highly rated games than either of the other systems because while good developers are still figuring out how to make good games , the shelves are filling up with junk pushed out by opportunistic hacks with every kid-friendly IP license they can get their hands on.But I bet if the Wii had the power of the X360 , the main result would have been way more ports of standard games like PoP , and instead of complaining about RAM limitations , devs would be complaining about having to develop a new control scheme .
At least this way they are forced to come up with new ideas instead of just rehashing all the same ones that are on the other two systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo could have easily made the Wii far more powerful, CPU, RAM, and graphics-wise.
But then it would have cost far more, and would have lost one of the main reasons it sits in so many homes now.
A lot of families bought the Wii for their kids for three main reasons: Price, N's kid-friendly reputation, and ease-of-use.
Only the first factor would have changed with better hardware, but it would have made the decision a lot harder if it had debuted at $350+.To be honest, most Wii games are crap.
The Wii has fewer highly rated games than either of the other systems because while good developers are still figuring out how to make good games, the shelves are filling up with junk pushed out by opportunistic hacks with every kid-friendly IP license they can get their hands on.But I bet if the Wii had the power of the X360, the main result would have been way more ports of standard games like PoP, and instead of complaining about RAM limitations, devs would be complaining about having to develop a new control scheme.
At least this way they are forced to come up with new ideas instead of just rehashing all the same ones that are on the other two systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295385</id>
	<title>The Wii can have complexity, but maybe shouldn't</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1244740800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Wii has the hardware to make very solid, deep, complex games work.  That was possible on a 386.  Sure, the Wii is going to have "watered-down" graphics, but graphics don't stand in the way of greatness.</p><p>So why would the Wii version have, as mentioned in TFS, a likelihood of being linear and less satisfying for certain players?  The Wii has attracted huge numbers of casual gamers, hence it's gigantic install base.  Most of these people, however, aren't interested in a very deep experience, because that's never been how the Wii was advertised.  I'd wager that the number of potential customers looking for very involved games is much higher among PS3, 360, and of course PC owners than among Wii owners.  If you're going to make something for the Wii, it's extremely hard to target this small subset when the casual gamers offer a potentially much more lucrative alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii has the hardware to make very solid , deep , complex games work .
That was possible on a 386 .
Sure , the Wii is going to have " watered-down " graphics , but graphics do n't stand in the way of greatness.So why would the Wii version have , as mentioned in TFS , a likelihood of being linear and less satisfying for certain players ?
The Wii has attracted huge numbers of casual gamers , hence it 's gigantic install base .
Most of these people , however , are n't interested in a very deep experience , because that 's never been how the Wii was advertised .
I 'd wager that the number of potential customers looking for very involved games is much higher among PS3 , 360 , and of course PC owners than among Wii owners .
If you 're going to make something for the Wii , it 's extremely hard to target this small subset when the casual gamers offer a potentially much more lucrative alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii has the hardware to make very solid, deep, complex games work.
That was possible on a 386.
Sure, the Wii is going to have "watered-down" graphics, but graphics don't stand in the way of greatness.So why would the Wii version have, as mentioned in TFS, a likelihood of being linear and less satisfying for certain players?
The Wii has attracted huge numbers of casual gamers, hence it's gigantic install base.
Most of these people, however, aren't interested in a very deep experience, because that's never been how the Wii was advertised.
I'd wager that the number of potential customers looking for very involved games is much higher among PS3, 360, and of course PC owners than among Wii owners.
If you're going to make something for the Wii, it's extremely hard to target this small subset when the casual gamers offer a potentially much more lucrative alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297069</id>
	<title>Where's the swimming game?</title>
	<author>byronne</author>
	<datestamp>1244746740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there a casual competitive swimming game for the Wii?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there a casual competitive swimming game for the Wii ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there a casual competitive swimming game for the Wii?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295635</id>
	<title>Let me rephrase...</title>
	<author>lordtrickster</author>
	<datestamp>1244741760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does flag footbool provide a watered-down gaming experience?  (See NFL)
<br>
Do softball or kickball provide a watered-down gaming experience?  (See MLB)
<br>
Does "horse" provide a watered-down basketball experience?  (See NBA)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does flag footbool provide a watered-down gaming experience ?
( See NFL ) Do softball or kickball provide a watered-down gaming experience ?
( See MLB ) Does " horse " provide a watered-down basketball experience ?
( See NBA )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does flag footbool provide a watered-down gaming experience?
(See NFL)

Do softball or kickball provide a watered-down gaming experience?
(See MLB)

Does "horse" provide a watered-down basketball experience?
(See NBA)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295621</id>
	<title>Its the games ..</title>
	<author>StandAloneMatt</author>
	<datestamp>1244741700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did the PS2 persist once the Xbox came and reduced the PS2 to a graphically "watered down" experience.

Its not the tech, its the games - the first time Microsoft or Sony show the ingenuity and skill to produce something as intuitive and universal as Wii Sports or Wii Fit, then Nintendo might have some competition in the "casual" arena.

Until we see some games and support Natal and whatever the PS3 motion controller is called is nothing but a Sega Activator/Eye Toy/Six-Axis wannabe and not a real factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the PS2 persist once the Xbox came and reduced the PS2 to a graphically " watered down " experience .
Its not the tech , its the games - the first time Microsoft or Sony show the ingenuity and skill to produce something as intuitive and universal as Wii Sports or Wii Fit , then Nintendo might have some competition in the " casual " arena .
Until we see some games and support Natal and whatever the PS3 motion controller is called is nothing but a Sega Activator/Eye Toy/Six-Axis wannabe and not a real factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the PS2 persist once the Xbox came and reduced the PS2 to a graphically "watered down" experience.
Its not the tech, its the games - the first time Microsoft or Sony show the ingenuity and skill to produce something as intuitive and universal as Wii Sports or Wii Fit, then Nintendo might have some competition in the "casual" arena.
Until we see some games and support Natal and whatever the PS3 motion controller is called is nothing but a Sega Activator/Eye Toy/Six-Axis wannabe and not a real factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295223</id>
	<title>Only when you do lazy ports</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1244740320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It goes without saying that a lazy port of a title to a system with insufficient power to run the original, with chunks cut out to make it fit, will be a piece of shit. It's as true now as when they unveiled Duke 3D for the Game.Com. That tells us absolutely F-all about the remaining 90\% of Wii software that wasn't pumped out as a high-return bond by investor-fellating cash-mongers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It goes without saying that a lazy port of a title to a system with insufficient power to run the original , with chunks cut out to make it fit , will be a piece of shit .
It 's as true now as when they unveiled Duke 3D for the Game.Com .
That tells us absolutely F-all about the remaining 90 \ % of Wii software that was n't pumped out as a high-return bond by investor-fellating cash-mongers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It goes without saying that a lazy port of a title to a system with insufficient power to run the original, with chunks cut out to make it fit, will be a piece of shit.
It's as true now as when they unveiled Duke 3D for the Game.Com.
That tells us absolutely F-all about the remaining 90\% of Wii software that wasn't pumped out as a high-return bond by investor-fellating cash-mongers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297903</id>
	<title>Gameplay is a problem, not the capabilities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244749680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, my problem with games on the Wii isn't a watered down game experience. Its the fact that every game developer for the Wii seems to throw in a zillion moments where you need to shake the remote in a certain direction. Its not fun. Its annoying. Its a break in gameplay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , my problem with games on the Wii is n't a watered down game experience .
Its the fact that every game developer for the Wii seems to throw in a zillion moments where you need to shake the remote in a certain direction .
Its not fun .
Its annoying .
Its a break in gameplay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, my problem with games on the Wii isn't a watered down game experience.
Its the fact that every game developer for the Wii seems to throw in a zillion moments where you need to shake the remote in a certain direction.
Its not fun.
Its annoying.
Its a break in gameplay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296187</id>
	<title>Re:sales of the wii</title>
	<author>twidarkling</author>
	<datestamp>1244743740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That, or everyone on the fucking planet ALREADY OWNS ONE. Hard to sell more when they already have one. It takes time for the little kids to age enough to save up enough to buy another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That , or everyone on the fucking planet ALREADY OWNS ONE .
Hard to sell more when they already have one .
It takes time for the little kids to age enough to save up enough to buy another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That, or everyone on the fucking planet ALREADY OWNS ONE.
Hard to sell more when they already have one.
It takes time for the little kids to age enough to save up enough to buy another.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296261</id>
	<title>Article title corrected</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1244744040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Does Ben Mattes Provide a 'Watered-Down' Game Experience?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Does Ben Mattes Provide a 'Watered-Down ' Game Experience ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Does Ben Mattes Provide a 'Watered-Down' Game Experience?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297209</id>
	<title>Do dumb publishers provide a watered-down...</title>
	<author>GeekDork</author>
	<datestamp>1244747280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... game experience?</p><p>Just a thought. Make simple games that are fun to play? Use a system for what it's capable of, and not for what it isn't.</p><p>Hell, I'd suppose Wing Commander 1 or 2 could be ported to the Wii (with some control changes, maybe a communication/navigation system &#195; la i-War to get around the lack of a keyboard, and that'd not even be a low-profile game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... game experience ? Just a thought .
Make simple games that are fun to play ?
Use a system for what it 's capable of , and not for what it is n't.Hell , I 'd suppose Wing Commander 1 or 2 could be ported to the Wii ( with some control changes , maybe a communication/navigation system   la i-War to get around the lack of a keyboard , and that 'd not even be a low-profile game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... game experience?Just a thought.
Make simple games that are fun to play?
Use a system for what it's capable of, and not for what it isn't.Hell, I'd suppose Wing Commander 1 or 2 could be ported to the Wii (with some control changes, maybe a communication/navigation system Ã la i-War to get around the lack of a keyboard, and that'd not even be a low-profile game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295449</id>
	<title>Re:Give me a break</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1244741040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well the worst thing about his complaints is, the new Prince of Persia wasn't a good a very good game.  Elika's AI may have been complicated, but it wasn't reflected in the end-product by her doing anything very cool.  The "open-world" concept of the game was pretty weak-- getting from point A to point B was linear, but you were just given the option of whether you wanted to go from point A to point B, or from point A to point C.
</p><p>Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was a better game, and it was linear.  The girl sidekick from that game was just as good as Elika.  It didn't require particularly high-end hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well the worst thing about his complaints is , the new Prince of Persia was n't a good a very good game .
Elika 's AI may have been complicated , but it was n't reflected in the end-product by her doing anything very cool .
The " open-world " concept of the game was pretty weak-- getting from point A to point B was linear , but you were just given the option of whether you wanted to go from point A to point B , or from point A to point C . Prince of Persia : Sands of Time was a better game , and it was linear .
The girl sidekick from that game was just as good as Elika .
It did n't require particularly high-end hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well the worst thing about his complaints is, the new Prince of Persia wasn't a good a very good game.
Elika's AI may have been complicated, but it wasn't reflected in the end-product by her doing anything very cool.
The "open-world" concept of the game was pretty weak-- getting from point A to point B was linear, but you were just given the option of whether you wanted to go from point A to point B, or from point A to point C.
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was a better game, and it was linear.
The girl sidekick from that game was just as good as Elika.
It didn't require particularly high-end hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295583</id>
	<title>Re:Give me a break</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1244741580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Besides, Prince of Persia wasn't fun to begin with. Ubisoft just went downhill since last-gen's Sands of Time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , Prince of Persia was n't fun to begin with .
Ubisoft just went downhill since last-gen 's Sands of Time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, Prince of Persia wasn't fun to begin with.
Ubisoft just went downhill since last-gen's Sands of Time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296353</id>
	<title>Was Mario 64 "Linear"?</title>
	<author>cmholm</author>
	<datestamp>1244744280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've hit the nail on the head. If someone wants to publish a Wii title, they should design for it.</p><p>For example: <i>"<b>Crysis</b> was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done an <b>Xbox 360</b> version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience."</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've hit the nail on the head .
If someone wants to publish a Wii title , they should design for it.For example : " Crysis was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power ; the world size and dynamic loading , the draw distance , the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done an Xbox 360 version , it would have been toned down , probably linear ; it would n't have been an open-world game , and so it would have been a very different experience .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've hit the nail on the head.
If someone wants to publish a Wii title, they should design for it.For example: "Crysis was highly advanced and required a lot of processing power; the world size and dynamic loading, the draw distance, the number of polygons in the characters... If we had done an Xbox 360 version, it would have been toned down, probably linear; it wouldn't have been an open-world game, and so it would have been a very different experience.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297769</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1244749140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The doom of the Wii</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The doom of the Wii : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The doom of the Wii :D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295911</id>
	<title>Re:Of course it does.</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1244742780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Multiplayer on PC with a bunch of friends over involves everyone bringing a computer and having their own copies of games being played, each staring at their own screen. Console multiplayer involves sitting on the couch and making sure everyone has a controller. I can agree there is little appeal to playing the console version of a single-player game, but PC still lags behind in social multiplayer experience.<br> <br>
Relevent to the story, the Wii epitomizes this experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Multiplayer on PC with a bunch of friends over involves everyone bringing a computer and having their own copies of games being played , each staring at their own screen .
Console multiplayer involves sitting on the couch and making sure everyone has a controller .
I can agree there is little appeal to playing the console version of a single-player game , but PC still lags behind in social multiplayer experience .
Relevent to the story , the Wii epitomizes this experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Multiplayer on PC with a bunch of friends over involves everyone bringing a computer and having their own copies of games being played, each staring at their own screen.
Console multiplayer involves sitting on the couch and making sure everyone has a controller.
I can agree there is little appeal to playing the console version of a single-player game, but PC still lags behind in social multiplayer experience.
Relevent to the story, the Wii epitomizes this experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297959</id>
	<title>I blame...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244749800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Developers, Developers, Developers. Complaining about AAA on the Wii is complaining that your aircraft carrier can't go underwater, or your submarine doesn't have enough deck space for landing planes...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers , Developers , Developers .
Complaining about AAA on the Wii is complaining that your aircraft carrier ca n't go underwater , or your submarine does n't have enough deck space for landing planes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers, Developers, Developers.
Complaining about AAA on the Wii is complaining that your aircraft carrier can't go underwater, or your submarine doesn't have enough deck space for landing planes...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298851</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1244752920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If the typical Wii user is like me, Ubisoft should keep the hell out of it. Ubisoft wouldn't know a fun game if it hit them in the collective head.</i></p><p>Ubisoft made Beyond Good and Evil and the first (of the modern) Prince of Persia.  That earns them a lot of slack from me.  Because those games were fun as hell (if, you know, burning torture was fun).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the typical Wii user is like me , Ubisoft should keep the hell out of it .
Ubisoft would n't know a fun game if it hit them in the collective head.Ubisoft made Beyond Good and Evil and the first ( of the modern ) Prince of Persia .
That earns them a lot of slack from me .
Because those games were fun as hell ( if , you know , burning torture was fun ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the typical Wii user is like me, Ubisoft should keep the hell out of it.
Ubisoft wouldn't know a fun game if it hit them in the collective head.Ubisoft made Beyond Good and Evil and the first (of the modern) Prince of Persia.
That earns them a lot of slack from me.
Because those games were fun as hell (if, you know, burning torture was fun).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28374851</id>
	<title>Re:Silk Purse</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1245343380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your reference to MadWorld just shows you're a part of the collective group think of so-called "hardcore gamers" who claim to understand marketing and demographics.<br>Madworld was a mediocre game with practically no marketing. If it had been released for any other console it would have sold like shit and been in the bargain bin within a month.<br>It had mediocre sales.</p><p>Your point exactly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your reference to MadWorld just shows you 're a part of the collective group think of so-called " hardcore gamers " who claim to understand marketing and demographics.Madworld was a mediocre game with practically no marketing .
If it had been released for any other console it would have sold like shit and been in the bargain bin within a month.It had mediocre sales.Your point exactly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your reference to MadWorld just shows you're a part of the collective group think of so-called "hardcore gamers" who claim to understand marketing and demographics.Madworld was a mediocre game with practically no marketing.
If it had been released for any other console it would have sold like shit and been in the bargain bin within a month.It had mediocre sales.Your point exactly?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28374851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28300879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28302637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28314897
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28305871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28308593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28300905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28303459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28305111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28304763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28303501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_160251_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28304615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28305871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28303501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28300905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28303459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28300879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295049
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296283
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295849
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28305111
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299909
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28374851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28304763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28314897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28297163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28304615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295181
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28308593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28298419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295373
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28302637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28299073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28295279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28296253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_160251.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_160251.28305351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
