<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_19_0514228</id>
	<title><em>New Super Mario Bros. Wii</em> To Include Official "Cheat"</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245405420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>phlack writes <i>"Yahoo Games has an article describing a new mode in Nintendo's upcoming <em>New Super Mario Bros. Wii</em> that will <a href="http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/innovative-nintendo-game-help-system-to-debut-this-year/1326709">allow the player to activate a 'demo' mode</a> to get out of a hard situation.  Nintendo plans on incorporating this into future games.  Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"</i>
They actually <a href="//games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/10/0724210&amp;tid=234">patented this system</a> as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>phlack writes " Yahoo Games has an article describing a new mode in Nintendo 's upcoming New Super Mario Bros. Wii that will allow the player to activate a 'demo ' mode to get out of a hard situation .
Nintendo plans on incorporating this into future games .
Is this a good idea ( to help relieve frustrations ) or just sanctioned cheating ?
" They actually patented this system as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>phlack writes "Yahoo Games has an article describing a new mode in Nintendo's upcoming New Super Mario Bros. Wii that will allow the player to activate a 'demo' mode to get out of a hard situation.
Nintendo plans on incorporating this into future games.
Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?
"
They actually patented this system as well.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390501</id>
	<title>Re:Both</title>
	<author>Jim Hall</author>
	<datestamp>1245428580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes and yes. It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.
But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill. I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.</p> </div><p>I played about 95\% of "Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones".  I <em>almost</em> gave up on the game at the other boss battle at the King's Road, where you fight two bosses at once: one with an axe, one with a sword. Barely made it. But I stopped completely when I hit the final boss battle, with the Vizier. It got <em>waaaaay</em> too frustrating to keep banging my head against that level. I understand the temptation to make boss battles that hard and repetitive, but that one got to be too much.</p><p>I gave up on it. I quit. Fuck it. Sold it back to GameStop.</p><p>Later, I head from some of my friends who had finished the game that the <em>next</em> level was, by far, the best level in the game. Too bad, I never got to play it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes and yes .
It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game , thereby 'diminishing ' the meaning of playing it .
But , hey , you paid for the game , I say you should be able to access all of its content , regardless of your playing skill .
I would never use the cheat option , but I 'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently .
I played about 95 \ % of " Prince of Persia : The Two Thrones " .
I almost gave up on the game at the other boss battle at the King 's Road , where you fight two bosses at once : one with an axe , one with a sword .
Barely made it .
But I stopped completely when I hit the final boss battle , with the Vizier .
It got waaaaay too frustrating to keep banging my head against that level .
I understand the temptation to make boss battles that hard and repetitive , but that one got to be too much.I gave up on it .
I quit .
Fuck it .
Sold it back to GameStop.Later , I head from some of my friends who had finished the game that the next level was , by far , the best level in the game .
Too bad , I never got to play it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes and yes.
It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.
But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.
I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.
I played about 95\% of "Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones".
I almost gave up on the game at the other boss battle at the King's Road, where you fight two bosses at once: one with an axe, one with a sword.
Barely made it.
But I stopped completely when I hit the final boss battle, with the Vizier.
It got waaaaay too frustrating to keep banging my head against that level.
I understand the temptation to make boss battles that hard and repetitive, but that one got to be too much.I gave up on it.
I quit.
Fuck it.
Sold it back to GameStop.Later, I head from some of my friends who had finished the game that the next level was, by far, the best level in the game.
Too bad, I never got to play it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387323</id>
	<title>Perfect platform for this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245410760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a good idea for the Wii. This platform is not supposed to be for hardcore gamers and the focus is more on the general public. Take myself as an example: I play the Wii but unlike my kids I don't have time to repeat a game sequence hundreds of times until I get it right. If I get stuck somewhere in a game I don't waste my time and I move on (read I drop this particlar game). I'm looking forward to be able to skip a frustrating part and get on with the rest of the game. I am not playing to get frustrated</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a good idea for the Wii .
This platform is not supposed to be for hardcore gamers and the focus is more on the general public .
Take myself as an example : I play the Wii but unlike my kids I do n't have time to repeat a game sequence hundreds of times until I get it right .
If I get stuck somewhere in a game I do n't waste my time and I move on ( read I drop this particlar game ) .
I 'm looking forward to be able to skip a frustrating part and get on with the rest of the game .
I am not playing to get frustrated</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a good idea for the Wii.
This platform is not supposed to be for hardcore gamers and the focus is more on the general public.
Take myself as an example: I play the Wii but unlike my kids I don't have time to repeat a game sequence hundreds of times until I get it right.
If I get stuck somewhere in a game I don't waste my time and I move on (read I drop this particlar game).
I'm looking forward to be able to skip a frustrating part and get on with the rest of the game.
I am not playing to get frustrated</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28399411</id>
	<title>Developing as a Person</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245435360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Growing up playing everything on hard mode, never ever cheating (and I mean ever), I have developed a very particular set of skills that I am extremely fond of.  These skills include (but are not limited to) perserverence, patience, the ability to stay resolute in an atmosphere of extreme pessimism (thanks GLaDOS), self-confidence, and I suppose a bit of dexterity.  In my opinion, nurture trumps nature in all of these cases as I had to LEARN to stick with it even after my palm started bleeding from Mario Party 2 or my throat hurt screaming due to attempting the final boss from "I Wanna Be the Guy".  I had to learn to calm myself down after a half hour went to waste because a single security guard saw my barcode-ridden head peeking through a keyhole after 45 minutes of being extremely precise in my black suit and red tie.  In fact, I remember crying when I was 6 or so because the large bumble bee boss on Donkey Kong Country 1 was just way too hard for my current skill.  But I persisted, and overcame that darn bee.</p><p>My point here is, I developed as a person due to having many many traumatic experiences, and overcoming said experiences.</p><p>On a side note, why can't they just have difficulty levels?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Growing up playing everything on hard mode , never ever cheating ( and I mean ever ) , I have developed a very particular set of skills that I am extremely fond of .
These skills include ( but are not limited to ) perserverence , patience , the ability to stay resolute in an atmosphere of extreme pessimism ( thanks GLaDOS ) , self-confidence , and I suppose a bit of dexterity .
In my opinion , nurture trumps nature in all of these cases as I had to LEARN to stick with it even after my palm started bleeding from Mario Party 2 or my throat hurt screaming due to attempting the final boss from " I Wan na Be the Guy " .
I had to learn to calm myself down after a half hour went to waste because a single security guard saw my barcode-ridden head peeking through a keyhole after 45 minutes of being extremely precise in my black suit and red tie .
In fact , I remember crying when I was 6 or so because the large bumble bee boss on Donkey Kong Country 1 was just way too hard for my current skill .
But I persisted , and overcame that darn bee.My point here is , I developed as a person due to having many many traumatic experiences , and overcoming said experiences.On a side note , why ca n't they just have difficulty levels ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Growing up playing everything on hard mode, never ever cheating (and I mean ever), I have developed a very particular set of skills that I am extremely fond of.
These skills include (but are not limited to) perserverence, patience, the ability to stay resolute in an atmosphere of extreme pessimism (thanks GLaDOS), self-confidence, and I suppose a bit of dexterity.
In my opinion, nurture trumps nature in all of these cases as I had to LEARN to stick with it even after my palm started bleeding from Mario Party 2 or my throat hurt screaming due to attempting the final boss from "I Wanna Be the Guy".
I had to learn to calm myself down after a half hour went to waste because a single security guard saw my barcode-ridden head peeking through a keyhole after 45 minutes of being extremely precise in my black suit and red tie.
In fact, I remember crying when I was 6 or so because the large bumble bee boss on Donkey Kong Country 1 was just way too hard for my current skill.
But I persisted, and overcame that darn bee.My point here is, I developed as a person due to having many many traumatic experiences, and overcoming said experiences.On a side note, why can't they just have difficulty levels?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387403</id>
	<title>Re:Both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"</p></div><p>Yes and yes.  It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.</p><p>But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.  I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.</p><p>(I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p )</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes and yes.  It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.</p><p>But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.  I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.</p></div><p>How, in your opinion, does this concept extend into online play? People who "grief" in online games often say things such as "I paid $X for this, I can spend my time ruining everyone else' gameplay if I want to." Barring any Terms of Service violations, these people are often right. What does that do to the quality of the game, however? If a player can impede another player's enjoyment of a game that they both purchased, who's happiness should get preferentrial treatment?</p><p>The second example are cheats (such as aimbots or wallhacks in first person shooters or drophacks, maphacks, and bots in rpgs/mmorpgs) often claim that "Well, I paid $X for this game, I can do whatever I want in it. It's just a game. You're a tryhard." I know several people who get a lot of enjoyment out of cheating in online games. By cheating, they are able to "see the next level" of the game and "bypass the essential struggle of the game". They paid for the game and online content, right? So they should "be able to access all of it's content, regardless of [their] skill".</p><p>I agree with your sentiment. One pays for the game, they should have access to the content. I am interested in if you believe that your point of view is equally valid on online play.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a good idea ( to help relieve frustrations ) or just sanctioned cheating ?
" Yes and yes .
It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game , thereby 'diminishing ' the meaning of playing it.But , hey , you paid for the game , I say you should be able to access all of its content , regardless of your playing skill .
I would never use the cheat option , but I 'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently .
( I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me .
: p ) Yes and yes .
It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game , thereby 'diminishing ' the meaning of playing it.But , hey , you paid for the game , I say you should be able to access all of its content , regardless of your playing skill .
I would never use the cheat option , but I 'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.How , in your opinion , does this concept extend into online play ?
People who " grief " in online games often say things such as " I paid $ X for this , I can spend my time ruining everyone else ' gameplay if I want to .
" Barring any Terms of Service violations , these people are often right .
What does that do to the quality of the game , however ?
If a player can impede another player 's enjoyment of a game that they both purchased , who 's happiness should get preferentrial treatment ? The second example are cheats ( such as aimbots or wallhacks in first person shooters or drophacks , maphacks , and bots in rpgs/mmorpgs ) often claim that " Well , I paid $ X for this game , I can do whatever I want in it .
It 's just a game .
You 're a tryhard .
" I know several people who get a lot of enjoyment out of cheating in online games .
By cheating , they are able to " see the next level " of the game and " bypass the essential struggle of the game " .
They paid for the game and online content , right ?
So they should " be able to access all of it 's content , regardless of [ their ] skill " .I agree with your sentiment .
One pays for the game , they should have access to the content .
I am interested in if you believe that your point of view is equally valid on online play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?
"Yes and yes.
It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.
I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.
(I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me.
:p )Yes and yes.
It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.
I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.How, in your opinion, does this concept extend into online play?
People who "grief" in online games often say things such as "I paid $X for this, I can spend my time ruining everyone else' gameplay if I want to.
" Barring any Terms of Service violations, these people are often right.
What does that do to the quality of the game, however?
If a player can impede another player's enjoyment of a game that they both purchased, who's happiness should get preferentrial treatment?The second example are cheats (such as aimbots or wallhacks in first person shooters or drophacks, maphacks, and bots in rpgs/mmorpgs) often claim that "Well, I paid $X for this game, I can do whatever I want in it.
It's just a game.
You're a tryhard.
" I know several people who get a lot of enjoyment out of cheating in online games.
By cheating, they are able to "see the next level" of the game and "bypass the essential struggle of the game".
They paid for the game and online content, right?
So they should "be able to access all of it's content, regardless of [their] skill".I agree with your sentiment.
One pays for the game, they should have access to the content.
I am interested in if you believe that your point of view is equally valid on online play.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390229</id>
	<title>Firstly</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1245427440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't new at all. TOONNNNS of video games have had cheats. Hell with a Nintendo owned gamegenie or a gameshark you could cheat on the earliest Mario games. So don't get uppity just cause you are older. It didn't seem to ruin everything back then. There just came a whole generation of people that refused to use cheats. Sure if you are bored and beaten it before then play around in invincibility mode and it is content added. But really cheat codes are no different than difficulty settings.<br> <br> Next the one thing I would like to see is the inability to rank or w/e while you are cheating. I remember in Warcraft1 and 2 if you cheated when you beat the level you'd be labeled as a cheater. I think with that there could be no complaints.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't new at all .
TOONNNNS of video games have had cheats .
Hell with a Nintendo owned gamegenie or a gameshark you could cheat on the earliest Mario games .
So do n't get uppity just cause you are older .
It did n't seem to ruin everything back then .
There just came a whole generation of people that refused to use cheats .
Sure if you are bored and beaten it before then play around in invincibility mode and it is content added .
But really cheat codes are no different than difficulty settings .
Next the one thing I would like to see is the inability to rank or w/e while you are cheating .
I remember in Warcraft1 and 2 if you cheated when you beat the level you 'd be labeled as a cheater .
I think with that there could be no complaints .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't new at all.
TOONNNNS of video games have had cheats.
Hell with a Nintendo owned gamegenie or a gameshark you could cheat on the earliest Mario games.
So don't get uppity just cause you are older.
It didn't seem to ruin everything back then.
There just came a whole generation of people that refused to use cheats.
Sure if you are bored and beaten it before then play around in invincibility mode and it is content added.
But really cheat codes are no different than difficulty settings.
Next the one thing I would like to see is the inability to rank or w/e while you are cheating.
I remember in Warcraft1 and 2 if you cheated when you beat the level you'd be labeled as a cheater.
I think with that there could be no complaints.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388735</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1245421260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The decline in difficulty is probably inversely proportional with the popularity of video games. Can you imagine a game like King's Quest V, renowned for its dead ends and incredibly hard puzzles, taking off in today's market? No, because people who play games aren't just fixated on mastering and beating a game, they just want something to do in their free time. Sure, there's a NICHE MARKET that enjoys that kind of thing, but it's just that -- a niche. If you don't like the "cheat" mode, then don't use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The decline in difficulty is probably inversely proportional with the popularity of video games .
Can you imagine a game like King 's Quest V , renowned for its dead ends and incredibly hard puzzles , taking off in today 's market ?
No , because people who play games are n't just fixated on mastering and beating a game , they just want something to do in their free time .
Sure , there 's a NICHE MARKET that enjoys that kind of thing , but it 's just that -- a niche .
If you do n't like the " cheat " mode , then do n't use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The decline in difficulty is probably inversely proportional with the popularity of video games.
Can you imagine a game like King's Quest V, renowned for its dead ends and incredibly hard puzzles, taking off in today's market?
No, because people who play games aren't just fixated on mastering and beating a game, they just want something to do in their free time.
Sure, there's a NICHE MARKET that enjoys that kind of thing, but it's just that -- a niche.
If you don't like the "cheat" mode, then don't use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390593</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1245428940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?</p></div><p>With nothing to aim for or look forward to, life gets boring pretty quickly.</p><p>Imagine how much more enjoyment someone who had to work months/years to afford their car gets out of it than someone who was born into an incredibly rich family and has everything handed to them on a plate.</p><p>With Uncharted there were a lot of unlockables that I had fun with which would have made the game incredibly boring and easy if I had had them since the start of the game. I never activate the cheats on a game until I have completed it for example, but you strike me as someone who would just cheat as soon as you can so you can get to the "good" parts (maybe even one of those people who plays online games with cheats? What the hell is the point in that? I don't understand how it can be rewarding in the least, unless you get your jollies off on pissing people off).</p><p>I'm not saying that games should <i>always</i> operate like that, but it is a valid way of making you appreciate the rewards more. It probably will force you to explore elements that you otherwise would have missed, which in the long run will increase your enjoyment of the game ("kill 30 enemies with the grenade launcher" type stuff despite the fact that you usually would just not bother with that weapon, but it turns out to be good in this game, etc).</p><p>I generally agree with your last paragraph, was going to mention a couple of things but realised I do play devil's advocate far too much (as with my original comment, when I knew as I was typing that having to spend hours to get to an unlockable could cause you to dislike something you would have otherwise enjoyed if you build up too high expectations of how fun it's really going to be)..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros. ?
Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game ? With nothing to aim for or look forward to , life gets boring pretty quickly.Imagine how much more enjoyment someone who had to work months/years to afford their car gets out of it than someone who was born into an incredibly rich family and has everything handed to them on a plate.With Uncharted there were a lot of unlockables that I had fun with which would have made the game incredibly boring and easy if I had had them since the start of the game .
I never activate the cheats on a game until I have completed it for example , but you strike me as someone who would just cheat as soon as you can so you can get to the " good " parts ( maybe even one of those people who plays online games with cheats ?
What the hell is the point in that ?
I do n't understand how it can be rewarding in the least , unless you get your jollies off on pissing people off ) .I 'm not saying that games should always operate like that , but it is a valid way of making you appreciate the rewards more .
It probably will force you to explore elements that you otherwise would have missed , which in the long run will increase your enjoyment of the game ( " kill 30 enemies with the grenade launcher " type stuff despite the fact that you usually would just not bother with that weapon , but it turns out to be good in this game , etc ) .I generally agree with your last paragraph , was going to mention a couple of things but realised I do play devil 's advocate far too much ( as with my original comment , when I knew as I was typing that having to spend hours to get to an unlockable could cause you to dislike something you would have otherwise enjoyed if you build up too high expectations of how fun it 's really going to be ) . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.?
Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?With nothing to aim for or look forward to, life gets boring pretty quickly.Imagine how much more enjoyment someone who had to work months/years to afford their car gets out of it than someone who was born into an incredibly rich family and has everything handed to them on a plate.With Uncharted there were a lot of unlockables that I had fun with which would have made the game incredibly boring and easy if I had had them since the start of the game.
I never activate the cheats on a game until I have completed it for example, but you strike me as someone who would just cheat as soon as you can so you can get to the "good" parts (maybe even one of those people who plays online games with cheats?
What the hell is the point in that?
I don't understand how it can be rewarding in the least, unless you get your jollies off on pissing people off).I'm not saying that games should always operate like that, but it is a valid way of making you appreciate the rewards more.
It probably will force you to explore elements that you otherwise would have missed, which in the long run will increase your enjoyment of the game ("kill 30 enemies with the grenade launcher" type stuff despite the fact that you usually would just not bother with that weapon, but it turns out to be good in this game, etc).I generally agree with your last paragraph, was going to mention a couple of things but realised I do play devil's advocate far too much (as with my original comment, when I knew as I was typing that having to spend hours to get to an unlockable could cause you to dislike something you would have otherwise enjoyed if you build up too high expectations of how fun it's really going to be)..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390123</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>camg188</author>
	<datestamp>1245427020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'." - lighten up, Francis.<br>
1. - A game is software.  Good software gives you options and the more customizable, the better it is. God mode is just another option.  If the user likes the option, it is good.
This is no different than having adjustable difficulty level. If you don't like it, don't use it.<br>
2. - It's not cheating.  It's users entertaining themselves.  It would only be cheating if it was multiplayer and one of the players did it unbeknownst to the others<br>
3. - How is this news?  God mode has been available in games since games have been made<br>
4. - It can be fun.  Who hasn't played Unreal and messed around with god mode, playersonly, loaded, fly, ghost and summon?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Winning by cheating just is n't the same as winning 'for real' .
" - lighten up , Francis .
1. - A game is software .
Good software gives you options and the more customizable , the better it is .
God mode is just another option .
If the user likes the option , it is good .
This is no different than having adjustable difficulty level .
If you do n't like it , do n't use it .
2. - It 's not cheating .
It 's users entertaining themselves .
It would only be cheating if it was multiplayer and one of the players did it unbeknownst to the others 3 .
- How is this news ?
God mode has been available in games since games have been made 4 .
- It can be fun .
Who has n't played Unreal and messed around with god mode , playersonly , loaded , fly , ghost and summon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.
" - lighten up, Francis.
1. - A game is software.
Good software gives you options and the more customizable, the better it is.
God mode is just another option.
If the user likes the option, it is good.
This is no different than having adjustable difficulty level.
If you don't like it, don't use it.
2. - It's not cheating.
It's users entertaining themselves.
It would only be cheating if it was multiplayer and one of the players did it unbeknownst to the others
3.
- How is this news?
God mode has been available in games since games have been made
4.
- It can be fun.
Who hasn't played Unreal and messed around with god mode, playersonly, loaded, fly, ghost and summon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389299</id>
	<title>Re:Both</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1245423600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure the marketing department will look at it that way too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p><p>They're always going to do what they think sells best, period. And the video game market is speaking louder than it ever has before: right now, targeting video games at "casual" players <b>sells</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure the marketing department will look at it that way too .
/sarcasmThey 're always going to do what they think sells best , period .
And the video game market is speaking louder than it ever has before : right now , targeting video games at " casual " players sells .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure the marketing department will look at it that way too.
/sarcasmThey're always going to do what they think sells best, period.
And the video game market is speaking louder than it ever has before: right now, targeting video games at "casual" players sells.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388439</id>
	<title>Re:"cheating"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245419940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  Most of my friends approach cheating like it's a big ethical dilemma.  I have never understood this view.  If you pay for a game (even if you don't) you should be able to do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't gain an unfair advantage over other players during multiplayer play, that would be a little unethical.  I personally don't have as much time as I did when I was younger to play games, and when I get the time I would like experience it without having to kill  Boars in Elwynn Forest for 2 weeks.</p><p>I think Nintendo is doing something that should have been done a long time ago.  I remember using Game Genie when I was younger to unlock those really cool abilities.  Its not really going to change the amount of people who will use these cheats, just make it a little more convenient for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Most of my friends approach cheating like it 's a big ethical dilemma .
I have never understood this view .
If you pay for a game ( even if you do n't ) you should be able to do whatever you want with it , as long as you do n't gain an unfair advantage over other players during multiplayer play , that would be a little unethical .
I personally do n't have as much time as I did when I was younger to play games , and when I get the time I would like experience it without having to kill Boars in Elwynn Forest for 2 weeks.I think Nintendo is doing something that should have been done a long time ago .
I remember using Game Genie when I was younger to unlock those really cool abilities .
Its not really going to change the amount of people who will use these cheats , just make it a little more convenient for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Most of my friends approach cheating like it's a big ethical dilemma.
I have never understood this view.
If you pay for a game (even if you don't) you should be able to do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't gain an unfair advantage over other players during multiplayer play, that would be a little unethical.
I personally don't have as much time as I did when I was younger to play games, and when I get the time I would like experience it without having to kill  Boars in Elwynn Forest for 2 weeks.I think Nintendo is doing something that should have been done a long time ago.
I remember using Game Genie when I was younger to unlock those really cool abilities.
Its not really going to change the amount of people who will use these cheats, just make it a little more convenient for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387423</id>
	<title>"cheating"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I'm competing against other humans, "cheating" is an appropriate term.</p><p>In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me. Its purpose is my entertainment. Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it? Seriously, that's like saying your favourite poet can only be read in candle light on a stormy night, because doing it any other way would ruin the atmosphere.</p><p>No, "cheating" does not describe this at all. There's no party that is being cheated on, after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 'm competing against other humans , " cheating " is an appropriate term.In a single-player game , that I paid for , the interaction is between me and something owned by me .
Its purpose is my entertainment .
Challenge is part of that , but if I want to use an easy way , what could anyone possibly have against it ?
Seriously , that 's like saying your favourite poet can only be read in candle light on a stormy night , because doing it any other way would ruin the atmosphere.No , " cheating " does not describe this at all .
There 's no party that is being cheated on , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I'm competing against other humans, "cheating" is an appropriate term.In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me.
Its purpose is my entertainment.
Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it?
Seriously, that's like saying your favourite poet can only be read in candle light on a stormy night, because doing it any other way would ruin the atmosphere.No, "cheating" does not describe this at all.
There's no party that is being cheated on, after all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28398603</id>
	<title>Heres the cheat code everyone</title>
	<author>Terrorwrist</author>
	<datestamp>1245425460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, a, b, select, start.</htmltext>
<tokenext>up , up , down , down , left , right , left , right , a , b , select , start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, a, b, select, start.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245416040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.</p></div><p>True, but sometimes it's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game.  For example, in one WWII game (Medal of Honor?) I was stuck at this one point where I was in a town with a sniper.  I tried everything I could to get the guy and he just kept nailing me.  After hours of game time spread over a few weeks of realtime, I finally activated a god mode code and went outside and looked for him where a walkthru said he would be.  Even with all that, he was hard to see.  Once I nailed him, I switched off the cheat and enjoyed the rest of the game.  If I hadn't done that, I would have simply given up.  </p><p>I recently have had an experienece in a game where I was really frustrated by the final battle.  I looked it up and it turned out I simply wasn't strafing around that much, I was trying to use cover, which didn't work.  That was cheating too, to get the strategy, but it's the same thing... I gave it a good try of many, many attempts and finally gave in and looked up a cheat.</p><p>Ultimately, looking up a strategy or using a code isn't as satisfying as doing it on your own, but sometimes you just want to move on and see the rest of the game.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Winning by cheating just is n't the same as winning 'for real'.True , but sometimes it 's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game .
For example , in one WWII game ( Medal of Honor ?
) I was stuck at this one point where I was in a town with a sniper .
I tried everything I could to get the guy and he just kept nailing me .
After hours of game time spread over a few weeks of realtime , I finally activated a god mode code and went outside and looked for him where a walkthru said he would be .
Even with all that , he was hard to see .
Once I nailed him , I switched off the cheat and enjoyed the rest of the game .
If I had n't done that , I would have simply given up .
I recently have had an experienece in a game where I was really frustrated by the final battle .
I looked it up and it turned out I simply was n't strafing around that much , I was trying to use cover , which did n't work .
That was cheating too , to get the strategy , but it 's the same thing... I gave it a good try of many , many attempts and finally gave in and looked up a cheat.Ultimately , looking up a strategy or using a code is n't as satisfying as doing it on your own , but sometimes you just want to move on and see the rest of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.True, but sometimes it's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game.
For example, in one WWII game (Medal of Honor?
) I was stuck at this one point where I was in a town with a sniper.
I tried everything I could to get the guy and he just kept nailing me.
After hours of game time spread over a few weeks of realtime, I finally activated a god mode code and went outside and looked for him where a walkthru said he would be.
Even with all that, he was hard to see.
Once I nailed him, I switched off the cheat and enjoyed the rest of the game.
If I hadn't done that, I would have simply given up.
I recently have had an experienece in a game where I was really frustrated by the final battle.
I looked it up and it turned out I simply wasn't strafing around that much, I was trying to use cover, which didn't work.
That was cheating too, to get the strategy, but it's the same thing... I gave it a good try of many, many attempts and finally gave in and looked up a cheat.Ultimately, looking up a strategy or using a code isn't as satisfying as doing it on your own, but sometimes you just want to move on and see the rest of the game.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392147</id>
	<title>"Cheats" are lame!</title>
	<author>LoudMusic</author>
	<datestamp>1245435780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheats are lame. I find that when I enable them in games (StarCraft / Warcraft 3 for example) I quickly become bored with the game and quit playing. There's no point in continuing. There's no challenge. It's no longer a game. It's a decided event from the moment you "god mode" and you are just blitzing the enemies.</p><p>But there are children who are being raised with life's "cheat mode" on now where they don't have to work at anything to make it to adult life because their parents make it too easy on them and give them anything they want. And they suck at being adults. And the rest of us have to put up with them. Sorry - had to throw that in.</p><p>Cheat modes are lame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheats are lame .
I find that when I enable them in games ( StarCraft / Warcraft 3 for example ) I quickly become bored with the game and quit playing .
There 's no point in continuing .
There 's no challenge .
It 's no longer a game .
It 's a decided event from the moment you " god mode " and you are just blitzing the enemies.But there are children who are being raised with life 's " cheat mode " on now where they do n't have to work at anything to make it to adult life because their parents make it too easy on them and give them anything they want .
And they suck at being adults .
And the rest of us have to put up with them .
Sorry - had to throw that in.Cheat modes are lame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheats are lame.
I find that when I enable them in games (StarCraft / Warcraft 3 for example) I quickly become bored with the game and quit playing.
There's no point in continuing.
There's no challenge.
It's no longer a game.
It's a decided event from the moment you "god mode" and you are just blitzing the enemies.But there are children who are being raised with life's "cheat mode" on now where they don't have to work at anything to make it to adult life because their parents make it too easy on them and give them anything they want.
And they suck at being adults.
And the rest of us have to put up with them.
Sorry - had to throw that in.Cheat modes are lame.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388175</id>
	<title>What about an SDK</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1245418500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like PC games that release an SDK since that allows you modify the game heavily to your liking. They should really get something going with the console games to do this. It makes games way more enjoyable for a longer time. The "demo mod" is like a patch on this issue. People could easily do the same kind of thing with an SDK.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like PC games that release an SDK since that allows you modify the game heavily to your liking .
They should really get something going with the console games to do this .
It makes games way more enjoyable for a longer time .
The " demo mod " is like a patch on this issue .
People could easily do the same kind of thing with an SDK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like PC games that release an SDK since that allows you modify the game heavily to your liking.
They should really get something going with the console games to do this.
It makes games way more enjoyable for a longer time.
The "demo mod" is like a patch on this issue.
People could easily do the same kind of thing with an SDK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1245425820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.</p></div><p>The above sentence is the dumbest comment on this story yet.<br> <br>It isn't a "reward." It's part of the game. Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?<br> <br>That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell. When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further. I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things, and then go to my friends on the playground and brag about how I beat the hardest mode. I play games to unwind and enjoy myself.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may find that the reward does n't seem as valuable if you have n't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.The above sentence is the dumbest comment on this story yet .
It is n't a " reward .
" It 's part of the game .
Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros. ?
Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game ?
That 's not rewarding , that 's just annoying as hell .
When I buy a game , I assume that I 'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box .
Unfortunately , I have to " earn " it , which just pisses me off even further .
I do n't play games to " defeat " and " earn " things , and then go to my friends on the playground and brag about how I beat the hardest mode .
I play games to unwind and enjoy myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.The above sentence is the dumbest comment on this story yet.
It isn't a "reward.
" It's part of the game.
Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.?
Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?
That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell.
When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box.
Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further.
I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things, and then go to my friends on the playground and brag about how I beat the hardest mode.
I play games to unwind and enjoy myself.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389505</id>
	<title>A better idea</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1245424500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Demo mode is certainly superior to a game which makes you grind through an overly difficult section over and over again. But using demo mode feels like cheating and is not a satisfying way to win.</p><p>I think it would be much better to have some mechanic within the game which makes a section easier when you die there repeatedly. If you fall in a pit three times in a row, or get beat up by a bad guy three times, a little angel could come along and add some platforms to make the jump easier, or start dropping powerups.</p><p>However, there would be a cost for this help - you would get a lower score, or you wouldn't unlock a new hat for your character, etc. The hardcore gamers would practice so that they became good enough to win without help. Those who just want to play the whole game wouldn't have to give up because of one little section which gave them problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Demo mode is certainly superior to a game which makes you grind through an overly difficult section over and over again .
But using demo mode feels like cheating and is not a satisfying way to win.I think it would be much better to have some mechanic within the game which makes a section easier when you die there repeatedly .
If you fall in a pit three times in a row , or get beat up by a bad guy three times , a little angel could come along and add some platforms to make the jump easier , or start dropping powerups.However , there would be a cost for this help - you would get a lower score , or you would n't unlock a new hat for your character , etc .
The hardcore gamers would practice so that they became good enough to win without help .
Those who just want to play the whole game would n't have to give up because of one little section which gave them problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Demo mode is certainly superior to a game which makes you grind through an overly difficult section over and over again.
But using demo mode feels like cheating and is not a satisfying way to win.I think it would be much better to have some mechanic within the game which makes a section easier when you die there repeatedly.
If you fall in a pit three times in a row, or get beat up by a bad guy three times, a little angel could come along and add some platforms to make the jump easier, or start dropping powerups.However, there would be a cost for this help - you would get a lower score, or you wouldn't unlock a new hat for your character, etc.
The hardcore gamers would practice so that they became good enough to win without help.
Those who just want to play the whole game wouldn't have to give up because of one little section which gave them problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390903</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245430440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Games have ALWAYS had cheats. ALWAYS. I'm talking about since at least Frogger on the C64, which was my first gaming experience:</p><p>http://uk.gamespot.com/c64/action/frogger/hints.html?tag=tabs;cheats</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games have ALWAYS had cheats .
ALWAYS. I 'm talking about since at least Frogger on the C64 , which was my first gaming experience : http : //uk.gamespot.com/c64/action/frogger/hints.html ? tag = tabs ; cheats</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games have ALWAYS had cheats.
ALWAYS. I'm talking about since at least Frogger on the C64, which was my first gaming experience:http://uk.gamespot.com/c64/action/frogger/hints.html?tag=tabs;cheats</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28394331</id>
	<title>Been done before</title>
	<author>slapout</author>
	<datestamp>1245444120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember years ago a game that if you died more than a certain number of times in a level it would offer to let you skip that level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember years ago a game that if you died more than a certain number of times in a level it would offer to let you skip that level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember years ago a game that if you died more than a certain number of times in a level it would offer to let you skip that level.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390349</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245427860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The controller could be a small part of it, but I would guess the kids have more difficulty with Super Mario Galaxy because of the gravity flipping and running around small sphereical objects.  Sunshine was pretty much a straight up 3D platformer, which is easily relatible to running yourself around in the real world, at least for movement purposes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The controller could be a small part of it , but I would guess the kids have more difficulty with Super Mario Galaxy because of the gravity flipping and running around small sphereical objects .
Sunshine was pretty much a straight up 3D platformer , which is easily relatible to running yourself around in the real world , at least for movement purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The controller could be a small part of it, but I would guess the kids have more difficulty with Super Mario Galaxy because of the gravity flipping and running around small sphereical objects.
Sunshine was pretty much a straight up 3D platformer, which is easily relatible to running yourself around in the real world, at least for movement purposes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390927</id>
	<title>What's "content"?</title>
	<author>johannesg</author>
	<datestamp>1245430500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.</p></div><p>If you think of content as just the graphics, or the levels, then I suppose this lets you access all the content. But if you think of content as the gameplay, then rather than letting you access it, this is taking it away from you (if you let it of course).</p><p>I certainly understand the sentiment though. I've seen enough games with ridiculous difficulty spikes (usually when a boss appears) where I used cheats as well - or simply gave up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , hey , you paid for the game , I say you should be able to access all of its content , regardless of your playing skill.If you think of content as just the graphics , or the levels , then I suppose this lets you access all the content .
But if you think of content as the gameplay , then rather than letting you access it , this is taking it away from you ( if you let it of course ) .I certainly understand the sentiment though .
I 've seen enough games with ridiculous difficulty spikes ( usually when a boss appears ) where I used cheats as well - or simply gave up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.If you think of content as just the graphics, or the levels, then I suppose this lets you access all the content.
But if you think of content as the gameplay, then rather than letting you access it, this is taking it away from you (if you let it of course).I certainly understand the sentiment though.
I've seen enough games with ridiculous difficulty spikes (usually when a boss appears) where I used cheats as well - or simply gave up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388789</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>rjejr</author>
	<datestamp>1245421500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many games have a hard part that's too difficult to get through, so using this ocassionally doesn't seem so bad. I don't remember this much uproar when God of War let people play in "easy mode" after dieing a few times, and there are other games that do this as well.<br>I would have liked this option in the Jak and Daxter series. In the first admittedly easy but very fun game there is a fish catching mini-game which has absolutey nothing to do with the rest of the gameplay. In Jak 2 there is a mission where you have to destroy 5 ships but I could never get more than 3, so I sold the game back, only to rent it again months later and finally beat it. There is also an on-rails level where you ave to destroy 40 jet-packed bad guys which was really hard. Again, that series is about having fun as I don't think there is a "Game Over" screen anywhere to be found, so if you can't actually lose, is it "cheating" to win?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many games have a hard part that 's too difficult to get through , so using this ocassionally does n't seem so bad .
I do n't remember this much uproar when God of War let people play in " easy mode " after dieing a few times , and there are other games that do this as well.I would have liked this option in the Jak and Daxter series .
In the first admittedly easy but very fun game there is a fish catching mini-game which has absolutey nothing to do with the rest of the gameplay .
In Jak 2 there is a mission where you have to destroy 5 ships but I could never get more than 3 , so I sold the game back , only to rent it again months later and finally beat it .
There is also an on-rails level where you ave to destroy 40 jet-packed bad guys which was really hard .
Again , that series is about having fun as I do n't think there is a " Game Over " screen anywhere to be found , so if you ca n't actually lose , is it " cheating " to win ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many games have a hard part that's too difficult to get through, so using this ocassionally doesn't seem so bad.
I don't remember this much uproar when God of War let people play in "easy mode" after dieing a few times, and there are other games that do this as well.I would have liked this option in the Jak and Daxter series.
In the first admittedly easy but very fun game there is a fish catching mini-game which has absolutey nothing to do with the rest of the gameplay.
In Jak 2 there is a mission where you have to destroy 5 ships but I could never get more than 3, so I sold the game back, only to rent it again months later and finally beat it.
There is also an on-rails level where you ave to destroy 40 jet-packed bad guys which was really hard.
Again, that series is about having fun as I don't think there is a "Game Over" screen anywhere to be found, so if you can't actually lose, is it "cheating" to win?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391001</id>
	<title>IDDQD</title>
	<author>Phairdon</author>
	<datestamp>1245430800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All we need is IDDQD in every game. Simple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All we need is IDDQD in every game .
Simple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All we need is IDDQD in every game.
Simple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387665</id>
	<title>What's the need?</title>
	<author>Arakun</author>
	<datestamp>1245414660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never beat most of the NES games I owned. The exception was the Super Mario games where you could skip most of the game by warping. Did this bother me? No. Did this frustrate me? Not much. I didn't have to beat them, I enjoyed just playing them. Sometimes I made it to a new area and I'd feel the adrenalin start flowing.<br>

I don't get people playing through a computer game with an invincibility code - and doing it over and over. I'm no hardcore gamer (I'm on a Mac Mini dammit!), but I grew up with hard games and enjoyed the challenge. I also believe many of today's games are too easy with their infinite lives and checkpoints/respawn points once every minute. I don't get the same adrenaline kicks anymore since I don't need to be afraid of dying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I never beat most of the NES games I owned .
The exception was the Super Mario games where you could skip most of the game by warping .
Did this bother me ?
No. Did this frustrate me ?
Not much .
I did n't have to beat them , I enjoyed just playing them .
Sometimes I made it to a new area and I 'd feel the adrenalin start flowing .
I do n't get people playing through a computer game with an invincibility code - and doing it over and over .
I 'm no hardcore gamer ( I 'm on a Mac Mini dammit !
) , but I grew up with hard games and enjoyed the challenge .
I also believe many of today 's games are too easy with their infinite lives and checkpoints/respawn points once every minute .
I do n't get the same adrenaline kicks anymore since I do n't need to be afraid of dying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never beat most of the NES games I owned.
The exception was the Super Mario games where you could skip most of the game by warping.
Did this bother me?
No. Did this frustrate me?
Not much.
I didn't have to beat them, I enjoyed just playing them.
Sometimes I made it to a new area and I'd feel the adrenalin start flowing.
I don't get people playing through a computer game with an invincibility code - and doing it over and over.
I'm no hardcore gamer (I'm on a Mac Mini dammit!
), but I grew up with hard games and enjoyed the challenge.
I also believe many of today's games are too easy with their infinite lives and checkpoints/respawn points once every minute.
I don't get the same adrenaline kicks anymore since I don't need to be afraid of dying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389869</id>
	<title>Re:Is the really that new?</title>
	<author>loftwyr</author>
	<datestamp>1245425880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And most games picked it up from Nethack as you could use the Wizard Mode to change into invulnerability and complete the game.  You couldn't keep your score but that's never stopped people from using it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And most games picked it up from Nethack as you could use the Wizard Mode to change into invulnerability and complete the game .
You could n't keep your score but that 's never stopped people from using it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And most games picked it up from Nethack as you could use the Wizard Mode to change into invulnerability and complete the game.
You couldn't keep your score but that's never stopped people from using it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388905</id>
	<title>More like a tip video than a cheat..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cripes, people; read the patent before going all WHARRGARBL.</p><p>You cannot save progress that the game makes for you. It's right there in the patent, explicitly specified in no uncertain terms. When you turn off the demo mode, you're dropped back where <i>you</i> left off, not where the computer did. The computer can show you a path, but you still have to take it yourself. Except in puzzle games, knowing the path and walking the path are two very different things, and if knowing what to do makes it easy then something is wrong with the game design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cripes , people ; read the patent before going all WHARRGARBL.You can not save progress that the game makes for you .
It 's right there in the patent , explicitly specified in no uncertain terms .
When you turn off the demo mode , you 're dropped back where you left off , not where the computer did .
The computer can show you a path , but you still have to take it yourself .
Except in puzzle games , knowing the path and walking the path are two very different things , and if knowing what to do makes it easy then something is wrong with the game design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cripes, people; read the patent before going all WHARRGARBL.You cannot save progress that the game makes for you.
It's right there in the patent, explicitly specified in no uncertain terms.
When you turn off the demo mode, you're dropped back where you left off, not where the computer did.
The computer can show you a path, but you still have to take it yourself.
Except in puzzle games, knowing the path and walking the path are two very different things, and if knowing what to do makes it easy then something is wrong with the game design.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391723</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1245433860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's because of the water pack.  Miyamoto (the game's creator) said the goal of this design was to afford players a lot more forgiveness when it comes to jumping in a 3D space.  Spatial orientation with only a 2D image is something you have to adapt to, and Mario Sunshine allows you to float in mid-air so you can catch yourself or correct your jump.  They also let you attack enemies while standing still, by just spraying at them.  Mario has more hit points in Mario Sunshine.  In Mario Galaxy, you lose special suits after one hit, but you keep your back-pack in Mario Sunshine.  There are a lot of reasons the game is more forgiving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's because of the water pack .
Miyamoto ( the game 's creator ) said the goal of this design was to afford players a lot more forgiveness when it comes to jumping in a 3D space .
Spatial orientation with only a 2D image is something you have to adapt to , and Mario Sunshine allows you to float in mid-air so you can catch yourself or correct your jump .
They also let you attack enemies while standing still , by just spraying at them .
Mario has more hit points in Mario Sunshine .
In Mario Galaxy , you lose special suits after one hit , but you keep your back-pack in Mario Sunshine .
There are a lot of reasons the game is more forgiving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's because of the water pack.
Miyamoto (the game's creator) said the goal of this design was to afford players a lot more forgiveness when it comes to jumping in a 3D space.
Spatial orientation with only a 2D image is something you have to adapt to, and Mario Sunshine allows you to float in mid-air so you can catch yourself or correct your jump.
They also let you attack enemies while standing still, by just spraying at them.
Mario has more hit points in Mario Sunshine.
In Mario Galaxy, you lose special suits after one hit, but you keep your back-pack in Mario Sunshine.
There are a lot of reasons the game is more forgiving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28399373</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245434880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, alienating the casuals and all their sissy, dirty money is an excellent business strategy.</p><p>Appealing to the lowest common denominator has almost always been more profitable than trying to adhere to some standard of elitism. Rather than demanding an entire industry changes to suit your needs, why not just hope (or actively try and cultivate, if that's your thing) for a larger "hardcore" portion of the industry? Seems vindictive to just say, "You're having badwrongfun and must be punished. The way I enjoy things is the right way and should be the only way!"</p><p>Why not just let everyone have their cake and eat it too? It's not like we're lacking game developers these days. There's enough to go around, I promise!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , alienating the casuals and all their sissy , dirty money is an excellent business strategy.Appealing to the lowest common denominator has almost always been more profitable than trying to adhere to some standard of elitism .
Rather than demanding an entire industry changes to suit your needs , why not just hope ( or actively try and cultivate , if that 's your thing ) for a larger " hardcore " portion of the industry ?
Seems vindictive to just say , " You 're having badwrongfun and must be punished .
The way I enjoy things is the right way and should be the only way !
" Why not just let everyone have their cake and eat it too ?
It 's not like we 're lacking game developers these days .
There 's enough to go around , I promise !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, alienating the casuals and all their sissy, dirty money is an excellent business strategy.Appealing to the lowest common denominator has almost always been more profitable than trying to adhere to some standard of elitism.
Rather than demanding an entire industry changes to suit your needs, why not just hope (or actively try and cultivate, if that's your thing) for a larger "hardcore" portion of the industry?
Seems vindictive to just say, "You're having badwrongfun and must be punished.
The way I enjoy things is the right way and should be the only way!
"Why not just let everyone have their cake and eat it too?
It's not like we're lacking game developers these days.
There's enough to go around, I promise!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393405</id>
	<title>Re:Might be good</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1245440820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours.</p></div><p>That's nothing!  You can play Zelda: Twilight Princess in five, Diablo II in two, and Quake 1 in fifteen minutes.  There's a Starcraft map you can finish in less than half a minute.</p><p>See also <a href="http://speeddemosarchive.com/" title="speeddemosarchive.com">http://speeddemosarchive.com/</a> [speeddemosarchive.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours.That 's nothing !
You can play Zelda : Twilight Princess in five , Diablo II in two , and Quake 1 in fifteen minutes .
There 's a Starcraft map you can finish in less than half a minute.See also http : //speeddemosarchive.com/ [ speeddemosarchive.com ] : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours.That's nothing!
You can play Zelda: Twilight Princess in five, Diablo II in two, and Quake 1 in fifteen minutes.
There's a Starcraft map you can finish in less than half a minute.See also http://speeddemosarchive.com/ [speeddemosarchive.com] :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387741</id>
	<title>Please stop bashing/praising the Wii.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245415500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm tired of geeks commenting on Wii, period. It's the new third pillar of pointless "discussion" alongside religion and politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of geeks commenting on Wii , period .
It 's the new third pillar of pointless " discussion " alongside religion and politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of geeks commenting on Wii, period.
It's the new third pillar of pointless "discussion" alongside religion and politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191</id>
	<title>Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>s1lverl0rd</author>
	<datestamp>1245409320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.</p><p>I may catch on with the casual gamers, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Winning by cheating just is n't the same as winning 'for real'.I may catch on with the casual gamers , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.I may catch on with the casual gamers, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</id>
	<title>Back in my day...</title>
	<author>midifarm</author>
	<datestamp>1245415620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't want to come across as an old codger, but cheat codes and the like have ruined gaming. Easter eggs and hidden levels are fun and add some dimension to the games. Cheat codes, continues and even the prospect of getting unlimited extra lives have taken game skill levels to a new low. If you have to cheat you obviously aren't good enough to win. Most of us who played years ago, beat the super hard levels, by A) having great skill at the game or B) got really lucky. Either one is fine with me, but entering in a cheat proves that you don't have either. I say remove the cheats, keep the Easter eggs and hidden stuff, increase the gameplay and quit making games disposable. It's cheaper to rent the game for 2 weeks from the video store, solve it and give it back than buying it. You're going to find the sales figures plummet for marginal games. There needs to be a change in the industry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to come across as an old codger , but cheat codes and the like have ruined gaming .
Easter eggs and hidden levels are fun and add some dimension to the games .
Cheat codes , continues and even the prospect of getting unlimited extra lives have taken game skill levels to a new low .
If you have to cheat you obviously are n't good enough to win .
Most of us who played years ago , beat the super hard levels , by A ) having great skill at the game or B ) got really lucky .
Either one is fine with me , but entering in a cheat proves that you do n't have either .
I say remove the cheats , keep the Easter eggs and hidden stuff , increase the gameplay and quit making games disposable .
It 's cheaper to rent the game for 2 weeks from the video store , solve it and give it back than buying it .
You 're going to find the sales figures plummet for marginal games .
There needs to be a change in the industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to come across as an old codger, but cheat codes and the like have ruined gaming.
Easter eggs and hidden levels are fun and add some dimension to the games.
Cheat codes, continues and even the prospect of getting unlimited extra lives have taken game skill levels to a new low.
If you have to cheat you obviously aren't good enough to win.
Most of us who played years ago, beat the super hard levels, by A) having great skill at the game or B) got really lucky.
Either one is fine with me, but entering in a cheat proves that you don't have either.
I say remove the cheats, keep the Easter eggs and hidden stuff, increase the gameplay and quit making games disposable.
It's cheaper to rent the game for 2 weeks from the video store, solve it and give it back than buying it.
You're going to find the sales figures plummet for marginal games.
There needs to be a change in the industry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388915</id>
	<title>Re:Is the really that new?</title>
	<author>wagnerrp</author>
	<datestamp>1245422100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was some intelligence in the DMC games where if you continually died in the same spot, it would eventually offer you an easy mode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was some intelligence in the DMC games where if you continually died in the same spot , it would eventually offer you an easy mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was some intelligence in the DMC games where if you continually died in the same spot, it would eventually offer you an easy mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387445</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388329</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245419400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheat codes have been around for a long time.  They are sometimes the only way to beat the more difficlt games.  If you will recall games like Icari Warriors or Contra, you will remember that using the "abba" code or the 30 lives code was virtually the only way that the games could be enjoyed because of their difficulty level.</p><p>Game sales are not and have never been affected by the inclusion of cheat codes.  I defy you to find a non-RPG game on the shelf that you can't rent for 2 weeks and solve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheat codes have been around for a long time .
They are sometimes the only way to beat the more difficlt games .
If you will recall games like Icari Warriors or Contra , you will remember that using the " abba " code or the 30 lives code was virtually the only way that the games could be enjoyed because of their difficulty level.Game sales are not and have never been affected by the inclusion of cheat codes .
I defy you to find a non-RPG game on the shelf that you ca n't rent for 2 weeks and solve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheat codes have been around for a long time.
They are sometimes the only way to beat the more difficlt games.
If you will recall games like Icari Warriors or Contra, you will remember that using the "abba" code or the 30 lives code was virtually the only way that the games could be enjoyed because of their difficulty level.Game sales are not and have never been affected by the inclusion of cheat codes.
I defy you to find a non-RPG game on the shelf that you can't rent for 2 weeks and solve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388121</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>bigstrat2003</author>
	<datestamp>1245418200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it ruins the game to use it, then don't use it. Problem solved. A cheat simply being there doesn't affect you in any way at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it ruins the game to use it , then do n't use it .
Problem solved .
A cheat simply being there does n't affect you in any way at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it ruins the game to use it, then don't use it.
Problem solved.
A cheat simply being there doesn't affect you in any way at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389083</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245422760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not -necessary-. You just don't want to develop the skills or try enough different tactics to legitimately pass a part of the game that 6-year-olds have breezed past. Loser! L2P!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not -necessary- .
You just do n't want to develop the skills or try enough different tactics to legitimately pass a part of the game that 6-year-olds have breezed past .
Loser ! L2P !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not -necessary-.
You just don't want to develop the skills or try enough different tactics to legitimately pass a part of the game that 6-year-olds have breezed past.
Loser! L2P!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387593</id>
	<title>NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!</title>
	<author>mcfatboy93</author>
	<datestamp>1245414060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nintendo why have you betrayed us, now really guys its just super mario there is no need for any cheats unless you "REALLY" suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo why have you betrayed us , now really guys its just super mario there is no need for any cheats unless you " REALLY " suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo why have you betrayed us, now really guys its just super mario there is no need for any cheats unless you "REALLY" suck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391439</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245432660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you aren't cheating you aren't trying hard enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are n't cheating you are n't trying hard enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you aren't cheating you aren't trying hard enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392341</id>
	<title>Mario Bros!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245436560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now for that i will buy the Wii</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now for that i will buy the Wii</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now for that i will buy the Wii</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387247</id>
	<title>Grammar is good.  Fix the summary.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps they can ACTIVATE a 'demo' mode, too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps they can ACTIVATE a 'demo ' mode , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps they can ACTIVATE a 'demo' mode, too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387613</id>
	<title>Might be good</title>
	<author>Ksempac</author>
	<datestamp>1245414300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this means game companies can stop worrying about frustrated casual gamers and start making their game harder and longer then I say "go for it".<br>
<br>
I'm sick and tired of both the debilitating trend and shortening trend in the video game industry. I've got a friend which enjoys video game but isn't good at it and even him was disappointed that he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours. I thought it couldn't be worse, but I've been proved wrong with a test I saw on the latest Terminator video game : apparently, you can finish it in 4 hours (and I'm not even talking about the price/hours ratio). Sure theses two games use well-known licenses, but this trend is occuring for almost every video game serie.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, I'm currently playing Ninja Gaiden Black, which is reputed for its difficulty. I'm at the 2/3 point, it took me 30h to get there, and I've enjoyed every minute of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this means game companies can stop worrying about frustrated casual gamers and start making their game harder and longer then I say " go for it " .
I 'm sick and tired of both the debilitating trend and shortening trend in the video game industry .
I 've got a friend which enjoys video game but is n't good at it and even him was disappointed that he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours .
I thought it could n't be worse , but I 've been proved wrong with a test I saw on the latest Terminator video game : apparently , you can finish it in 4 hours ( and I 'm not even talking about the price/hours ratio ) .
Sure theses two games use well-known licenses , but this trend is occuring for almost every video game serie .
On the other hand , I 'm currently playing Ninja Gaiden Black , which is reputed for its difficulty .
I 'm at the 2/3 point , it took me 30h to get there , and I 've enjoyed every minute of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this means game companies can stop worrying about frustrated casual gamers and start making their game harder and longer then I say "go for it".
I'm sick and tired of both the debilitating trend and shortening trend in the video game industry.
I've got a friend which enjoys video game but isn't good at it and even him was disappointed that he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours.
I thought it couldn't be worse, but I've been proved wrong with a test I saw on the latest Terminator video game : apparently, you can finish it in 4 hours (and I'm not even talking about the price/hours ratio).
Sure theses two games use well-known licenses, but this trend is occuring for almost every video game serie.
On the other hand, I'm currently playing Ninja Gaiden Black, which is reputed for its difficulty.
I'm at the 2/3 point, it took me 30h to get there, and I've enjoyed every minute of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388009</id>
	<title>whatever it is ...</title>
	<author>Bobtree</author>
	<datestamp>1245417360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't gameplay (or otherwise useful to the gameplay).  Thus I'm not interested in paying for it.</p><p>Developers should remember that their audience is game buyers.  I don't know about you, but I buy games to PLAY them.</p><p>Cheats should just be a proper menu item anyway.  And sections of games should be openly accessible, so stuck players can just skip to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't gameplay ( or otherwise useful to the gameplay ) .
Thus I 'm not interested in paying for it.Developers should remember that their audience is game buyers .
I do n't know about you , but I buy games to PLAY them.Cheats should just be a proper menu item anyway .
And sections of games should be openly accessible , so stuck players can just skip to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't gameplay (or otherwise useful to the gameplay).
Thus I'm not interested in paying for it.Developers should remember that their audience is game buyers.
I don't know about you, but I buy games to PLAY them.Cheats should just be a proper menu item anyway.
And sections of games should be openly accessible, so stuck players can just skip to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390951</id>
	<title>Exploitable bugs are now patented!</title>
	<author>olderphart</author>
	<datestamp>1245430560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give me goooooold!<br>--<br>olderphart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give me goooooold ! --olderphart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give me goooooold!--olderphart</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388061</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>beerbear</author>
	<datestamp>1245417780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.</p></div><p>Especially in single player games I don't play to win; I play to have a good time. That is usually synonymous, but doesn't have to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Winning by cheating just is n't the same as winning 'for real'.Especially in single player games I do n't play to win ; I play to have a good time .
That is usually synonymous , but does n't have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.Especially in single player games I don't play to win; I play to have a good time.
That is usually synonymous, but doesn't have to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388957</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>rishistar</author>
	<datestamp>1245422280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would welcome this - as someone who enjoys a good FPS but is not very good at them for example I loved the fact I could make myself invincible for 2 hard parts of Half Life 2, and then continue as normal. This meant I got to enjoy the rest of the game, unlike when I got stuck on Metroid Prime. For an FPS I'd still like to do that, though maybe its a different problem area to the Super Mario Bros jumping around puzzles that you have to defeat. But I'll stick to FPS on PC's over consoles for this reason.</p><p>I would like to see the cheat only become available if you've tried it a number of times though why its a patent.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would welcome this - as someone who enjoys a good FPS but is not very good at them for example I loved the fact I could make myself invincible for 2 hard parts of Half Life 2 , and then continue as normal .
This meant I got to enjoy the rest of the game , unlike when I got stuck on Metroid Prime .
For an FPS I 'd still like to do that , though maybe its a different problem area to the Super Mario Bros jumping around puzzles that you have to defeat .
But I 'll stick to FPS on PC 's over consoles for this reason.I would like to see the cheat only become available if you 've tried it a number of times though why its a patent.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would welcome this - as someone who enjoys a good FPS but is not very good at them for example I loved the fact I could make myself invincible for 2 hard parts of Half Life 2, and then continue as normal.
This meant I got to enjoy the rest of the game, unlike when I got stuck on Metroid Prime.
For an FPS I'd still like to do that, though maybe its a different problem area to the Super Mario Bros jumping around puzzles that you have to defeat.
But I'll stick to FPS on PC's over consoles for this reason.I would like to see the cheat only become available if you've tried it a number of times though why its a patent.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387265</id>
	<title>Great idea!</title>
	<author>ZmeiGorynych</author>
	<datestamp>1245410100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want my games to be not very challenging but spectacular looking and amusing interactive movies, little more. Really hard intricate challenges is what work is for (well I'm lucky enough to have one of those).</p><p>If other gamers want to derive a sense of achievement from really hard-to-master games, good for them - but with this, Nintendo is reaching another market, namely people like myself, who couldn't care less about whether it's 'cheating' or not because 'winning' is not the reason why they play games at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want my games to be not very challenging but spectacular looking and amusing interactive movies , little more .
Really hard intricate challenges is what work is for ( well I 'm lucky enough to have one of those ) .If other gamers want to derive a sense of achievement from really hard-to-master games , good for them - but with this , Nintendo is reaching another market , namely people like myself , who could n't care less about whether it 's 'cheating ' or not because 'winning ' is not the reason why they play games at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want my games to be not very challenging but spectacular looking and amusing interactive movies, little more.
Really hard intricate challenges is what work is for (well I'm lucky enough to have one of those).If other gamers want to derive a sense of achievement from really hard-to-master games, good for them - but with this, Nintendo is reaching another market, namely people like myself, who couldn't care less about whether it's 'cheating' or not because 'winning' is not the reason why they play games at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391255</id>
	<title>Definitely *not* only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1245431880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People round here have some short memories.</p><p>Back in the day, we had this thing called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameShark" title="wikipedia.org">GameShark</a> [wikipedia.org] and it was just about the only way some people could win <a href="http://www.mobygames.com/game/nes/contra" title="mobygames.com">Contra</a> [mobygames.com] or, more to the point, <a href="http://www.mobygames.com/game/nes/adventures-of-bayou-billy" title="mobygames.com">Bayou Billy</a> [mobygames.com]. No one but Rain Man could beat Bayou Billy without a cheat. GameShark was a product gamers paid good money for.</p><p>Problem is, it is a hack, and Nintendo is using the Wii as an online distribution system, among other things, and hacks are right out. They just got their butts handed to them in a sling over <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo\_DS\_storage\_devices" title="wikipedia.org">flash carts</a> [wikipedia.org] on the DS, and that means they can't abide <b>any</b> third party products designed to hack the system.</p><p>So all they're doing is providing the product themselves so they can keep control of the platform. They're satisfying an historically proven market demand. They're finding a way to deliver more difficult games, knowing full well that some of the original Nintendo games were sometimes more fun with cheats enabled.</p><p>Now does someone want to tell me that only <b>casual</b> gamers bought GameSharks? Or are we looking at the past, with all the cheat codes we used to pass around when games got too tough, with peril-sensitive stone black colored sunglasses?</p><p>Yikes.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People round here have some short memories.Back in the day , we had this thing called GameShark [ wikipedia.org ] and it was just about the only way some people could win Contra [ mobygames.com ] or , more to the point , Bayou Billy [ mobygames.com ] .
No one but Rain Man could beat Bayou Billy without a cheat .
GameShark was a product gamers paid good money for.Problem is , it is a hack , and Nintendo is using the Wii as an online distribution system , among other things , and hacks are right out .
They just got their butts handed to them in a sling over flash carts [ wikipedia.org ] on the DS , and that means they ca n't abide any third party products designed to hack the system.So all they 're doing is providing the product themselves so they can keep control of the platform .
They 're satisfying an historically proven market demand .
They 're finding a way to deliver more difficult games , knowing full well that some of the original Nintendo games were sometimes more fun with cheats enabled.Now does someone want to tell me that only casual gamers bought GameSharks ?
Or are we looking at the past , with all the cheat codes we used to pass around when games got too tough , with peril-sensitive stone black colored sunglasses ? Yikes.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People round here have some short memories.Back in the day, we had this thing called GameShark [wikipedia.org] and it was just about the only way some people could win Contra [mobygames.com] or, more to the point, Bayou Billy [mobygames.com].
No one but Rain Man could beat Bayou Billy without a cheat.
GameShark was a product gamers paid good money for.Problem is, it is a hack, and Nintendo is using the Wii as an online distribution system, among other things, and hacks are right out.
They just got their butts handed to them in a sling over flash carts [wikipedia.org] on the DS, and that means they can't abide any third party products designed to hack the system.So all they're doing is providing the product themselves so they can keep control of the platform.
They're satisfying an historically proven market demand.
They're finding a way to deliver more difficult games, knowing full well that some of the original Nintendo games were sometimes more fun with cheats enabled.Now does someone want to tell me that only casual gamers bought GameSharks?
Or are we looking at the past, with all the cheat codes we used to pass around when games got too tough, with peril-sensitive stone black colored sunglasses?Yikes.--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387881</id>
	<title>Yes and No... mostly No.</title>
	<author>ammit</author>
	<datestamp>1245416700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who takes gaming pretty seriously I'd say NO on a massive scale because hours of frustration and then finally achieving your goal is what I play for!! Unfortunately there are too many "easy" games out there - as soon as the PS2 came out Tomb Raider went downhill in favour of graphics.

No also because games aren't entirely a waste of time, they develop hand eye co-ordination and logic skills (at least this is how I justify hours and hours of button bashing), taking challenges away will MAKE it a waste of time (just my view).

Yes ONLY for small children and maybe people with learning disabilities - this kind of function could help them to develop by doing the easy things first and then introducing harder parts of the game in later..... Just my two pence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who takes gaming pretty seriously I 'd say NO on a massive scale because hours of frustration and then finally achieving your goal is what I play for ! !
Unfortunately there are too many " easy " games out there - as soon as the PS2 came out Tomb Raider went downhill in favour of graphics .
No also because games are n't entirely a waste of time , they develop hand eye co-ordination and logic skills ( at least this is how I justify hours and hours of button bashing ) , taking challenges away will MAKE it a waste of time ( just my view ) .
Yes ONLY for small children and maybe people with learning disabilities - this kind of function could help them to develop by doing the easy things first and then introducing harder parts of the game in later..... Just my two pence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who takes gaming pretty seriously I'd say NO on a massive scale because hours of frustration and then finally achieving your goal is what I play for!!
Unfortunately there are too many "easy" games out there - as soon as the PS2 came out Tomb Raider went downhill in favour of graphics.
No also because games aren't entirely a waste of time, they develop hand eye co-ordination and logic skills (at least this is how I justify hours and hours of button bashing), taking challenges away will MAKE it a waste of time (just my view).
Yes ONLY for small children and maybe people with learning disabilities - this kind of function could help them to develop by doing the easy things first and then introducing harder parts of the game in later..... Just my two pence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387289</id>
	<title>LOL Patents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245410400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't be bothered to RTFA, but whatever cheat it is, prior art is in MAME cheats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't be bothered to RTFA , but whatever cheat it is , prior art is in MAME cheats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't be bothered to RTFA, but whatever cheat it is, prior art is in MAME cheats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388445</id>
	<title>The Game Genie</title>
	<author>Dusthead Jr.</author>
	<datestamp>1245419940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>When we first got the NES SMB was the only game we played for it for a while. So with all the frustration of playing the damned game we did eventually beat it. And that was that. The we got a Game Genie and played it again but we kicked the games ass. In a game where getting touched once or twice by any enemy kills you It felt good to get a permanent invincibility and plow through the game. That's how I uses cheating now days, beat the game at least once, then cheat. I extends the life of the game IMHO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When we first got the NES SMB was the only game we played for it for a while .
So with all the frustration of playing the damned game we did eventually beat it .
And that was that .
The we got a Game Genie and played it again but we kicked the games ass .
In a game where getting touched once or twice by any enemy kills you It felt good to get a permanent invincibility and plow through the game .
That 's how I uses cheating now days , beat the game at least once , then cheat .
I extends the life of the game IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When we first got the NES SMB was the only game we played for it for a while.
So with all the frustration of playing the damned game we did eventually beat it.
And that was that.
The we got a Game Genie and played it again but we kicked the games ass.
In a game where getting touched once or twice by any enemy kills you It felt good to get a permanent invincibility and plow through the game.
That's how I uses cheating now days, beat the game at least once, then cheat.
I extends the life of the game IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205</id>
	<title>Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>Bluebottel</author>
	<datestamp>1245409500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Getting rid of the stupid moments and rushing towards the fun ones. Hope they include a 'unlock-all-so-i-dont-have-to-just-to-play-the-whole-game' cheat as well. <br>
Way to many games assume that i want to grind 25 hours to get that tiny little game mode which just happens to be the most fun part of it all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting rid of the stupid moments and rushing towards the fun ones .
Hope they include a 'unlock-all-so-i-dont-have-to-just-to-play-the-whole-game ' cheat as well .
Way to many games assume that i want to grind 25 hours to get that tiny little game mode which just happens to be the most fun part of it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting rid of the stupid moments and rushing towards the fun ones.
Hope they include a 'unlock-all-so-i-dont-have-to-just-to-play-the-whole-game' cheat as well.
Way to many games assume that i want to grind 25 hours to get that tiny little game mode which just happens to be the most fun part of it all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392245</id>
	<title>Difficulty levels are better</title>
	<author>averner</author>
	<datestamp>1245436200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see many people arguing that cheats allow casual players to have fun playing a game.  I disagree; having difficulty levels is better.  Cheats simply let you skip the content altogether, while difficulty levels will allow you to lower the difficulty just enough to enjoy it.  4 is a good number - 1 for the complete novices, 1 for the casual players, 1 for the hardcore players, and 1 extremely hard difficulty just for fun (think Nightmare mode in Doom 2).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see many people arguing that cheats allow casual players to have fun playing a game .
I disagree ; having difficulty levels is better .
Cheats simply let you skip the content altogether , while difficulty levels will allow you to lower the difficulty just enough to enjoy it .
4 is a good number - 1 for the complete novices , 1 for the casual players , 1 for the hardcore players , and 1 extremely hard difficulty just for fun ( think Nightmare mode in Doom 2 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see many people arguing that cheats allow casual players to have fun playing a game.
I disagree; having difficulty levels is better.
Cheats simply let you skip the content altogether, while difficulty levels will allow you to lower the difficulty just enough to enjoy it.
4 is a good number - 1 for the complete novices, 1 for the casual players, 1 for the hardcore players, and 1 extremely hard difficulty just for fun (think Nightmare mode in Doom 2).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388113</id>
	<title>Re:"cheating"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me. Its purpose is my entertainment. Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it?</p></div><p>I agree, but there are some jackass gamers out there who feel that the very presence of such a cheat option is something offensive and terrible. It's not enough to challenge themselves, they must force everyone else to take on the same challenge.</p><p>Then again, that's why those idiots have no friends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In a single-player game , that I paid for , the interaction is between me and something owned by me .
Its purpose is my entertainment .
Challenge is part of that , but if I want to use an easy way , what could anyone possibly have against it ? I agree , but there are some jackass gamers out there who feel that the very presence of such a cheat option is something offensive and terrible .
It 's not enough to challenge themselves , they must force everyone else to take on the same challenge.Then again , that 's why those idiots have no friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me.
Its purpose is my entertainment.
Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it?I agree, but there are some jackass gamers out there who feel that the very presence of such a cheat option is something offensive and terrible.
It's not enough to challenge themselves, they must force everyone else to take on the same challenge.Then again, that's why those idiots have no friends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388287</id>
	<title>They're copying Braid</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1245419220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and poorly.  Braid lets you rewind time, and correct your mistakes.  Sometimes you have to think about what you're doing to actually utilize this (for example, some things don't rewind).  There's a level of thought put into it; I think this is correct, giving an easy way around if you can solve a small problem that requires some insight.  Like sequence breaking in Metroid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and poorly .
Braid lets you rewind time , and correct your mistakes .
Sometimes you have to think about what you 're doing to actually utilize this ( for example , some things do n't rewind ) .
There 's a level of thought put into it ; I think this is correct , giving an easy way around if you can solve a small problem that requires some insight .
Like sequence breaking in Metroid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and poorly.
Braid lets you rewind time, and correct your mistakes.
Sometimes you have to think about what you're doing to actually utilize this (for example, some things don't rewind).
There's a level of thought put into it; I think this is correct, giving an easy way around if you can solve a small problem that requires some insight.
Like sequence breaking in Metroid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391803</id>
	<title>UDUDLRLRBABA*Select**Start*</title>
	<author>r\_jensen11</author>
	<datestamp>1245434160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How the heck can you cheat with the Wiimote?  While there are Up, Down, Left, Right, B and A buttons, here's no select, nor start button!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How the heck can you cheat with the Wiimote ?
While there are Up , Down , Left , Right , B and A buttons , here 's no select , nor start button !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How the heck can you cheat with the Wiimote?
While there are Up, Down, Left, Right, B and A buttons, here's no select, nor start button!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391883</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>Chyeld</author>
	<datestamp>1245434580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In SSB's case, I would wager a good portion of it was to ensure there was a sufficent online player base for a sufficent length of time after it's release.</p><p>In my experience, Nintendo games (Wii or DS) tend have online portions that are worthless half a year after release because either no one plays it any more or because despite knowing that there are cheat engines out there, absolutely no effort is put in to curb hackers in the game and every match is dominated by folk who blatantly hack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In SSB 's case , I would wager a good portion of it was to ensure there was a sufficent online player base for a sufficent length of time after it 's release.In my experience , Nintendo games ( Wii or DS ) tend have online portions that are worthless half a year after release because either no one plays it any more or because despite knowing that there are cheat engines out there , absolutely no effort is put in to curb hackers in the game and every match is dominated by folk who blatantly hack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In SSB's case, I would wager a good portion of it was to ensure there was a sufficent online player base for a sufficent length of time after it's release.In my experience, Nintendo games (Wii or DS) tend have online portions that are worthless half a year after release because either no one plays it any more or because despite knowing that there are cheat engines out there, absolutely no effort is put in to curb hackers in the game and every match is dominated by folk who blatantly hack.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388229</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only one thing to say to this:</p><p>Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select (I had friends) Start</p><p>Don't tell me you never used that.  You act like cheat codes are new, this one is over 20 years old.  The fun part of these games was going through all the levels, not playing the same ones over and over again.  And the fun of not dieing turned out to be more about keeping your power-ups as opposed to "can I do it with one life?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only one thing to say to this : Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select ( I had friends ) StartDo n't tell me you never used that .
You act like cheat codes are new , this one is over 20 years old .
The fun part of these games was going through all the levels , not playing the same ones over and over again .
And the fun of not dieing turned out to be more about keeping your power-ups as opposed to " can I do it with one life ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only one thing to say to this:Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select (I had friends) StartDon't tell me you never used that.
You act like cheat codes are new, this one is over 20 years old.
The fun part of these games was going through all the levels, not playing the same ones over and over again.
And the fun of not dieing turned out to be more about keeping your power-ups as opposed to "can I do it with one life?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392753</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>magus088</author>
	<datestamp>1245438360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Back in my day" . . . ? The original Super Mario Bros. even had small cheats available. Actually, come to think of it, they were rather large cheats.</p><p>Run out of lives and want to start over? Hold A and press Start when on the Game Over screen . . .</p><p>Don't feel like playing through all 32 stages? I mean, that's a lot of SMB, after all. Seriously, how many different level warps did you find? If you did it right you could warp from L1 to L4 to L8 and beat the game by playing about 1/4 of the game iirc.</p><p>Those aren't cheating?</p><p>What about the famous up, up, down, down, youknowtherest, start . . . ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Back in my day " .
. .
? The original Super Mario Bros. even had small cheats available .
Actually , come to think of it , they were rather large cheats.Run out of lives and want to start over ?
Hold A and press Start when on the Game Over screen .
. .Do n't feel like playing through all 32 stages ?
I mean , that 's a lot of SMB , after all .
Seriously , how many different level warps did you find ?
If you did it right you could warp from L1 to L4 to L8 and beat the game by playing about 1/4 of the game iirc.Those are n't cheating ? What about the famous up , up , down , down , youknowtherest , start .
. .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Back in my day" .
. .
? The original Super Mario Bros. even had small cheats available.
Actually, come to think of it, they were rather large cheats.Run out of lives and want to start over?
Hold A and press Start when on the Game Over screen .
. .Don't feel like playing through all 32 stages?
I mean, that's a lot of SMB, after all.
Seriously, how many different level warps did you find?
If you did it right you could warp from L1 to L4 to L8 and beat the game by playing about 1/4 of the game iirc.Those aren't cheating?What about the famous up, up, down, down, youknowtherest, start .
. .
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393225</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>rainmaestro</author>
	<datestamp>1245440160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the legit uses for cheats? A few examples come to mind:</p><p>(1) noclip to bypass terrain bugs (IE, getting stuck in the big freight elevator in HL1).</p><p>(2) Enemies shooting through walls that I can't shoot back at, or enemies that spawned inside a mountain, underground, etc doing the same. Is it really a big deal to pop on god mode long enough to get past them?</p><p>#2 is particularly bad in checkpoint games. I have to go back to a checkpoint thirty fucking minutes back for the twentieth time because the AI ignores the rules (I'm looking at you, GRAW)? Screw that. I'm either gonna (a) god-mode past that one little spot, or (b) get pissed, break the disc, burn the pieces, and bury them ten feet underground in a lead box with a crucifix and garlic on top where that game belongs. The former is much better for my blood pressure.</p><p>If you have to win by LUCK, you obviously aren't good enough to win, and you haven't achieved anything in doing so.</p><p>And if your e-peen is damaged because someone else noclipped through a bad spot instead of reloading thirty times waiting for the PRNG to be aligned just right, well, my condolences to you.</p><p>Games are exactly what they should be: disposable entertainment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the legit uses for cheats ?
A few examples come to mind : ( 1 ) noclip to bypass terrain bugs ( IE , getting stuck in the big freight elevator in HL1 ) .
( 2 ) Enemies shooting through walls that I ca n't shoot back at , or enemies that spawned inside a mountain , underground , etc doing the same .
Is it really a big deal to pop on god mode long enough to get past them ? # 2 is particularly bad in checkpoint games .
I have to go back to a checkpoint thirty fucking minutes back for the twentieth time because the AI ignores the rules ( I 'm looking at you , GRAW ) ?
Screw that .
I 'm either gon na ( a ) god-mode past that one little spot , or ( b ) get pissed , break the disc , burn the pieces , and bury them ten feet underground in a lead box with a crucifix and garlic on top where that game belongs .
The former is much better for my blood pressure.If you have to win by LUCK , you obviously are n't good enough to win , and you have n't achieved anything in doing so.And if your e-peen is damaged because someone else noclipped through a bad spot instead of reloading thirty times waiting for the PRNG to be aligned just right , well , my condolences to you.Games are exactly what they should be : disposable entertainment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the legit uses for cheats?
A few examples come to mind:(1) noclip to bypass terrain bugs (IE, getting stuck in the big freight elevator in HL1).
(2) Enemies shooting through walls that I can't shoot back at, or enemies that spawned inside a mountain, underground, etc doing the same.
Is it really a big deal to pop on god mode long enough to get past them?#2 is particularly bad in checkpoint games.
I have to go back to a checkpoint thirty fucking minutes back for the twentieth time because the AI ignores the rules (I'm looking at you, GRAW)?
Screw that.
I'm either gonna (a) god-mode past that one little spot, or (b) get pissed, break the disc, burn the pieces, and bury them ten feet underground in a lead box with a crucifix and garlic on top where that game belongs.
The former is much better for my blood pressure.If you have to win by LUCK, you obviously aren't good enough to win, and you haven't achieved anything in doing so.And if your e-peen is damaged because someone else noclipped through a bad spot instead of reloading thirty times waiting for the PRNG to be aligned just right, well, my condolences to you.Games are exactly what they should be: disposable entertainment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388371</id>
	<title>Re:Instant Satisfaction</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1245419640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine for a moment that your DVD player didn't have a fast forward button, after all you should watch the movie, not skip through it to the end for instant satisfaction.</p><p>Doesn't sound to great, does it? With video games its the same thing. Sure a challenging game is fun, but being <i>forced</i> to play through those challenging parts is not. It should be the users choice of how he wants to enjoy the game and if books and movies are any indication, it works quite fine when the user has instant access to the end of it.</p><p>The only real trouble I see with this is that games have progression, you learn skills in earlier levels to use them in later ones. So if you skip those learning parts, because you find them to hard, you mind end up being even more screwed later on, as you haven't learned how to play the game, thus a hard game becomes an impossible one.</p><p>But in the end: You payed for the game, so you should have the right to see all of it, if cheats and autoplay allow that, so be it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine for a moment that your DVD player did n't have a fast forward button , after all you should watch the movie , not skip through it to the end for instant satisfaction.Does n't sound to great , does it ?
With video games its the same thing .
Sure a challenging game is fun , but being forced to play through those challenging parts is not .
It should be the users choice of how he wants to enjoy the game and if books and movies are any indication , it works quite fine when the user has instant access to the end of it.The only real trouble I see with this is that games have progression , you learn skills in earlier levels to use them in later ones .
So if you skip those learning parts , because you find them to hard , you mind end up being even more screwed later on , as you have n't learned how to play the game , thus a hard game becomes an impossible one.But in the end : You payed for the game , so you should have the right to see all of it , if cheats and autoplay allow that , so be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine for a moment that your DVD player didn't have a fast forward button, after all you should watch the movie, not skip through it to the end for instant satisfaction.Doesn't sound to great, does it?
With video games its the same thing.
Sure a challenging game is fun, but being forced to play through those challenging parts is not.
It should be the users choice of how he wants to enjoy the game and if books and movies are any indication, it works quite fine when the user has instant access to the end of it.The only real trouble I see with this is that games have progression, you learn skills in earlier levels to use them in later ones.
So if you skip those learning parts, because you find them to hard, you mind end up being even more screwed later on, as you haven't learned how to play the game, thus a hard game becomes an impossible one.But in the end: You payed for the game, so you should have the right to see all of it, if cheats and autoplay allow that, so be it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391971</id>
	<title>Re:They're copying Braid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245435000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're copying poorly, because they're not doing the same thing.  Braid lets you rewind time... this new feature lets you *fast forward* time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're copying poorly , because they 're not doing the same thing .
Braid lets you rewind time... this new feature lets you * fast forward * time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're copying poorly, because they're not doing the same thing.
Braid lets you rewind time... this new feature lets you *fast forward* time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389533</id>
	<title>Stop the Ubiquitious Dependence on Dexterity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245424620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dexterity requirements kill me. My reflexes suck. I've got a drawer full of games that, while otherwise enjoyable, decided to throw in a dexterity puzzle that stopped me in my tracks. Boom Blox was great until I hit the shooter parts. I can't complete them so I'm stalled. Zelda was great until I had to pull-turn-run-jump-turn-jump-jump-run. After a week of trying I quit. The list goes on and on.</p><p>Why are computer and console games so dependent on dexterity challenges? Even games that purport to be puzzlers throw in dexterity challenges - it seems to be some unwritten rule to require the reflexes of a young man at least once in every game. Guess what - not everyone can juggle, whistle Dixie and shoot ten enemies at the same time.</p><p>I'm no cripple but I am on the low side of the bell curve when it comes to reflexes. Ninety percent of the games that I'd like to play are unavailable to me because of these stupid dexterity challenges. This leaves me reluctant to buy any games, fearing it will become another in the collection of "unfinishables".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dexterity requirements kill me .
My reflexes suck .
I 've got a drawer full of games that , while otherwise enjoyable , decided to throw in a dexterity puzzle that stopped me in my tracks .
Boom Blox was great until I hit the shooter parts .
I ca n't complete them so I 'm stalled .
Zelda was great until I had to pull-turn-run-jump-turn-jump-jump-run .
After a week of trying I quit .
The list goes on and on.Why are computer and console games so dependent on dexterity challenges ?
Even games that purport to be puzzlers throw in dexterity challenges - it seems to be some unwritten rule to require the reflexes of a young man at least once in every game .
Guess what - not everyone can juggle , whistle Dixie and shoot ten enemies at the same time.I 'm no cripple but I am on the low side of the bell curve when it comes to reflexes .
Ninety percent of the games that I 'd like to play are unavailable to me because of these stupid dexterity challenges .
This leaves me reluctant to buy any games , fearing it will become another in the collection of " unfinishables " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dexterity requirements kill me.
My reflexes suck.
I've got a drawer full of games that, while otherwise enjoyable, decided to throw in a dexterity puzzle that stopped me in my tracks.
Boom Blox was great until I hit the shooter parts.
I can't complete them so I'm stalled.
Zelda was great until I had to pull-turn-run-jump-turn-jump-jump-run.
After a week of trying I quit.
The list goes on and on.Why are computer and console games so dependent on dexterity challenges?
Even games that purport to be puzzlers throw in dexterity challenges - it seems to be some unwritten rule to require the reflexes of a young man at least once in every game.
Guess what - not everyone can juggle, whistle Dixie and shoot ten enemies at the same time.I'm no cripple but I am on the low side of the bell curve when it comes to reflexes.
Ninety percent of the games that I'd like to play are unavailable to me because of these stupid dexterity challenges.
This leaves me reluctant to buy any games, fearing it will become another in the collection of "unfinishables".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388637</id>
	<title>Er, what?</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1245420840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They patented the Konami Code ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They patented the Konami Code ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They patented the Konami Code ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387349</id>
	<title>Seriously, though</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It does make a good point,

<a href="http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip\_id=282" title="vgcats.com">http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip\_id=282</a> [vgcats.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does make a good point , http : //www.vgcats.com/comics/ ? strip \ _id = 282 [ vgcats.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does make a good point,

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip\_id=282 [vgcats.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389931</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic</title>
	<author>aliquis</author>
	<datestamp>1245426180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kids</p></div><p>Wtf, I'm 29 years old and I have a problem with the damn puzzles.</p><p>I got stuck at the level in the first world where you go up a tower and jump over the water to a small cave and then get into some puzzle with moving boxes. Hate that shit.</p><p>Beaten by a 5 year old<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kidsWtf , I 'm 29 years old and I have a problem with the damn puzzles.I got stuck at the level in the first world where you go up a tower and jump over the water to a small cave and then get into some puzzle with moving boxes .
Hate that shit.Beaten by a 5 year old : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kidsWtf, I'm 29 years old and I have a problem with the damn puzzles.I got stuck at the level in the first world where you go up a tower and jump over the water to a small cave and then get into some puzzle with moving boxes.
Hate that shit.Beaten by a 5 year old :(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389543</id>
	<title>Re:I like options</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1245424620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However for the casual gamer (say someone who doesn't have the time required to develop the "Mad Skillz" needed to play these games) this is a godsend.</p></div><p>Or, you know, gamers that play games for "fun" rather than "frustrating difficulty spikes that aren't fun at all to ascend."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However for the casual gamer ( say someone who does n't have the time required to develop the " Mad Skillz " needed to play these games ) this is a godsend.Or , you know , gamers that play games for " fun " rather than " frustrating difficulty spikes that are n't fun at all to ascend .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However for the casual gamer (say someone who doesn't have the time required to develop the "Mad Skillz" needed to play these games) this is a godsend.Or, you know, gamers that play games for "fun" rather than "frustrating difficulty spikes that aren't fun at all to ascend.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390719</id>
	<title>Re:"cheating"</title>
	<author>GradiusCVK</author>
	<datestamp>1245429540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Step 1: Create single-player video game where your goal is to construct a formal proof of whether P == NP
Step 2: Play game and activate "universal cheat" mechanism
Step 3: ?
Step 4: Profit

Does that count as cheating?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Step 1 : Create single-player video game where your goal is to construct a formal proof of whether P = = NP Step 2 : Play game and activate " universal cheat " mechanism Step 3 : ?
Step 4 : Profit Does that count as cheating ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Step 1: Create single-player video game where your goal is to construct a formal proof of whether P == NP
Step 2: Play game and activate "universal cheat" mechanism
Step 3: ?
Step 4: Profit

Does that count as cheating?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387415</id>
	<title>Probably a good thing...</title>
	<author>dr\_wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1245411840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... especially for casual gamers and kids. I have a young daughter who loves the original SMB that I downloaded through the VC, but her frustration level can get to the point where she doesn't want to play it anymore. Something like this would be nice for her and casual gamers if implemented properly. But I also think they should also insert some sort of bonus ending or perk for players who don't need to cheat to win.</p><p>Is it fair to give her an advantage when I didn't have one myself at her age? I think so. At least maybe she won't start throwing nintendo controllers across the goddamn room like I used to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... especially for casual gamers and kids .
I have a young daughter who loves the original SMB that I downloaded through the VC , but her frustration level can get to the point where she does n't want to play it anymore .
Something like this would be nice for her and casual gamers if implemented properly .
But I also think they should also insert some sort of bonus ending or perk for players who do n't need to cheat to win.Is it fair to give her an advantage when I did n't have one myself at her age ?
I think so .
At least maybe she wo n't start throwing nintendo controllers across the goddamn room like I used to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... especially for casual gamers and kids.
I have a young daughter who loves the original SMB that I downloaded through the VC, but her frustration level can get to the point where she doesn't want to play it anymore.
Something like this would be nice for her and casual gamers if implemented properly.
But I also think they should also insert some sort of bonus ending or perk for players who don't need to cheat to win.Is it fair to give her an advantage when I didn't have one myself at her age?
I think so.
At least maybe she won't start throwing nintendo controllers across the goddamn room like I used to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387243</id>
	<title>Instant Satisfaction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good marketing is giving people what they want and Nintendo has done well in understanding just that. Unfortunately, most people would rather get something without any effort than they would to actually practice, learn, then succeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good marketing is giving people what they want and Nintendo has done well in understanding just that .
Unfortunately , most people would rather get something without any effort than they would to actually practice , learn , then succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good marketing is giving people what they want and Nintendo has done well in understanding just that.
Unfortunately, most people would rather get something without any effort than they would to actually practice, learn, then succeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391707</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>adisakp</author>
	<datestamp>1245433800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further. I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things</p></div><p>
You really don't want to buy "Little Big Planet" for PS3 then.  The game starts with all levels and items locked except the introductory level and you have to earn EVERYTHING in the game.<br> <br>
That said, it's one of the best games I've played in years.  Unlocking and discovering new things can be an integral and fun part of a game.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I buy a game , I assume that I 'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box .
Unfortunately , I have to " earn " it , which just pisses me off even further .
I do n't play games to " defeat " and " earn " things You really do n't want to buy " Little Big Planet " for PS3 then .
The game starts with all levels and items locked except the introductory level and you have to earn EVERYTHING in the game .
That said , it 's one of the best games I 've played in years .
Unlocking and discovering new things can be an integral and fun part of a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box.
Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further.
I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things
You really don't want to buy "Little Big Planet" for PS3 then.
The game starts with all levels and items locked except the introductory level and you have to earn EVERYTHING in the game.
That said, it's one of the best games I've played in years.
Unlocking and discovering new things can be an integral and fun part of a game.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28397227</id>
	<title>Re:Both</title>
	<author>n7ytd</author>
	<datestamp>1245413400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember my old Mouse Systems mouse that came with the brand spankin' new 286.  The driver disk included a text-mode solitaire game that was a great way to teach my dad how to handle the mouse.</p><p>The game would let you violate the rules of the game, but it would flash "You're Cheating!" when you made an illegal move.  If you eliminated all of the cards, it would congratulate you on the win, but remind you "(but you did cheat!)".</p><p>It was a great balance between letting you finish the game if you want, but flagging the win as tainted.</p><p>Reminds me of the proposal of asterisking the hall of fame records of all those baseball players caught using steroids...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember my old Mouse Systems mouse that came with the brand spankin ' new 286 .
The driver disk included a text-mode solitaire game that was a great way to teach my dad how to handle the mouse.The game would let you violate the rules of the game , but it would flash " You 're Cheating !
" when you made an illegal move .
If you eliminated all of the cards , it would congratulate you on the win , but remind you " ( but you did cheat !
) " .It was a great balance between letting you finish the game if you want , but flagging the win as tainted.Reminds me of the proposal of asterisking the hall of fame records of all those baseball players caught using steroids.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember my old Mouse Systems mouse that came with the brand spankin' new 286.
The driver disk included a text-mode solitaire game that was a great way to teach my dad how to handle the mouse.The game would let you violate the rules of the game, but it would flash "You're Cheating!
" when you made an illegal move.
If you eliminated all of the cards, it would congratulate you on the win, but remind you "(but you did cheat!
)".It was a great balance between letting you finish the game if you want, but flagging the win as tainted.Reminds me of the proposal of asterisking the hall of fame records of all those baseball players caught using steroids...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389487</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245424380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even if you're right, casual gamers are most of the market.
<br> <br>What does winning 'for real' give you that you don't get with a cheat code? A sense of accomplishment in doing something almost completely meaningless in the real world? At this point I can't remember whether I ever won Contra without the code; that's because in the end, they're just games -- not college courses or Shakespeare. Have fun with them, and stop trying to assign them with more meaning and value than they have.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you 're right , casual gamers are most of the market .
What does winning 'for real ' give you that you do n't get with a cheat code ?
A sense of accomplishment in doing something almost completely meaningless in the real world ?
At this point I ca n't remember whether I ever won Contra without the code ; that 's because in the end , they 're just games -- not college courses or Shakespeare .
Have fun with them , and stop trying to assign them with more meaning and value than they have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you're right, casual gamers are most of the market.
What does winning 'for real' give you that you don't get with a cheat code?
A sense of accomplishment in doing something almost completely meaningless in the real world?
At this point I can't remember whether I ever won Contra without the code; that's because in the end, they're just games -- not college courses or Shakespeare.
Have fun with them, and stop trying to assign them with more meaning and value than they have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387659</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic</title>
	<author>zwei2stein</author>
	<datestamp>1245414600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would be worried myself rather than celebrating it.</p><p>Game with 'easy way out' can make children expect something like that later in their life subconsciously and become frustrated.</p><p>There is big deal made out of fact that most games expose children to very fast and very direct and simple reward-effort situations, that makes them less able to handle distant rewards.</p><p>But again, kids were playing games before computers were around and Deferred gratification was there before computer games too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be worried myself rather than celebrating it.Game with 'easy way out ' can make children expect something like that later in their life subconsciously and become frustrated.There is big deal made out of fact that most games expose children to very fast and very direct and simple reward-effort situations , that makes them less able to handle distant rewards.But again , kids were playing games before computers were around and Deferred gratification was there before computer games too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be worried myself rather than celebrating it.Game with 'easy way out' can make children expect something like that later in their life subconsciously and become frustrated.There is big deal made out of fact that most games expose children to very fast and very direct and simple reward-effort situations, that makes them less able to handle distant rewards.But again, kids were playing games before computers were around and Deferred gratification was there before computer games too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391245</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>keytoe</author>
	<datestamp>1245431820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. What takes the cake for me has been the recent trend of having this whole 'unlock the content' idea shoved on top of what amounts to a <b>party game</b>. The very idea that I'd have to play through an entire game in single player mode to unlock the content I'd want to play with my friends is downright idiotic. Party game means I stick in the disk, hand out controllers and beer and <b>that's it</b>.</p><p>I understand where these developers are coming from with the whole unlocking thing. It's supposed to be about 'character progression' or some bullshit - and it makes sense in certain genres (RPGs, Sports Career Sims, etc). But that doesn't mean you need to stick an RPG element into every damned game you crank out. The gaming market has matured, and we don't have the time it takes to unlock all the fun bits any more. We just want to play. Make games like that and I'll start giving you money again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
What takes the cake for me has been the recent trend of having this whole 'unlock the content ' idea shoved on top of what amounts to a party game .
The very idea that I 'd have to play through an entire game in single player mode to unlock the content I 'd want to play with my friends is downright idiotic .
Party game means I stick in the disk , hand out controllers and beer and that 's it.I understand where these developers are coming from with the whole unlocking thing .
It 's supposed to be about 'character progression ' or some bullshit - and it makes sense in certain genres ( RPGs , Sports Career Sims , etc ) .
But that does n't mean you need to stick an RPG element into every damned game you crank out .
The gaming market has matured , and we do n't have the time it takes to unlock all the fun bits any more .
We just want to play .
Make games like that and I 'll start giving you money again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
What takes the cake for me has been the recent trend of having this whole 'unlock the content' idea shoved on top of what amounts to a party game.
The very idea that I'd have to play through an entire game in single player mode to unlock the content I'd want to play with my friends is downright idiotic.
Party game means I stick in the disk, hand out controllers and beer and that's it.I understand where these developers are coming from with the whole unlocking thing.
It's supposed to be about 'character progression' or some bullshit - and it makes sense in certain genres (RPGs, Sports Career Sims, etc).
But that doesn't mean you need to stick an RPG element into every damned game you crank out.
The gaming market has matured, and we don't have the time it takes to unlock all the fun bits any more.
We just want to play.
Make games like that and I'll start giving you money again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387647</id>
	<title>Well, they usually provided them anyway</title>
	<author>LarrySDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1245414540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt all those "pause, up, down, left, x, down, right" cheats were exactly programming bugs.. All they're dropping is the pretense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt all those " pause , up , down , left , x , down , right " cheats were exactly programming bugs.. All they 're dropping is the pretense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt all those "pause, up, down, left, x, down, right" cheats were exactly programming bugs.. All they're dropping is the pretense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387633</id>
	<title>Thumbs up... for kids games</title>
	<author>pinkushun</author>
	<datestamp>1245414420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But for the rest of us, temptation to try again and again (read:perfect the game) will feel crippled.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But for the rest of us , temptation to try again and again ( read : perfect the game ) will feel crippled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But for the rest of us, temptation to try again and again (read:perfect the game) will feel crippled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387445</id>
	<title>Is the really that new?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245412200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this really a completely new idea, or just an extension of what Valve games have done for ages?</p><p>In all the HL2 series (and maybe before that) you've been able to change the general difficulty between the three levels mid-game. I normally do fairly well on "normal" settings in games, but I did once find this feature useful (in HL2, the prison complex, I forget exactly where on the level) for getting past a frustrating point so I could stop banging my head against it and get on with enjoying the rest of the game. I imagine that people looking for a more-casual-but-not-always-set-to-too-easy experience would use the feature quite a bit.</p><p>What Nintendo are talking about here seems to me to just be going one step beyond this, changing the available levels from Hard/Normal/Easy to Hard/Normal/Easy/Autopilot. Nothing revolutionary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this really a completely new idea , or just an extension of what Valve games have done for ages ? In all the HL2 series ( and maybe before that ) you 've been able to change the general difficulty between the three levels mid-game .
I normally do fairly well on " normal " settings in games , but I did once find this feature useful ( in HL2 , the prison complex , I forget exactly where on the level ) for getting past a frustrating point so I could stop banging my head against it and get on with enjoying the rest of the game .
I imagine that people looking for a more-casual-but-not-always-set-to-too-easy experience would use the feature quite a bit.What Nintendo are talking about here seems to me to just be going one step beyond this , changing the available levels from Hard/Normal/Easy to Hard/Normal/Easy/Autopilot .
Nothing revolutionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this really a completely new idea, or just an extension of what Valve games have done for ages?In all the HL2 series (and maybe before that) you've been able to change the general difficulty between the three levels mid-game.
I normally do fairly well on "normal" settings in games, but I did once find this feature useful (in HL2, the prison complex, I forget exactly where on the level) for getting past a frustrating point so I could stop banging my head against it and get on with enjoying the rest of the game.
I imagine that people looking for a more-casual-but-not-always-set-to-too-easy experience would use the feature quite a bit.What Nintendo are talking about here seems to me to just be going one step beyond this, changing the available levels from Hard/Normal/Easy to Hard/Normal/Easy/Autopilot.
Nothing revolutionary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390565</id>
	<title>Some games have debug mode</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1245428820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been playing Neverwinter Nights 2 lately (yes, yes, I know--old hat, not a hot game right now) and got stuck in an area.  I spoke to the NPC that should have ended the scenario and taken me into the next cut scene, but nothing happened.  As it turns out, another NPC that was alive at the end of my battle with that scene's boss subsequently died of recurring damage (e.g., poison or acid).  Instead of going back through from my last save point, I was able to open a debugger console and instruct the game to re-spawn the secondary NPC.<br> <br>Now, for games that score and have leader boards, I'd agree that barring entries (or at least flagging entries) that used the "demo" mode would be fair.  I just don't think it's big news that such a mode will be advertised as a feature of the game. A lot of casual gamers just want to get to the end of the game.  They're not as concerned about the purity of doing it without help.  I once was in that camp myself, though now I prefer to get through without cheats and walkthroughs whenever possible.<br> <br>I miss the days of the old Atari 2600 games like Laser Blast and Demon Attack.  I cleared both of those games.  Laser Blast gave the satisfaction of a screen filled with large explanation points and question marks to denote the victory (I had recorded my final few rounds on a VHS tape in the day).  Demon Attack (not by Atari, but a game for the 2600) topped out at a certain score (1 mil?).  I think it just went to a blank screen or rolled credits.  Those were glory days in my mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been playing Neverwinter Nights 2 lately ( yes , yes , I know--old hat , not a hot game right now ) and got stuck in an area .
I spoke to the NPC that should have ended the scenario and taken me into the next cut scene , but nothing happened .
As it turns out , another NPC that was alive at the end of my battle with that scene 's boss subsequently died of recurring damage ( e.g. , poison or acid ) .
Instead of going back through from my last save point , I was able to open a debugger console and instruct the game to re-spawn the secondary NPC .
Now , for games that score and have leader boards , I 'd agree that barring entries ( or at least flagging entries ) that used the " demo " mode would be fair .
I just do n't think it 's big news that such a mode will be advertised as a feature of the game .
A lot of casual gamers just want to get to the end of the game .
They 're not as concerned about the purity of doing it without help .
I once was in that camp myself , though now I prefer to get through without cheats and walkthroughs whenever possible .
I miss the days of the old Atari 2600 games like Laser Blast and Demon Attack .
I cleared both of those games .
Laser Blast gave the satisfaction of a screen filled with large explanation points and question marks to denote the victory ( I had recorded my final few rounds on a VHS tape in the day ) .
Demon Attack ( not by Atari , but a game for the 2600 ) topped out at a certain score ( 1 mil ? ) .
I think it just went to a blank screen or rolled credits .
Those were glory days in my mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been playing Neverwinter Nights 2 lately (yes, yes, I know--old hat, not a hot game right now) and got stuck in an area.
I spoke to the NPC that should have ended the scenario and taken me into the next cut scene, but nothing happened.
As it turns out, another NPC that was alive at the end of my battle with that scene's boss subsequently died of recurring damage (e.g., poison or acid).
Instead of going back through from my last save point, I was able to open a debugger console and instruct the game to re-spawn the secondary NPC.
Now, for games that score and have leader boards, I'd agree that barring entries (or at least flagging entries) that used the "demo" mode would be fair.
I just don't think it's big news that such a mode will be advertised as a feature of the game.
A lot of casual gamers just want to get to the end of the game.
They're not as concerned about the purity of doing it without help.
I once was in that camp myself, though now I prefer to get through without cheats and walkthroughs whenever possible.
I miss the days of the old Atari 2600 games like Laser Blast and Demon Attack.
I cleared both of those games.
Laser Blast gave the satisfaction of a screen filled with large explanation points and question marks to denote the victory (I had recorded my final few rounds on a VHS tape in the day).
Demon Attack (not by Atari, but a game for the 2600) topped out at a certain score (1 mil?).
I think it just went to a blank screen or rolled credits.
Those were glory days in my mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393113</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>y86</author>
	<datestamp>1245439740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Winning is winning.</p><p>The only people who care about the rules being broken are the losers.</p><p>--Cheers!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Winning is winning.The only people who care about the rules being broken are the losers.--Cheers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Winning is winning.The only people who care about the rules being broken are the losers.--Cheers!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388455</id>
	<title>I don't know...Eg: Street Fighter 4 (read)</title>
	<author>emanem</author>
	<datestamp>1245420000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hi all...<br>
<br>
I don't know if it's ok or not...but I think if it's needed then a game is not well balanced (against CPU I mean, not the game itself).<br>
For example, if you play in the easiest mode at SF4 the final boss is able to destroy you anyway, while in all the other enounters the opponents are really...<i>easy</i>.<br>
Now, I think that SF4 is a great game, well balanced etc etc. Really I stopped WoW to play SF4 PvP.<br>
But as a single player game the fact the last boss is very hard even in easiest mode is a bit depressing, considering the quality of the game itself.<br>
But to be 100\% honest there could be a reason for that...in order to unlock all the characters you have to defeat the final boss some times straight without losing a game...so CAPCOM knew that everyone would play the game at easiest mode just to unlock all 25 characters...so basically this could be seen as a possible motivation to implement this hard boss as the fact everyone will face him at easiest mode...but still I don't like this.<br>
<br>
I'm against demo mode but in favour of balanced games.<br>
Cheers,</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi all.. . I do n't know if it 's ok or not...but I think if it 's needed then a game is not well balanced ( against CPU I mean , not the game itself ) .
For example , if you play in the easiest mode at SF4 the final boss is able to destroy you anyway , while in all the other enounters the opponents are really...easy .
Now , I think that SF4 is a great game , well balanced etc etc .
Really I stopped WoW to play SF4 PvP .
But as a single player game the fact the last boss is very hard even in easiest mode is a bit depressing , considering the quality of the game itself .
But to be 100 \ % honest there could be a reason for that...in order to unlock all the characters you have to defeat the final boss some times straight without losing a game...so CAPCOM knew that everyone would play the game at easiest mode just to unlock all 25 characters...so basically this could be seen as a possible motivation to implement this hard boss as the fact everyone will face him at easiest mode...but still I do n't like this .
I 'm against demo mode but in favour of balanced games .
Cheers,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi all...

I don't know if it's ok or not...but I think if it's needed then a game is not well balanced (against CPU I mean, not the game itself).
For example, if you play in the easiest mode at SF4 the final boss is able to destroy you anyway, while in all the other enounters the opponents are really...easy.
Now, I think that SF4 is a great game, well balanced etc etc.
Really I stopped WoW to play SF4 PvP.
But as a single player game the fact the last boss is very hard even in easiest mode is a bit depressing, considering the quality of the game itself.
But to be 100\% honest there could be a reason for that...in order to unlock all the characters you have to defeat the final boss some times straight without losing a game...so CAPCOM knew that everyone would play the game at easiest mode just to unlock all 25 characters...so basically this could be seen as a possible motivation to implement this hard boss as the fact everyone will face him at easiest mode...but still I don't like this.
I'm against demo mode but in favour of balanced games.
Cheers,</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1245419040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.. of course, some games do take the grinding too far in an effort to make things more valuable, but there will always be plenty of unemployed or people or kids willing to waste their entire holidays to get something and then the developers have to make the next reward even more difficult to get to keep it rare/valuable..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:s</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may find that the reward does n't seem as valuable if you have n't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.. of course , some games do take the grinding too far in an effort to make things more valuable , but there will always be plenty of unemployed or people or kids willing to waste their entire holidays to get something and then the developers have to make the next reward even more difficult to get to keep it rare/valuable.. : s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.. of course, some games do take the grinding too far in an effort to make things more valuable, but there will always be plenty of unemployed or people or kids willing to waste their entire holidays to get something and then the developers have to make the next reward even more difficult to get to keep it rare/valuable.. :s</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393757</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1245442140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't wait until gamers stop talking about "casual gamers" like they're different in any real sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't wait until gamers stop talking about " casual gamers " like they 're different in any real sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't wait until gamers stop talking about "casual gamers" like they're different in any real sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388159</id>
	<title>Re:Probably a good thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming it's a 2D platformer, I think one of the most elegant solutions would be alter the level layout after repeated failures, or if you're on your last life.<br> <br>

It's what I'd do if I were making a platformer.  It's really easy to implement and levels the playing field a bit.  Perhaps literally!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming it 's a 2D platformer , I think one of the most elegant solutions would be alter the level layout after repeated failures , or if you 're on your last life .
It 's what I 'd do if I were making a platformer .
It 's really easy to implement and levels the playing field a bit .
Perhaps literally !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming it's a 2D platformer, I think one of the most elegant solutions would be alter the level layout after repeated failures, or if you're on your last life.
It's what I'd do if I were making a platformer.
It's really easy to implement and levels the playing field a bit.
Perhaps literally!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391125</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1245431400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Arguably, if a game has a part that's ridiculously hard, it's just a bad game.  The player does share responsibility for making efforts to get past the part.</p><p>But if the game hasn't made the player aware of the tactics or abilities required to get past that point, and the players options are Quit or Cheat, then that's a massive failure on the game's part.</p><p>And of course thats all true only for the easiest game mode - if you put the game on a harder difficult and it's too hard, the answer is to scale back the difficulty (hopefully without having to start over from level 1), not cheat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguably , if a game has a part that 's ridiculously hard , it 's just a bad game .
The player does share responsibility for making efforts to get past the part.But if the game has n't made the player aware of the tactics or abilities required to get past that point , and the players options are Quit or Cheat , then that 's a massive failure on the game 's part.And of course thats all true only for the easiest game mode - if you put the game on a harder difficult and it 's too hard , the answer is to scale back the difficulty ( hopefully without having to start over from level 1 ) , not cheat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguably, if a game has a part that's ridiculously hard, it's just a bad game.
The player does share responsibility for making efforts to get past the part.But if the game hasn't made the player aware of the tactics or abilities required to get past that point, and the players options are Quit or Cheat, then that's a massive failure on the game's part.And of course thats all true only for the easiest game mode - if you put the game on a harder difficult and it's too hard, the answer is to scale back the difficulty (hopefully without having to start over from level 1), not cheat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391823</id>
	<title>Re:Why Play The Game?</title>
	<author>wsuschmitt</author>
	<datestamp>1245434220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just go watch a movie.  It's in "demo" mode, all the time.</p></div><p>The production values of many video games rivals many movies in terms of cinematics, storyline, and musical score.  The Final Fantasy series of video games are great, but the 40+ hours one spends in experiencing the game can't be easily shared with others.  If a demo mode was set into the game in which the story was allowed to play out, I believe more people would be pulled into wanting to get that game.

The lines are starting to blur between game and movie...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just go watch a movie .
It 's in " demo " mode , all the time.The production values of many video games rivals many movies in terms of cinematics , storyline , and musical score .
The Final Fantasy series of video games are great , but the 40 + hours one spends in experiencing the game ca n't be easily shared with others .
If a demo mode was set into the game in which the story was allowed to play out , I believe more people would be pulled into wanting to get that game .
The lines are starting to blur between game and movie.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just go watch a movie.
It's in "demo" mode, all the time.The production values of many video games rivals many movies in terms of cinematics, storyline, and musical score.
The Final Fantasy series of video games are great, but the 40+ hours one spends in experiencing the game can't be easily shared with others.
If a demo mode was set into the game in which the story was allowed to play out, I believe more people would be pulled into wanting to get that game.
The lines are starting to blur between game and movie...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388677</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391123</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea. A question</title>
	<author>bagorange</author>
	<datestamp>1245431340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When you play a console game, do you finish it on easy mode and then go up through the difficulties or just go to the hardest? I always think you get more time for your money if you start at the bottom.
Anyone else's views?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When you play a console game , do you finish it on easy mode and then go up through the difficulties or just go to the hardest ?
I always think you get more time for your money if you start at the bottom .
Anyone else 's views ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you play a console game, do you finish it on easy mode and then go up through the difficulties or just go to the hardest?
I always think you get more time for your money if you start at the bottom.
Anyone else's views?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392421</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>Bohnanza</author>
	<datestamp>1245436860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This ought to be an option in EVERY game. Too many designers don't understand the difference between "challenging" and "frustrating".<p>

Civilization II famously included a "Cheat" menu to allow players to do as they wish with the game. After all, you bought it, why should anyone else tell you what you can do with it?</p><p>

And furthermore, a gamer who wants a challenge can simply refuse to use the "cheat"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This ought to be an option in EVERY game .
Too many designers do n't understand the difference between " challenging " and " frustrating " .
Civilization II famously included a " Cheat " menu to allow players to do as they wish with the game .
After all , you bought it , why should anyone else tell you what you can do with it ?
And furthermore , a gamer who wants a challenge can simply refuse to use the " cheat " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This ought to be an option in EVERY game.
Too many designers don't understand the difference between "challenging" and "frustrating".
Civilization II famously included a "Cheat" menu to allow players to do as they wish with the game.
After all, you bought it, why should anyone else tell you what you can do with it?
And furthermore, a gamer who wants a challenge can simply refuse to use the "cheat"!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389805</id>
	<title>Yes, Good Idea</title>
	<author>hawkd\_sf</author>
	<datestamp>1245425700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a 19 year-old son with a disability.  He has always enjoyed video games but quite simply, lacks the eye-hand fine motor skills to play a lot of them.  I've often thought while watching him struggle with this that it would be great if games could be "adjusted" to be "doable" by others than those with the time, skill and inclination to invest incredibly long hours in a game.  Don't worry "gamers", I don't think he'll ever try to claim your title or take you on in a game.  He's just a kid who has had way more than his share of (real) challenges in life and wants to have just a tiny bit of the same kind of fun that the "T-D's" (typically developing) have.  CTFO.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a 19 year-old son with a disability .
He has always enjoyed video games but quite simply , lacks the eye-hand fine motor skills to play a lot of them .
I 've often thought while watching him struggle with this that it would be great if games could be " adjusted " to be " doable " by others than those with the time , skill and inclination to invest incredibly long hours in a game .
Do n't worry " gamers " , I do n't think he 'll ever try to claim your title or take you on in a game .
He 's just a kid who has had way more than his share of ( real ) challenges in life and wants to have just a tiny bit of the same kind of fun that the " T-D 's " ( typically developing ) have .
CTFO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a 19 year-old son with a disability.
He has always enjoyed video games but quite simply, lacks the eye-hand fine motor skills to play a lot of them.
I've often thought while watching him struggle with this that it would be great if games could be "adjusted" to be "doable" by others than those with the time, skill and inclination to invest incredibly long hours in a game.
Don't worry "gamers", I don't think he'll ever try to claim your title or take you on in a game.
He's just a kid who has had way more than his share of (real) challenges in life and wants to have just a tiny bit of the same kind of fun that the "T-D's" (typically developing) have.
CTFO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387321</id>
	<title>Nice, an AI system in reverse!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245410760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So a button that would allow Nintendo players to enter a "learn this move for next time" mode.<br>Why didn't I think of that?<br>How about one that switches into a particular portion of a previously recorded ghost? (send my portion of the royalties to the Pakistani refugees)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So a button that would allow Nintendo players to enter a " learn this move for next time " mode.Why did n't I think of that ? How about one that switches into a particular portion of a previously recorded ghost ?
( send my portion of the royalties to the Pakistani refugees )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So a button that would allow Nintendo players to enter a "learn this move for next time" mode.Why didn't I think of that?How about one that switches into a particular portion of a previously recorded ghost?
(send my portion of the royalties to the Pakistani refugees)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388077</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>Llian</author>
	<datestamp>1245417900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I remember that level in MoH. Was good fun. Frustrating for about an hour until you get it.<br><br>Whilst I don't think that people should cheat, or look up strategy guides, in some games, the developers do not do a good enough job to let you know whats required to move on. In a GOOD game, its not needed. In a mediocre game, it can be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember that level in MoH .
Was good fun .
Frustrating for about an hour until you get it.Whilst I do n't think that people should cheat , or look up strategy guides , in some games , the developers do not do a good enough job to let you know whats required to move on .
In a GOOD game , its not needed .
In a mediocre game , it can be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember that level in MoH.
Was good fun.
Frustrating for about an hour until you get it.Whilst I don't think that people should cheat, or look up strategy guides, in some games, the developers do not do a good enough job to let you know whats required to move on.
In a GOOD game, its not needed.
In a mediocre game, it can be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391525</id>
	<title>Re:Both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245433020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"</p><p>And, after all, it IS a game, not real life.  If I wished to cheat at solitare, big deal.  Even though I can't recall ever doing so, let's put it in the proper perspective.</p><p>Now, if you cheat me out of money or out of my house, then I'd be tempted to look for my BFG2000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a good idea ( to help relieve frustrations ) or just sanctioned cheating ?
" And , after all , it IS a game , not real life .
If I wished to cheat at solitare , big deal .
Even though I ca n't recall ever doing so , let 's put it in the proper perspective.Now , if you cheat me out of money or out of my house , then I 'd be tempted to look for my BFG2000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?
"And, after all, it IS a game, not real life.
If I wished to cheat at solitare, big deal.
Even though I can't recall ever doing so, let's put it in the proper perspective.Now, if you cheat me out of money or out of my house, then I'd be tempted to look for my BFG2000.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28398433</id>
	<title>Only 99.9\% completed...</title>
	<author>Bones3D\_mac</author>
	<datestamp>1245423540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps there will be some element to this that if the feature is used within a save game profile, the game itself "marks" you as something less than perfect, like prevent you from ever reaching 100\% completion. You'll still be able to see the ending, etc... but you'll be forever denied the bragging rights of being a perfect player.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps there will be some element to this that if the feature is used within a save game profile , the game itself " marks " you as something less than perfect , like prevent you from ever reaching 100 \ % completion .
You 'll still be able to see the ending , etc... but you 'll be forever denied the bragging rights of being a perfect player .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps there will be some element to this that if the feature is used within a save game profile, the game itself "marks" you as something less than perfect, like prevent you from ever reaching 100\% completion.
You'll still be able to see the ending, etc... but you'll be forever denied the bragging rights of being a perfect player.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387543</id>
	<title>Re:Both</title>
	<author>silanea</author>
	<datestamp>1245413340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] who's happiness should get preferentrial treatment?</p></div><p>That of whoever can get enough support for their voteban.</p><p>In single-player people can 'access' whatever content they please, online they will have to play by the rules of whatever server they are on or suffer the consequences.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] who 's happiness should get preferentrial treatment ? That of whoever can get enough support for their voteban.In single-player people can 'access ' whatever content they please , online they will have to play by the rules of whatever server they are on or suffer the consequences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] who's happiness should get preferentrial treatment?That of whoever can get enough support for their voteban.In single-player people can 'access' whatever content they please, online they will have to play by the rules of whatever server they are on or suffer the consequences.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387403</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390031</id>
	<title>Similar to Blizzard's new content</title>
	<author>farker haiku</author>
	<datestamp>1245426600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is very similar to what I've been seeing out of Blizzard, but the opposite approach (and I think Blizzard has this right). Instead of pushing the "Easy Button", how about making all the content easy and making hard modes that you can do for mad props/cool cut scenes/phat loot/self gratification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is very similar to what I 've been seeing out of Blizzard , but the opposite approach ( and I think Blizzard has this right ) .
Instead of pushing the " Easy Button " , how about making all the content easy and making hard modes that you can do for mad props/cool cut scenes/phat loot/self gratification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is very similar to what I've been seeing out of Blizzard, but the opposite approach (and I think Blizzard has this right).
Instead of pushing the "Easy Button", how about making all the content easy and making hard modes that you can do for mad props/cool cut scenes/phat loot/self gratification.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388413</id>
	<title>eXplore mode in Nethack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245419820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nethack has an eXplore mode for less experienced players to see what is available in the game.</p><p>It does have downsides, giving an easy god-mode.  You miss out on essential experiences that give you the knowledge and skill required to win at a game.</p><p>Because of the eXplore mode, it took me a long time to figure out just how essential a ring of free action was for ascending in Nethack.  It also took a long time before I found out how useful the Oracle was in the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nethack has an eXplore mode for less experienced players to see what is available in the game.It does have downsides , giving an easy god-mode .
You miss out on essential experiences that give you the knowledge and skill required to win at a game.Because of the eXplore mode , it took me a long time to figure out just how essential a ring of free action was for ascending in Nethack .
It also took a long time before I found out how useful the Oracle was in the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nethack has an eXplore mode for less experienced players to see what is available in the game.It does have downsides, giving an easy god-mode.
You miss out on essential experiences that give you the knowledge and skill required to win at a game.Because of the eXplore mode, it took me a long time to figure out just how essential a ring of free action was for ascending in Nethack.
It also took a long time before I found out how useful the Oracle was in the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387493</id>
	<title>Depends on the implementation.</title>
	<author>Jartan</author>
	<datestamp>1245412800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this could be used a lot differently than people are imagining.  In just about any game with an "easy" mode it's already absurdly easy to play.    The big problem as I see it though is there are probably a lot of people who can play on normal/hard who don't even bother.  Past history has taught them that if they play on harder difficulties they'll eventually run into some nasty spot that was poorly designed and is so frustrating that they just want to quit.    Thus a lot of people might choose more difficulty instead of less with this feature.   Sure there will be people who just coast through the game with it but they were already doing that with easy mode anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this could be used a lot differently than people are imagining .
In just about any game with an " easy " mode it 's already absurdly easy to play .
The big problem as I see it though is there are probably a lot of people who can play on normal/hard who do n't even bother .
Past history has taught them that if they play on harder difficulties they 'll eventually run into some nasty spot that was poorly designed and is so frustrating that they just want to quit .
Thus a lot of people might choose more difficulty instead of less with this feature .
Sure there will be people who just coast through the game with it but they were already doing that with easy mode anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this could be used a lot differently than people are imagining.
In just about any game with an "easy" mode it's already absurdly easy to play.
The big problem as I see it though is there are probably a lot of people who can play on normal/hard who don't even bother.
Past history has taught them that if they play on harder difficulties they'll eventually run into some nasty spot that was poorly designed and is so frustrating that they just want to quit.
Thus a lot of people might choose more difficulty instead of less with this feature.
Sure there will be people who just coast through the game with it but they were already doing that with easy mode anyways.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267</id>
	<title>Both</title>
	<author>physicsphairy</author>
	<datestamp>1245410160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"</p></div><p>Yes and yes.  It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.

</p><p>But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.  I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.

</p><p>(I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:p )</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a good idea ( to help relieve frustrations ) or just sanctioned cheating ?
" Yes and yes .
It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game , thereby 'diminishing ' the meaning of playing it .
But , hey , you paid for the game , I say you should be able to access all of its content , regardless of your playing skill .
I would never use the cheat option , but I 'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently .
( I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me .
: p )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?
"Yes and yes.
It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.
But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.
I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.
(I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me.
:p )
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388423</id>
	<title>Re:Might be good</title>
	<author>Stormwatch</author>
	<datestamp>1245419880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Short games are not necessarily bad; you can beat <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strider\_(arcade\_game)" title="wikipedia.org"> <b> <i>Strider</i> </b> </a> [wikipedia.org] in 15 minutes (if you're good enough), and that's one of the best action games ever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Short games are not necessarily bad ; you can beat Strider [ wikipedia.org ] in 15 minutes ( if you 're good enough ) , and that 's one of the best action games ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short games are not necessarily bad; you can beat   Strider   [wikipedia.org] in 15 minutes (if you're good enough), and that's one of the best action games ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393695</id>
	<title>It's a *Game*.  It's supposed to be *Fun*</title>
	<author>mitbeaver</author>
	<datestamp>1245441840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Way I see it, I bought it, I should be able to do whatever I want with it.  "Cheat" only applies when competing on uneven term, e.g. online play.

Also a "Cheat" can just as easily be a quick fix to bypass a poorly play-tested or unbalanced portion of a game.  Games are designed by people, not infallible game-creating Gods.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Way I see it , I bought it , I should be able to do whatever I want with it .
" Cheat " only applies when competing on uneven term , e.g .
online play .
Also a " Cheat " can just as easily be a quick fix to bypass a poorly play-tested or unbalanced portion of a game .
Games are designed by people , not infallible game-creating Gods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way I see it, I bought it, I should be able to do whatever I want with it.
"Cheat" only applies when competing on uneven term, e.g.
online play.
Also a "Cheat" can just as easily be a quick fix to bypass a poorly play-tested or unbalanced portion of a game.
Games are designed by people, not infallible game-creating Gods.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392913</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>mrdoogee</author>
	<datestamp>1245439020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, first the disclosure:<br>
I am 30. Video Games are my main hobby. I've owned at least one console from every generation from Atari 2600 onward. I also PC game.<br>
<br>
I see games as the same type of hobby as golf. Now before you come at me with games=sedentary golf=active, I don't mean in terms of physical activity. I refer to the time and money spent on a pastime that will not generate YOU income (pro golf is not a hobby, but a sport). To be a avid golfer, you'll spend hundreds of dollars a year to play this game. You'll need to buy new clubs, bags, balls and other items intermittently. You'll pay from a dozen bucks for greens fees up to hundreds for a country club membership. You'll spend hours a week ( most of my pals that golf will go at least once a week) playing. And at the end of the day, all you have to show for it is a scorecard.<br>
<br>
I guess what I am trying to say is that to some, that cheat code is like lying on your scorecard. To some, the experience is the thing and whether the record shows you shot a 73 or a 200, you had fun. But there are some of us that feel like we worked very hard for our score and even though it seems trivial to an outsider, we feel a bit put out over "casual" players getting to experience the same excitement we feel after investing out time and effort into our chosen hobby.<br>
<br> However, I would be fully satisfied if these games simply had coded into them a system that shows that none of these cheats (or easy mode, or what have you) were used. I am not bothered in the least that someone else gets to experience the whole game. I just want ( and I know it is juvenile and egotistical)  to have something to show for my efforts in my hobby.<br>
<br>
It seems I have written a novel. Oh dear.<br>
<b>tl;dr:</b> "hardcore gamers" don't want their accomplishments cheapened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , first the disclosure : I am 30 .
Video Games are my main hobby .
I 've owned at least one console from every generation from Atari 2600 onward .
I also PC game .
I see games as the same type of hobby as golf .
Now before you come at me with games = sedentary golf = active , I do n't mean in terms of physical activity .
I refer to the time and money spent on a pastime that will not generate YOU income ( pro golf is not a hobby , but a sport ) .
To be a avid golfer , you 'll spend hundreds of dollars a year to play this game .
You 'll need to buy new clubs , bags , balls and other items intermittently .
You 'll pay from a dozen bucks for greens fees up to hundreds for a country club membership .
You 'll spend hours a week ( most of my pals that golf will go at least once a week ) playing .
And at the end of the day , all you have to show for it is a scorecard .
I guess what I am trying to say is that to some , that cheat code is like lying on your scorecard .
To some , the experience is the thing and whether the record shows you shot a 73 or a 200 , you had fun .
But there are some of us that feel like we worked very hard for our score and even though it seems trivial to an outsider , we feel a bit put out over " casual " players getting to experience the same excitement we feel after investing out time and effort into our chosen hobby .
However , I would be fully satisfied if these games simply had coded into them a system that shows that none of these cheats ( or easy mode , or what have you ) were used .
I am not bothered in the least that someone else gets to experience the whole game .
I just want ( and I know it is juvenile and egotistical ) to have something to show for my efforts in my hobby .
It seems I have written a novel .
Oh dear .
tl ; dr : " hardcore gamers " do n't want their accomplishments cheapened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, first the disclosure:
I am 30.
Video Games are my main hobby.
I've owned at least one console from every generation from Atari 2600 onward.
I also PC game.
I see games as the same type of hobby as golf.
Now before you come at me with games=sedentary golf=active, I don't mean in terms of physical activity.
I refer to the time and money spent on a pastime that will not generate YOU income (pro golf is not a hobby, but a sport).
To be a avid golfer, you'll spend hundreds of dollars a year to play this game.
You'll need to buy new clubs, bags, balls and other items intermittently.
You'll pay from a dozen bucks for greens fees up to hundreds for a country club membership.
You'll spend hours a week ( most of my pals that golf will go at least once a week) playing.
And at the end of the day, all you have to show for it is a scorecard.
I guess what I am trying to say is that to some, that cheat code is like lying on your scorecard.
To some, the experience is the thing and whether the record shows you shot a 73 or a 200, you had fun.
But there are some of us that feel like we worked very hard for our score and even though it seems trivial to an outsider, we feel a bit put out over "casual" players getting to experience the same excitement we feel after investing out time and effort into our chosen hobby.
However, I would be fully satisfied if these games simply had coded into them a system that shows that none of these cheats (or easy mode, or what have you) were used.
I am not bothered in the least that someone else gets to experience the whole game.
I just want ( and I know it is juvenile and egotistical)  to have something to show for my efforts in my hobby.
It seems I have written a novel.
Oh dear.
tl;dr: "hardcore gamers" don't want their accomplishments cheapened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387421</id>
	<title>Lego series works pretty well</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245411900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to admit I like the way the Lego Indiana Jones series does it.  You die, but, you immediately respawn fairly close to where you died.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to admit I like the way the Lego Indiana Jones series does it .
You die , but , you immediately respawn fairly close to where you died .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to admit I like the way the Lego Indiana Jones series does it.
You die, but, you immediately respawn fairly close to where you died.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388105</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245418080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want to come across as an old codger, but cheat codes and the like have ruined <b>online</b> gaming.</p></div><p>There, fixed that for you.</p><p>(or are you really saying that the fact that a game comes with cheat codes would ruin your entire gaming experience? If so, I think you could benefit from a bit of introspection).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to come across as an old codger , but cheat codes and the like have ruined online gaming.There , fixed that for you .
( or are you really saying that the fact that a game comes with cheat codes would ruin your entire gaming experience ?
If so , I think you could benefit from a bit of introspection ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to come across as an old codger, but cheat codes and the like have ruined online gaming.There, fixed that for you.
(or are you really saying that the fact that a game comes with cheat codes would ruin your entire gaming experience?
If so, I think you could benefit from a bit of introspection).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387791</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>midifarm</author>
	<datestamp>1245416040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Separate endings for those that cheat and those that don't? So if a cheat is entered, a standard ending sequence is shown, but if you make it to the end without cheating a super fantastic ending sequence is granted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Separate endings for those that cheat and those that do n't ?
So if a cheat is entered , a standard ending sequence is shown , but if you make it to the end without cheating a super fantastic ending sequence is granted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Separate endings for those that cheat and those that don't?
So if a cheat is entered, a standard ending sequence is shown, but if you make it to the end without cheating a super fantastic ending sequence is granted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388677</id>
	<title>Why Play The Game?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245421020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just go watch a movie.  It's in "demo" mode, all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just go watch a movie .
It 's in " demo " mode , all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just go watch a movie.
It's in "demo" mode, all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388571</id>
	<title>Re:Might be good</title>
	<author>effigiate</author>
	<datestamp>1245420540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Playtime has more to do with what you want out of the game than the "run through time".  My first playthrough of Force Unleashed was on the hardest difficulty available with me looking for every item.  I think it took me close to 30 hours to get through the game, and I consider myself a relativley seasoned and skilled gamer.

You can beat Diablo in three minutes if you want (see the Speed Demo Archive), just because you played it that way doesn't mean everyone else has.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Playtime has more to do with what you want out of the game than the " run through time " .
My first playthrough of Force Unleashed was on the hardest difficulty available with me looking for every item .
I think it took me close to 30 hours to get through the game , and I consider myself a relativley seasoned and skilled gamer .
You can beat Diablo in three minutes if you want ( see the Speed Demo Archive ) , just because you played it that way does n't mean everyone else has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playtime has more to do with what you want out of the game than the "run through time".
My first playthrough of Force Unleashed was on the hardest difficulty available with me looking for every item.
I think it took me close to 30 hours to get through the game, and I consider myself a relativley seasoned and skilled gamer.
You can beat Diablo in three minutes if you want (see the Speed Demo Archive), just because you played it that way doesn't mean everyone else has.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392079</id>
	<title>In the menu?</title>
	<author>Riddler Sensei</author>
	<datestamp>1245435540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh I always rather liked having a little hidden cheat code that you had to look up to activate. It was kind of charming in its own way. But is this just going to be straight up in the menu? "Start Demo Mode New Game"? That would seem a bit hokey.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh I always rather liked having a little hidden cheat code that you had to look up to activate .
It was kind of charming in its own way .
But is this just going to be straight up in the menu ?
" Start Demo Mode New Game " ?
That would seem a bit hokey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh I always rather liked having a little hidden cheat code that you had to look up to activate.
It was kind of charming in its own way.
But is this just going to be straight up in the menu?
"Start Demo Mode New Game"?
That would seem a bit hokey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387207</id>
	<title>Good idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245409560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did my grind through Super Mario Brothers. I dropped a missile or twenty on mother brain. I actually beat Tyson after a couple of months. I flipped through contra, shooting my red, oversized, round bullets the entire way. Kid icarus was my bitch.  It was all hard as balls, and I didn't have any built in cheats (Justin Bailey doesn't count and you know it.)</p><p>It makes my elitist heart warm knowing that now I can add one more example into my video game "get off of my lawn" play-book.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did my grind through Super Mario Brothers .
I dropped a missile or twenty on mother brain .
I actually beat Tyson after a couple of months .
I flipped through contra , shooting my red , oversized , round bullets the entire way .
Kid icarus was my bitch .
It was all hard as balls , and I did n't have any built in cheats ( Justin Bailey does n't count and you know it .
) It makes my elitist heart warm knowing that now I can add one more example into my video game " get off of my lawn " play-book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did my grind through Super Mario Brothers.
I dropped a missile or twenty on mother brain.
I actually beat Tyson after a couple of months.
I flipped through contra, shooting my red, oversized, round bullets the entire way.
Kid icarus was my bitch.
It was all hard as balls, and I didn't have any built in cheats (Justin Bailey doesn't count and you know it.
)It makes my elitist heart warm knowing that now I can add one more example into my video game "get off of my lawn" play-book.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388965</id>
	<title>Self playing video games are quite old actually...</title>
	<author>hrieke</author>
	<datestamp>1245422340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my friends from college was a game tester for Sega back in the day (still in the biz).  I remember the conversation about the oddest stuff he saw during his tenure and his response was "Barney (for the Megadrive / Genesis) would self play" if there was no input from the user after a minute or so.</p><p>I wonder if that prior art is listed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my friends from college was a game tester for Sega back in the day ( still in the biz ) .
I remember the conversation about the oddest stuff he saw during his tenure and his response was " Barney ( for the Megadrive / Genesis ) would self play " if there was no input from the user after a minute or so.I wonder if that prior art is listed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my friends from college was a game tester for Sega back in the day (still in the biz).
I remember the conversation about the oddest stuff he saw during his tenure and his response was "Barney (for the Megadrive / Genesis) would self play" if there was no input from the user after a minute or so.I wonder if that prior art is listed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391805</id>
	<title>Marathon had it right</title>
	<author>retchdog</author>
	<datestamp>1245434160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No cheat code, but you could save; change the difficulty level mid-game; and load. It forces you to admit failure, as opposed to sleaze your way through; but you can save face by choosing a lesser handicap. Setting it to Kindergarten difficulty basically is cheating; going down to Normal is more acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No cheat code , but you could save ; change the difficulty level mid-game ; and load .
It forces you to admit failure , as opposed to sleaze your way through ; but you can save face by choosing a lesser handicap .
Setting it to Kindergarten difficulty basically is cheating ; going down to Normal is more acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No cheat code, but you could save; change the difficulty level mid-game; and load.
It forces you to admit failure, as opposed to sleaze your way through; but you can save face by choosing a lesser handicap.
Setting it to Kindergarten difficulty basically is cheating; going down to Normal is more acceptable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387441</id>
	<title>Re:Both</title>
	<author>PGC</author>
	<datestamp>1245412140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree with "you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill." .  Because, just as you said, you paid for the GAME. Not for a level-viewer. If the game is to difficult for you, than that is too bad, you get what you paid for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree with " you should be able to access all of its content , regardless of your playing skill .
" .
Because , just as you said , you paid for the GAME .
Not for a level-viewer .
If the game is to difficult for you , than that is too bad , you get what you paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree with "you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.
" .
Because, just as you said, you paid for the GAME.
Not for a level-viewer.
If the game is to difficult for you, than that is too bad, you get what you paid for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393227</id>
	<title>Re:How about the Jazz Jackrabbit approach?</title>
	<author>mrdoogee</author>
	<datestamp>1245440160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sim City had a punishment system set up for cheating. SHIFT + F U N D would get you more cash, but after 4 times, it would trigger an earthquake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sim City had a punishment system set up for cheating .
SHIFT + F U N D would get you more cash , but after 4 times , it would trigger an earthquake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sim City had a punishment system set up for cheating.
SHIFT + F U N D would get you more cash, but after 4 times, it would trigger an earthquake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388511</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387673</id>
	<title>Two-fold situation.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1245414780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I should disclose now that I'm not a very avid gamer. I play games pretty infrequently, but when I do, I like a challenge that gets me <b>thinking.</b> At least for me, games stimulate this by presenting difficult situations that requires strategy, thought and patience to get out of.
<br> <br>
Thus, on one hand, incorporating this system will promote more "thoughtless" solutions in areas where the game is actually supposed to aid in developing the mental capacity of the gamer. However, it's not like this doesn't exist already, since game developers already incorporate various shortcuts to avert these scenarios. On the other hand, "fun" games aren't supposed to really stimulate too much thought on the gamer and are really supposed to just deliver a steady stream of "action."
<br> <br>
In short, I really don't see this being a bad thing, especially considering that cheating is prevalent now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I should disclose now that I 'm not a very avid gamer .
I play games pretty infrequently , but when I do , I like a challenge that gets me thinking .
At least for me , games stimulate this by presenting difficult situations that requires strategy , thought and patience to get out of .
Thus , on one hand , incorporating this system will promote more " thoughtless " solutions in areas where the game is actually supposed to aid in developing the mental capacity of the gamer .
However , it 's not like this does n't exist already , since game developers already incorporate various shortcuts to avert these scenarios .
On the other hand , " fun " games are n't supposed to really stimulate too much thought on the gamer and are really supposed to just deliver a steady stream of " action .
" In short , I really do n't see this being a bad thing , especially considering that cheating is prevalent now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should disclose now that I'm not a very avid gamer.
I play games pretty infrequently, but when I do, I like a challenge that gets me thinking.
At least for me, games stimulate this by presenting difficult situations that requires strategy, thought and patience to get out of.
Thus, on one hand, incorporating this system will promote more "thoughtless" solutions in areas where the game is actually supposed to aid in developing the mental capacity of the gamer.
However, it's not like this doesn't exist already, since game developers already incorporate various shortcuts to avert these scenarios.
On the other hand, "fun" games aren't supposed to really stimulate too much thought on the gamer and are really supposed to just deliver a steady stream of "action.
"
 
In short, I really don't see this being a bad thing, especially considering that cheating is prevalent now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387383</id>
	<title>I like options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the hard-core gamer I'm sure that this is considered the height of EVIL and is something of a hell-worthy trespass for them.</p><p>However for the casual gamer (say someone who doesn't have the time required to develop the "Mad Skillz" needed to play these games) this is a godsend.</p><p>There are games out there with very in-depth stories and as the game progresses and gets harder, many find that a particular section is flat-out beyond them and the only way they'll ever get to see the end of the story is to look up cheats, walkthroughs...or now this new system.</p><p>There are times when I've asked someone to get me through one little annoying section that I've tried for hours to defeat...at times even WITH the walkthrough. Being told how to do something is not the same as being able to do it with some of the "twitch" games out there where the solution involves precise timing that many hard-core and/or avid gamers develop. I get help with that "one" spot and I'll beat the rest of the game on my own in my own time.</p><p>This is a good thing and it gives an option and a choice for the players. They can choose to beat the game on their own, or they can choose to get a little help. Let the game give these options and let the players decide. It's the best way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the hard-core gamer I 'm sure that this is considered the height of EVIL and is something of a hell-worthy trespass for them.However for the casual gamer ( say someone who does n't have the time required to develop the " Mad Skillz " needed to play these games ) this is a godsend.There are games out there with very in-depth stories and as the game progresses and gets harder , many find that a particular section is flat-out beyond them and the only way they 'll ever get to see the end of the story is to look up cheats , walkthroughs...or now this new system.There are times when I 've asked someone to get me through one little annoying section that I 've tried for hours to defeat...at times even WITH the walkthrough .
Being told how to do something is not the same as being able to do it with some of the " twitch " games out there where the solution involves precise timing that many hard-core and/or avid gamers develop .
I get help with that " one " spot and I 'll beat the rest of the game on my own in my own time.This is a good thing and it gives an option and a choice for the players .
They can choose to beat the game on their own , or they can choose to get a little help .
Let the game give these options and let the players decide .
It 's the best way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the hard-core gamer I'm sure that this is considered the height of EVIL and is something of a hell-worthy trespass for them.However for the casual gamer (say someone who doesn't have the time required to develop the "Mad Skillz" needed to play these games) this is a godsend.There are games out there with very in-depth stories and as the game progresses and gets harder, many find that a particular section is flat-out beyond them and the only way they'll ever get to see the end of the story is to look up cheats, walkthroughs...or now this new system.There are times when I've asked someone to get me through one little annoying section that I've tried for hours to defeat...at times even WITH the walkthrough.
Being told how to do something is not the same as being able to do it with some of the "twitch" games out there where the solution involves precise timing that many hard-core and/or avid gamers develop.
I get help with that "one" spot and I'll beat the rest of the game on my own in my own time.This is a good thing and it gives an option and a choice for the players.
They can choose to beat the game on their own, or they can choose to get a little help.
Let the game give these options and let the players decide.
It's the best way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389683</id>
	<title>Re:Back in my day...</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1245425220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because people don't play games for the "challenges" they surmount. Who wants to struggle with their freaking entertainment? It's better to relax and ENJOY the game, not brag about beating it.<br> <br>Wherever the gaming golden rule that says "difficulty = fun" is, it should be erased. Hard games are simply a pain in the ass, and any reason to get rid of that mindset should be grabbed by the horns. Because I mean, yeah, you beat some really hard game; who gives a shit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because people do n't play games for the " challenges " they surmount .
Who wants to struggle with their freaking entertainment ?
It 's better to relax and ENJOY the game , not brag about beating it .
Wherever the gaming golden rule that says " difficulty = fun " is , it should be erased .
Hard games are simply a pain in the ass , and any reason to get rid of that mindset should be grabbed by the horns .
Because I mean , yeah , you beat some really hard game ; who gives a shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because people don't play games for the "challenges" they surmount.
Who wants to struggle with their freaking entertainment?
It's better to relax and ENJOY the game, not brag about beating it.
Wherever the gaming golden rule that says "difficulty = fun" is, it should be erased.
Hard games are simply a pain in the ass, and any reason to get rid of that mindset should be grabbed by the horns.
Because I mean, yeah, you beat some really hard game; who gives a shit?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389591</id>
	<title>Re:Both</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245424800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of the solution they had in Guitar Hero 3 for boss battles (besides the last one obviously):</p><p>Try, fail, try, fail, try, fail, get message: Whoa! you are getting it handed to you, do you wanna wuss out and go on, you can come back later [wuss out] [try again]</p><p>Then on your song list the boss battle is listed as 'Wuss out' until you beat it. Simple solution, and quite elegant, I mean, it doesn't stop you from progressing, but it sure does make you want to go back and do it right if you can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the solution they had in Guitar Hero 3 for boss battles ( besides the last one obviously ) : Try , fail , try , fail , try , fail , get message : Whoa !
you are getting it handed to you , do you wan na wuss out and go on , you can come back later [ wuss out ] [ try again ] Then on your song list the boss battle is listed as 'Wuss out ' until you beat it .
Simple solution , and quite elegant , I mean , it does n't stop you from progressing , but it sure does make you want to go back and do it right if you can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the solution they had in Guitar Hero 3 for boss battles (besides the last one obviously):Try, fail, try, fail, try, fail, get message: Whoa!
you are getting it handed to you, do you wanna wuss out and go on, you can come back later [wuss out] [try again]Then on your song list the boss battle is listed as 'Wuss out' until you beat it.
Simple solution, and quite elegant, I mean, it doesn't stop you from progressing, but it sure does make you want to go back and do it right if you can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28395367</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245404340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very true. There are, still, countless games that are simply poorly designed such that there are parts that, if not impossible to beat, are quite simply not fun (which is probably worse than just being "hard").  If the system simply piles on enemies against me, or doesn't give me any clue as to how to avoid certain doom, then I am likely to simply give up and return the game.  Developing my own skill at the game is one thing, but simply kicking someone while they're down or poorly designing levels or control schemes is another.</p><p>One of the best things that has come along for 'casual gamers' is the "beginner mode" and "no fail mode" in Guitar Hero World Tour and Rock Band 2 (respectively).  Those modes have helped a whole ton of people enjoying playing together who otherwise would not have done so.  Easing people into an unfamiliar gaming environment like a game is a good thing for families.</p><p>However, as a semi-serious gamer (more than casual?) it makes me glad I got rid of my Wii when I did and picked up an Xbox 360.  More power to Nintendo for carving out their niche, but I know that I do not want any part of that group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very true .
There are , still , countless games that are simply poorly designed such that there are parts that , if not impossible to beat , are quite simply not fun ( which is probably worse than just being " hard " ) .
If the system simply piles on enemies against me , or does n't give me any clue as to how to avoid certain doom , then I am likely to simply give up and return the game .
Developing my own skill at the game is one thing , but simply kicking someone while they 're down or poorly designing levels or control schemes is another.One of the best things that has come along for 'casual gamers ' is the " beginner mode " and " no fail mode " in Guitar Hero World Tour and Rock Band 2 ( respectively ) .
Those modes have helped a whole ton of people enjoying playing together who otherwise would not have done so .
Easing people into an unfamiliar gaming environment like a game is a good thing for families.However , as a semi-serious gamer ( more than casual ?
) it makes me glad I got rid of my Wii when I did and picked up an Xbox 360 .
More power to Nintendo for carving out their niche , but I know that I do not want any part of that group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very true.
There are, still, countless games that are simply poorly designed such that there are parts that, if not impossible to beat, are quite simply not fun (which is probably worse than just being "hard").
If the system simply piles on enemies against me, or doesn't give me any clue as to how to avoid certain doom, then I am likely to simply give up and return the game.
Developing my own skill at the game is one thing, but simply kicking someone while they're down or poorly designing levels or control schemes is another.One of the best things that has come along for 'casual gamers' is the "beginner mode" and "no fail mode" in Guitar Hero World Tour and Rock Band 2 (respectively).
Those modes have helped a whole ton of people enjoying playing together who otherwise would not have done so.
Easing people into an unfamiliar gaming environment like a game is a good thing for families.However, as a semi-serious gamer (more than casual?
) it makes me glad I got rid of my Wii when I did and picked up an Xbox 360.
More power to Nintendo for carving out their niche, but I know that I do not want any part of that group.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392411</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>orin999</author>
	<datestamp>1245436860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell. When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further.</p></div><p>Exact reason why gaming used to be a mentality for a smaller group of people and not mainstream.  People who wanted casual gaming went to places like yahoo games.  They did not own consoles or gaming pc's.  But nowadays game companies have lost sight of what made a good game.  Which is hte challenge and the skill required to beat a game.  Not the I want to make a lot of money so I'm going to make this game so easy a 2 year can play it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not rewarding , that 's just annoying as hell .
When I buy a game , I assume that I 'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box .
Unfortunately , I have to " earn " it , which just pisses me off even further.Exact reason why gaming used to be a mentality for a smaller group of people and not mainstream .
People who wanted casual gaming went to places like yahoo games .
They did not own consoles or gaming pc 's .
But nowadays game companies have lost sight of what made a good game .
Which is hte challenge and the skill required to beat a game .
Not the I want to make a lot of money so I 'm going to make this game so easy a 2 year can play it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell.
When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box.
Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further.Exact reason why gaming used to be a mentality for a smaller group of people and not mainstream.
People who wanted casual gaming went to places like yahoo games.
They did not own consoles or gaming pc's.
But nowadays game companies have lost sight of what made a good game.
Which is hte challenge and the skill required to beat a game.
Not the I want to make a lot of money so I'm going to make this game so easy a 2 year can play it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390219</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>mrdoogee</author>
	<datestamp>1245427380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two words to people who thought that level was hard:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Metal\_Gear\_Solid\_3:\_Snake\_Eater\_characters#The\_End" title="wikipedia.org">The End</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>Horribly awfully hard, but the satisfaction of beating him is almost euphoric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two words to people who thought that level was hard : The End [ wikipedia.org ] Horribly awfully hard , but the satisfaction of beating him is almost euphoric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two words to people who thought that level was hard:The End [wikipedia.org] Horribly awfully hard, but the satisfaction of beating him is almost euphoric.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388169</id>
	<title>Logical Progression</title>
	<author>tezza</author>
	<datestamp>1245418440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>* Lives
<br> <br>
* Power Pills
<br> <br>
* Health Points
<br> <br>
* Stealth Suits
<br> <br>
* Respawn Points
<br> <br>
* Save Games
<br> <br>
* Freeze / Rewind Time
<br> <br>
All of these give an edge to the poor slob on the couch who only has reflexes in tens of milliseconds. I cannot see how making an actual explicit mode is dissimilar to any of these.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Lives * Power Pills * Health Points * Stealth Suits * Respawn Points * Save Games * Freeze / Rewind Time All of these give an edge to the poor slob on the couch who only has reflexes in tens of milliseconds .
I can not see how making an actual explicit mode is dissimilar to any of these .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Lives
 
* Power Pills
 
* Health Points
 
* Stealth Suits
 
* Respawn Points
 
* Save Games
 
* Freeze / Rewind Time
 
All of these give an edge to the poor slob on the couch who only has reflexes in tens of milliseconds.
I cannot see how making an actual explicit mode is dissimilar to any of these.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391405</id>
	<title>achievments</title>
	<author>master\_kaos</author>
	<datestamp>1245432480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this is a good idea, and would work great on the PS3 and XBOX consoles.
If you are afraid of pissing off hardcore people *wahh  casual people can still see the ending even though they didn't "earn" it*   then make a 250GP achievement for beating the game without cheats on the hardest difficulty.  Most casual people don't give a shit about achievements, whereas a lot of hardcore people do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is a good idea , and would work great on the PS3 and XBOX consoles .
If you are afraid of pissing off hardcore people * wahh casual people can still see the ending even though they did n't " earn " it * then make a 250GP achievement for beating the game without cheats on the hardest difficulty .
Most casual people do n't give a shit about achievements , whereas a lot of hardcore people do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is a good idea, and would work great on the PS3 and XBOX consoles.
If you are afraid of pissing off hardcore people *wahh  casual people can still see the ending even though they didn't "earn" it*   then make a 250GP achievement for beating the game without cheats on the hardest difficulty.
Most casual people don't give a shit about achievements, whereas a lot of hardcore people do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387437</id>
	<title>all seeing eye</title>
	<author>Ruede</author>
	<datestamp>1245412140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>instead of writing articles yahoo could push all seeing eye again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>instead of writing articles yahoo could push all seeing eye again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>instead of writing articles yahoo could push all seeing eye again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392227</id>
	<title>Re:They're copying Braid</title>
	<author>TheUser0x58</author>
	<datestamp>1245436140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh the irony.  Super Mario Bros. copying Braid?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh the irony .
Super Mario Bros. copying Braid ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh the irony.
Super Mario Bros. copying Braid?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389909</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>slackbheep</author>
	<datestamp>1245426060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But does someone else "cheating" through a level have any affect on your own enjoyment of a game? It really shouldn't.
I could understand if this was an article about WoW adding an option to autocomplete quests/dungeons if you were having trouble, but for those of us who aren't still in middleschool and measuring our gaming prowess against our peers at all oppurtunities this just means that a particularily annoying level doesn't block you from seeing the rest of the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But does someone else " cheating " through a level have any affect on your own enjoyment of a game ?
It really should n't .
I could understand if this was an article about WoW adding an option to autocomplete quests/dungeons if you were having trouble , but for those of us who are n't still in middleschool and measuring our gaming prowess against our peers at all oppurtunities this just means that a particularily annoying level does n't block you from seeing the rest of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But does someone else "cheating" through a level have any affect on your own enjoyment of a game?
It really shouldn't.
I could understand if this was an article about WoW adding an option to autocomplete quests/dungeons if you were having trouble, but for those of us who aren't still in middleschool and measuring our gaming prowess against our peers at all oppurtunities this just means that a particularily annoying level doesn't block you from seeing the rest of the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387331</id>
	<title>THE REDS ARE GETTING CLOSER!!!!</title>
	<author>bhunachchicken</author>
	<datestamp>1245410820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Nintendo, game plays you!</p><p>... and laughs all the way to the bank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Nintendo , game plays you ! .. .
and laughs all the way to the bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Nintendo, game plays you!...
and laughs all the way to the bank.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391603</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245433440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It isn't a "reward." It's part of the game. Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?</i></p><p>No kidding, and this is particularly bad for a game whose most enjoyable mode is playing with others, but where this mode doesn't allow you to unlock anything.  Soul Calibur II had a really retarded "story mode" that you had to slog through to unlock characters and arenas for some god damn reason when Versus and Arcade modes were the fun ones.</p><p>Sometimes unlockables can work and be fun.  A good example would be Mario Party, where the stars and what not you earn playing the game as it is meant to be played and is the most fun to play (with a party full of drunk people) allows you to unlock things.  Which was cool.  You could get done with a game, pool all your accumulated resources, and go unlock a new map or something to play in the next round.  This is much better than making the person who owns the game play it in un-fun mode in their spare time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't a " reward .
" It 's part of the game .
Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros. ?
Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game ? No kidding , and this is particularly bad for a game whose most enjoyable mode is playing with others , but where this mode does n't allow you to unlock anything .
Soul Calibur II had a really retarded " story mode " that you had to slog through to unlock characters and arenas for some god damn reason when Versus and Arcade modes were the fun ones.Sometimes unlockables can work and be fun .
A good example would be Mario Party , where the stars and what not you earn playing the game as it is meant to be played and is the most fun to play ( with a party full of drunk people ) allows you to unlock things .
Which was cool .
You could get done with a game , pool all your accumulated resources , and go unlock a new map or something to play in the next round .
This is much better than making the person who owns the game play it in un-fun mode in their spare time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't a "reward.
" It's part of the game.
Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.?
Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?No kidding, and this is particularly bad for a game whose most enjoyable mode is playing with others, but where this mode doesn't allow you to unlock anything.
Soul Calibur II had a really retarded "story mode" that you had to slog through to unlock characters and arenas for some god damn reason when Versus and Arcade modes were the fun ones.Sometimes unlockables can work and be fun.
A good example would be Mario Party, where the stars and what not you earn playing the game as it is meant to be played and is the most fun to play (with a party full of drunk people) allows you to unlock things.
Which was cool.
You could get done with a game, pool all your accumulated resources, and go unlock a new map or something to play in the next round.
This is much better than making the person who owns the game play it in un-fun mode in their spare time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391623</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1245433500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or like in the new Prince of Persia, skip all the fights.  My s.o. has a fun time with the game otherwise, why force someone to hand over the controller to someone else to get past a certain part of the game?  Or those puzzle elements they throw in, I wasted a lot of time on those pools of dark matter that you have to connect.  Why is that even in Prince of Persia?<br> <br>Anyway, I just hope it isn't an excuse for developers to not refine and playtest their games.  One crappy gameplay element, and I already hear the P.R. machine winding up ready to say "Oh, we put that in for the <i>hard core</i>!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or like in the new Prince of Persia , skip all the fights .
My s.o .
has a fun time with the game otherwise , why force someone to hand over the controller to someone else to get past a certain part of the game ?
Or those puzzle elements they throw in , I wasted a lot of time on those pools of dark matter that you have to connect .
Why is that even in Prince of Persia ?
Anyway , I just hope it is n't an excuse for developers to not refine and playtest their games .
One crappy gameplay element , and I already hear the P.R .
machine winding up ready to say " Oh , we put that in for the hard core !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or like in the new Prince of Persia, skip all the fights.
My s.o.
has a fun time with the game otherwise, why force someone to hand over the controller to someone else to get past a certain part of the game?
Or those puzzle elements they throw in, I wasted a lot of time on those pools of dark matter that you have to connect.
Why is that even in Prince of Persia?
Anyway, I just hope it isn't an excuse for developers to not refine and playtest their games.
One crappy gameplay element, and I already hear the P.R.
machine winding up ready to say "Oh, we put that in for the hard core!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387379</id>
	<title>Fantastic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having kids (5 and 9), I would have to say this is fantastic. Games like Super Mario Galaxy are too hard for my youngest, and I constantly have to step in and help with the levels. Now, Super Mario Galaxy is quite fun, but any game gets quite dull after having to go through the same stuff over and over. Let's have cheat/demo modes and let the kids have fun.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<p>By the way, my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kids. Maybe it's the controller?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having kids ( 5 and 9 ) , I would have to say this is fantastic .
Games like Super Mario Galaxy are too hard for my youngest , and I constantly have to step in and help with the levels .
Now , Super Mario Galaxy is quite fun , but any game gets quite dull after having to go through the same stuff over and over .
Let 's have cheat/demo modes and let the kids have fun .
: ) By the way , my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kids .
Maybe it 's the controller ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having kids (5 and 9), I would have to say this is fantastic.
Games like Super Mario Galaxy are too hard for my youngest, and I constantly have to step in and help with the levels.
Now, Super Mario Galaxy is quite fun, but any game gets quite dull after having to go through the same stuff over and over.
Let's have cheat/demo modes and let the kids have fun.
:)
By the way, my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kids.
Maybe it's the controller?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389293</id>
	<title>It's probably not that absolute.</title>
	<author>dmomo</author>
	<datestamp>1245423540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this a good idea?  I think the real answer is "it depends".  But whatever you do, don't pull me out of the game!  A cheat mode?  This takes us out of the immersion. Find a way to achieve the same thing in the spirit of the particular game.</p><p>As a game designer, you should make decisions on what makes the game most enjoyable.  If it's difficulty that makes the game fun, and accomplishment that makes it rewarding, then no.  Don't do this.</p><p>If the levels themselves are fun and by making something too hard, you are denying access and making your game boring, then sure.</p><p>However, even when this IS warranted, I would be willing to bet that there is something less lame than a blatent "cheat" mode.  I mean, skin it as something that's actually a part of the game.</p><p>If you are a commando fighting insurgents?  Maybe you can activate "special forces" that come and help you.  You get to play the game you otherwise might have missed out on, but you simply don't get that "bravery" badge.</p><p>We call it cheating?  How about making it a feature that becomes some part of the game?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a good idea ?
I think the real answer is " it depends " .
But whatever you do , do n't pull me out of the game !
A cheat mode ?
This takes us out of the immersion .
Find a way to achieve the same thing in the spirit of the particular game.As a game designer , you should make decisions on what makes the game most enjoyable .
If it 's difficulty that makes the game fun , and accomplishment that makes it rewarding , then no .
Do n't do this.If the levels themselves are fun and by making something too hard , you are denying access and making your game boring , then sure.However , even when this IS warranted , I would be willing to bet that there is something less lame than a blatent " cheat " mode .
I mean , skin it as something that 's actually a part of the game.If you are a commando fighting insurgents ?
Maybe you can activate " special forces " that come and help you .
You get to play the game you otherwise might have missed out on , but you simply do n't get that " bravery " badge.We call it cheating ?
How about making it a feature that becomes some part of the game ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a good idea?
I think the real answer is "it depends".
But whatever you do, don't pull me out of the game!
A cheat mode?
This takes us out of the immersion.
Find a way to achieve the same thing in the spirit of the particular game.As a game designer, you should make decisions on what makes the game most enjoyable.
If it's difficulty that makes the game fun, and accomplishment that makes it rewarding, then no.
Don't do this.If the levels themselves are fun and by making something too hard, you are denying access and making your game boring, then sure.However, even when this IS warranted, I would be willing to bet that there is something less lame than a blatent "cheat" mode.
I mean, skin it as something that's actually a part of the game.If you are a commando fighting insurgents?
Maybe you can activate "special forces" that come and help you.
You get to play the game you otherwise might have missed out on, but you simply don't get that "bravery" badge.We call it cheating?
How about making it a feature that becomes some part of the game?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388093</id>
	<title>I belive the correct answer is...</title>
	<author>Warshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1245418020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who cares?  If you don't want to use it then don't.  It's not like the fact that some 10 year old kid next door or 3000 miles away uses "demo mode" actually impacts you in any way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who cares ?
If you do n't want to use it then do n't .
It 's not like the fact that some 10 year old kid next door or 3000 miles away uses " demo mode " actually impacts you in any way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who cares?
If you don't want to use it then don't.
It's not like the fact that some 10 year old kid next door or 3000 miles away uses "demo mode" actually impacts you in any way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389823</id>
	<title>Could this mean harder games?</title>
	<author>Quackers\_McDuck</author>
	<datestamp>1245425760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am all for this if it means that they'll make the game actually difficult now. Recently Nintendo games have become way too easy, presumably because they don't want to frustrate casual players. With this demo feature, they can make the games provide more of a challenge without risking alienating casuals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am all for this if it means that they 'll make the game actually difficult now .
Recently Nintendo games have become way too easy , presumably because they do n't want to frustrate casual players .
With this demo feature , they can make the games provide more of a challenge without risking alienating casuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am all for this if it means that they'll make the game actually difficult now.
Recently Nintendo games have become way too easy, presumably because they don't want to frustrate casual players.
With this demo feature, they can make the games provide more of a challenge without risking alienating casuals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387989</id>
	<title>Umm, what about prior art?</title>
	<author>Biswalt</author>
	<datestamp>1245417240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No way this can stand up, it's actually in other games all ready.  You can play a whole game of Blitz II: The League and never call a play yourself, never snap that ball, etc.  and the computer will take care of everything for you, but you still have the ability to jump in and actually take control over a guy at anytime.  In Madden all you have to do is call plays and snap the ball, and the game plays itself.  Space Channel 5 has the same thing, as does I'm guessing a host of other games.  And then there's the whole issue of what it means for the computer to play a game.  If I create a gang in San Andreas I could then just march over to another gangs real estate and my CPU controlled gangbangers will take care of the fighting and I can sit around, so while my CJ doesn't do anything all of the CPU controlled gang members will fight so that's an example of a game playing itself.

To me Nintendo should lose the ability to patent this based ona prior art argument.  This is like when microsoft patented the page up and page down buttons, even though there's verifiable proof that other companies had this tech b4 micrsoft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No way this can stand up , it 's actually in other games all ready .
You can play a whole game of Blitz II : The League and never call a play yourself , never snap that ball , etc .
and the computer will take care of everything for you , but you still have the ability to jump in and actually take control over a guy at anytime .
In Madden all you have to do is call plays and snap the ball , and the game plays itself .
Space Channel 5 has the same thing , as does I 'm guessing a host of other games .
And then there 's the whole issue of what it means for the computer to play a game .
If I create a gang in San Andreas I could then just march over to another gangs real estate and my CPU controlled gangbangers will take care of the fighting and I can sit around , so while my CJ does n't do anything all of the CPU controlled gang members will fight so that 's an example of a game playing itself .
To me Nintendo should lose the ability to patent this based ona prior art argument .
This is like when microsoft patented the page up and page down buttons , even though there 's verifiable proof that other companies had this tech b4 micrsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No way this can stand up, it's actually in other games all ready.
You can play a whole game of Blitz II: The League and never call a play yourself, never snap that ball, etc.
and the computer will take care of everything for you, but you still have the ability to jump in and actually take control over a guy at anytime.
In Madden all you have to do is call plays and snap the ball, and the game plays itself.
Space Channel 5 has the same thing, as does I'm guessing a host of other games.
And then there's the whole issue of what it means for the computer to play a game.
If I create a gang in San Andreas I could then just march over to another gangs real estate and my CPU controlled gangbangers will take care of the fighting and I can sit around, so while my CJ doesn't do anything all of the CPU controlled gang members will fight so that's an example of a game playing itself.
To me Nintendo should lose the ability to patent this based ona prior art argument.
This is like when microsoft patented the page up and page down buttons, even though there's verifiable proof that other companies had this tech b4 micrsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388511</id>
	<title>How about the Jazz Jackrabbit approach?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245420240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The first Jazz Jackrabbit had cheat codes, but, if you use them and complete the game, the game displayed picture of the main character playing poker with some of his enemies, one of them saying "I see yer cheatin!" or something like that...

Kinda a cool when I saw it</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first Jazz Jackrabbit had cheat codes , but , if you use them and complete the game , the game displayed picture of the main character playing poker with some of his enemies , one of them saying " I see yer cheatin !
" or something like that.. . Kinda a cool when I saw it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first Jazz Jackrabbit had cheat codes, but, if you use them and complete the game, the game displayed picture of the main character playing poker with some of his enemies, one of them saying "I see yer cheatin!
" or something like that...

Kinda a cool when I saw it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387389</id>
	<title>w...t...f</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245411660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So I'm almost finished reading the article summary, already thinking up my response and about to post, when as I get to the end of the summary I read</p><blockquote><div><p>"They actually <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/10/0724210&amp;tid=234" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">patented this system</a> [slashdot.org] as well."</p></div></blockquote><p>Just like that.  With a link.  FROM THE EDITOR.<br>Just an offhand reference to something they happen to remember, right? <b>WRONG</b> because it belies the fact that <b>THE EDITOR TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DIG AROUND BEFORE POSTING AND SERIOUSLY LINK TO PERTINENT EARLIER COVERAGE!!</b>  Where am I, engadget?  What is happening?  Who did this?  It must be Taco, right, he's the only one who takes Slashdot for journalism.  Nope: the editor is "soulskill".  W...T...F</p><p>I have to go for a walk, air out my mind a little.  This is some serious shit going on right here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm almost finished reading the article summary , already thinking up my response and about to post , when as I get to the end of the summary I read " They actually patented this system [ slashdot.org ] as well .
" Just like that .
With a link .
FROM THE EDITOR.Just an offhand reference to something they happen to remember , right ?
WRONG because it belies the fact that THE EDITOR TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DIG AROUND BEFORE POSTING AND SERIOUSLY LINK TO PERTINENT EARLIER COVERAGE ! !
Where am I , engadget ?
What is happening ?
Who did this ?
It must be Taco , right , he 's the only one who takes Slashdot for journalism .
Nope : the editor is " soulskill " .
W...T...FI have to go for a walk , air out my mind a little .
This is some serious shit going on right here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm almost finished reading the article summary, already thinking up my response and about to post, when as I get to the end of the summary I read"They actually patented this system [slashdot.org] as well.
"Just like that.
With a link.
FROM THE EDITOR.Just an offhand reference to something they happen to remember, right?
WRONG because it belies the fact that THE EDITOR TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DIG AROUND BEFORE POSTING AND SERIOUSLY LINK TO PERTINENT EARLIER COVERAGE!!
Where am I, engadget?
What is happening?
Who did this?
It must be Taco, right, he's the only one who takes Slashdot for journalism.
Nope: the editor is "soulskill".
W...T...FI have to go for a walk, air out my mind a little.
This is some serious shit going on right here.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388865</id>
	<title>Re:Only for casual gamers</title>
	<author>ifrag</author>
	<datestamp>1245421920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>True, but sometimes it's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm seeing this happen in several titles now, and in my opinion it's just bad design.  Where there is some ridiculous difficulty "spike" which is much harder than the content before it AND the content after it.  The expected difficulty curve for a game starts low and goes high with maybe the occasional outliers (small outliers mind) for boss fights or the like.  I don't have any issue with a small spike here and there, but if it goes too high and it never gets back up to that point, then it's severely misplaced.  If the content exceeds the final level / boss or whatever then after passing it you've effectively won anyway.</p><p>In a well designed title, I see no point in cheating to get past a point, because if the difficulty curve is made properly I'd just have to cheat my way through the entire rest of the game anyway.  By getting "stuck" at that point, I'm forced to learn whatever game-play mechanics that will allow me to survive future content.  The problem here being that future content never required such skill, so cheating past the spike has no effect whatsoever at your ability to complete the rest of the game.  The solution should not be to put in a bypass, it should be to rework the skill curve back to where it should be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but sometimes it 's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game.I 'm seeing this happen in several titles now , and in my opinion it 's just bad design .
Where there is some ridiculous difficulty " spike " which is much harder than the content before it AND the content after it .
The expected difficulty curve for a game starts low and goes high with maybe the occasional outliers ( small outliers mind ) for boss fights or the like .
I do n't have any issue with a small spike here and there , but if it goes too high and it never gets back up to that point , then it 's severely misplaced .
If the content exceeds the final level / boss or whatever then after passing it you 've effectively won anyway.In a well designed title , I see no point in cheating to get past a point , because if the difficulty curve is made properly I 'd just have to cheat my way through the entire rest of the game anyway .
By getting " stuck " at that point , I 'm forced to learn whatever game-play mechanics that will allow me to survive future content .
The problem here being that future content never required such skill , so cheating past the spike has no effect whatsoever at your ability to complete the rest of the game .
The solution should not be to put in a bypass , it should be to rework the skill curve back to where it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but sometimes it's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game.I'm seeing this happen in several titles now, and in my opinion it's just bad design.
Where there is some ridiculous difficulty "spike" which is much harder than the content before it AND the content after it.
The expected difficulty curve for a game starts low and goes high with maybe the occasional outliers (small outliers mind) for boss fights or the like.
I don't have any issue with a small spike here and there, but if it goes too high and it never gets back up to that point, then it's severely misplaced.
If the content exceeds the final level / boss or whatever then after passing it you've effectively won anyway.In a well designed title, I see no point in cheating to get past a point, because if the difficulty curve is made properly I'd just have to cheat my way through the entire rest of the game anyway.
By getting "stuck" at that point, I'm forced to learn whatever game-play mechanics that will allow me to survive future content.
The problem here being that future content never required such skill, so cheating past the spike has no effect whatsoever at your ability to complete the rest of the game.
The solution should not be to put in a bypass, it should be to rework the skill curve back to where it should be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390099</id>
	<title>It depends.</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245426840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as the score for that game doesn't go into the leader board, or goes in with an asterisk for every time the "cheat" is activated, then I would say it is ok. It is difficult to design a game that works for all skill levels, and many poorly designed games have some levels that are just impossible/impassable for small children, which limits their enjoyment. I get really annoyed when my daughter calls me in to "do this level for me, it's too hard!" Some games (particularly online games) are designed so that you can never fail, you just need to keep grinding long enough. But that makes for a shitty game. On the flip side, if a reasonably experienced player needs to use a "cheat" to complete all the levels, then the game is poorly designed. I still think they should put these cheats in, but I also think most players will get more enjoyment out of the game if they manage to avoid the temptation to use the cheat. And as mentioned above, using it should have some effect on you final score.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the score for that game does n't go into the leader board , or goes in with an asterisk for every time the " cheat " is activated , then I would say it is ok. It is difficult to design a game that works for all skill levels , and many poorly designed games have some levels that are just impossible/impassable for small children , which limits their enjoyment .
I get really annoyed when my daughter calls me in to " do this level for me , it 's too hard !
" Some games ( particularly online games ) are designed so that you can never fail , you just need to keep grinding long enough .
But that makes for a shitty game .
On the flip side , if a reasonably experienced player needs to use a " cheat " to complete all the levels , then the game is poorly designed .
I still think they should put these cheats in , but I also think most players will get more enjoyment out of the game if they manage to avoid the temptation to use the cheat .
And as mentioned above , using it should have some effect on you final score .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the score for that game doesn't go into the leader board, or goes in with an asterisk for every time the "cheat" is activated, then I would say it is ok. It is difficult to design a game that works for all skill levels, and many poorly designed games have some levels that are just impossible/impassable for small children, which limits their enjoyment.
I get really annoyed when my daughter calls me in to "do this level for me, it's too hard!
" Some games (particularly online games) are designed so that you can never fail, you just need to keep grinding long enough.
But that makes for a shitty game.
On the flip side, if a reasonably experienced player needs to use a "cheat" to complete all the levels, then the game is poorly designed.
I still think they should put these cheats in, but I also think most players will get more enjoyment out of the game if they manage to avoid the temptation to use the cheat.
And as mentioned above, using it should have some effect on you final score.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28397937</id>
	<title>Re:Fantastic</title>
	<author>Gulthek</author>
	<datestamp>1245419100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good lord, you are reading quite a bit into this. Are you honestly admitting that you've never heard of cheat codes before?</p><p>The only difference here is that Nintendo isn't pretending to hide the cheat codes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good lord , you are reading quite a bit into this .
Are you honestly admitting that you 've never heard of cheat codes before ? The only difference here is that Nintendo is n't pretending to hide the cheat codes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good lord, you are reading quite a bit into this.
Are you honestly admitting that you've never heard of cheat codes before?The only difference here is that Nintendo isn't pretending to hide the cheat codes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28398487</id>
	<title>how many of us are already cheaters?</title>
	<author>sixsixtysix</author>
	<datestamp>1245424200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i activated 'demo mode' to not have to rtfa, yet i still commented. did i cheat?</htmltext>
<tokenext>i activated 'demo mode ' to not have to rtfa , yet i still commented .
did i cheat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i activated 'demo mode' to not have to rtfa, yet i still commented.
did i cheat?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389437</id>
	<title>Eh...</title>
	<author>fr4n3l</author>
	<datestamp>1245424260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as cheats are useful, wouldn't that take away from the point of the game? It's to challenge people, not let them find an easy way out. I remember when I would play (and...still do, on occasion) Super Mario Deluxe on Gameboy and there are some levels that were IMPOSSIBLE but I didn't look up cheats for them, I just kept trying until I got it right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as cheats are useful , would n't that take away from the point of the game ?
It 's to challenge people , not let them find an easy way out .
I remember when I would play ( and...still do , on occasion ) Super Mario Deluxe on Gameboy and there are some levels that were IMPOSSIBLE but I did n't look up cheats for them , I just kept trying until I got it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as cheats are useful, wouldn't that take away from the point of the game?
It's to challenge people, not let them find an easy way out.
I remember when I would play (and...still do, on occasion) Super Mario Deluxe on Gameboy and there are some levels that were IMPOSSIBLE but I didn't look up cheats for them, I just kept trying until I got it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387501</id>
	<title>Desperately needed for puzzle games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245412980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not a fan of puzzle games yet most games have puzzle aspects to them. One of the first ones to annoy me was Myst. I wanted to see the graphics but the constant puzzles quickly became annoying so never got far in the game. I got a little skill game for my iPod touch which technically wasn't a puzzle game but you had to accomplish certain things to access new areas. The problem with it was it wasn't all that clear what you had to accomplish and even after I had collected everything there was nothing indicating that I had finished the game. Poor instructions and puzzles in shooter games really can ruin an otherwise enjoyable game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a fan of puzzle games yet most games have puzzle aspects to them .
One of the first ones to annoy me was Myst .
I wanted to see the graphics but the constant puzzles quickly became annoying so never got far in the game .
I got a little skill game for my iPod touch which technically was n't a puzzle game but you had to accomplish certain things to access new areas .
The problem with it was it was n't all that clear what you had to accomplish and even after I had collected everything there was nothing indicating that I had finished the game .
Poor instructions and puzzles in shooter games really can ruin an otherwise enjoyable game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a fan of puzzle games yet most games have puzzle aspects to them.
One of the first ones to annoy me was Myst.
I wanted to see the graphics but the constant puzzles quickly became annoying so never got far in the game.
I got a little skill game for my iPod touch which technically wasn't a puzzle game but you had to accomplish certain things to access new areas.
The problem with it was it wasn't all that clear what you had to accomplish and even after I had collected everything there was nothing indicating that I had finished the game.
Poor instructions and puzzles in shooter games really can ruin an otherwise enjoyable game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390447</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245428340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OTOH, most of the games I buy are for group fun.  I have no desire to play some 1P mode for hours on end just so I can have all of the characters unlocked when my friends come over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OTOH , most of the games I buy are for group fun .
I have no desire to play some 1P mode for hours on end just so I can have all of the characters unlocked when my friends come over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OTOH, most of the games I buy are for group fun.
I have no desire to play some 1P mode for hours on end just so I can have all of the characters unlocked when my friends come over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28397937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28399373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28395367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28397227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_19_0514228_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388371
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389837
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392411
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391707
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391603
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391245
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390593
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387207
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28397227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387441
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390349
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387659
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28397937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391723
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391255
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387751
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28399373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388511
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388905
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388677
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388077
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28395367
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388865
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28391125
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390219
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28388061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28392421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28390123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28393113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28389487
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387791
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_19_0514228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_19_0514228.28387247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
