<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_09_058250</id>
	<title>What's the Importance of Graphics In Video Games?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247128980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"I develop games as a hobby. I've experimented with games on almost every platform available. For me, the gameplay is the most influential factor of a game, with history and graphics dividing second place. But, for some reason, it's not the technical beauty of the graphics that appeal to me. I have played <em>Crysis</em>, and I've played <em>Pok&#233;mon</em> games. The graphics of the <em>Pok&#233;mon</em> games entertain me as much as the graphics of <em>Crysis</em>. I think both are beautiful. So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games? I think it is sufficient for a game to have objects that are recognizable. For example, while the water in some games may not look as good as in <em>Crysis</em>, I can still tell it's water. What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics? Do you prefer easy-to-render 3D scenes that leave space for beautiful effects, like with Radiosity, or more complex 3D scenes that try to be realistic?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " I develop games as a hobby .
I 've experimented with games on almost every platform available .
For me , the gameplay is the most influential factor of a game , with history and graphics dividing second place .
But , for some reason , it 's not the technical beauty of the graphics that appeal to me .
I have played Crysis , and I 've played Pok   mon games .
The graphics of the Pok   mon games entertain me as much as the graphics of Crysis .
I think both are beautiful .
So , why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games ?
I think it is sufficient for a game to have objects that are recognizable .
For example , while the water in some games may not look as good as in Crysis , I can still tell it 's water .
What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics ?
Do you prefer easy-to-render 3D scenes that leave space for beautiful effects , like with Radiosity , or more complex 3D scenes that try to be realistic ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "I develop games as a hobby.
I've experimented with games on almost every platform available.
For me, the gameplay is the most influential factor of a game, with history and graphics dividing second place.
But, for some reason, it's not the technical beauty of the graphics that appeal to me.
I have played Crysis, and I've played Pokémon games.
The graphics of the Pokémon games entertain me as much as the graphics of Crysis.
I think both are beautiful.
So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?
I think it is sufficient for a game to have objects that are recognizable.
For example, while the water in some games may not look as good as in Crysis, I can still tell it's water.
What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics?
Do you prefer easy-to-render 3D scenes that leave space for beautiful effects, like with Radiosity, or more complex 3D scenes that try to be realistic?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634083</id>
	<title>different ends</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1247138160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't really compare the graphics between Pokemon and Crysis because the purpose of their graphics are completely different. Games that are trying to get as close to realistic as possible are doing so because there is more immersion than in a top-down RPG like Pokemon. Not immersion in the sense that "I could play this game for hours" but immersion in the "I'm actually there" variety. Pokemon is trying to be more cute and iconic as a way of making the characters more lovable. Pokemon with realistic graphics would be a completely different game for a different purpose. There's nothing wrong with either of them and both types can be beautiful, as you said.</p><p>When picking an art design, you have to know the audience and the type of feelings you want to evoke. Also, more often than not, your design is dictated by your budget. If you're a single developer working on a game in his/her spare time, then chances are something like Crysis will be way out of your budget, as opposed to a game with a few stylized icons or models. The reason why it seems more emphasis is placed on realistic graphics is that realism is a challenge that only the big budget guys can attempt to accomplish. It takes millions of dollars to have hours of mocap sessions, hire cleanup artists, high-res modelers, animators, texture painters, environment designers, etc to make a full city of locations and characters. Then it's also a lot more challenging to figure out how to make that world realistic and still function on modern day machines, with physics, animation interpolation, various gameplay mechanics and effects, etc.</p><p>While it seems that most games are going for the realistic look, I'd wager that the vast majority of games are going the more stylistic approach. Pretty much anything on the biggest gaming platforms right now (Web, iPhone, Nintendo DS, and Wii) take the stylized route, whereas only the $20 million AAA titles on the XBox 360 and PS3 are going the realistic route, of which there are only a few dozen a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't really compare the graphics between Pokemon and Crysis because the purpose of their graphics are completely different .
Games that are trying to get as close to realistic as possible are doing so because there is more immersion than in a top-down RPG like Pokemon .
Not immersion in the sense that " I could play this game for hours " but immersion in the " I 'm actually there " variety .
Pokemon is trying to be more cute and iconic as a way of making the characters more lovable .
Pokemon with realistic graphics would be a completely different game for a different purpose .
There 's nothing wrong with either of them and both types can be beautiful , as you said.When picking an art design , you have to know the audience and the type of feelings you want to evoke .
Also , more often than not , your design is dictated by your budget .
If you 're a single developer working on a game in his/her spare time , then chances are something like Crysis will be way out of your budget , as opposed to a game with a few stylized icons or models .
The reason why it seems more emphasis is placed on realistic graphics is that realism is a challenge that only the big budget guys can attempt to accomplish .
It takes millions of dollars to have hours of mocap sessions , hire cleanup artists , high-res modelers , animators , texture painters , environment designers , etc to make a full city of locations and characters .
Then it 's also a lot more challenging to figure out how to make that world realistic and still function on modern day machines , with physics , animation interpolation , various gameplay mechanics and effects , etc.While it seems that most games are going for the realistic look , I 'd wager that the vast majority of games are going the more stylistic approach .
Pretty much anything on the biggest gaming platforms right now ( Web , iPhone , Nintendo DS , and Wii ) take the stylized route , whereas only the $ 20 million AAA titles on the XBox 360 and PS3 are going the realistic route , of which there are only a few dozen a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't really compare the graphics between Pokemon and Crysis because the purpose of their graphics are completely different.
Games that are trying to get as close to realistic as possible are doing so because there is more immersion than in a top-down RPG like Pokemon.
Not immersion in the sense that "I could play this game for hours" but immersion in the "I'm actually there" variety.
Pokemon is trying to be more cute and iconic as a way of making the characters more lovable.
Pokemon with realistic graphics would be a completely different game for a different purpose.
There's nothing wrong with either of them and both types can be beautiful, as you said.When picking an art design, you have to know the audience and the type of feelings you want to evoke.
Also, more often than not, your design is dictated by your budget.
If you're a single developer working on a game in his/her spare time, then chances are something like Crysis will be way out of your budget, as opposed to a game with a few stylized icons or models.
The reason why it seems more emphasis is placed on realistic graphics is that realism is a challenge that only the big budget guys can attempt to accomplish.
It takes millions of dollars to have hours of mocap sessions, hire cleanup artists, high-res modelers, animators, texture painters, environment designers, etc to make a full city of locations and characters.
Then it's also a lot more challenging to figure out how to make that world realistic and still function on modern day machines, with physics, animation interpolation, various gameplay mechanics and effects, etc.While it seems that most games are going for the realistic look, I'd wager that the vast majority of games are going the more stylistic approach.
Pretty much anything on the biggest gaming platforms right now (Web, iPhone, Nintendo DS, and Wii) take the stylized route, whereas only the $20 million AAA titles on the XBox 360 and PS3 are going the realistic route, of which there are only a few dozen a year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633997</id>
	<title>I agree that photo-realism isn't the only way -</title>
	<author>pecosdave</author>
	<datestamp>1247137320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as artwork and "cinematics" are concerned, I loved Viewtiful Joe, who would have thought a bad movie would have made an awesome video game?  They pretty much pioneered the "2.5D" game.  On top of that, I hated old fashioned side scrolling beat-em-ups - this is one of those to a whole new level that made it awesome.  It's cheap, check it out, you can probably get it at GameStop for under $10.</p><p>I tried explaining the game to my cousin one time "It's made to look like a bad movie"  he asked "which bad movie?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as artwork and " cinematics " are concerned , I loved Viewtiful Joe , who would have thought a bad movie would have made an awesome video game ?
They pretty much pioneered the " 2.5D " game .
On top of that , I hated old fashioned side scrolling beat-em-ups - this is one of those to a whole new level that made it awesome .
It 's cheap , check it out , you can probably get it at GameStop for under $ 10.I tried explaining the game to my cousin one time " It 's made to look like a bad movie " he asked " which bad movie ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as artwork and "cinematics" are concerned, I loved Viewtiful Joe, who would have thought a bad movie would have made an awesome video game?
They pretty much pioneered the "2.5D" game.
On top of that, I hated old fashioned side scrolling beat-em-ups - this is one of those to a whole new level that made it awesome.
It's cheap, check it out, you can probably get it at GameStop for under $10.I tried explaining the game to my cousin one time "It's made to look like a bad movie"  he asked "which bad movie?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636045</id>
	<title>Re:I hate photorealism in video games</title>
	<author>rainmaestro</author>
	<datestamp>1247152380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>#1 is definitely my biggest rub. Especially when playing FPS shooter, I often turn the graphics way down. The less-complicated the textures are, the quicker I can get my reticle on the enemy and frag him. Beautiful, complex textures are great until I'm trying to spot something.</p><p>I think Mirror's Edge did a great job with this. Granted, I'm the only person on Earth who actually bought it, but they made everything simple. On the rooftops, probably a good 3/4 of the textures are just plain old white with some black thrown in, and the zip line I need to jump to is bright red, as are all the "important" world objects.</p><p>And Mirror's Edge doesn't require the CD. I guess that's the one game a year that doesn't follow that archaic practice. Legit buyers have the CD, illegal copies have NoCD cracks. Meanwhile, I have a stack of real games that I have to install NoCD cracks on because the retarded copy-protection schemes won't recognize that my discs are legit. Remind me again why I *shouldn't* pirate this stuff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># 1 is definitely my biggest rub .
Especially when playing FPS shooter , I often turn the graphics way down .
The less-complicated the textures are , the quicker I can get my reticle on the enemy and frag him .
Beautiful , complex textures are great until I 'm trying to spot something.I think Mirror 's Edge did a great job with this .
Granted , I 'm the only person on Earth who actually bought it , but they made everything simple .
On the rooftops , probably a good 3/4 of the textures are just plain old white with some black thrown in , and the zip line I need to jump to is bright red , as are all the " important " world objects.And Mirror 's Edge does n't require the CD .
I guess that 's the one game a year that does n't follow that archaic practice .
Legit buyers have the CD , illegal copies have NoCD cracks .
Meanwhile , I have a stack of real games that I have to install NoCD cracks on because the retarded copy-protection schemes wo n't recognize that my discs are legit .
Remind me again why I * should n't * pirate this stuff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>#1 is definitely my biggest rub.
Especially when playing FPS shooter, I often turn the graphics way down.
The less-complicated the textures are, the quicker I can get my reticle on the enemy and frag him.
Beautiful, complex textures are great until I'm trying to spot something.I think Mirror's Edge did a great job with this.
Granted, I'm the only person on Earth who actually bought it, but they made everything simple.
On the rooftops, probably a good 3/4 of the textures are just plain old white with some black thrown in, and the zip line I need to jump to is bright red, as are all the "important" world objects.And Mirror's Edge doesn't require the CD.
I guess that's the one game a year that doesn't follow that archaic practice.
Legit buyers have the CD, illegal copies have NoCD cracks.
Meanwhile, I have a stack of real games that I have to install NoCD cracks on because the retarded copy-protection schemes won't recognize that my discs are legit.
Remind me again why I *shouldn't* pirate this stuff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634037</id>
	<title>It depends really...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247137680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>generally you can tell if a game is trying to look amazing and/or realistic. The important part is whether they manage to pull it off or not.</p><p>A game that tries and fails is in for a bumpy ride because the player will be completely aware of it.</p><p>Good graphics are based entirely upon what the designer intended. I think the following games (I have played) have great graphics...</p><p>Theme Hospital<br>Settlers 2<br>World of Goo<br>Farcry 1 (I remember stopping and looking out at the sunset!)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I cannot tell you which has the best graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>generally you can tell if a game is trying to look amazing and/or realistic .
The important part is whether they manage to pull it off or not.A game that tries and fails is in for a bumpy ride because the player will be completely aware of it.Good graphics are based entirely upon what the designer intended .
I think the following games ( I have played ) have great graphics...Theme HospitalSettlers 2World of GooFarcry 1 ( I remember stopping and looking out at the sunset !
) ... but I can not tell you which has the best graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>generally you can tell if a game is trying to look amazing and/or realistic.
The important part is whether they manage to pull it off or not.A game that tries and fails is in for a bumpy ride because the player will be completely aware of it.Good graphics are based entirely upon what the designer intended.
I think the following games (I have played) have great graphics...Theme HospitalSettlers 2World of GooFarcry 1 (I remember stopping and looking out at the sunset!
) ... but I cannot tell you which has the best graphics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634897</id>
	<title>It's all about choice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247146440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure there are many varying opinions on this matter.</p><p>My opinion is this:<br>The mass production studios need to have "the best graphics" simply because the game they are creating is more or less the same as the next studio...</p><p>Therefore, if the gamer is presented with the option of purchasing two games with identical gameplay, however one looks "ok" and the other looks "f'n fantastic", which do you think the gamer will purchase?</p><p>As much as I love good gameplay, if the graphics are bad, then I'll look for another game the offers similar gameplay but looks "shinny"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there are many varying opinions on this matter.My opinion is this : The mass production studios need to have " the best graphics " simply because the game they are creating is more or less the same as the next studio...Therefore , if the gamer is presented with the option of purchasing two games with identical gameplay , however one looks " ok " and the other looks " f'n fantastic " , which do you think the gamer will purchase ? As much as I love good gameplay , if the graphics are bad , then I 'll look for another game the offers similar gameplay but looks " shinny " ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there are many varying opinions on this matter.My opinion is this:The mass production studios need to have "the best graphics" simply because the game they are creating is more or less the same as the next studio...Therefore, if the gamer is presented with the option of purchasing two games with identical gameplay, however one looks "ok" and the other looks "f'n fantastic", which do you think the gamer will purchase?As much as I love good gameplay, if the graphics are bad, then I'll look for another game the offers similar gameplay but looks "shinny" ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636311</id>
	<title>Graphics = Style</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247153340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphics often define the style of the game. Rocket Riot for example has a complete 8-bit retro style, which is obvious in the artwork even though it's a new game. Had it been made with beautiful modern smooth vector sprites, it wouldn't have the same retro feel. On the other hand, serious games like Crysis are obviously serious when you first see them because of the excessive amounts of realism reflected in the graphics ( and the whole game ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics often define the style of the game .
Rocket Riot for example has a complete 8-bit retro style , which is obvious in the artwork even though it 's a new game .
Had it been made with beautiful modern smooth vector sprites , it would n't have the same retro feel .
On the other hand , serious games like Crysis are obviously serious when you first see them because of the excessive amounts of realism reflected in the graphics ( and the whole game ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics often define the style of the game.
Rocket Riot for example has a complete 8-bit retro style, which is obvious in the artwork even though it's a new game.
Had it been made with beautiful modern smooth vector sprites, it wouldn't have the same retro feel.
On the other hand, serious games like Crysis are obviously serious when you first see them because of the excessive amounts of realism reflected in the graphics ( and the whole game ).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635117</id>
	<title>I prefer fluidity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247148000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It the game drops below 30 fps, it breaks the magic with the same kind of effect as when you watch a TV show and they break the 4th wall... Which is why I laugh so hard at all those X360 and PS3 fanatics out there. I don't want to play a beautiful slideshow.</p><p>capcha: Twitter. Damn, that troll is EVERYWHERE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It the game drops below 30 fps , it breaks the magic with the same kind of effect as when you watch a TV show and they break the 4th wall... Which is why I laugh so hard at all those X360 and PS3 fanatics out there .
I do n't want to play a beautiful slideshow.capcha : Twitter .
Damn , that troll is EVERYWHERE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It the game drops below 30 fps, it breaks the magic with the same kind of effect as when you watch a TV show and they break the 4th wall... Which is why I laugh so hard at all those X360 and PS3 fanatics out there.
I don't want to play a beautiful slideshow.capcha: Twitter.
Damn, that troll is EVERYWHERE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635103</id>
	<title>Re:This issue was thoroughly hashed out in the 199</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247147880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer different graphic styles with different games. I like having top graphcis for Half life and say crysis, but i also like the graphics in plants vs zombies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer different graphic styles with different games .
I like having top graphcis for Half life and say crysis , but i also like the graphics in plants vs zombies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer different graphic styles with different games.
I like having top graphcis for Half life and say crysis, but i also like the graphics in plants vs zombies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635341</id>
	<title>Tie Fighter</title>
	<author>apodyopsis</author>
	<datestamp>1247149200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite game of all time for gameplay?</p><p>Tie Fighter the original when you play as an Imperial pilot to take down the rebel scum.</p><p>Graphics? Terrible, but the Gameplay? second to none. That really got you involved.</p><p>I'm probably in a minority here though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite game of all time for gameplay ? Tie Fighter the original when you play as an Imperial pilot to take down the rebel scum.Graphics ?
Terrible , but the Gameplay ?
second to none .
That really got you involved.I 'm probably in a minority here though : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite game of all time for gameplay?Tie Fighter the original when you play as an Imperial pilot to take down the rebel scum.Graphics?
Terrible, but the Gameplay?
second to none.
That really got you involved.I'm probably in a minority here though :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641421</id>
	<title>As a game desiger myself, I can tell you,</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247130180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that the only reason they focus on the optics, is that it is the only thing they got.</p><p>Try to keep an harmonic integrated balance of the four key elements, strengthening each other:<br>- Aesthetics<br>- Mechanics<br>- Story<br>- Technology</p><p>Do no prefer any single one of them. Let all of them support each other.</p><p>So logically, aesthetics should only exist, if there is a point to it. A point to the basic experience that you want to create.</p><p>And since abstract aesthetics show the world within, and realistic aesthetics show the world on the outside, sometimes, abstract graphics and simple shapes help the game more than any level of realism.</p><p>My fellow game designer, do whatever your heart tells you. Let the players feel the experience you can see in your head. How you do it does not matter. Even if you do it with basic black lines on a white background. And let others dive into it and follow <em>you</em>.</p><p>Then you will have a game that will truly be remembered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that the only reason they focus on the optics , is that it is the only thing they got.Try to keep an harmonic integrated balance of the four key elements , strengthening each other : - Aesthetics- Mechanics- Story- TechnologyDo no prefer any single one of them .
Let all of them support each other.So logically , aesthetics should only exist , if there is a point to it .
A point to the basic experience that you want to create.And since abstract aesthetics show the world within , and realistic aesthetics show the world on the outside , sometimes , abstract graphics and simple shapes help the game more than any level of realism.My fellow game designer , do whatever your heart tells you .
Let the players feel the experience you can see in your head .
How you do it does not matter .
Even if you do it with basic black lines on a white background .
And let others dive into it and follow you.Then you will have a game that will truly be remembered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the only reason they focus on the optics, is that it is the only thing they got.Try to keep an harmonic integrated balance of the four key elements, strengthening each other:- Aesthetics- Mechanics- Story- TechnologyDo no prefer any single one of them.
Let all of them support each other.So logically, aesthetics should only exist, if there is a point to it.
A point to the basic experience that you want to create.And since abstract aesthetics show the world within, and realistic aesthetics show the world on the outside, sometimes, abstract graphics and simple shapes help the game more than any level of realism.My fellow game designer, do whatever your heart tells you.
Let the players feel the experience you can see in your head.
How you do it does not matter.
Even if you do it with basic black lines on a white background.
And let others dive into it and follow you.Then you will have a game that will truly be remembered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634031</id>
	<title>Re:I hate photorealism in video games</title>
	<author>should\_be\_linear</author>
	<datestamp>1247137620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You pretty much described old "Lemmings" or new "World Of Goo" games. Now, if only someone could come with such a great ideas more frequently...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You pretty much described old " Lemmings " or new " World Of Goo " games .
Now , if only someone could come with such a great ideas more frequently.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pretty much described old "Lemmings" or new "World Of Goo" games.
Now, if only someone could come with such a great ideas more frequently...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635365</id>
	<title>Re:This issue was thoroughly hashed out in the 199</title>
	<author>Logical Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1247149320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...A game with great graphics and poor gameplay will have decent early sales, but these will drop off quickly as people discover the bugs or design errors in the gameplay....</p></div><p>This has happened far too often.  The most recent example I can think of is <em>Uncharted: Drake's Fortune</em>, which has amazing graphics but gameplay that is nearly broken.  (How the bloody hell am I supposed to shoot my gun and <em>hit</em> something in a third person game if there's no auto aim and not even a freaking targeting reticle?!)  Without that problem, I think the game would have sold well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...A game with great graphics and poor gameplay will have decent early sales , but these will drop off quickly as people discover the bugs or design errors in the gameplay....This has happened far too often .
The most recent example I can think of is Uncharted : Drake 's Fortune , which has amazing graphics but gameplay that is nearly broken .
( How the bloody hell am I supposed to shoot my gun and hit something in a third person game if there 's no auto aim and not even a freaking targeting reticle ? !
) Without that problem , I think the game would have sold well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...A game with great graphics and poor gameplay will have decent early sales, but these will drop off quickly as people discover the bugs or design errors in the gameplay....This has happened far too often.
The most recent example I can think of is Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, which has amazing graphics but gameplay that is nearly broken.
(How the bloody hell am I supposed to shoot my gun and hit something in a third person game if there's no auto aim and not even a freaking targeting reticle?!
)  Without that problem, I think the game would have sold well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634437</id>
	<title>Some nice examples</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247142000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As you know, there are some nice examples which are famous for their non-realistic and "cute" graphics (some are even 2d) and excellent gameplay:</p><p>Little Big Planet, World of Goo, Super Mario Galaxy, Team Fortress 2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As you know , there are some nice examples which are famous for their non-realistic and " cute " graphics ( some are even 2d ) and excellent gameplay : Little Big Planet , World of Goo , Super Mario Galaxy , Team Fortress 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you know, there are some nice examples which are famous for their non-realistic and "cute" graphics (some are even 2d) and excellent gameplay:Little Big Planet, World of Goo, Super Mario Galaxy, Team Fortress 2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635903</id>
	<title>West of House</title>
	<author>jbarr</author>
	<datestamp>1247151840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh...who needs graphics?!?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>West of House<br>You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with<br>a boarded front door.<br>There is a small mailbox here.</p><p>&gt;</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh...who needs graphics ? !
? West of HouseYou are standing in an open field west of a white house , witha boarded front door.There is a small mailbox here. &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh...who needs graphics?!
?West of HouseYou are standing in an open field west of a white house, witha boarded front door.There is a small mailbox here.&gt; 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634265</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on the game...</title>
	<author>earthbound kid</author>
	<datestamp>1247139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If it's CounterStrike or GTA IV, there's no such thing as "too realistic".</p></div></blockquote><p>You want to see a realistic depiction of a person getting shot and bleeding to death? No thanks, I'll stick with polygons.</p><p>Just imagine your character sweating and breathing hard after running for the length of a play session (at a top speed of 15~20 MPH), then tell me that "there's no such thing as too realistic."</p><p>No one wants perfect realism, we just want different kinds of fakeness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's CounterStrike or GTA IV , there 's no such thing as " too realistic " .You want to see a realistic depiction of a person getting shot and bleeding to death ?
No thanks , I 'll stick with polygons.Just imagine your character sweating and breathing hard after running for the length of a play session ( at a top speed of 15 ~ 20 MPH ) , then tell me that " there 's no such thing as too realistic .
" No one wants perfect realism , we just want different kinds of fakeness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's CounterStrike or GTA IV, there's no such thing as "too realistic".You want to see a realistic depiction of a person getting shot and bleeding to death?
No thanks, I'll stick with polygons.Just imagine your character sweating and breathing hard after running for the length of a play session (at a top speed of 15~20 MPH), then tell me that "there's no such thing as too realistic.
"No one wants perfect realism, we just want different kinds of fakeness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28650665</id>
	<title>A healthy balance</title>
	<author>Draxxon</author>
	<datestamp>1247244120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> I have been playing games for a real long time in fact the first game I rocked at was asteroids though I was young and really dint care about what it looked like all that mattered was I was better than my step dad.. I to this day still love FF3 (US) the story in that game was moving I played for three days straight while only sleeping when my eyes refused to work. I also use DosBox to play some of the oldies for the pure feel good game play and old stories lines. So for me the story or char development is a big one for me. Don&#226;(TM)t get me wrong I do love the eye candy that games are now achieving but what I find is that a lot of the time the game play and story line suffer because a lot of money was dumped into the looks. SO to the point I like where the looks of the games are heading as long game play and story line are just as strong!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been playing games for a real long time in fact the first game I rocked at was asteroids though I was young and really dint care about what it looked like all that mattered was I was better than my step dad.. I to this day still love FF3 ( US ) the story in that game was moving I played for three days straight while only sleeping when my eyes refused to work .
I also use DosBox to play some of the oldies for the pure feel good game play and old stories lines .
So for me the story or char development is a big one for me .
Don   ( TM ) t get me wrong I do love the eye candy that games are now achieving but what I find is that a lot of the time the game play and story line suffer because a lot of money was dumped into the looks .
SO to the point I like where the looks of the games are heading as long game play and story line are just as strong !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I have been playing games for a real long time in fact the first game I rocked at was asteroids though I was young and really dint care about what it looked like all that mattered was I was better than my step dad.. I to this day still love FF3 (US) the story in that game was moving I played for three days straight while only sleeping when my eyes refused to work.
I also use DosBox to play some of the oldies for the pure feel good game play and old stories lines.
So for me the story or char development is a big one for me.
Donâ(TM)t get me wrong I do love the eye candy that games are now achieving but what I find is that a lot of the time the game play and story line suffer because a lot of money was dumped into the looks.
SO to the point I like where the looks of the games are heading as long game play and story line are just as strong!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635733</id>
	<title>Re:Graphics Are Not the Key to a Great Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247151120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>example of skillful special effects</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>example of skillful special effects</tokentext>
<sentencetext>example of skillful special effects</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28640929</id>
	<title>Less graphics more game IMO</title>
	<author>Twyst3d</author>
	<datestamp>1247171460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So many people spend so much time making the graphics of a game gorgeous you end up with a game that lasts only 8 hours.  At the risk of sounding old - I remember when games lasted 40 hours.   All of them.   Whats the point of having an ultimately gorgeous game if its done in a day?  I'll tell you.  NONE WHATSOEVER.  Industry needs to pull their heads out of their asses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So many people spend so much time making the graphics of a game gorgeous you end up with a game that lasts only 8 hours .
At the risk of sounding old - I remember when games lasted 40 hours .
All of them .
Whats the point of having an ultimately gorgeous game if its done in a day ?
I 'll tell you .
NONE WHATSOEVER .
Industry needs to pull their heads out of their asses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So many people spend so much time making the graphics of a game gorgeous you end up with a game that lasts only 8 hours.
At the risk of sounding old - I remember when games lasted 40 hours.
All of them.
Whats the point of having an ultimately gorgeous game if its done in a day?
I'll tell you.
NONE WHATSOEVER.
Industry needs to pull their heads out of their asses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634755</id>
	<title>Re:Graphics Are Not the Key to a Great Game</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247145420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For cinema, the problem is payback.  Most of the money a movie makes is in the first week.  The number of people who go to a film depends a lot more on how good the trailer is than how good the film is, and special effects make it easy to make a good trailer.</p><p>
The situation isn't quite the same for games, but there are parallels.  Most people choose to buy a game based on short videos, reviews (typically by people who didn't play it for very long) or short demoes.  Good gameplay is much less immediate than good graphics, and when you are judging a game from a short exposure the graphics win.  We're even seeing this with operating systems, where people compare a few systems based on live CDs, which don't give a good impression of how easy it is to maintain a system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For cinema , the problem is payback .
Most of the money a movie makes is in the first week .
The number of people who go to a film depends a lot more on how good the trailer is than how good the film is , and special effects make it easy to make a good trailer .
The situation is n't quite the same for games , but there are parallels .
Most people choose to buy a game based on short videos , reviews ( typically by people who did n't play it for very long ) or short demoes .
Good gameplay is much less immediate than good graphics , and when you are judging a game from a short exposure the graphics win .
We 're even seeing this with operating systems , where people compare a few systems based on live CDs , which do n't give a good impression of how easy it is to maintain a system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For cinema, the problem is payback.
Most of the money a movie makes is in the first week.
The number of people who go to a film depends a lot more on how good the trailer is than how good the film is, and special effects make it easy to make a good trailer.
The situation isn't quite the same for games, but there are parallels.
Most people choose to buy a game based on short videos, reviews (typically by people who didn't play it for very long) or short demoes.
Good gameplay is much less immediate than good graphics, and when you are judging a game from a short exposure the graphics win.
We're even seeing this with operating systems, where people compare a few systems based on live CDs, which don't give a good impression of how easy it is to maintain a system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28639435</id>
	<title>One word: Investors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247165820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the push for ever-more-realistic graphics can be summed up in one word: Investors.</p><p>Investors often won't know bupkiss about games, and they often won't be able to tell tragically flawed gameplay from really solid gameplay.  So if you're trying to get funding for your poor-graphics-but-great-gameplay game, it's going to be harder than your great-graphics-but-poor-gameplay game.  The investor can look at a screenshot or a demo and go "oooh... purdy!" in about 3 seconds and be seriously impressed.  To do the same with gameplay could take hours... and there's a good chance that he still won't get it.</p><p>To "get" good graphics, the investor just has to have eyes.  To "get" good gameplay the investor has to either be part of your target audience, or know your target audience really well.</p><p>Thus the focus on graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the push for ever-more-realistic graphics can be summed up in one word : Investors.Investors often wo n't know bupkiss about games , and they often wo n't be able to tell tragically flawed gameplay from really solid gameplay .
So if you 're trying to get funding for your poor-graphics-but-great-gameplay game , it 's going to be harder than your great-graphics-but-poor-gameplay game .
The investor can look at a screenshot or a demo and go " oooh.. .
purdy ! " in about 3 seconds and be seriously impressed .
To do the same with gameplay could take hours... and there 's a good chance that he still wo n't get it.To " get " good graphics , the investor just has to have eyes .
To " get " good gameplay the investor has to either be part of your target audience , or know your target audience really well.Thus the focus on graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the push for ever-more-realistic graphics can be summed up in one word: Investors.Investors often won't know bupkiss about games, and they often won't be able to tell tragically flawed gameplay from really solid gameplay.
So if you're trying to get funding for your poor-graphics-but-great-gameplay game, it's going to be harder than your great-graphics-but-poor-gameplay game.
The investor can look at a screenshot or a demo and go "oooh...
purdy!" in about 3 seconds and be seriously impressed.
To do the same with gameplay could take hours... and there's a good chance that he still won't get it.To "get" good graphics, the investor just has to have eyes.
To "get" good gameplay the investor has to either be part of your target audience, or know your target audience really well.Thus the focus on graphics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634709</id>
	<title>Graphics</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1247145060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What's the Importance of Graphics In Video Games?"  To allow me to interact with a visual element (voice-only games are boring!).</p><p>"So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?"  Commodity graphics cards (where they used to be a massive, expensive, add-on only), excess of speed/power/capabilities, people buy "pretty" games for no real reason other than they are pretty, young people have "grown up" with 3D graphics, ease of putting out titles that are pretty rather than addictive, "competition" with videogame consoles, previous titles and industry competitors who think the same way.</p><p>"What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics?"  Too much graphics, not enough gameplay.  Graphics are *brilliant*, don't get me wrong, but after the fiftieth alpha-blended, anti-aliased, dynamically-shadowed, etc.etc.etc. game then it's no longer novel or impressive, even if the resolution improves or the thing being shown is using more detailed models.  Half-Life Blue Shift, I will use as a case in point.  It came with "higher res" models of the Half-life universe as an option.  Hands up all those who knew that and/or used them (SvenCoop users don't count - it tells you in the installer).</p><p>"Do you prefer easy-to-render 3D scenes that leave space for beautiful effects, like with Radiosity, or more complex 3D scenes that try to be realistic?"  Neither.  I prefer people not to use 3D when it's not needed, and when they use 3D to go with a particular look that suits the game and/or the gamer's requirements.  A silly puzzle game (even 3D) does not need lens-flare, dynamic lighting, etc.  However, an immersive FPS which relies heavily on atmosphere to build tension (e.g. Left4Dead) might.  In fact an immersive game like that might well do things strangely - such as add film-grain to deliberately decrease the quality of the image to fit in with the game's atmosphere.  But at the end of the day, if it wasn't an addictive game, people would not be playing it in their thousands... you don't set up a powerful PC on a fast Internet connection and play multiplayer because it "looks cool".  At least, not after the novelty wears off.  Most gameplay-heavy multiplayer games NEVER die online, even if the game network disappears.</p><p>There is no "standard formula" for a good game in terms of graphics.  Spy Hunter in the arcades WORKED in 2D, Lemmings worked in 2D, Street Fighter worked in 2D, but their 3D incarnations are *ALL* dire.  Similarly for sequels, extensions, mods, add-ons, etc. that thought that adding some fancy rendering, higher-resolution, etc. would save them having to make a new game.  Graphics are just a layer of interface to the actual game underneath.  If the interface is crap, the game might still be good.  If the game is crap, however, it doesn't matter how good the interface looks - it's like a Ferrari with a Fiat 100 engine inside.</p><p>Look at Quake.  The amount of mods for that thing was PHENOMENAL.  Even the official expansion packs didn't try to upgrade the resolutions or the renderer or this or that... they just made some more content and kept the game interesting (I think one of them did some QuakeC tricks to implement some very primitive physics, but that's *not* graphical, that's a gameplay trick).  Now, of course, there's GLQuake, Quake with lighting, ray-traced Quake, etc.  The graphics-heavy ones aren't that popular, they don't add much and if you play them it's only out of interest to see once.  You might even "stick" with GLQuake or Tenebrae or whatever, but at the end of the day if you're just re-running the same old Quake levels, there's no real fun.  However, *additional content* with new ideas, new gameplay etc. - that's completely different and will make you load it back up no matter what interface you prefer.</p><p>Look at the Half-Life engines - both basically unchanged since release (alright, HL2:E1 added that HDR stuff but you bought it for the story and the extra hours of gameplay, not the HDR - hopefully).  Now look</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What 's the Importance of Graphics In Video Games ?
" To allow me to interact with a visual element ( voice-only games are boring ! ) .
" So , why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games ?
" Commodity graphics cards ( where they used to be a massive , expensive , add-on only ) , excess of speed/power/capabilities , people buy " pretty " games for no real reason other than they are pretty , young people have " grown up " with 3D graphics , ease of putting out titles that are pretty rather than addictive , " competition " with videogame consoles , previous titles and industry competitors who think the same way .
" What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics ?
" Too much graphics , not enough gameplay .
Graphics are * brilliant * , do n't get me wrong , but after the fiftieth alpha-blended , anti-aliased , dynamically-shadowed , etc.etc.etc .
game then it 's no longer novel or impressive , even if the resolution improves or the thing being shown is using more detailed models .
Half-Life Blue Shift , I will use as a case in point .
It came with " higher res " models of the Half-life universe as an option .
Hands up all those who knew that and/or used them ( SvenCoop users do n't count - it tells you in the installer ) .
" Do you prefer easy-to-render 3D scenes that leave space for beautiful effects , like with Radiosity , or more complex 3D scenes that try to be realistic ?
" Neither .
I prefer people not to use 3D when it 's not needed , and when they use 3D to go with a particular look that suits the game and/or the gamer 's requirements .
A silly puzzle game ( even 3D ) does not need lens-flare , dynamic lighting , etc .
However , an immersive FPS which relies heavily on atmosphere to build tension ( e.g .
Left4Dead ) might .
In fact an immersive game like that might well do things strangely - such as add film-grain to deliberately decrease the quality of the image to fit in with the game 's atmosphere .
But at the end of the day , if it was n't an addictive game , people would not be playing it in their thousands... you do n't set up a powerful PC on a fast Internet connection and play multiplayer because it " looks cool " .
At least , not after the novelty wears off .
Most gameplay-heavy multiplayer games NEVER die online , even if the game network disappears.There is no " standard formula " for a good game in terms of graphics .
Spy Hunter in the arcades WORKED in 2D , Lemmings worked in 2D , Street Fighter worked in 2D , but their 3D incarnations are * ALL * dire .
Similarly for sequels , extensions , mods , add-ons , etc .
that thought that adding some fancy rendering , higher-resolution , etc .
would save them having to make a new game .
Graphics are just a layer of interface to the actual game underneath .
If the interface is crap , the game might still be good .
If the game is crap , however , it does n't matter how good the interface looks - it 's like a Ferrari with a Fiat 100 engine inside.Look at Quake .
The amount of mods for that thing was PHENOMENAL .
Even the official expansion packs did n't try to upgrade the resolutions or the renderer or this or that... they just made some more content and kept the game interesting ( I think one of them did some QuakeC tricks to implement some very primitive physics , but that 's * not * graphical , that 's a gameplay trick ) .
Now , of course , there 's GLQuake , Quake with lighting , ray-traced Quake , etc .
The graphics-heavy ones are n't that popular , they do n't add much and if you play them it 's only out of interest to see once .
You might even " stick " with GLQuake or Tenebrae or whatever , but at the end of the day if you 're just re-running the same old Quake levels , there 's no real fun .
However , * additional content * with new ideas , new gameplay etc .
- that 's completely different and will make you load it back up no matter what interface you prefer.Look at the Half-Life engines - both basically unchanged since release ( alright , HL2 : E1 added that HDR stuff but you bought it for the story and the extra hours of gameplay , not the HDR - hopefully ) .
Now look</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What's the Importance of Graphics In Video Games?
"  To allow me to interact with a visual element (voice-only games are boring!).
"So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?
"  Commodity graphics cards (where they used to be a massive, expensive, add-on only), excess of speed/power/capabilities, people buy "pretty" games for no real reason other than they are pretty, young people have "grown up" with 3D graphics, ease of putting out titles that are pretty rather than addictive, "competition" with videogame consoles, previous titles and industry competitors who think the same way.
"What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics?
"  Too much graphics, not enough gameplay.
Graphics are *brilliant*, don't get me wrong, but after the fiftieth alpha-blended, anti-aliased, dynamically-shadowed, etc.etc.etc.
game then it's no longer novel or impressive, even if the resolution improves or the thing being shown is using more detailed models.
Half-Life Blue Shift, I will use as a case in point.
It came with "higher res" models of the Half-life universe as an option.
Hands up all those who knew that and/or used them (SvenCoop users don't count - it tells you in the installer).
"Do you prefer easy-to-render 3D scenes that leave space for beautiful effects, like with Radiosity, or more complex 3D scenes that try to be realistic?
"  Neither.
I prefer people not to use 3D when it's not needed, and when they use 3D to go with a particular look that suits the game and/or the gamer's requirements.
A silly puzzle game (even 3D) does not need lens-flare, dynamic lighting, etc.
However, an immersive FPS which relies heavily on atmosphere to build tension (e.g.
Left4Dead) might.
In fact an immersive game like that might well do things strangely - such as add film-grain to deliberately decrease the quality of the image to fit in with the game's atmosphere.
But at the end of the day, if it wasn't an addictive game, people would not be playing it in their thousands... you don't set up a powerful PC on a fast Internet connection and play multiplayer because it "looks cool".
At least, not after the novelty wears off.
Most gameplay-heavy multiplayer games NEVER die online, even if the game network disappears.There is no "standard formula" for a good game in terms of graphics.
Spy Hunter in the arcades WORKED in 2D, Lemmings worked in 2D, Street Fighter worked in 2D, but their 3D incarnations are *ALL* dire.
Similarly for sequels, extensions, mods, add-ons, etc.
that thought that adding some fancy rendering, higher-resolution, etc.
would save them having to make a new game.
Graphics are just a layer of interface to the actual game underneath.
If the interface is crap, the game might still be good.
If the game is crap, however, it doesn't matter how good the interface looks - it's like a Ferrari with a Fiat 100 engine inside.Look at Quake.
The amount of mods for that thing was PHENOMENAL.
Even the official expansion packs didn't try to upgrade the resolutions or the renderer or this or that... they just made some more content and kept the game interesting (I think one of them did some QuakeC tricks to implement some very primitive physics, but that's *not* graphical, that's a gameplay trick).
Now, of course, there's GLQuake, Quake with lighting, ray-traced Quake, etc.
The graphics-heavy ones aren't that popular, they don't add much and if you play them it's only out of interest to see once.
You might even "stick" with GLQuake or Tenebrae or whatever, but at the end of the day if you're just re-running the same old Quake levels, there's no real fun.
However, *additional content* with new ideas, new gameplay etc.
- that's completely different and will make you load it back up no matter what interface you prefer.Look at the Half-Life engines - both basically unchanged since release (alright, HL2:E1 added that HDR stuff but you bought it for the story and the extra hours of gameplay, not the HDR - hopefully).
Now look</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634165</id>
	<title>Re:I hate photorealism in video games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247138940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not get an xbox 360 and take advantage of the games available for xbox live arcade? they'll be downloaded straight to the xbox hard drive. have a look at N+, schizoid, castle crashers, braid and ikaruga. then you've also got the option of having large immersive games like fallout 3, or multiplayer halo 3 fights if you want a quick fix of violent action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not get an xbox 360 and take advantage of the games available for xbox live arcade ?
they 'll be downloaded straight to the xbox hard drive .
have a look at N + , schizoid , castle crashers , braid and ikaruga .
then you 've also got the option of having large immersive games like fallout 3 , or multiplayer halo 3 fights if you want a quick fix of violent action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not get an xbox 360 and take advantage of the games available for xbox live arcade?
they'll be downloaded straight to the xbox hard drive.
have a look at N+, schizoid, castle crashers, braid and ikaruga.
then you've also got the option of having large immersive games like fallout 3, or multiplayer halo 3 fights if you want a quick fix of violent action.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637349</id>
	<title>Extremely important</title>
	<author>End Us3r</author>
	<datestamp>1247157000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Team Fortress 2 relies heavily on its visuals but Valve did not go for realism. Valve developed a specific look that compliments the gameplay.<br>
<br>
Games such as the upcoming Forza Motorsport 3 and Gran Turismo 5 will rely heavily on realism. The more realistic the games are the better they will be. The enhanced graphics play a huge part in the gameplay.<br>
<br>
Tetris on my iPhone does not need to be on the same level as GT5 (visually) to be a great game. Motion X Poker (iPhone) looks fantastic and that does add to the enjoyment factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Team Fortress 2 relies heavily on its visuals but Valve did not go for realism .
Valve developed a specific look that compliments the gameplay .
Games such as the upcoming Forza Motorsport 3 and Gran Turismo 5 will rely heavily on realism .
The more realistic the games are the better they will be .
The enhanced graphics play a huge part in the gameplay .
Tetris on my iPhone does not need to be on the same level as GT5 ( visually ) to be a great game .
Motion X Poker ( iPhone ) looks fantastic and that does add to the enjoyment factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Team Fortress 2 relies heavily on its visuals but Valve did not go for realism.
Valve developed a specific look that compliments the gameplay.
Games such as the upcoming Forza Motorsport 3 and Gran Turismo 5 will rely heavily on realism.
The more realistic the games are the better they will be.
The enhanced graphics play a huge part in the gameplay.
Tetris on my iPhone does not need to be on the same level as GT5 (visually) to be a great game.
Motion X Poker (iPhone) looks fantastic and that does add to the enjoyment factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634283</id>
	<title>Depends on the Style You're Going For</title>
	<author>Secret Agent Man</author>
	<datestamp>1247140020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It really depends on what style the game itself is trying to pull off. Some have criticized Team Fortress 2 for its more cartoon-like look and style than its predecessor. I think, however, that it's incredibly fitting for the game. The voice acting is incredible and the characters fit the style quite well (the Meet the Team videos only enhance these qualities further). I realize that Team Fortress 2 isn't known for these qualities, but it really is a lot more fun because of the stylistic decisions made.</p><p>I myself have never really had the most cutting-edge technology, but I have never felt truly immersed in a game based on the graphics alone. In the back of my mind I always go "this is just a video game," but the story, characters, gameplay (i.e. the attributes that are truly meaningful) can reel me in. Games like GoldenEye and Perfect Dark come to mind here. The graphics were good for the time, but nothing close to realistic. However, they were still able to pull me in just as well.</p><p>As the Game Boy Color commercials proclaimed: "Get into it." If a game can get me interested in the other facets of its world, then it could be from the 8-bit era and still get me to feel immersed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It really depends on what style the game itself is trying to pull off .
Some have criticized Team Fortress 2 for its more cartoon-like look and style than its predecessor .
I think , however , that it 's incredibly fitting for the game .
The voice acting is incredible and the characters fit the style quite well ( the Meet the Team videos only enhance these qualities further ) .
I realize that Team Fortress 2 is n't known for these qualities , but it really is a lot more fun because of the stylistic decisions made.I myself have never really had the most cutting-edge technology , but I have never felt truly immersed in a game based on the graphics alone .
In the back of my mind I always go " this is just a video game , " but the story , characters , gameplay ( i.e .
the attributes that are truly meaningful ) can reel me in .
Games like GoldenEye and Perfect Dark come to mind here .
The graphics were good for the time , but nothing close to realistic .
However , they were still able to pull me in just as well.As the Game Boy Color commercials proclaimed : " Get into it .
" If a game can get me interested in the other facets of its world , then it could be from the 8-bit era and still get me to feel immersed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It really depends on what style the game itself is trying to pull off.
Some have criticized Team Fortress 2 for its more cartoon-like look and style than its predecessor.
I think, however, that it's incredibly fitting for the game.
The voice acting is incredible and the characters fit the style quite well (the Meet the Team videos only enhance these qualities further).
I realize that Team Fortress 2 isn't known for these qualities, but it really is a lot more fun because of the stylistic decisions made.I myself have never really had the most cutting-edge technology, but I have never felt truly immersed in a game based on the graphics alone.
In the back of my mind I always go "this is just a video game," but the story, characters, gameplay (i.e.
the attributes that are truly meaningful) can reel me in.
Games like GoldenEye and Perfect Dark come to mind here.
The graphics were good for the time, but nothing close to realistic.
However, they were still able to pull me in just as well.As the Game Boy Color commercials proclaimed: "Get into it.
" If a game can get me interested in the other facets of its world, then it could be from the 8-bit era and still get me to feel immersed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634029</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on the game...</title>
	<author>biacos</author>
	<datestamp>1247137560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you.

For instance, first person shooter need a higher realism, the camera position is quite "immersive" and the lack of realism affects badly the gaming experience.

Of course, we are speaking of "realistic graphics" instead of "good graphics". For example, toon rendering is a cool not-photorealistic rendering technique that improves the game experience for some kind of games.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you .
For instance , first person shooter need a higher realism , the camera position is quite " immersive " and the lack of realism affects badly the gaming experience .
Of course , we are speaking of " realistic graphics " instead of " good graphics " .
For example , toon rendering is a cool not-photorealistic rendering technique that improves the game experience for some kind of games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you.
For instance, first person shooter need a higher realism, the camera position is quite "immersive" and the lack of realism affects badly the gaming experience.
Of course, we are speaking of "realistic graphics" instead of "good graphics".
For example, toon rendering is a cool not-photorealistic rendering technique that improves the game experience for some kind of games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635485</id>
	<title>Well-made graphics vs. state-of-the-art graphics</title>
	<author>anondescriptname</author>
	<datestamp>1247149980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphics don't have to be both. By this date the graphics of Civilization 3 aren't cutting edge and weren't even when it was released but they are done well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics do n't have to be both .
By this date the graphics of Civilization 3 are n't cutting edge and were n't even when it was released but they are done well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics don't have to be both.
By this date the graphics of Civilization 3 aren't cutting edge and weren't even when it was released but they are done well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634107</id>
	<title>Re:I hate photorealism in video games</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1247138340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I also heat photorealism in video games but for other reasons:<br>1. I am shortsighted, having a lot of "detail" in the small screen just obliges me to put more attention (and more eye strain).<br>2. In several of those "photorealistic" games I do not know what to pick/use/click/etc and what not to... (that is related to the AC post on Interactivity).<br>3. Due to the processing/space limits in computers, the "photorealism" in games is incomplete. No mater how  many particles they use for the water, once you get closer to see it, it will always seem unrealistic at a short distance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I also heat photorealism in video games but for other reasons : 1 .
I am shortsighted , having a lot of " detail " in the small screen just obliges me to put more attention ( and more eye strain ) .2 .
In several of those " photorealistic " games I do not know what to pick/use/click/etc and what not to... ( that is related to the AC post on Interactivity ) .3 .
Due to the processing/space limits in computers , the " photorealism " in games is incomplete .
No mater how many particles they use for the water , once you get closer to see it , it will always seem unrealistic at a short distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I also heat photorealism in video games but for other reasons:1.
I am shortsighted, having a lot of "detail" in the small screen just obliges me to put more attention (and more eye strain).2.
In several of those "photorealistic" games I do not know what to pick/use/click/etc and what not to... (that is related to the AC post on Interactivity).3.
Due to the processing/space limits in computers, the "photorealism" in games is incomplete.
No mater how  many particles they use for the water, once you get closer to see it, it will always seem unrealistic at a short distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633759</id>
	<title>Minimal.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247134860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>especially in real games like Pong</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>especially in real games like Pong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>especially in real games like Pong</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634451</id>
	<title>Visuals vs. Storyline vs. pure fun</title>
	<author>Targon</author>
	<datestamp>1247142180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the ancient days of video and computer games, there really was no way to put up realistic graphics.   As a result, storyline and just aiming for the "fun" factor was the most you could hope for.    Think of that period the way you would the early days of movies, where special effects were not an option, so story(and good acting) was the most they could hope for.</p><p>Now, as with anything, there would be two "schools" of thought on how to attract people.   In movies, you had things like nudity that eventually came in as a way to attract audiences, followed by special effects, while other factors took a back seat.    With computer games, you eventually had better graphics and audio.</p><p>What we have seen is that games with a great story and depth have really been pushed so far back that the adventure game has all but disappeared.   Storyline has also taken a back seat(look how many people just click through the dialog options to PLAY games, rather than reading or listening).    That is the big difference here.   In film, there have been special effects movies, or movies with a lot of sex, but those that are more artistic have also continued to be produced.</p><p>The true games that are a work of art have pretty much gone away.    You have shooters as the dominant type of game, and you have a handful of pseudo-RPGs that give perhaps 3 dialog choices, but without any way to REALLY change the outcome of the game(you just end up with a different end-game "movie" based on your dialog choices).    There are also the "sandbox" type of games that give you a big open world like Oblivion where you can do a lot, but the depth of the world, and your options are very limited to what mods/adventures people write(nothing dynamic, all pre-scripted).</p><p>It really is the shooter genre that has had the greatest chance to change this, since the gameplay isn't all THAT much different from game to game, storyline COULD start to become a more dominant force, or to change the "if it moves, shoot it" style in most shooters to one where it COULD be more of an adventure game, or to use the engine for an RPG(Vampire - Bloodlines did this but bugs caused it to not sell as well as it should have based on storyline and gameplay).</p><p>The death of Interplay and Sierra is also a key factor in what has happened to the game industry.   When one publisher dominates in releasing a certain type of game, and that publisher fades away, and the other publishers do not pick up the slack by releasing or at least publishing that type of game(to fill the void), that leaves a huge gap that SHOULD be filled, but for some reason has not.</p><p>There is room for a publisher to really take up the reins and start publishing adventure and RPG games, but due to the economy, we have not seen this happen.   Until a more artistic approach is taken to game design, games will continue to have a hard time attracting the general public.    In movies, if EVERY movie was a battlefield war drama or zombie film, people would grow bored, and only a tiny group of people would even pay attention to what new movies were released.    The special effects movies at least are starting to incorporate SOME storyline and depth, but there are still plenty that fall flat(Star Wars Episode 1 for example).    Special effects without a good storyline does not do well, and within ten years, the first person shooter market will also dry up if nothing is done to make storyline the key rather than the overdone "run around, shoot people without a reason" type we see today.</p><p>Give the player a purpose they can identify with, and it will attract people.   Look for something that older players and those not drawn to shooting guns, and you will bring in the masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the ancient days of video and computer games , there really was no way to put up realistic graphics .
As a result , storyline and just aiming for the " fun " factor was the most you could hope for .
Think of that period the way you would the early days of movies , where special effects were not an option , so story ( and good acting ) was the most they could hope for.Now , as with anything , there would be two " schools " of thought on how to attract people .
In movies , you had things like nudity that eventually came in as a way to attract audiences , followed by special effects , while other factors took a back seat .
With computer games , you eventually had better graphics and audio.What we have seen is that games with a great story and depth have really been pushed so far back that the adventure game has all but disappeared .
Storyline has also taken a back seat ( look how many people just click through the dialog options to PLAY games , rather than reading or listening ) .
That is the big difference here .
In film , there have been special effects movies , or movies with a lot of sex , but those that are more artistic have also continued to be produced.The true games that are a work of art have pretty much gone away .
You have shooters as the dominant type of game , and you have a handful of pseudo-RPGs that give perhaps 3 dialog choices , but without any way to REALLY change the outcome of the game ( you just end up with a different end-game " movie " based on your dialog choices ) .
There are also the " sandbox " type of games that give you a big open world like Oblivion where you can do a lot , but the depth of the world , and your options are very limited to what mods/adventures people write ( nothing dynamic , all pre-scripted ) .It really is the shooter genre that has had the greatest chance to change this , since the gameplay is n't all THAT much different from game to game , storyline COULD start to become a more dominant force , or to change the " if it moves , shoot it " style in most shooters to one where it COULD be more of an adventure game , or to use the engine for an RPG ( Vampire - Bloodlines did this but bugs caused it to not sell as well as it should have based on storyline and gameplay ) .The death of Interplay and Sierra is also a key factor in what has happened to the game industry .
When one publisher dominates in releasing a certain type of game , and that publisher fades away , and the other publishers do not pick up the slack by releasing or at least publishing that type of game ( to fill the void ) , that leaves a huge gap that SHOULD be filled , but for some reason has not.There is room for a publisher to really take up the reins and start publishing adventure and RPG games , but due to the economy , we have not seen this happen .
Until a more artistic approach is taken to game design , games will continue to have a hard time attracting the general public .
In movies , if EVERY movie was a battlefield war drama or zombie film , people would grow bored , and only a tiny group of people would even pay attention to what new movies were released .
The special effects movies at least are starting to incorporate SOME storyline and depth , but there are still plenty that fall flat ( Star Wars Episode 1 for example ) .
Special effects without a good storyline does not do well , and within ten years , the first person shooter market will also dry up if nothing is done to make storyline the key rather than the overdone " run around , shoot people without a reason " type we see today.Give the player a purpose they can identify with , and it will attract people .
Look for something that older players and those not drawn to shooting guns , and you will bring in the masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the ancient days of video and computer games, there really was no way to put up realistic graphics.
As a result, storyline and just aiming for the "fun" factor was the most you could hope for.
Think of that period the way you would the early days of movies, where special effects were not an option, so story(and good acting) was the most they could hope for.Now, as with anything, there would be two "schools" of thought on how to attract people.
In movies, you had things like nudity that eventually came in as a way to attract audiences, followed by special effects, while other factors took a back seat.
With computer games, you eventually had better graphics and audio.What we have seen is that games with a great story and depth have really been pushed so far back that the adventure game has all but disappeared.
Storyline has also taken a back seat(look how many people just click through the dialog options to PLAY games, rather than reading or listening).
That is the big difference here.
In film, there have been special effects movies, or movies with a lot of sex, but those that are more artistic have also continued to be produced.The true games that are a work of art have pretty much gone away.
You have shooters as the dominant type of game, and you have a handful of pseudo-RPGs that give perhaps 3 dialog choices, but without any way to REALLY change the outcome of the game(you just end up with a different end-game "movie" based on your dialog choices).
There are also the "sandbox" type of games that give you a big open world like Oblivion where you can do a lot, but the depth of the world, and your options are very limited to what mods/adventures people write(nothing dynamic, all pre-scripted).It really is the shooter genre that has had the greatest chance to change this, since the gameplay isn't all THAT much different from game to game, storyline COULD start to become a more dominant force, or to change the "if it moves, shoot it" style in most shooters to one where it COULD be more of an adventure game, or to use the engine for an RPG(Vampire - Bloodlines did this but bugs caused it to not sell as well as it should have based on storyline and gameplay).The death of Interplay and Sierra is also a key factor in what has happened to the game industry.
When one publisher dominates in releasing a certain type of game, and that publisher fades away, and the other publishers do not pick up the slack by releasing or at least publishing that type of game(to fill the void), that leaves a huge gap that SHOULD be filled, but for some reason has not.There is room for a publisher to really take up the reins and start publishing adventure and RPG games, but due to the economy, we have not seen this happen.
Until a more artistic approach is taken to game design, games will continue to have a hard time attracting the general public.
In movies, if EVERY movie was a battlefield war drama or zombie film, people would grow bored, and only a tiny group of people would even pay attention to what new movies were released.
The special effects movies at least are starting to incorporate SOME storyline and depth, but there are still plenty that fall flat(Star Wars Episode 1 for example).
Special effects without a good storyline does not do well, and within ten years, the first person shooter market will also dry up if nothing is done to make storyline the key rather than the overdone "run around, shoot people without a reason" type we see today.Give the player a purpose they can identify with, and it will attract people.
Look for something that older players and those not drawn to shooting guns, and you will bring in the masses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28639821</id>
	<title>A lot.</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1247167200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How would Dead Space or BioShock be without the atmosphere?  How effective would Doom 3 have been without its shadows?  How many people had trouble telling the difference between a dangerous mine and an ammo clip in GoldenEye on the N64 in a squashed 4-player split-screen?<br> <br>Answer: Graphics are very important if you use them well, and they're meaningless if you don't have a game to back them up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would Dead Space or BioShock be without the atmosphere ?
How effective would Doom 3 have been without its shadows ?
How many people had trouble telling the difference between a dangerous mine and an ammo clip in GoldenEye on the N64 in a squashed 4-player split-screen ?
Answer : Graphics are very important if you use them well , and they 're meaningless if you do n't have a game to back them up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would Dead Space or BioShock be without the atmosphere?
How effective would Doom 3 have been without its shadows?
How many people had trouble telling the difference between a dangerous mine and an ammo clip in GoldenEye on the N64 in a squashed 4-player split-screen?
Answer: Graphics are very important if you use them well, and they're meaningless if you don't have a game to back them up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633859</id>
	<title>as food props in menu pictures</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247136060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The better a [product] looks the more attractive it will appear, usually convincing enough to purchase. This is a fairly common practice with any business/industry selling wares.<br>Nice visuals can make a bad game passable and a good game great. Looking good is what will get people to buy it and actually being good will keep them playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The better a [ product ] looks the more attractive it will appear , usually convincing enough to purchase .
This is a fairly common practice with any business/industry selling wares.Nice visuals can make a bad game passable and a good game great .
Looking good is what will get people to buy it and actually being good will keep them playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The better a [product] looks the more attractive it will appear, usually convincing enough to purchase.
This is a fairly common practice with any business/industry selling wares.Nice visuals can make a bad game passable and a good game great.
Looking good is what will get people to buy it and actually being good will keep them playing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634487</id>
	<title>Good graphic sell</title>
	<author>mrboyd</author>
	<datestamp>1247142720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your game mechanic is boring it will be boring running the Crysis engine or the DOOM 1 engine *but* you will sell a lot more unit using the crysis engine. People like good looking shiny stuff even if it's boring, limited or even stupid. For examples, see ipod (-1 flamebait); Paris hilton; Windows (+1 Insightful), Dubai and others.

If you have a good game, good graphics will still attract even more customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your game mechanic is boring it will be boring running the Crysis engine or the DOOM 1 engine * but * you will sell a lot more unit using the crysis engine .
People like good looking shiny stuff even if it 's boring , limited or even stupid .
For examples , see ipod ( -1 flamebait ) ; Paris hilton ; Windows ( + 1 Insightful ) , Dubai and others .
If you have a good game , good graphics will still attract even more customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your game mechanic is boring it will be boring running the Crysis engine or the DOOM 1 engine *but* you will sell a lot more unit using the crysis engine.
People like good looking shiny stuff even if it's boring, limited or even stupid.
For examples, see ipod (-1 flamebait); Paris hilton; Windows (+1 Insightful), Dubai and others.
If you have a good game, good graphics will still attract even more customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634475</id>
	<title>Wii, NDS...</title>
	<author>sam0737</author>
	<datestamp>1247142600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>tells you that game does not have to be photo realistic to be fun, enjoyable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>tells you that game does not have to be photo realistic to be fun , enjoyable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tells you that game does not have to be photo realistic to be fun, enjoyable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638379</id>
	<title>In my opinion</title>
	<author>Vahokif</author>
	<datestamp>1247161620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Graphics can make a good game great, but they can't make a bad game good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics can make a good game great , but they ca n't make a bad game good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics can make a good game great, but they can't make a bad game good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635101</id>
	<title>Physics and Balenced Gameplay</title>
	<author>dschmitt</author>
	<datestamp>1247147880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like more interactivity, like what you achieve with a physics engine, over improved graphics. But the main concern is about how the game changes in difficulty, to make something that continually stays challenging and never becomes impossible or extremely easy.  Sometimes ranked multi-player systems achieve this, but i would like to see more single player games that do not have set difficulty caps, but a changing difficulty based on your performance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like more interactivity , like what you achieve with a physics engine , over improved graphics .
But the main concern is about how the game changes in difficulty , to make something that continually stays challenging and never becomes impossible or extremely easy .
Sometimes ranked multi-player systems achieve this , but i would like to see more single player games that do not have set difficulty caps , but a changing difficulty based on your performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like more interactivity, like what you achieve with a physics engine, over improved graphics.
But the main concern is about how the game changes in difficulty, to make something that continually stays challenging and never becomes impossible or extremely easy.
Sometimes ranked multi-player systems achieve this, but i would like to see more single player games that do not have set difficulty caps, but a changing difficulty based on your performance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637133</id>
	<title>Realism is easy.</title>
	<author>Peganthyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1247156160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Realism" is easy to chase. You don't need a strong artistic vision. You can easily guide a large team down this path: "just make it look as realistic as possible, in these restrictions" is pretty easy to articulate. The programmers can dig into research papers, the artists can go outside.</p><p>(There can be a hell of a lot of hard work put into this goal; something like <i>Crysis</i> has clearly been polished and loved. But its visual goals are conceptually simple: "make it look real".)</p><p>When you're striving for something striking but stylized, you need a unified artistic vision. If you have more than a couple artists on the team, you need one person whose job is pretty much just going around and saying "that's a nice model, but it doesn't quite fit the artistic vision - tweak this, this, and this and pass it by me when you're done." And the programmers have to find ways to support this style. There was a paper making the rounds a while back on the very sophisticated shaders that were developed to give <i>Team Fortress 2</i> a particular feel to its lighting, for instance. There was a hell of a lot of directed work that went into making it look a certain unrealistic way.</p><p>When your restrictions are tighter, visual style becomes more important. The <i>Pok&#195;&#169;mon</i> games are done on 2D hardware with pixels big enough to see; they are already highly abstracted by the nature of the medium. You pretty much <em>have</em> to stylize and caricature the hell out of things to make them read.</p><p>Not every team has an artistic visionary. When you don't have one, "realism" is pretty much your only option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Realism " is easy to chase .
You do n't need a strong artistic vision .
You can easily guide a large team down this path : " just make it look as realistic as possible , in these restrictions " is pretty easy to articulate .
The programmers can dig into research papers , the artists can go outside .
( There can be a hell of a lot of hard work put into this goal ; something like Crysis has clearly been polished and loved .
But its visual goals are conceptually simple : " make it look real " .
) When you 're striving for something striking but stylized , you need a unified artistic vision .
If you have more than a couple artists on the team , you need one person whose job is pretty much just going around and saying " that 's a nice model , but it does n't quite fit the artistic vision - tweak this , this , and this and pass it by me when you 're done .
" And the programmers have to find ways to support this style .
There was a paper making the rounds a while back on the very sophisticated shaders that were developed to give Team Fortress 2 a particular feel to its lighting , for instance .
There was a hell of a lot of directed work that went into making it look a certain unrealistic way.When your restrictions are tighter , visual style becomes more important .
The Pok     mon games are done on 2D hardware with pixels big enough to see ; they are already highly abstracted by the nature of the medium .
You pretty much have to stylize and caricature the hell out of things to make them read.Not every team has an artistic visionary .
When you do n't have one , " realism " is pretty much your only option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Realism" is easy to chase.
You don't need a strong artistic vision.
You can easily guide a large team down this path: "just make it look as realistic as possible, in these restrictions" is pretty easy to articulate.
The programmers can dig into research papers, the artists can go outside.
(There can be a hell of a lot of hard work put into this goal; something like Crysis has clearly been polished and loved.
But its visual goals are conceptually simple: "make it look real".
)When you're striving for something striking but stylized, you need a unified artistic vision.
If you have more than a couple artists on the team, you need one person whose job is pretty much just going around and saying "that's a nice model, but it doesn't quite fit the artistic vision - tweak this, this, and this and pass it by me when you're done.
" And the programmers have to find ways to support this style.
There was a paper making the rounds a while back on the very sophisticated shaders that were developed to give Team Fortress 2 a particular feel to its lighting, for instance.
There was a hell of a lot of directed work that went into making it look a certain unrealistic way.When your restrictions are tighter, visual style becomes more important.
The PokÃ©mon games are done on 2D hardware with pixels big enough to see; they are already highly abstracted by the nature of the medium.
You pretty much have to stylize and caricature the hell out of things to make them read.Not every team has an artistic visionary.
When you don't have one, "realism" is pretty much your only option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28646447</id>
	<title>marketing</title>
	<author>noric</author>
	<datestamp>1247167500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I worked in the games industry, at a company that transitioned from desktop to console games. I believe wholeheartedly that graphics get so much love because, relative to other features, they have extremely high financial ROI.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked in the games industry , at a company that transitioned from desktop to console games .
I believe wholeheartedly that graphics get so much love because , relative to other features , they have extremely high financial ROI .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked in the games industry, at a company that transitioned from desktop to console games.
I believe wholeheartedly that graphics get so much love because, relative to other features, they have extremely high financial ROI.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635825</id>
	<title>System Shock 2</title>
	<author>space\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1247151540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the best games I have ever played.  Atmosphere was great, story was great, and the graphics were terrible even at the time of release.  I would have never bought the game on an impulse due to the fact that the graphics just made it look old.  I was an informed consumer that had read many reviews about how great a game it was so I bought it.  Most people aren't informed consumers so graphics are some of the appeal when they look at the box in a store.  This game never did too well despite being awesome and I think the graphics were a large part of that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the best games I have ever played .
Atmosphere was great , story was great , and the graphics were terrible even at the time of release .
I would have never bought the game on an impulse due to the fact that the graphics just made it look old .
I was an informed consumer that had read many reviews about how great a game it was so I bought it .
Most people are n't informed consumers so graphics are some of the appeal when they look at the box in a store .
This game never did too well despite being awesome and I think the graphics were a large part of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the best games I have ever played.
Atmosphere was great, story was great, and the graphics were terrible even at the time of release.
I would have never bought the game on an impulse due to the fact that the graphics just made it look old.
I was an informed consumer that had read many reviews about how great a game it was so I bought it.
Most people aren't informed consumers so graphics are some of the appeal when they look at the box in a store.
This game never did too well despite being awesome and I think the graphics were a large part of that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637157</id>
	<title>Too much reliance on hardware</title>
	<author>GottliebPins</author>
	<datestamp>1247156220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with most new games is as soon as you buy them you realize you need to upgrade or replace your entire system just to play them. I used to build my own gaming machines and year after year I had to upgrade and be my own tech support. I got tired of it and quit. Now all I have is a laptop and a netbook. I used to love playing UT99, not because it was visually stunning, it wasn't, but because it was so much damn fun. With all the cool mods and being able to design your own maps and weapons, it never got dull. Then they came out with "improved" versions of UT with shiny new graphics and reflections and fog, etc. but the game play sucked! And in order to get any kind of responsiveness out of it you had to turn off all the shiny effects or it ran like crap. I stayed with the original for as long as it was still around. I've seen all of the great new games that have come out since, but I refuse to buy a new system just to play them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with most new games is as soon as you buy them you realize you need to upgrade or replace your entire system just to play them .
I used to build my own gaming machines and year after year I had to upgrade and be my own tech support .
I got tired of it and quit .
Now all I have is a laptop and a netbook .
I used to love playing UT99 , not because it was visually stunning , it was n't , but because it was so much damn fun .
With all the cool mods and being able to design your own maps and weapons , it never got dull .
Then they came out with " improved " versions of UT with shiny new graphics and reflections and fog , etc .
but the game play sucked !
And in order to get any kind of responsiveness out of it you had to turn off all the shiny effects or it ran like crap .
I stayed with the original for as long as it was still around .
I 've seen all of the great new games that have come out since , but I refuse to buy a new system just to play them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with most new games is as soon as you buy them you realize you need to upgrade or replace your entire system just to play them.
I used to build my own gaming machines and year after year I had to upgrade and be my own tech support.
I got tired of it and quit.
Now all I have is a laptop and a netbook.
I used to love playing UT99, not because it was visually stunning, it wasn't, but because it was so much damn fun.
With all the cool mods and being able to design your own maps and weapons, it never got dull.
Then they came out with "improved" versions of UT with shiny new graphics and reflections and fog, etc.
but the game play sucked!
And in order to get any kind of responsiveness out of it you had to turn off all the shiny effects or it ran like crap.
I stayed with the original for as long as it was still around.
I've seen all of the great new games that have come out since, but I refuse to buy a new system just to play them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28640963</id>
	<title>Context and Evolution</title>
	<author>busydoingnothing</author>
	<datestamp>1247171640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, the age-old question of graphics in video games. In my opinion, to answer this question, you need to address two points: context and evolution/adaptation.<br> <br>

<b>Context</b>: How central are graphics to the gaming experience? What genre is the game? On one end of the spectrum you have the first-person shooter (or, nowadays, RPG), which is arguably most directly linked to graphics. On the other end, you have text-based games, where graphics are non-existent. The end experience depends on the user, really. Someone could have as much fun in a text-based game as they could a first-person shooter. Fun/enjoyment/fulfillment is arguably the end of the day goal for most if not all games.

<br> <br>Back to first person shooters, though. Graphics in a first-person shooter are central to the overall experience. Is it not the latest first-person game that has pushed us every few years to upgrade our PC? Dynamic lighting, shadows, long-distance rendering, cell shading, skeletal animation, etc. etc. These technologies have marked the start of new eras in the timeline of gaming. Graphics in first-person shooters and other games have evolved over time, which leads us to...<br> <br>

<b>Evolution/Adaptation</b>: We adapt to our new visual experiences. How hard is it to play a game without anti-aliasing after spending countless hours on other games with anti-aliasing? How easily can you pick up a first-person shooter from ten years ago and fully enjoy the experience as much as you did when it was contemporary? I'd be willing to bet that it'd be pretty difficult, and I'd put my money on the idea that it's because you're used to the modern games which offer better graphics. Sure, it's fun to sit down an play old Nintendo games, but that's for other reasons, nostalgia being one of them. Since I've adapted to newer, better looking games, it's hard to turn back to the old games, much in the same way it's hard to get off the plane when I return to Michigan from California (ugh).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , the age-old question of graphics in video games .
In my opinion , to answer this question , you need to address two points : context and evolution/adaptation .
Context : How central are graphics to the gaming experience ?
What genre is the game ?
On one end of the spectrum you have the first-person shooter ( or , nowadays , RPG ) , which is arguably most directly linked to graphics .
On the other end , you have text-based games , where graphics are non-existent .
The end experience depends on the user , really .
Someone could have as much fun in a text-based game as they could a first-person shooter .
Fun/enjoyment/fulfillment is arguably the end of the day goal for most if not all games .
Back to first person shooters , though .
Graphics in a first-person shooter are central to the overall experience .
Is it not the latest first-person game that has pushed us every few years to upgrade our PC ?
Dynamic lighting , shadows , long-distance rendering , cell shading , skeletal animation , etc .
etc. These technologies have marked the start of new eras in the timeline of gaming .
Graphics in first-person shooters and other games have evolved over time , which leads us to.. . Evolution/Adaptation : We adapt to our new visual experiences .
How hard is it to play a game without anti-aliasing after spending countless hours on other games with anti-aliasing ?
How easily can you pick up a first-person shooter from ten years ago and fully enjoy the experience as much as you did when it was contemporary ?
I 'd be willing to bet that it 'd be pretty difficult , and I 'd put my money on the idea that it 's because you 're used to the modern games which offer better graphics .
Sure , it 's fun to sit down an play old Nintendo games , but that 's for other reasons , nostalgia being one of them .
Since I 've adapted to newer , better looking games , it 's hard to turn back to the old games , much in the same way it 's hard to get off the plane when I return to Michigan from California ( ugh ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, the age-old question of graphics in video games.
In my opinion, to answer this question, you need to address two points: context and evolution/adaptation.
Context: How central are graphics to the gaming experience?
What genre is the game?
On one end of the spectrum you have the first-person shooter (or, nowadays, RPG), which is arguably most directly linked to graphics.
On the other end, you have text-based games, where graphics are non-existent.
The end experience depends on the user, really.
Someone could have as much fun in a text-based game as they could a first-person shooter.
Fun/enjoyment/fulfillment is arguably the end of the day goal for most if not all games.
Back to first person shooters, though.
Graphics in a first-person shooter are central to the overall experience.
Is it not the latest first-person game that has pushed us every few years to upgrade our PC?
Dynamic lighting, shadows, long-distance rendering, cell shading, skeletal animation, etc.
etc. These technologies have marked the start of new eras in the timeline of gaming.
Graphics in first-person shooters and other games have evolved over time, which leads us to... 

Evolution/Adaptation: We adapt to our new visual experiences.
How hard is it to play a game without anti-aliasing after spending countless hours on other games with anti-aliasing?
How easily can you pick up a first-person shooter from ten years ago and fully enjoy the experience as much as you did when it was contemporary?
I'd be willing to bet that it'd be pretty difficult, and I'd put my money on the idea that it's because you're used to the modern games which offer better graphics.
Sure, it's fun to sit down an play old Nintendo games, but that's for other reasons, nostalgia being one of them.
Since I've adapted to newer, better looking games, it's hard to turn back to the old games, much in the same way it's hard to get off the plane when I return to Michigan from California (ugh).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28651893</id>
	<title>Why must it be a balance?</title>
	<author>DeskLazer</author>
	<datestamp>1247250120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last I remembered, I liked when games like Super Mario Bros relied on putting you in a fantasy world that didn't try too hard to be "real."  Sure, there were some real elements [human beings], but the baddies were strange, powerups were stranger [kanooki suit anyone?], and the game was a blast.<br> <br>

I like the "realism" of some games, but often I will go back and play an older game just because it's more fun.  I'd rather fire up NHL 96 on PC than NHL 09 [notice I wasn't talking about Xbox 360 or PS3 here, but still, I prefer 96 to those in terms of gameplay].  I'd rather play the original UT to the dreck they're putting out now.  It's not like the first game in every series is the best, but sometimes they find the right formula and butcher it in sequels.  Rose-colored glasses or not, graphics are not everything.  Look at games that stood the test of time such as Tetris.  Most people would rather play the original than it's derivatives [including other puzzle games].<br> <br>

That being said, I'm super stoked for the new Monkey Island series.  Graphically, not that impressive, but if the humour is good, it'll justify the purchase.<br> <br>

[/getoffmylawn]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I remembered , I liked when games like Super Mario Bros relied on putting you in a fantasy world that did n't try too hard to be " real .
" Sure , there were some real elements [ human beings ] , but the baddies were strange , powerups were stranger [ kanooki suit anyone ?
] , and the game was a blast .
I like the " realism " of some games , but often I will go back and play an older game just because it 's more fun .
I 'd rather fire up NHL 96 on PC than NHL 09 [ notice I was n't talking about Xbox 360 or PS3 here , but still , I prefer 96 to those in terms of gameplay ] .
I 'd rather play the original UT to the dreck they 're putting out now .
It 's not like the first game in every series is the best , but sometimes they find the right formula and butcher it in sequels .
Rose-colored glasses or not , graphics are not everything .
Look at games that stood the test of time such as Tetris .
Most people would rather play the original than it 's derivatives [ including other puzzle games ] .
That being said , I 'm super stoked for the new Monkey Island series .
Graphically , not that impressive , but if the humour is good , it 'll justify the purchase .
[ /getoffmylawn ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I remembered, I liked when games like Super Mario Bros relied on putting you in a fantasy world that didn't try too hard to be "real.
"  Sure, there were some real elements [human beings], but the baddies were strange, powerups were stranger [kanooki suit anyone?
], and the game was a blast.
I like the "realism" of some games, but often I will go back and play an older game just because it's more fun.
I'd rather fire up NHL 96 on PC than NHL 09 [notice I wasn't talking about Xbox 360 or PS3 here, but still, I prefer 96 to those in terms of gameplay].
I'd rather play the original UT to the dreck they're putting out now.
It's not like the first game in every series is the best, but sometimes they find the right formula and butcher it in sequels.
Rose-colored glasses or not, graphics are not everything.
Look at games that stood the test of time such as Tetris.
Most people would rather play the original than it's derivatives [including other puzzle games].
That being said, I'm super stoked for the new Monkey Island series.
Graphically, not that impressive, but if the humour is good, it'll justify the purchase.
[/getoffmylawn]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28639513</id>
	<title>It's like the cover of a book</title>
	<author>cs668</author>
	<datestamp>1247166120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a book has great cover art you're more likely to buy it.  You won't know that it's good until you read it, but the cover art has gotten you to make the purchase.</p><p>With a game that is involved it might take you a week to find out if the gameplay is great or not, but you can look at great graphics and be swayed into making an impulse buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a book has great cover art you 're more likely to buy it .
You wo n't know that it 's good until you read it , but the cover art has gotten you to make the purchase.With a game that is involved it might take you a week to find out if the gameplay is great or not , but you can look at great graphics and be swayed into making an impulse buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a book has great cover art you're more likely to buy it.
You won't know that it's good until you read it, but the cover art has gotten you to make the purchase.With a game that is involved it might take you a week to find out if the gameplay is great or not, but you can look at great graphics and be swayed into making an impulse buy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634591</id>
	<title>MUD addict</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247143860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't need no stink'en graphics!  I've been addicted to the same bloody MUD since 1993.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need no stink'en graphics !
I 've been addicted to the same bloody MUD since 1993 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need no stink'en graphics!
I've been addicted to the same bloody MUD since 1993.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634351</id>
	<title>SpiriteH!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247140800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd say anything up and beyond the source (half-life2) engine is pretty pointless, it looks good and it runs on most hardware well... Why would I want to go out and spend four digits on a new rig \_and\_ go through all the pain of setting it up just to have water look that little bit nicer? -.o</p><p>No games should be about the game play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say anything up and beyond the source ( half-life2 ) engine is pretty pointless , it looks good and it runs on most hardware well... Why would I want to go out and spend four digits on a new rig \ _and \ _ go through all the pain of setting it up just to have water look that little bit nicer ?
-.oNo games should be about the game play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say anything up and beyond the source (half-life2) engine is pretty pointless, it looks good and it runs on most hardware well... Why would I want to go out and spend four digits on a new rig \_and\_ go through all the pain of setting it up just to have water look that little bit nicer?
-.oNo games should be about the game play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634061</id>
	<title>graphics is not an indicator of quality</title>
	<author>gintoki</author>
	<datestamp>1247137860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>and I'm not alone on this one. Developers spend way too much time making the game look pretty these days. I doubt anyone cares how good a building looks if that building happens to be a place where a massive fight takes place. The thing is, developers probably spend months on making it as shiny as possible but most gamers don't even notice it. Game reviewers are the only people who really seem to care what the game looks like. For example, uncharted on the ps3 is my favourite game on the console. The graphics on that game are awesome. I was so drawn into the game that that I thought that this was how it would feel if Indiana Jones was a badass. I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if the graphics weren't as good as they were. Then again, I don't really care for graphics for the most part seeing as I do most of my gaming on the ds. When gameplay is good the graphics are secondary. I'm probably gonna get flamed for this but I'm gonna say it anyway. Killzone 2, Halo 3, Gears of War had good graphics but in my opinion the gameplay was just dull and I'm really surprised to see why people seem to almost revere these games. Call of Duty 4 was better than these games but nothing revolutionary. I guess I just don't find games to be much fun when all it entails is going from point A to point B while killing things in a graphic manner ( can be entertaining sometimes) Let's stop here before I can get started on all the "dark/mature/gritty" games rant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and I 'm not alone on this one .
Developers spend way too much time making the game look pretty these days .
I doubt anyone cares how good a building looks if that building happens to be a place where a massive fight takes place .
The thing is , developers probably spend months on making it as shiny as possible but most gamers do n't even notice it .
Game reviewers are the only people who really seem to care what the game looks like .
For example , uncharted on the ps3 is my favourite game on the console .
The graphics on that game are awesome .
I was so drawn into the game that that I thought that this was how it would feel if Indiana Jones was a badass .
I probably would n't have enjoyed it as much if the graphics were n't as good as they were .
Then again , I do n't really care for graphics for the most part seeing as I do most of my gaming on the ds .
When gameplay is good the graphics are secondary .
I 'm probably gon na get flamed for this but I 'm gon na say it anyway .
Killzone 2 , Halo 3 , Gears of War had good graphics but in my opinion the gameplay was just dull and I 'm really surprised to see why people seem to almost revere these games .
Call of Duty 4 was better than these games but nothing revolutionary .
I guess I just do n't find games to be much fun when all it entails is going from point A to point B while killing things in a graphic manner ( can be entertaining sometimes ) Let 's stop here before I can get started on all the " dark/mature/gritty " games rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and I'm not alone on this one.
Developers spend way too much time making the game look pretty these days.
I doubt anyone cares how good a building looks if that building happens to be a place where a massive fight takes place.
The thing is, developers probably spend months on making it as shiny as possible but most gamers don't even notice it.
Game reviewers are the only people who really seem to care what the game looks like.
For example, uncharted on the ps3 is my favourite game on the console.
The graphics on that game are awesome.
I was so drawn into the game that that I thought that this was how it would feel if Indiana Jones was a badass.
I probably wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if the graphics weren't as good as they were.
Then again, I don't really care for graphics for the most part seeing as I do most of my gaming on the ds.
When gameplay is good the graphics are secondary.
I'm probably gonna get flamed for this but I'm gonna say it anyway.
Killzone 2, Halo 3, Gears of War had good graphics but in my opinion the gameplay was just dull and I'm really surprised to see why people seem to almost revere these games.
Call of Duty 4 was better than these games but nothing revolutionary.
I guess I just don't find games to be much fun when all it entails is going from point A to point B while killing things in a graphic manner ( can be entertaining sometimes) Let's stop here before I can get started on all the "dark/mature/gritty" games rant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636853</id>
	<title>Slashdot War!</title>
	<author>cReAtiVE\_PH33R</author>
	<datestamp>1247155140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are we seriously bickering over graphics vs. game play?
You can't have a <i>video</i>game, without some form of graphics, even text is just color(s) on the screen.
Without game play, or player input, it is just a picture, or movie.
I actually play more 2D games than 3D, but immersion <i>can</i> be better in 3D, not always though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we seriously bickering over graphics vs. game play ?
You ca n't have a videogame , without some form of graphics , even text is just color ( s ) on the screen .
Without game play , or player input , it is just a picture , or movie .
I actually play more 2D games than 3D , but immersion can be better in 3D , not always though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we seriously bickering over graphics vs. game play?
You can't have a videogame, without some form of graphics, even text is just color(s) on the screen.
Without game play, or player input, it is just a picture, or movie.
I actually play more 2D games than 3D, but immersion can be better in 3D, not always though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28639229</id>
	<title>Immagination anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247164980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's sad when people need realistic graphics to before they can get immersed in a game -- no immagination.   Anyone remember Zork?</p><p>Why waste money developing storylines, cinematics, and 3D models when all people want is something that blows up real good?</p><p>I played WOW for months before someone told me there was a storyline, that's what I call poor implementation.  Obviously the story has nothing to do with the success of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad when people need realistic graphics to before they can get immersed in a game -- no immagination .
Anyone remember Zork ? Why waste money developing storylines , cinematics , and 3D models when all people want is something that blows up real good ? I played WOW for months before someone told me there was a storyline , that 's what I call poor implementation .
Obviously the story has nothing to do with the success of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad when people need realistic graphics to before they can get immersed in a game -- no immagination.
Anyone remember Zork?Why waste money developing storylines, cinematics, and 3D models when all people want is something that blows up real good?I played WOW for months before someone told me there was a storyline, that's what I call poor implementation.
Obviously the story has nothing to do with the success of the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635179</id>
	<title>Gameplay and content (story &amp; setting)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247148300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While games with flashy graphics often work well when they're just released, they quickly die after they age and newer &amp; graphically better games are released.<br>It's the game with superior gameplay and/or superior content that live forever. Take Fallout (the first), it is immortal due to its content (story, setting &amp; atmosphere are excellent) and solid gameplay (real decisions, tactical combat,...). This while the graphics were very mediocre when released (we're talking the same era as HL1, people tend to forget that), and some gameplay was severely defective (companions, scrolling the inventory, money,...).</p><p>But before someone tells me to 'get with the times' and 'stop championing ancient outdated turn-based games', the same goes for classic shooters like Counterstrike (beta to 1.6, non-Source). In essence, the game was good due to simple gameplay, and not graphics. People still play it actively today because of it. Today it is ugly, hitboxes are crude at best, and so on, but the gameplay remains hard to beat for an online teambased shooter.</p><p>It's really too bad, but understandable that the industry is mostly going for the 'easy buck' by implementing the good graphics games and running with them. It generates revenue, so so what if it doesn't become a legend in the industry?</p><p>It is a very sad day where companies who champion content and/or gameplay over graphics have trouble finding publishers and funding. Troika, we'll never forget you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While games with flashy graphics often work well when they 're just released , they quickly die after they age and newer &amp; graphically better games are released.It 's the game with superior gameplay and/or superior content that live forever .
Take Fallout ( the first ) , it is immortal due to its content ( story , setting &amp; atmosphere are excellent ) and solid gameplay ( real decisions , tactical combat,... ) .
This while the graphics were very mediocre when released ( we 're talking the same era as HL1 , people tend to forget that ) , and some gameplay was severely defective ( companions , scrolling the inventory , money,... ) .But before someone tells me to 'get with the times ' and 'stop championing ancient outdated turn-based games ' , the same goes for classic shooters like Counterstrike ( beta to 1.6 , non-Source ) .
In essence , the game was good due to simple gameplay , and not graphics .
People still play it actively today because of it .
Today it is ugly , hitboxes are crude at best , and so on , but the gameplay remains hard to beat for an online teambased shooter.It 's really too bad , but understandable that the industry is mostly going for the 'easy buck ' by implementing the good graphics games and running with them .
It generates revenue , so so what if it does n't become a legend in the industry ? It is a very sad day where companies who champion content and/or gameplay over graphics have trouble finding publishers and funding .
Troika , we 'll never forget you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While games with flashy graphics often work well when they're just released, they quickly die after they age and newer &amp; graphically better games are released.It's the game with superior gameplay and/or superior content that live forever.
Take Fallout (the first), it is immortal due to its content (story, setting &amp; atmosphere are excellent) and solid gameplay (real decisions, tactical combat,...).
This while the graphics were very mediocre when released (we're talking the same era as HL1, people tend to forget that), and some gameplay was severely defective (companions, scrolling the inventory, money,...).But before someone tells me to 'get with the times' and 'stop championing ancient outdated turn-based games', the same goes for classic shooters like Counterstrike (beta to 1.6, non-Source).
In essence, the game was good due to simple gameplay, and not graphics.
People still play it actively today because of it.
Today it is ugly, hitboxes are crude at best, and so on, but the gameplay remains hard to beat for an online teambased shooter.It's really too bad, but understandable that the industry is mostly going for the 'easy buck' by implementing the good graphics games and running with them.
It generates revenue, so so what if it doesn't become a legend in the industry?It is a very sad day where companies who champion content and/or gameplay over graphics have trouble finding publishers and funding.
Troika, we'll never forget you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637571</id>
	<title>They just need to be good enough</title>
	<author>frenchbedroom</author>
	<datestamp>1247157960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good graphics are definitely not important to me, but they need to be "good enough". There are two main criteria for "good enough graphics" : "readability", i.e. you can recognize what's on the screen (ground, water, sword, skeleton...), and "coherence", i.e the artwork is homogeneous (balanced color scheme, same level of detail for every object...). But yes, the gameplay trumps it all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good graphics are definitely not important to me , but they need to be " good enough " .
There are two main criteria for " good enough graphics " : " readability " , i.e .
you can recognize what 's on the screen ( ground , water , sword , skeleton... ) , and " coherence " , i.e the artwork is homogeneous ( balanced color scheme , same level of detail for every object... ) .
But yes , the gameplay trumps it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good graphics are definitely not important to me, but they need to be "good enough".
There are two main criteria for "good enough graphics" : "readability", i.e.
you can recognize what's on the screen (ground, water, sword, skeleton...), and "coherence", i.e the artwork is homogeneous (balanced color scheme, same level of detail for every object...).
But yes, the gameplay trumps it all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634621</id>
	<title>It's the hook.</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1247144160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The importance is fairly simple in my ape brain.</p><p>1. It's the hook.<br>When you stroll down the street.  All of a sudden you see that creature of amazing beauty.  You are captivated.<br>At this point in time you know nothing else about this person.  All you know is the visual physical form. No other positive attribute has been expressed.  You have been hooked.</p><p>2. It stimulates "The" primary sense.<br>Ask any woman out there.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) You tickle that part of the anatomy that contains both a huge bundle of nerves and a large portion of the brain devoted to processing the signals from that bundle and you are basically playing with a future addiction.  The brain enjoys processing this vast input.</p><p>3. Similar to #2.  As one of your senses if you stimulate it in the appropriate manor the body will release a suite of pleasure drugs.</p><p>Basically graphics are immensely important to mass adoption of a video game or most products these days.  There will always be a subset of people with more abstract cognitive abilities that derive pleasure the more complex aspects that do not involve graphics.  But they are a subset.  Graphics are critical in appealing to the masses.  Case in point anything Apple.  Stunningly designed products, mass visual appeal.  But are apple products the pinnacle of current technology? No.</p><p>No better proof of these statements is the Television.  Over night this changed world social interaction.  Video games are simply one of the evolutionary steps of the television.   The questions is.  "Where is this evolution going to lead?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The importance is fairly simple in my ape brain.1 .
It 's the hook.When you stroll down the street .
All of a sudden you see that creature of amazing beauty .
You are captivated.At this point in time you know nothing else about this person .
All you know is the visual physical form .
No other positive attribute has been expressed .
You have been hooked.2 .
It stimulates " The " primary sense.Ask any woman out there .
: ) You tickle that part of the anatomy that contains both a huge bundle of nerves and a large portion of the brain devoted to processing the signals from that bundle and you are basically playing with a future addiction .
The brain enjoys processing this vast input.3 .
Similar to # 2 .
As one of your senses if you stimulate it in the appropriate manor the body will release a suite of pleasure drugs.Basically graphics are immensely important to mass adoption of a video game or most products these days .
There will always be a subset of people with more abstract cognitive abilities that derive pleasure the more complex aspects that do not involve graphics .
But they are a subset .
Graphics are critical in appealing to the masses .
Case in point anything Apple .
Stunningly designed products , mass visual appeal .
But are apple products the pinnacle of current technology ?
No.No better proof of these statements is the Television .
Over night this changed world social interaction .
Video games are simply one of the evolutionary steps of the television .
The questions is .
" Where is this evolution going to lead ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The importance is fairly simple in my ape brain.1.
It's the hook.When you stroll down the street.
All of a sudden you see that creature of amazing beauty.
You are captivated.At this point in time you know nothing else about this person.
All you know is the visual physical form.
No other positive attribute has been expressed.
You have been hooked.2.
It stimulates "The" primary sense.Ask any woman out there.
:) You tickle that part of the anatomy that contains both a huge bundle of nerves and a large portion of the brain devoted to processing the signals from that bundle and you are basically playing with a future addiction.
The brain enjoys processing this vast input.3.
Similar to #2.
As one of your senses if you stimulate it in the appropriate manor the body will release a suite of pleasure drugs.Basically graphics are immensely important to mass adoption of a video game or most products these days.
There will always be a subset of people with more abstract cognitive abilities that derive pleasure the more complex aspects that do not involve graphics.
But they are a subset.
Graphics are critical in appealing to the masses.
Case in point anything Apple.
Stunningly designed products, mass visual appeal.
But are apple products the pinnacle of current technology?
No.No better proof of these statements is the Television.
Over night this changed world social interaction.
Video games are simply one of the evolutionary steps of the television.
The questions is.
"Where is this evolution going to lead?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28648519</id>
	<title>dude</title>
	<author>po134</author>
	<datestamp>1247235120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just spent over 1'400$ on a PC and I expect my new games to look better than old one (for example BF3 &gt; BF2, CSS &gt; CS), but of course for casual gaming I don't care, but these games aren't the one I spent 3-4hours a day for the past year on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just spent over 1'400 $ on a PC and I expect my new games to look better than old one ( for example BF3 &gt; BF2 , CSS &gt; CS ) , but of course for casual gaming I do n't care , but these games are n't the one I spent 3-4hours a day for the past year on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just spent over 1'400$ on a PC and I expect my new games to look better than old one (for example BF3 &gt; BF2, CSS &gt; CS), but of course for casual gaming I don't care, but these games aren't the one I spent 3-4hours a day for the past year on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634305</id>
	<title>Lemmings</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1247140260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemmings" title="wikipedia.org">Lemmings</a> [wikipedia.org] was a game that occasionally invoked a few gulps from me. It was hardly realistic graphics -- this was a game built on the idea of making creature graphics as small (pixel-wise) as possible yet still produce a recognisable humanoid figure. You tend to treasure the little critters more when you need to save all of them (in the harder levels), and there's always the chance that there'll be one more trap waiting for death a few pixels further onward.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lemmings [ wikipedia.org ] was a game that occasionally invoked a few gulps from me .
It was hardly realistic graphics -- this was a game built on the idea of making creature graphics as small ( pixel-wise ) as possible yet still produce a recognisable humanoid figure .
You tend to treasure the little critters more when you need to save all of them ( in the harder levels ) , and there 's always the chance that there 'll be one more trap waiting for death a few pixels further onward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lemmings [wikipedia.org] was a game that occasionally invoked a few gulps from me.
It was hardly realistic graphics -- this was a game built on the idea of making creature graphics as small (pixel-wise) as possible yet still produce a recognisable humanoid figure.
You tend to treasure the little critters more when you need to save all of them (in the harder levels), and there's always the chance that there'll be one more trap waiting for death a few pixels further onward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637171</id>
	<title>An interesting dilemma...</title>
	<author>genw3st</author>
	<datestamp>1247156280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It should go without saying that the most important part of any video game is the game play; game play is the reason someone typically purchases a game. A pretty picture with beautiful graphics offers no real game play, and if Crysis were text-based it might feel a bit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... primitive, rudimentary.
<br> <br>
I think that video games and movies share the same problems and dilemmas - especially now that CGI sequences are a dime a dozen. There are directors and producers that would rather use a simple camera trick to pull off special effects, and there are those that would rather spend $100,000,000 on CGI sequences. Is either method incorrect? Not necessarily...
<br> <br>
Those who produce and direct games or movies need to focus on the end product - their actual goal. By intelligently and thoughtfully incorporating each and every available method, and properly using each tool, they can create a masterpiece. A game's claim to fame shouldn't be based solely on it's graphics, game mechanics - or physics engine. A truly well-made game utilizes everything to the necessary extent in order to fulfill the creators' vision or goal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It should go without saying that the most important part of any video game is the game play ; game play is the reason someone typically purchases a game .
A pretty picture with beautiful graphics offers no real game play , and if Crysis were text-based it might feel a bit ... primitive , rudimentary .
I think that video games and movies share the same problems and dilemmas - especially now that CGI sequences are a dime a dozen .
There are directors and producers that would rather use a simple camera trick to pull off special effects , and there are those that would rather spend $ 100,000,000 on CGI sequences .
Is either method incorrect ?
Not necessarily.. . Those who produce and direct games or movies need to focus on the end product - their actual goal .
By intelligently and thoughtfully incorporating each and every available method , and properly using each tool , they can create a masterpiece .
A game 's claim to fame should n't be based solely on it 's graphics , game mechanics - or physics engine .
A truly well-made game utilizes everything to the necessary extent in order to fulfill the creators ' vision or goal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It should go without saying that the most important part of any video game is the game play; game play is the reason someone typically purchases a game.
A pretty picture with beautiful graphics offers no real game play, and if Crysis were text-based it might feel a bit ... primitive, rudimentary.
I think that video games and movies share the same problems and dilemmas - especially now that CGI sequences are a dime a dozen.
There are directors and producers that would rather use a simple camera trick to pull off special effects, and there are those that would rather spend $100,000,000 on CGI sequences.
Is either method incorrect?
Not necessarily...
 
Those who produce and direct games or movies need to focus on the end product - their actual goal.
By intelligently and thoughtfully incorporating each and every available method, and properly using each tool, they can create a masterpiece.
A game's claim to fame shouldn't be based solely on it's graphics, game mechanics - or physics engine.
A truly well-made game utilizes everything to the necessary extent in order to fulfill the creators' vision or goal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638609</id>
	<title>It's Relative</title>
	<author>rawrfarr</author>
	<datestamp>1247162640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The graphics should fit the game. If the game is focusing on realism then the physics engine and graphics should attempt to impress even the most critical customers. Games like Crysis focus on trying to make the player feel like they're really a special forces soldier doing everything they see on the screen. Other games like Team Fortress 2 take a more comical approach and so the cell-shading is welcome. Portable turn-based games are more about strategy and out-smarting the computer so graphics aren't important so long as you know what symbols mean.

So realistic graphics don't make a game good unless it's aiming to be realistic. Games that appeal to other aspects of entertainment like fun or thought-provoking don't need graphics to impress me so long as they don't take away from the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The graphics should fit the game .
If the game is focusing on realism then the physics engine and graphics should attempt to impress even the most critical customers .
Games like Crysis focus on trying to make the player feel like they 're really a special forces soldier doing everything they see on the screen .
Other games like Team Fortress 2 take a more comical approach and so the cell-shading is welcome .
Portable turn-based games are more about strategy and out-smarting the computer so graphics are n't important so long as you know what symbols mean .
So realistic graphics do n't make a game good unless it 's aiming to be realistic .
Games that appeal to other aspects of entertainment like fun or thought-provoking do n't need graphics to impress me so long as they do n't take away from the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The graphics should fit the game.
If the game is focusing on realism then the physics engine and graphics should attempt to impress even the most critical customers.
Games like Crysis focus on trying to make the player feel like they're really a special forces soldier doing everything they see on the screen.
Other games like Team Fortress 2 take a more comical approach and so the cell-shading is welcome.
Portable turn-based games are more about strategy and out-smarting the computer so graphics aren't important so long as you know what symbols mean.
So realistic graphics don't make a game good unless it's aiming to be realistic.
Games that appeal to other aspects of entertainment like fun or thought-provoking don't need graphics to impress me so long as they don't take away from the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634171</id>
	<title>The traditional gimmic</title>
	<author>pizzach</author>
	<datestamp>1247139060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Graphics are the traditional gimmic.  No more no less.  Most people who say they can't go back to old TVs or old games tend to be exaggerating on prima donna levels.  "How could I ever look at something so ugly!?  I have been brought up civilized!"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics are the traditional gimmic .
No more no less .
Most people who say they ca n't go back to old TVs or old games tend to be exaggerating on prima donna levels .
" How could I ever look at something so ugly ! ?
I have been brought up civilized !
" : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics are the traditional gimmic.
No more no less.
Most people who say they can't go back to old TVs or old games tend to be exaggerating on prima donna levels.
"How could I ever look at something so ugly!?
I have been brought up civilized!
" :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28649651</id>
	<title>Whats the importance of Graphics in Video Games?</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1247240160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the importance of having eyes on a Human Being?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the importance of having eyes on a Human Being ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the importance of having eyes on a Human Being?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731</id>
	<title>I hate photorealism in video games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247134740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I want reality, I turn off the computer. As for video games, they should:</p><p>1. Have graphics simple enough to quickly locate usable objects without having to strain through all the distractions. Myst series is a bad offender, especially since the objective is to solve puzzles.<br>2. Take you to an alternative world to take your mind away from real life<br>3. Be installable on a typical hard drive in dozens, without a need to hunt for - or worse swap - CDs or DVDs<br>4. Be playable in half an hour intervals, so that someone with kids can also participate.</p><p>I have the disposable income to buy pretty much all the titles I like and have time to play. Yet, chiefly because of #4, I am mostly downloading DOS games from abandon ware sites. I would gladly pay if someone was selling them for reasonable price and with instant download available. As a hobbyist, I think you would do well to write some adventure-style games and gain some audience without competition from most commercial developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want reality , I turn off the computer .
As for video games , they should : 1 .
Have graphics simple enough to quickly locate usable objects without having to strain through all the distractions .
Myst series is a bad offender , especially since the objective is to solve puzzles.2 .
Take you to an alternative world to take your mind away from real life3 .
Be installable on a typical hard drive in dozens , without a need to hunt for - or worse swap - CDs or DVDs4 .
Be playable in half an hour intervals , so that someone with kids can also participate.I have the disposable income to buy pretty much all the titles I like and have time to play .
Yet , chiefly because of # 4 , I am mostly downloading DOS games from abandon ware sites .
I would gladly pay if someone was selling them for reasonable price and with instant download available .
As a hobbyist , I think you would do well to write some adventure-style games and gain some audience without competition from most commercial developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want reality, I turn off the computer.
As for video games, they should:1.
Have graphics simple enough to quickly locate usable objects without having to strain through all the distractions.
Myst series is a bad offender, especially since the objective is to solve puzzles.2.
Take you to an alternative world to take your mind away from real life3.
Be installable on a typical hard drive in dozens, without a need to hunt for - or worse swap - CDs or DVDs4.
Be playable in half an hour intervals, so that someone with kids can also participate.I have the disposable income to buy pretty much all the titles I like and have time to play.
Yet, chiefly because of #4, I am mostly downloading DOS games from abandon ware sites.
I would gladly pay if someone was selling them for reasonable price and with instant download available.
As a hobbyist, I think you would do well to write some adventure-style games and gain some audience without competition from most commercial developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633655</id>
	<title>It depends...</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1247134020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are on an island, and sneaking, laying in the grass and you are about to encounter your alien overlords in an invasion, then the realistic graphics are a must. It's all part of the experience. Nobody is going to care about your game if the aliens invasion is on a 8bit coloured gameboy.</p><p>If you are playing an adventure game Mario/Crash Bandicoot style then your obviously want to keep in basic and cartoony.</p><p>If you... bla bla bla you get the point; it dependss on the game you make. The graphics are nothing more than a visual presentation of what you are doing, and so the visual presentation should match the type of game you are playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are on an island , and sneaking , laying in the grass and you are about to encounter your alien overlords in an invasion , then the realistic graphics are a must .
It 's all part of the experience .
Nobody is going to care about your game if the aliens invasion is on a 8bit coloured gameboy.If you are playing an adventure game Mario/Crash Bandicoot style then your obviously want to keep in basic and cartoony.If you... bla bla bla you get the point ; it dependss on the game you make .
The graphics are nothing more than a visual presentation of what you are doing , and so the visual presentation should match the type of game you are playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are on an island, and sneaking, laying in the grass and you are about to encounter your alien overlords in an invasion, then the realistic graphics are a must.
It's all part of the experience.
Nobody is going to care about your game if the aliens invasion is on a 8bit coloured gameboy.If you are playing an adventure game Mario/Crash Bandicoot style then your obviously want to keep in basic and cartoony.If you... bla bla bla you get the point; it dependss on the game you make.
The graphics are nothing more than a visual presentation of what you are doing, and so the visual presentation should match the type of game you are playing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28666387</id>
	<title>Re:Would you have watched ID4 or Transformers?</title>
	<author>masterzora</author>
	<datestamp>1247398680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Transformers</i> and <i>ID4</i> aren't exactly my goto movies that demonstrate great cinema.  Sure, their graphics were the important bit, but that's because they weren't really spectacular on the whole.</p><p> <i>Star Wars</i>, while certainly state-of-the-art of the time, has proven that the necessary threshold for its special effects was hit in the 70s.  We got <i>Star Wars</i> as George Lucas supposedly envisioned it with sufficiently advanced special effects and, you know what? We cried for our old beloved to return because the new stuff was ruining our childhoods.</p><p> <i>The Matrix</i>, I will grant you, but consider also that it would have been worthless if it only stood on its graphics.  It was a work the required the fusion of <i>a certain threshold</i> of good special effects and superb writing.  That is why we'll still look back fondly on <i>The Matrix</i> in 50 years after it looks dated, but we'll still be shamed by <i>Revolutions</i>, which uses the same great effects, but has terrible writing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Transformers and ID4 are n't exactly my goto movies that demonstrate great cinema .
Sure , their graphics were the important bit , but that 's because they were n't really spectacular on the whole .
Star Wars , while certainly state-of-the-art of the time , has proven that the necessary threshold for its special effects was hit in the 70s .
We got Star Wars as George Lucas supposedly envisioned it with sufficiently advanced special effects and , you know what ?
We cried for our old beloved to return because the new stuff was ruining our childhoods .
The Matrix , I will grant you , but consider also that it would have been worthless if it only stood on its graphics .
It was a work the required the fusion of a certain threshold of good special effects and superb writing .
That is why we 'll still look back fondly on The Matrix in 50 years after it looks dated , but we 'll still be shamed by Revolutions , which uses the same great effects , but has terrible writing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Transformers and ID4 aren't exactly my goto movies that demonstrate great cinema.
Sure, their graphics were the important bit, but that's because they weren't really spectacular on the whole.
Star Wars, while certainly state-of-the-art of the time, has proven that the necessary threshold for its special effects was hit in the 70s.
We got Star Wars as George Lucas supposedly envisioned it with sufficiently advanced special effects and, you know what?
We cried for our old beloved to return because the new stuff was ruining our childhoods.
The Matrix, I will grant you, but consider also that it would have been worthless if it only stood on its graphics.
It was a work the required the fusion of a certain threshold of good special effects and superb writing.
That is why we'll still look back fondly on The Matrix in 50 years after it looks dated, but we'll still be shamed by Revolutions, which uses the same great effects, but has terrible writing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636725</id>
	<title>Not everyone</title>
	<author>jon3k</author>
	<datestamp>1247154660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the rest of the world doesn't agree with your views.  You're a game developer, you're going to be probably more of a purist than the end-gamer (is that a term?).  That's like saying, why do we have Blu-Ray?  I just care about the plot and history of the movie.  <br> <br>The obvious question is, why shouldn't gamers expect it all?  Compelling gameplay, great story lines and breathtaking graphics?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the rest of the world does n't agree with your views .
You 're a game developer , you 're going to be probably more of a purist than the end-gamer ( is that a term ? ) .
That 's like saying , why do we have Blu-Ray ?
I just care about the plot and history of the movie .
The obvious question is , why should n't gamers expect it all ?
Compelling gameplay , great story lines and breathtaking graphics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the rest of the world doesn't agree with your views.
You're a game developer, you're going to be probably more of a purist than the end-gamer (is that a term?).
That's like saying, why do we have Blu-Ray?
I just care about the plot and history of the movie.
The obvious question is, why shouldn't gamers expect it all?
Compelling gameplay, great story lines and breathtaking graphics?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633741</id>
	<title>Most computers can't run full graphic glory anyway</title>
	<author>warewolfsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1247134800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually wonder why game developers bother when most computers can't run games at there full resolution anyway. Most mere mortals put up with crappy graphics so we can enjoy skip free game play. It usually take me two computer upgrades to be able to run an old game at its full resolution. Game play has always been the priority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually wonder why game developers bother when most computers ca n't run games at there full resolution anyway .
Most mere mortals put up with crappy graphics so we can enjoy skip free game play .
It usually take me two computer upgrades to be able to run an old game at its full resolution .
Game play has always been the priority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually wonder why game developers bother when most computers can't run games at there full resolution anyway.
Most mere mortals put up with crappy graphics so we can enjoy skip free game play.
It usually take me two computer upgrades to be able to run an old game at its full resolution.
Game play has always been the priority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638041</id>
	<title>Realistic graphics kill your imagination</title>
	<author>benob</author>
	<datestamp>1247160300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nethack, tome or privateer ascii sector, are my favorite games. You get much more imaginative with ascii art.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nethack , tome or privateer ascii sector , are my favorite games .
You get much more imaginative with ascii art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nethack, tome or privateer ascii sector, are my favorite games.
You get much more imaginative with ascii art.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28642349</id>
	<title>graphics vs playability (by toru iwatani)</title>
	<author>johnrpenner</author>
	<datestamp>1247134440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Games are not Movies. The emotions and catharsis one gets from movies<br>can only come from that source. The film maker waives the magic for<br>two hours or so. But the game maker has to come up with a fun, enjoyable<br>interactive 'experience' which runs on hardware. I fear all these<br>improvements in graphic power are turning many games into movie-like<br>experiences which are missing on the essential nature of what a game is.<br>(Toru Iwatani, creator of PacMan)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games are not Movies .
The emotions and catharsis one gets from moviescan only come from that source .
The film maker waives the magic fortwo hours or so .
But the game maker has to come up with a fun , enjoyableinteractive 'experience ' which runs on hardware .
I fear all theseimprovements in graphic power are turning many games into movie-likeexperiences which are missing on the essential nature of what a game is .
( Toru Iwatani , creator of PacMan )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games are not Movies.
The emotions and catharsis one gets from moviescan only come from that source.
The film maker waives the magic fortwo hours or so.
But the game maker has to come up with a fun, enjoyableinteractive 'experience' which runs on hardware.
I fear all theseimprovements in graphic power are turning many games into movie-likeexperiences which are missing on the essential nature of what a game is.
(Toru Iwatani, creator of PacMan)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634401</id>
	<title>Re:I hate photorealism in video games</title>
	<author>pbhj</author>
	<datestamp>1247141640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>World of Goo is great but it doesn't satisfy my frag-lust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>World of Goo is great but it does n't satisfy my frag-lust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World of Goo is great but it doesn't satisfy my frag-lust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633765</id>
	<title>Depends on the game...</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1247134920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it's CounterStrike or GTA IV, there's no such thing as "too realistic". Even in most fantasy/sci-fi settings like say Oblivion or Fallout 3 you expect fire to act like fire, water to act like water and so on.</p><p>Other games are just about putting you in the right mood, like say Super Mario Galaxy - it's a cartoon. Or pretty much everything from Telltale like Sam &amp; Max, Wallace &amp; Gromit, Monkey Island etc. Where it's important but not realism-important, where a 3D CGI animation can deliver a visual gag the way lesser graphics can't.</p><p>Finally, there's games where it doesn't matter. I play chess from time to time with a black and white 2D board, plain as it gets. Because I'm playing people and it's about the strategy, not the battle chess animations (though that was fun for fun's sake too).</p><p>I'm just one person but the importance of graphics vary from "very high" to "very low" for me alone, suggesting there is no answer. Look at your genre, is it important? Yes, then it's important. If you don't want to compete aganst all that, you can find a genre where it's not. If you still want to get in on the graphicly intense stuff, make a creative new game with decent graphics and try taking them on head-to-head in a sequel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's CounterStrike or GTA IV , there 's no such thing as " too realistic " .
Even in most fantasy/sci-fi settings like say Oblivion or Fallout 3 you expect fire to act like fire , water to act like water and so on.Other games are just about putting you in the right mood , like say Super Mario Galaxy - it 's a cartoon .
Or pretty much everything from Telltale like Sam &amp; Max , Wallace &amp; Gromit , Monkey Island etc .
Where it 's important but not realism-important , where a 3D CGI animation can deliver a visual gag the way lesser graphics ca n't.Finally , there 's games where it does n't matter .
I play chess from time to time with a black and white 2D board , plain as it gets .
Because I 'm playing people and it 's about the strategy , not the battle chess animations ( though that was fun for fun 's sake too ) .I 'm just one person but the importance of graphics vary from " very high " to " very low " for me alone , suggesting there is no answer .
Look at your genre , is it important ?
Yes , then it 's important .
If you do n't want to compete aganst all that , you can find a genre where it 's not .
If you still want to get in on the graphicly intense stuff , make a creative new game with decent graphics and try taking them on head-to-head in a sequel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's CounterStrike or GTA IV, there's no such thing as "too realistic".
Even in most fantasy/sci-fi settings like say Oblivion or Fallout 3 you expect fire to act like fire, water to act like water and so on.Other games are just about putting you in the right mood, like say Super Mario Galaxy - it's a cartoon.
Or pretty much everything from Telltale like Sam &amp; Max, Wallace &amp; Gromit, Monkey Island etc.
Where it's important but not realism-important, where a 3D CGI animation can deliver a visual gag the way lesser graphics can't.Finally, there's games where it doesn't matter.
I play chess from time to time with a black and white 2D board, plain as it gets.
Because I'm playing people and it's about the strategy, not the battle chess animations (though that was fun for fun's sake too).I'm just one person but the importance of graphics vary from "very high" to "very low" for me alone, suggesting there is no answer.
Look at your genre, is it important?
Yes, then it's important.
If you don't want to compete aganst all that, you can find a genre where it's not.
If you still want to get in on the graphicly intense stuff, make a creative new game with decent graphics and try taking them on head-to-head in a sequel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635645</id>
	<title>Graphics ARE gameplay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247150640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphics ARE gameplay. These are not my words but those of one of the writers at Rock Paper Shotgun.</p><p>It's something I've always thought myself.</p><p>Talking about gameplay and graphics as separate things is like talking about gameplay without talking about the goals or rules of a game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics ARE gameplay .
These are not my words but those of one of the writers at Rock Paper Shotgun.It 's something I 've always thought myself.Talking about gameplay and graphics as separate things is like talking about gameplay without talking about the goals or rules of a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics ARE gameplay.
These are not my words but those of one of the writers at Rock Paper Shotgun.It's something I've always thought myself.Talking about gameplay and graphics as separate things is like talking about gameplay without talking about the goals or rules of a game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636007</id>
	<title>Graphics are incredibly important... BUT...</title>
	<author>Roogna</author>
	<datestamp>1247152260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By saying that I don't mean that they have to be "state of the art photorealistic 3d" or any such thing.  The graphics must have a good artistic style to them, and be consistent visually with the rest of the game itself.</p><p>My experience is that while gameplay is equally important, the best game gameplay wise won't keep me playing without "good" graphics. Just as fantastic graphics won't keep one playing if the gameplay sucks, and that doesn't mean say, nethack doesn't have good graphics, the ascii map  is exactly what the game needs to be fun.  So it's plenty good enough.  On the other side I've seen games with the most fantastic modern up-to-date 3d engines, that are so barren and boring visually that who cares that the engine is good, who can even tell, the graphics are crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By saying that I do n't mean that they have to be " state of the art photorealistic 3d " or any such thing .
The graphics must have a good artistic style to them , and be consistent visually with the rest of the game itself.My experience is that while gameplay is equally important , the best game gameplay wise wo n't keep me playing without " good " graphics .
Just as fantastic graphics wo n't keep one playing if the gameplay sucks , and that does n't mean say , nethack does n't have good graphics , the ascii map is exactly what the game needs to be fun .
So it 's plenty good enough .
On the other side I 've seen games with the most fantastic modern up-to-date 3d engines , that are so barren and boring visually that who cares that the engine is good , who can even tell , the graphics are crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By saying that I don't mean that they have to be "state of the art photorealistic 3d" or any such thing.
The graphics must have a good artistic style to them, and be consistent visually with the rest of the game itself.My experience is that while gameplay is equally important, the best game gameplay wise won't keep me playing without "good" graphics.
Just as fantastic graphics won't keep one playing if the gameplay sucks, and that doesn't mean say, nethack doesn't have good graphics, the ascii map  is exactly what the game needs to be fun.
So it's plenty good enough.
On the other side I've seen games with the most fantastic modern up-to-date 3d engines, that are so barren and boring visually that who cares that the engine is good, who can even tell, the graphics are crap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635021</id>
	<title>Physics and AI</title>
	<author>WDRev</author>
	<datestamp>1247147460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently the graphics only have to be as good as Castle Wolfenstein to satisfy my brain.  That's the first game that caused me to bob my head to see around a corner on my monitor.  Compared to today's games, Castle Wolfenstein is about like Pokemon, though I've never played Pokemon so I'm guessing.

On the other hand, I get a different kind of enjoyment out of the graphics when they succeed in bringing distant objects into the field of vision and paint things with actual photos of things.

I agree the game play is the most important.  Nobody wants to spend hours overcoming the same challenge in slightly different circumstances over and over again.  I get a bigger kick out of a good physics engine and amusingly good AI than the graphics.  I was highly impressed when I was the subject of vehicular hot pursuit in Far Cry and when I turned around to try a head-on confrontation with the pursuers, they veered off the road and crashed into a boulder, blowing up themselves and their vehicle.  It may have been a random binary accident but I was very impressed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently the graphics only have to be as good as Castle Wolfenstein to satisfy my brain .
That 's the first game that caused me to bob my head to see around a corner on my monitor .
Compared to today 's games , Castle Wolfenstein is about like Pokemon , though I 've never played Pokemon so I 'm guessing .
On the other hand , I get a different kind of enjoyment out of the graphics when they succeed in bringing distant objects into the field of vision and paint things with actual photos of things .
I agree the game play is the most important .
Nobody wants to spend hours overcoming the same challenge in slightly different circumstances over and over again .
I get a bigger kick out of a good physics engine and amusingly good AI than the graphics .
I was highly impressed when I was the subject of vehicular hot pursuit in Far Cry and when I turned around to try a head-on confrontation with the pursuers , they veered off the road and crashed into a boulder , blowing up themselves and their vehicle .
It may have been a random binary accident but I was very impressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently the graphics only have to be as good as Castle Wolfenstein to satisfy my brain.
That's the first game that caused me to bob my head to see around a corner on my monitor.
Compared to today's games, Castle Wolfenstein is about like Pokemon, though I've never played Pokemon so I'm guessing.
On the other hand, I get a different kind of enjoyment out of the graphics when they succeed in bringing distant objects into the field of vision and paint things with actual photos of things.
I agree the game play is the most important.
Nobody wants to spend hours overcoming the same challenge in slightly different circumstances over and over again.
I get a bigger kick out of a good physics engine and amusingly good AI than the graphics.
I was highly impressed when I was the subject of vehicular hot pursuit in Far Cry and when I turned around to try a head-on confrontation with the pursuers, they veered off the road and crashed into a boulder, blowing up themselves and their vehicle.
It may have been a random binary accident but I was very impressed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635379</id>
	<title>Depends</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247149380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think some poeple just want to push the envelope, which is great. There will always be an audience for the latest and most amazing graphics even if it is temporary.</p><p>But I think most good delelopers know that while engaging visuals are important, it comes secondary to gameplay and mechanics.</p><p>Perosnally, I will always try a demo of a game showing off the latest graphics (I am a visual artist), but if the gameplay is terrible or passe, it gets deleted quickly no matter how beautiful it is, it is definitely not enough to keep a game around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think some poeple just want to push the envelope , which is great .
There will always be an audience for the latest and most amazing graphics even if it is temporary.But I think most good delelopers know that while engaging visuals are important , it comes secondary to gameplay and mechanics.Perosnally , I will always try a demo of a game showing off the latest graphics ( I am a visual artist ) , but if the gameplay is terrible or passe , it gets deleted quickly no matter how beautiful it is , it is definitely not enough to keep a game around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think some poeple just want to push the envelope, which is great.
There will always be an audience for the latest and most amazing graphics even if it is temporary.But I think most good delelopers know that while engaging visuals are important, it comes secondary to gameplay and mechanics.Perosnally, I will always try a demo of a game showing off the latest graphics (I am a visual artist), but if the gameplay is terrible or passe, it gets deleted quickly no matter how beautiful it is, it is definitely not enough to keep a game around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634743</id>
	<title>Re:Graphics Are Not the Key to a Great Game</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1247145300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, it is easier for a manager to create a business plan for "the best graphical engine out there" than for "the best gameplay out there". The first one is a technical problem of solving a complex engineering task, the second one requires creativity, this pesky thing so hard to quantify.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it is easier for a manager to create a business plan for " the best graphical engine out there " than for " the best gameplay out there " .
The first one is a technical problem of solving a complex engineering task , the second one requires creativity , this pesky thing so hard to quantify .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it is easier for a manager to create a business plan for "the best graphical engine out there" than for "the best gameplay out there".
The first one is a technical problem of solving a complex engineering task, the second one requires creativity, this pesky thing so hard to quantify.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641905</id>
	<title>In the end...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247132460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphics style is more important than graphics quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics style is more important than graphics quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics style is more important than graphics quality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634355</id>
	<title>Importance of graphics? Sales</title>
	<author>bradley13</author>
	<datestamp>1247140860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think most<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers and all hardcore games will agree: graphics take second place to storyline. However, what interests the big game companies are sales figures. What drives game sales? By far the most important are articles and reviews. How many reviewers actually spend more than an hour or two playing the game? Having "wow" graphics are important to making a good impression. The fact that the gameplay had problems will eventually come out, but only after hundreds of thousands of copies have been sold.

</p><p>Mass Effect is the most recent mistake I have personally seen. It great reviews! The graphics really are pretty (though not as good as expected, given the system requirements). And the gameplay? There are four scenarios with some depth. All of the other encounters use the same small set of maps, with one or the other door welded shut - very repetitive. Using personal weapons is reasonably well done, but vehicle weapons are a joke. The main storyline is complete, but many secondary stories either never finish, or end abruptly - more was clearly intended, but never implemented.

</p><p>In short: the graphics are pretty, but the gameplay is just good enough to get by the reviewers who spend a couple of hours with the game. Play any longer, and all the shortcomings become glaringly obvious. But that's ok, it has already sold its million copies...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most / .
readers and all hardcore games will agree : graphics take second place to storyline .
However , what interests the big game companies are sales figures .
What drives game sales ?
By far the most important are articles and reviews .
How many reviewers actually spend more than an hour or two playing the game ?
Having " wow " graphics are important to making a good impression .
The fact that the gameplay had problems will eventually come out , but only after hundreds of thousands of copies have been sold .
Mass Effect is the most recent mistake I have personally seen .
It great reviews !
The graphics really are pretty ( though not as good as expected , given the system requirements ) .
And the gameplay ?
There are four scenarios with some depth .
All of the other encounters use the same small set of maps , with one or the other door welded shut - very repetitive .
Using personal weapons is reasonably well done , but vehicle weapons are a joke .
The main storyline is complete , but many secondary stories either never finish , or end abruptly - more was clearly intended , but never implemented .
In short : the graphics are pretty , but the gameplay is just good enough to get by the reviewers who spend a couple of hours with the game .
Play any longer , and all the shortcomings become glaringly obvious .
But that 's ok , it has already sold its million copies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most /.
readers and all hardcore games will agree: graphics take second place to storyline.
However, what interests the big game companies are sales figures.
What drives game sales?
By far the most important are articles and reviews.
How many reviewers actually spend more than an hour or two playing the game?
Having "wow" graphics are important to making a good impression.
The fact that the gameplay had problems will eventually come out, but only after hundreds of thousands of copies have been sold.
Mass Effect is the most recent mistake I have personally seen.
It great reviews!
The graphics really are pretty (though not as good as expected, given the system requirements).
And the gameplay?
There are four scenarios with some depth.
All of the other encounters use the same small set of maps, with one or the other door welded shut - very repetitive.
Using personal weapons is reasonably well done, but vehicle weapons are a joke.
The main storyline is complete, but many secondary stories either never finish, or end abruptly - more was clearly intended, but never implemented.
In short: the graphics are pretty, but the gameplay is just good enough to get by the reviewers who spend a couple of hours with the game.
Play any longer, and all the shortcomings become glaringly obvious.
But that's ok, it has already sold its million copies...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635409</id>
	<title>Marketing and Measurability</title>
	<author>wesw02</author>
	<datestamp>1247149500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For me graphics are not a selling point. I would rather play a low quality game that keeps me entertained for weeks than a high res, good looking game that I'm bored of in an hour, especially when I have to shell out the $$.

I think the answer to your question really comes from the marketing. High quality graphics is something that is very easy to sell on, it has an immediate "wow-factor" (to quote the Billy Mays). You can show a 20 second clip of a high res game and very clearly get your message across. However it is much harder to show how enjoyable a low res game is in a commercial setting. (At least that's my take on it).</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me graphics are not a selling point .
I would rather play a low quality game that keeps me entertained for weeks than a high res , good looking game that I 'm bored of in an hour , especially when I have to shell out the $ $ .
I think the answer to your question really comes from the marketing .
High quality graphics is something that is very easy to sell on , it has an immediate " wow-factor " ( to quote the Billy Mays ) .
You can show a 20 second clip of a high res game and very clearly get your message across .
However it is much harder to show how enjoyable a low res game is in a commercial setting .
( At least that 's my take on it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me graphics are not a selling point.
I would rather play a low quality game that keeps me entertained for weeks than a high res, good looking game that I'm bored of in an hour, especially when I have to shell out the $$.
I think the answer to your question really comes from the marketing.
High quality graphics is something that is very easy to sell on, it has an immediate "wow-factor" (to quote the Billy Mays).
You can show a 20 second clip of a high res game and very clearly get your message across.
However it is much harder to show how enjoyable a low res game is in a commercial setting.
(At least that's my take on it).
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635769</id>
	<title>Re:Graphics Are Not the Key to a Great Game</title>
	<author>RazorSharp</author>
	<datestamp>1247151240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately Michael Bay films sell just like Gears of War sells. Some people want stupid, stereotyped characters doing predictable things without providing any insight. People always say that "gameplay" is what makes a game but I think gameplay and graphics are intertwined enough to be one in the same just as special effects and choreography. Sure, you can succeed in one and fail in the other, but failing in just one category makes the game unplayable or the movie unwatchable. Even when the technology is available for all games to have stellar graphics and gameplay games like Halo, which follow the Michael Bay movie formula (faux epics with no aesthetic value - testosterone orgies which focus on the next big explosion) will outsell games like Metal Gear Solid, Shadow of the Colossus, or Killer 7 (which is violent in a Natural Born Killers way - i.e. there's a point at the end).</p><p>Anyway, I agree that it takes more than graphics to make a decent game, but for most graphics will do. Just look at what's #1 in the box office: Transformers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately Michael Bay films sell just like Gears of War sells .
Some people want stupid , stereotyped characters doing predictable things without providing any insight .
People always say that " gameplay " is what makes a game but I think gameplay and graphics are intertwined enough to be one in the same just as special effects and choreography .
Sure , you can succeed in one and fail in the other , but failing in just one category makes the game unplayable or the movie unwatchable .
Even when the technology is available for all games to have stellar graphics and gameplay games like Halo , which follow the Michael Bay movie formula ( faux epics with no aesthetic value - testosterone orgies which focus on the next big explosion ) will outsell games like Metal Gear Solid , Shadow of the Colossus , or Killer 7 ( which is violent in a Natural Born Killers way - i.e .
there 's a point at the end ) .Anyway , I agree that it takes more than graphics to make a decent game , but for most graphics will do .
Just look at what 's # 1 in the box office : Transformers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately Michael Bay films sell just like Gears of War sells.
Some people want stupid, stereotyped characters doing predictable things without providing any insight.
People always say that "gameplay" is what makes a game but I think gameplay and graphics are intertwined enough to be one in the same just as special effects and choreography.
Sure, you can succeed in one and fail in the other, but failing in just one category makes the game unplayable or the movie unwatchable.
Even when the technology is available for all games to have stellar graphics and gameplay games like Halo, which follow the Michael Bay movie formula (faux epics with no aesthetic value - testosterone orgies which focus on the next big explosion) will outsell games like Metal Gear Solid, Shadow of the Colossus, or Killer 7 (which is violent in a Natural Born Killers way - i.e.
there's a point at the end).Anyway, I agree that it takes more than graphics to make a decent game, but for most graphics will do.
Just look at what's #1 in the box office: Transformers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633839</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641373</id>
	<title>Re:I hate photorealism in video games</title>
	<author>patternmatch</author>
	<datestamp>1247173140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I would gladly pay if someone was selling them for reasonable price and with instant download available.</p></div></blockquote><p>You might want to try <a href="http://www.gog.com/" title="gog.com" rel="nofollow">Good Old Games</a> [gog.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would gladly pay if someone was selling them for reasonable price and with instant download available.You might want to try Good Old Games [ gog.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would gladly pay if someone was selling them for reasonable price and with instant download available.You might want to try Good Old Games [gog.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28640983</id>
	<title>Re:Graphics need to be appropriate to the game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247171700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How good are the "graphics" in most books?</p><p>How much of what is physical and visible "IRL" is actually noticed by people even when it's right in front of them?</p><p>The question of the significance of photo-realism is sadly misunderstood by the majority of people, who are simply too ignorant of the psychology of how humans interact with their environment.</p><p>The point of vision, as with any other sense, is to impart information about your environment. Some of that information is practical. Some of it is aesthetic. But how the brain determines what should be consciously noticed, and what should be ignored, is complicated and not fully understood.</p><p>Moreover, since different people are looking for different things, the information that they feel is important will vary. However, since, in a game, there are usually some clear objectives, there's a pretty clear cut way to determine whether particular information is useful. And the fact is, too much window dressing is generally either a distraction, or outright ignored, once the player is deeply immersed in the game. The specific details of the texture of a leaf are probably of little or no consequence to how well a particular plant provides cover (or obstructs your view).</p><p>On the other hand, as has been pointed out, we're stuck with players' expectations. While I don't think "realism" (which we still haven't reached, megatextures notwithstanding) is the actual goal of graphics in a game, there's no doubt that certain graphical features associated with the concept of "realism" (more surface detail, better shadows, etc.) are in fact secondary to qualities which support artistic quality and consistency.</p><p>It is my own pet theory that there is such a thing as harmony of complexity in games. By which I mean that the various elements of a game should be within an order of magnitude of complexity of one another. Three major elements are graphical fidelity, animation, and interactivity. A game in which these three qualities are grossly out of sync will often be frustrating (although there have been very successful exceptions like Myst--different balances may work better or worse in different kinds of games).</p><p>I personally find it very frustrating when a game has highly detailed graphics, but objects which are rendered in spectacular detail feature the appearance of moving parts which don't in fact move, or with which I cannot interact. Many games will go to great lengths to model a number of items on a desk, but they are invariable "nailed down", and the ability to see what cannot also be "touched" (acted upon), is a source of great frustration.</p><p>I'm not disagreeing with your post, RogueyWon, just adding my own angle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How good are the " graphics " in most books ? How much of what is physical and visible " IRL " is actually noticed by people even when it 's right in front of them ? The question of the significance of photo-realism is sadly misunderstood by the majority of people , who are simply too ignorant of the psychology of how humans interact with their environment.The point of vision , as with any other sense , is to impart information about your environment .
Some of that information is practical .
Some of it is aesthetic .
But how the brain determines what should be consciously noticed , and what should be ignored , is complicated and not fully understood.Moreover , since different people are looking for different things , the information that they feel is important will vary .
However , since , in a game , there are usually some clear objectives , there 's a pretty clear cut way to determine whether particular information is useful .
And the fact is , too much window dressing is generally either a distraction , or outright ignored , once the player is deeply immersed in the game .
The specific details of the texture of a leaf are probably of little or no consequence to how well a particular plant provides cover ( or obstructs your view ) .On the other hand , as has been pointed out , we 're stuck with players ' expectations .
While I do n't think " realism " ( which we still have n't reached , megatextures notwithstanding ) is the actual goal of graphics in a game , there 's no doubt that certain graphical features associated with the concept of " realism " ( more surface detail , better shadows , etc .
) are in fact secondary to qualities which support artistic quality and consistency.It is my own pet theory that there is such a thing as harmony of complexity in games .
By which I mean that the various elements of a game should be within an order of magnitude of complexity of one another .
Three major elements are graphical fidelity , animation , and interactivity .
A game in which these three qualities are grossly out of sync will often be frustrating ( although there have been very successful exceptions like Myst--different balances may work better or worse in different kinds of games ) .I personally find it very frustrating when a game has highly detailed graphics , but objects which are rendered in spectacular detail feature the appearance of moving parts which do n't in fact move , or with which I can not interact .
Many games will go to great lengths to model a number of items on a desk , but they are invariable " nailed down " , and the ability to see what can not also be " touched " ( acted upon ) , is a source of great frustration.I 'm not disagreeing with your post , RogueyWon , just adding my own angle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How good are the "graphics" in most books?How much of what is physical and visible "IRL" is actually noticed by people even when it's right in front of them?The question of the significance of photo-realism is sadly misunderstood by the majority of people, who are simply too ignorant of the psychology of how humans interact with their environment.The point of vision, as with any other sense, is to impart information about your environment.
Some of that information is practical.
Some of it is aesthetic.
But how the brain determines what should be consciously noticed, and what should be ignored, is complicated and not fully understood.Moreover, since different people are looking for different things, the information that they feel is important will vary.
However, since, in a game, there are usually some clear objectives, there's a pretty clear cut way to determine whether particular information is useful.
And the fact is, too much window dressing is generally either a distraction, or outright ignored, once the player is deeply immersed in the game.
The specific details of the texture of a leaf are probably of little or no consequence to how well a particular plant provides cover (or obstructs your view).On the other hand, as has been pointed out, we're stuck with players' expectations.
While I don't think "realism" (which we still haven't reached, megatextures notwithstanding) is the actual goal of graphics in a game, there's no doubt that certain graphical features associated with the concept of "realism" (more surface detail, better shadows, etc.
) are in fact secondary to qualities which support artistic quality and consistency.It is my own pet theory that there is such a thing as harmony of complexity in games.
By which I mean that the various elements of a game should be within an order of magnitude of complexity of one another.
Three major elements are graphical fidelity, animation, and interactivity.
A game in which these three qualities are grossly out of sync will often be frustrating (although there have been very successful exceptions like Myst--different balances may work better or worse in different kinds of games).I personally find it very frustrating when a game has highly detailed graphics, but objects which are rendered in spectacular detail feature the appearance of moving parts which don't in fact move, or with which I cannot interact.
Many games will go to great lengths to model a number of items on a desk, but they are invariable "nailed down", and the ability to see what cannot also be "touched" (acted upon), is a source of great frustration.I'm not disagreeing with your post, RogueyWon, just adding my own angle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636699</id>
	<title>Simple Wisdom</title>
	<author>dyingtolive</author>
	<datestamp>1247154600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nethack did not need flashy graphics to be fun.<br>
Neither did Ultima 7.<br>
Neither did Fallout 1 and 2.<br>
Neither did Zork.<br>
Neither did Civilization 3.<br>
Neither did Heroes of Might and Magic 2.<br>
Neither did Postal 2. <br> <br>

I remember these games more fondly than I remember Battlefield 2, Quake 4, Doom 3, Oblivion, Neverwinter Nights 1 or 2, Civ 4, Farcry, Fallout 3, HoMM 5 and so on.<br> <br>

It may just be that I'm remembering them through the rose tinted spectacles, but I don't think so.  I'm pretty sure that you did not need solid graphics to make a game that was enjoyable.  Hell, I remember games that pretty much died before they went gold where the alpha demo release was more fun than most games I've played since [Please reference "Amulets and Armor" and "AIWars"].  Here is a good idea if you want to write good games:<br> <br>
STOP WORRYING ABOUT GRAPHICS.  START WORRYING ABOUT STORY.  I don't care that you're utilizing all 5,000,000,000 pixel pipelines to render the most lifelike water possible.  In fact, I don't want you to.  That's right.  It is a waste of money on everyone's part (yours, R mine, bigger faster hardware) that everyone is better off not dealing with.  Modern gaming is often like giving a shiny new paint job to your dented up old 1992 Cavalier.  It still doesn't change the fact that you're trying to polish a turd.  Stop half-heartedly implementing story affecting elements.  I don't want an illusion of a choice.  I want an actual choice.  I'm looking at you, KotOR (and Infamous, and KotOR 2). If you're going to have some sort of morality system, make it be believable issues of morality, and not just two oversimplified choices such as "Devour the orphans" and "Build them a new orphanage".  May as well just ask me straight up in the beginning if I want a blue lightsaber or a red one, and then just skip straight to action.  Stop insulting me with your watered down plot and actually give me something to muse about.  For examples of this, see Fallout 1 or 2, or possibly Planescape: Torment if you can actually find a copy.<br> <br>

Pretty water is nice for a tech demo or if you're making a CG movie, but as I understand, games don't have the budget that Hollywood can come up with, so if you're dumping coin into pizzaz, then you're taking coin from story writing and making the plot more in-depth.<br> <br>

And for fuck's sake, bring back co-op multiplayer and LAN play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nethack did not need flashy graphics to be fun .
Neither did Ultima 7 .
Neither did Fallout 1 and 2 .
Neither did Zork .
Neither did Civilization 3 .
Neither did Heroes of Might and Magic 2 .
Neither did Postal 2 .
I remember these games more fondly than I remember Battlefield 2 , Quake 4 , Doom 3 , Oblivion , Neverwinter Nights 1 or 2 , Civ 4 , Farcry , Fallout 3 , HoMM 5 and so on .
It may just be that I 'm remembering them through the rose tinted spectacles , but I do n't think so .
I 'm pretty sure that you did not need solid graphics to make a game that was enjoyable .
Hell , I remember games that pretty much died before they went gold where the alpha demo release was more fun than most games I 've played since [ Please reference " Amulets and Armor " and " AIWars " ] .
Here is a good idea if you want to write good games : STOP WORRYING ABOUT GRAPHICS .
START WORRYING ABOUT STORY .
I do n't care that you 're utilizing all 5,000,000,000 pixel pipelines to render the most lifelike water possible .
In fact , I do n't want you to .
That 's right .
It is a waste of money on everyone 's part ( yours , R mine , bigger faster hardware ) that everyone is better off not dealing with .
Modern gaming is often like giving a shiny new paint job to your dented up old 1992 Cavalier .
It still does n't change the fact that you 're trying to polish a turd .
Stop half-heartedly implementing story affecting elements .
I do n't want an illusion of a choice .
I want an actual choice .
I 'm looking at you , KotOR ( and Infamous , and KotOR 2 ) .
If you 're going to have some sort of morality system , make it be believable issues of morality , and not just two oversimplified choices such as " Devour the orphans " and " Build them a new orphanage " .
May as well just ask me straight up in the beginning if I want a blue lightsaber or a red one , and then just skip straight to action .
Stop insulting me with your watered down plot and actually give me something to muse about .
For examples of this , see Fallout 1 or 2 , or possibly Planescape : Torment if you can actually find a copy .
Pretty water is nice for a tech demo or if you 're making a CG movie , but as I understand , games do n't have the budget that Hollywood can come up with , so if you 're dumping coin into pizzaz , then you 're taking coin from story writing and making the plot more in-depth .
And for fuck 's sake , bring back co-op multiplayer and LAN play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nethack did not need flashy graphics to be fun.
Neither did Ultima 7.
Neither did Fallout 1 and 2.
Neither did Zork.
Neither did Civilization 3.
Neither did Heroes of Might and Magic 2.
Neither did Postal 2.
I remember these games more fondly than I remember Battlefield 2, Quake 4, Doom 3, Oblivion, Neverwinter Nights 1 or 2, Civ 4, Farcry, Fallout 3, HoMM 5 and so on.
It may just be that I'm remembering them through the rose tinted spectacles, but I don't think so.
I'm pretty sure that you did not need solid graphics to make a game that was enjoyable.
Hell, I remember games that pretty much died before they went gold where the alpha demo release was more fun than most games I've played since [Please reference "Amulets and Armor" and "AIWars"].
Here is a good idea if you want to write good games: 
STOP WORRYING ABOUT GRAPHICS.
START WORRYING ABOUT STORY.
I don't care that you're utilizing all 5,000,000,000 pixel pipelines to render the most lifelike water possible.
In fact, I don't want you to.
That's right.
It is a waste of money on everyone's part (yours, R mine, bigger faster hardware) that everyone is better off not dealing with.
Modern gaming is often like giving a shiny new paint job to your dented up old 1992 Cavalier.
It still doesn't change the fact that you're trying to polish a turd.
Stop half-heartedly implementing story affecting elements.
I don't want an illusion of a choice.
I want an actual choice.
I'm looking at you, KotOR (and Infamous, and KotOR 2).
If you're going to have some sort of morality system, make it be believable issues of morality, and not just two oversimplified choices such as "Devour the orphans" and "Build them a new orphanage".
May as well just ask me straight up in the beginning if I want a blue lightsaber or a red one, and then just skip straight to action.
Stop insulting me with your watered down plot and actually give me something to muse about.
For examples of this, see Fallout 1 or 2, or possibly Planescape: Torment if you can actually find a copy.
Pretty water is nice for a tech demo or if you're making a CG movie, but as I understand, games don't have the budget that Hollywood can come up with, so if you're dumping coin into pizzaz, then you're taking coin from story writing and making the plot more in-depth.
And for fuck's sake, bring back co-op multiplayer and LAN play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28639971</id>
	<title>Bring on the Eye Candy!</title>
	<author>Mordstrom</author>
	<datestamp>1247167740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TOA is crap IMHO.  When the new content is released for  WoW, the VERY first thing I do is crank the video settings all the way to max and go see what surprises that developers have hidden away in little corners of the universe.  I have found a few (admittedly very few)  vistas in areas areas of Azeroth that are visually stunning when you view them from the right spot.  I have heard that people would actually watch the sunsets in UltimaOnline. (though I have never played that one) I want more of this and I want it to change with time. More realism, not less; and better graphics engines that allow darkness and light to become a playable challenge in the game.  Snow,wind and rain that are more than just cheesy random visual effects.  Trees that look as good up close as they do from the air. An engine that can intelligently paint/scale a texture applied over a large surface so you don't see the repetitions so clearly.  I love walking around the Blood-Elf areas in WoW because much more care was taken in that area than in the other areas.  I guess it all depends on what you play the game for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>TOA is crap IMHO .
When the new content is released for WoW , the VERY first thing I do is crank the video settings all the way to max and go see what surprises that developers have hidden away in little corners of the universe .
I have found a few ( admittedly very few ) vistas in areas areas of Azeroth that are visually stunning when you view them from the right spot .
I have heard that people would actually watch the sunsets in UltimaOnline .
( though I have never played that one ) I want more of this and I want it to change with time .
More realism , not less ; and better graphics engines that allow darkness and light to become a playable challenge in the game .
Snow,wind and rain that are more than just cheesy random visual effects .
Trees that look as good up close as they do from the air .
An engine that can intelligently paint/scale a texture applied over a large surface so you do n't see the repetitions so clearly .
I love walking around the Blood-Elf areas in WoW because much more care was taken in that area than in the other areas .
I guess it all depends on what you play the game for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TOA is crap IMHO.
When the new content is released for  WoW, the VERY first thing I do is crank the video settings all the way to max and go see what surprises that developers have hidden away in little corners of the universe.
I have found a few (admittedly very few)  vistas in areas areas of Azeroth that are visually stunning when you view them from the right spot.
I have heard that people would actually watch the sunsets in UltimaOnline.
(though I have never played that one) I want more of this and I want it to change with time.
More realism, not less; and better graphics engines that allow darkness and light to become a playable challenge in the game.
Snow,wind and rain that are more than just cheesy random visual effects.
Trees that look as good up close as they do from the air.
An engine that can intelligently paint/scale a texture applied over a large surface so you don't see the repetitions so clearly.
I love walking around the Blood-Elf areas in WoW because much more care was taken in that area than in the other areas.
I guess it all depends on what you play the game for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635009</id>
	<title>Gameplay is key; not graphics</title>
	<author>alexbfree</author>
	<datestamp>1247147400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphics are a bonus but totally not required. I have seen so many terrible games with great graphics (mostly movie spin-offs).
</p><p>Download a copy of <a href="http://www.mkw.me.uk/beebem/" title="mkw.me.uk" rel="nofollow">BeebEm</a> [mkw.me.uk] (BBC B Emulator) then go download <a href="http://www.stairwaytohell.com/bbc/archive/diskimages/Superior/Repton3.zip" title="stairwaytohell.com" rel="nofollow">Repton 3</a> [stairwaytohell.com]. This is a great example of a great game with poor graphics (mainly due to its age).
</p><p>This is still one of my all time favourite games (I've been playing it on and off for over 20 years!) because it has good puzzles and to be a good player you have to have good timing and your wits about you.
</p><p>The graphics are very simplistic (3 colours!) but good enough that you can recognise things.
</p><p>In the modern era, my favourite game is Portal. The graphics are reasonable, and do take advantage of graphics cards, but certainly not at the level of Crysis.
</p><p>They got it right by doing lots of user testing (check out their "developer commentaries" to learn more)
</p><p>So, stick with it. If you get the gameplay right, that's all you need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics are a bonus but totally not required .
I have seen so many terrible games with great graphics ( mostly movie spin-offs ) .
Download a copy of BeebEm [ mkw.me.uk ] ( BBC B Emulator ) then go download Repton 3 [ stairwaytohell.com ] .
This is a great example of a great game with poor graphics ( mainly due to its age ) .
This is still one of my all time favourite games ( I 've been playing it on and off for over 20 years !
) because it has good puzzles and to be a good player you have to have good timing and your wits about you .
The graphics are very simplistic ( 3 colours !
) but good enough that you can recognise things .
In the modern era , my favourite game is Portal .
The graphics are reasonable , and do take advantage of graphics cards , but certainly not at the level of Crysis .
They got it right by doing lots of user testing ( check out their " developer commentaries " to learn more ) So , stick with it .
If you get the gameplay right , that 's all you need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics are a bonus but totally not required.
I have seen so many terrible games with great graphics (mostly movie spin-offs).
Download a copy of BeebEm [mkw.me.uk] (BBC B Emulator) then go download Repton 3 [stairwaytohell.com].
This is a great example of a great game with poor graphics (mainly due to its age).
This is still one of my all time favourite games (I've been playing it on and off for over 20 years!
) because it has good puzzles and to be a good player you have to have good timing and your wits about you.
The graphics are very simplistic (3 colours!
) but good enough that you can recognise things.
In the modern era, my favourite game is Portal.
The graphics are reasonable, and do take advantage of graphics cards, but certainly not at the level of Crysis.
They got it right by doing lots of user testing (check out their "developer commentaries" to learn more)
So, stick with it.
If you get the gameplay right, that's all you need.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635051</id>
	<title>It's all about sales</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247147580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to remember it's selling the games that are important. If you put to games side by side that you haven't played you will probably pick up the more visually appealing of the too if you have no other knowledge about the game.</p><p>Rest assured that most people picking up the game have little or no knowledge about the title.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to remember it 's selling the games that are important .
If you put to games side by side that you have n't played you will probably pick up the more visually appealing of the too if you have no other knowledge about the game.Rest assured that most people picking up the game have little or no knowledge about the title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to remember it's selling the games that are important.
If you put to games side by side that you haven't played you will probably pick up the more visually appealing of the too if you have no other knowledge about the game.Rest assured that most people picking up the game have little or no knowledge about the title.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638347</id>
	<title>Re:This issue was thoroughly hashed out in the 199</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1247161560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you not read his post or are you just unable to comprehend English? Starcraft had great graphics when it was released.  I can remember as a kid how cool the cut scenes were and how I couldn't wait for the next one.  But the core of Starcraft is fantastic gameplay and balance.  That is what makes people keep coming back for more.  Do you think if Starcraft was released today it would be as popular?  Of course not, people wouldn't be able to get over the awful resolution.  But since we played it when it was new and the graphics are good, we know the gameplay to be great and keep playing it.<br> <br>Furthermore, right in the guy's post he states that the graphics need to match a games settings.  A simple puzzle game doesn't need to look like Crysis.  But Crysis would sucks pretty hard if it had Tetris level graphics.  Understand?  Graphics don't have to be cutting edge, but they have to be good enough that they don't detract from the gameplay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you not read his post or are you just unable to comprehend English ?
Starcraft had great graphics when it was released .
I can remember as a kid how cool the cut scenes were and how I could n't wait for the next one .
But the core of Starcraft is fantastic gameplay and balance .
That is what makes people keep coming back for more .
Do you think if Starcraft was released today it would be as popular ?
Of course not , people would n't be able to get over the awful resolution .
But since we played it when it was new and the graphics are good , we know the gameplay to be great and keep playing it .
Furthermore , right in the guy 's post he states that the graphics need to match a games settings .
A simple puzzle game does n't need to look like Crysis .
But Crysis would sucks pretty hard if it had Tetris level graphics .
Understand ? Graphics do n't have to be cutting edge , but they have to be good enough that they do n't detract from the gameplay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you not read his post or are you just unable to comprehend English?
Starcraft had great graphics when it was released.
I can remember as a kid how cool the cut scenes were and how I couldn't wait for the next one.
But the core of Starcraft is fantastic gameplay and balance.
That is what makes people keep coming back for more.
Do you think if Starcraft was released today it would be as popular?
Of course not, people wouldn't be able to get over the awful resolution.
But since we played it when it was new and the graphics are good, we know the gameplay to be great and keep playing it.
Furthermore, right in the guy's post he states that the graphics need to match a games settings.
A simple puzzle game doesn't need to look like Crysis.
But Crysis would sucks pretty hard if it had Tetris level graphics.
Understand?  Graphics don't have to be cutting edge, but they have to be good enough that they don't detract from the gameplay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28645029</id>
	<title>2 camps here.</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1247148780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first is the nintendo generation.  They rely on gameplay simply because their systems can't support bleeding edge graphics.</p><p>The other camp is the one that can have both.</p><p>It's more than just about gameplay.</p><p>One example:  Mirror's edge.</p><p>The real version has great graphics and amazing gameplay.<br>The 2d platform version has fun gameplay and stylized kitschy graphics.</p><p>Both are fun.  Only the real version is what the designer intended.  Anything else is a watered down version to run on inferior hardware.</p><p>The whole argument is just moot anyway.  Yes, you can have both.</p><p>That's not what the question is though.  The question is a business one.  It demands you ask what the largest return will be.  What platform has the greatest audience/customer base?  Then develop for that platform.  Graphics are important.  Gameplay is important.  These days, one without the other won't do well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first is the nintendo generation .
They rely on gameplay simply because their systems ca n't support bleeding edge graphics.The other camp is the one that can have both.It 's more than just about gameplay.One example : Mirror 's edge.The real version has great graphics and amazing gameplay.The 2d platform version has fun gameplay and stylized kitschy graphics.Both are fun .
Only the real version is what the designer intended .
Anything else is a watered down version to run on inferior hardware.The whole argument is just moot anyway .
Yes , you can have both.That 's not what the question is though .
The question is a business one .
It demands you ask what the largest return will be .
What platform has the greatest audience/customer base ?
Then develop for that platform .
Graphics are important .
Gameplay is important .
These days , one without the other wo n't do well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first is the nintendo generation.
They rely on gameplay simply because their systems can't support bleeding edge graphics.The other camp is the one that can have both.It's more than just about gameplay.One example:  Mirror's edge.The real version has great graphics and amazing gameplay.The 2d platform version has fun gameplay and stylized kitschy graphics.Both are fun.
Only the real version is what the designer intended.
Anything else is a watered down version to run on inferior hardware.The whole argument is just moot anyway.
Yes, you can have both.That's not what the question is though.
The question is a business one.
It demands you ask what the largest return will be.
What platform has the greatest audience/customer base?
Then develop for that platform.
Graphics are important.
Gameplay is important.
These days, one without the other won't do well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635235</id>
	<title>3D Graphics?</title>
	<author>M-RES</author>
	<datestamp>1247148660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait up, you're telling me there are games now with 3D graphics? Woah, that's like, craaaaazy man.</p><p>Still I don't see the point of it. I know that my little yellow dude with the pie-slice mouth eating the little dots is the good guy and the arch-shapes with raggedy bottoms are 'ghosts' and that's all the graphical information I need. I say sound is more important. Wakka wakka wakka wakka... eat them up yum yum</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait up , you 're telling me there are games now with 3D graphics ?
Woah , that 's like , craaaaazy man.Still I do n't see the point of it .
I know that my little yellow dude with the pie-slice mouth eating the little dots is the good guy and the arch-shapes with raggedy bottoms are 'ghosts ' and that 's all the graphical information I need .
I say sound is more important .
Wakka wakka wakka wakka... eat them up yum yum</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait up, you're telling me there are games now with 3D graphics?
Woah, that's like, craaaaazy man.Still I don't see the point of it.
I know that my little yellow dude with the pie-slice mouth eating the little dots is the good guy and the arch-shapes with raggedy bottoms are 'ghosts' and that's all the graphical information I need.
I say sound is more important.
Wakka wakka wakka wakka... eat them up yum yum</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635015</id>
	<title>"Good enough"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247147400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the graphics are capable of showing me what I am doing, clearly, and accurately representing what it is the game developers mean for me to be thinking I am seeing, then I think the graphics are "good enough".  More eye candy is always fun, but not necessary to make a good game.  Half-Life was graphically good because the developers a) made an interesting world that could be represented effectively with the system resources they had available and b) they used the graphics to represent the game world effectively.</p><p>HL1 is interesting visually because of the unique, interesting environments that you encounter in that game (granted, they are mixed in between long periods of laboratories, offices and air ducts).  Crysis-grade graphics would not have improved HL1, except if the developers took advantage of Crysis-grade graphics to create something more interesting.</p><p>Stylized graphics can be great too, and generally offer more lasting visual appeal than high-grade realistic graphics.  For example, when Nintendo makes a new Zelda game for hardware significantly more powerful than the Wii, Twilight Princess will be eclipsed graphically, but Wind Waker will not because wind-waker is a cartoon.  Same with TF2:  TF2 will not look graphically outdated for a long time, simply because the characters have a distinct look, and are not simply the best approximation of real soldiers that was possible in 2007.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the graphics are capable of showing me what I am doing , clearly , and accurately representing what it is the game developers mean for me to be thinking I am seeing , then I think the graphics are " good enough " .
More eye candy is always fun , but not necessary to make a good game .
Half-Life was graphically good because the developers a ) made an interesting world that could be represented effectively with the system resources they had available and b ) they used the graphics to represent the game world effectively.HL1 is interesting visually because of the unique , interesting environments that you encounter in that game ( granted , they are mixed in between long periods of laboratories , offices and air ducts ) .
Crysis-grade graphics would not have improved HL1 , except if the developers took advantage of Crysis-grade graphics to create something more interesting.Stylized graphics can be great too , and generally offer more lasting visual appeal than high-grade realistic graphics .
For example , when Nintendo makes a new Zelda game for hardware significantly more powerful than the Wii , Twilight Princess will be eclipsed graphically , but Wind Waker will not because wind-waker is a cartoon .
Same with TF2 : TF2 will not look graphically outdated for a long time , simply because the characters have a distinct look , and are not simply the best approximation of real soldiers that was possible in 2007 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the graphics are capable of showing me what I am doing, clearly, and accurately representing what it is the game developers mean for me to be thinking I am seeing, then I think the graphics are "good enough".
More eye candy is always fun, but not necessary to make a good game.
Half-Life was graphically good because the developers a) made an interesting world that could be represented effectively with the system resources they had available and b) they used the graphics to represent the game world effectively.HL1 is interesting visually because of the unique, interesting environments that you encounter in that game (granted, they are mixed in between long periods of laboratories, offices and air ducts).
Crysis-grade graphics would not have improved HL1, except if the developers took advantage of Crysis-grade graphics to create something more interesting.Stylized graphics can be great too, and generally offer more lasting visual appeal than high-grade realistic graphics.
For example, when Nintendo makes a new Zelda game for hardware significantly more powerful than the Wii, Twilight Princess will be eclipsed graphically, but Wind Waker will not because wind-waker is a cartoon.
Same with TF2:  TF2 will not look graphically outdated for a long time, simply because the characters have a distinct look, and are not simply the best approximation of real soldiers that was possible in 2007.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28645727</id>
	<title>Re:Music</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1247155800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Fallout 3 was a great game.</p></div></blockquote><p>

I agree.</p><blockquote><div><p>Graphics were not the best.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Actually, the graphics on Fallout 3 were pretty damn good. Yes they don't look that good on a low end system but if you have that A$650 Geforce 285 then Fallout can and does use it. Story and gameplay were excellent, great visuals were just icing on the cake. It's a shame that the engine Bethedsa used in FO3 was so unstable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fallout 3 was a great game .
I agree.Graphics were not the best .
Actually , the graphics on Fallout 3 were pretty damn good .
Yes they do n't look that good on a low end system but if you have that A $ 650 Geforce 285 then Fallout can and does use it .
Story and gameplay were excellent , great visuals were just icing on the cake .
It 's a shame that the engine Bethedsa used in FO3 was so unstable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fallout 3 was a great game.
I agree.Graphics were not the best.
Actually, the graphics on Fallout 3 were pretty damn good.
Yes they don't look that good on a low end system but if you have that A$650 Geforce 285 then Fallout can and does use it.
Story and gameplay were excellent, great visuals were just icing on the cake.
It's a shame that the engine Bethedsa used in FO3 was so unstable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641251</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637049</id>
	<title>Not to sound cynical but...</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1247155920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The race for realism in a game strikes me as such:</p><p>People do not liek their own reality and seek to create a new one. Thus the more realistic the graphics the closer to their new reality they are.</p><p>When graphics are less realistic (I am not talking about quality) then the direction seems to strike me as an escape from reality rather then an attempt to invent a new reality.</p><p>You will hear code words like "immersion" and "experience" used rather then "entertain" or "enjoy".</p><p>We wary, there are plenty of people that would gladly exchange their material world for a virtual world to their own tastes. People it seems in growing numbers find the real world much to their disliking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The race for realism in a game strikes me as such : People do not liek their own reality and seek to create a new one .
Thus the more realistic the graphics the closer to their new reality they are.When graphics are less realistic ( I am not talking about quality ) then the direction seems to strike me as an escape from reality rather then an attempt to invent a new reality.You will hear code words like " immersion " and " experience " used rather then " entertain " or " enjoy " .We wary , there are plenty of people that would gladly exchange their material world for a virtual world to their own tastes .
People it seems in growing numbers find the real world much to their disliking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The race for realism in a game strikes me as such:People do not liek their own reality and seek to create a new one.
Thus the more realistic the graphics the closer to their new reality they are.When graphics are less realistic (I am not talking about quality) then the direction seems to strike me as an escape from reality rather then an attempt to invent a new reality.You will hear code words like "immersion" and "experience" used rather then "entertain" or "enjoy".We wary, there are plenty of people that would gladly exchange their material world for a virtual world to their own tastes.
People it seems in growing numbers find the real world much to their disliking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28642211</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on the game...</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1247133780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If it's CounterStrike or GTA IV, there's no such thing as "too realistic". </i></p><p>Not sure I agree.  Or at least, there's such a thing as "realistic enough".  Admittedly, it is a moving target.</p><p>I still play CS1.  My official reason for not upgrading is that my graphics hardware only just supports source.  But still, if I really cared I could easily throw a new graphics card in my box for not very much cash, and the rest is up to spec.  CS1 is good enough, though, so I see no pressing reason to spend the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's CounterStrike or GTA IV , there 's no such thing as " too realistic " .
Not sure I agree .
Or at least , there 's such a thing as " realistic enough " .
Admittedly , it is a moving target.I still play CS1 .
My official reason for not upgrading is that my graphics hardware only just supports source .
But still , if I really cared I could easily throw a new graphics card in my box for not very much cash , and the rest is up to spec .
CS1 is good enough , though , so I see no pressing reason to spend the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's CounterStrike or GTA IV, there's no such thing as "too realistic".
Not sure I agree.
Or at least, there's such a thing as "realistic enough".
Admittedly, it is a moving target.I still play CS1.
My official reason for not upgrading is that my graphics hardware only just supports source.
But still, if I really cared I could easily throw a new graphics card in my box for not very much cash, and the rest is up to spec.
CS1 is good enough, though, so I see no pressing reason to spend the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633765</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28642997</id>
	<title>Please De-emphasise graphics</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1247136900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Top-end graphics are usually a significant disadvantage as companies like EA always use it as a lame replacement for actual gameplay. Its got to a point where I purposely avoid games that have high-end graphics as its a sure indicator that the game itself will suck.</p><p>I mean look at Crysis. Other than being fairly pretty, its really just a predictable and yawn-worthy 'shoot everything' game that plays like its on rails. BioShock is even worse. Its basically a movie. There's no way you're not eventually going down that preset path.</p><p>With both games, after you've killed the final boss there is nothing to do but replay exactly the same game. Consequently those games for me had a total installed time of about 2 weeks and their CDs are now just mouldering away on my bookshelf beacuse I have a total lack of desire to waste time replaying exactly the same experience. I already know what every part of it would be like.</p><p>$45 * 2 spent for a total of 2 weeks play doesn't represent good value to me. Honestly I'd rather go and play Tetris or Sudoku. I'm still playing those after years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Top-end graphics are usually a significant disadvantage as companies like EA always use it as a lame replacement for actual gameplay .
Its got to a point where I purposely avoid games that have high-end graphics as its a sure indicator that the game itself will suck.I mean look at Crysis .
Other than being fairly pretty , its really just a predictable and yawn-worthy 'shoot everything ' game that plays like its on rails .
BioShock is even worse .
Its basically a movie .
There 's no way you 're not eventually going down that preset path.With both games , after you 've killed the final boss there is nothing to do but replay exactly the same game .
Consequently those games for me had a total installed time of about 2 weeks and their CDs are now just mouldering away on my bookshelf beacuse I have a total lack of desire to waste time replaying exactly the same experience .
I already know what every part of it would be like. $ 45 * 2 spent for a total of 2 weeks play does n't represent good value to me .
Honestly I 'd rather go and play Tetris or Sudoku .
I 'm still playing those after years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Top-end graphics are usually a significant disadvantage as companies like EA always use it as a lame replacement for actual gameplay.
Its got to a point where I purposely avoid games that have high-end graphics as its a sure indicator that the game itself will suck.I mean look at Crysis.
Other than being fairly pretty, its really just a predictable and yawn-worthy 'shoot everything' game that plays like its on rails.
BioShock is even worse.
Its basically a movie.
There's no way you're not eventually going down that preset path.With both games, after you've killed the final boss there is nothing to do but replay exactly the same game.
Consequently those games for me had a total installed time of about 2 weeks and their CDs are now just mouldering away on my bookshelf beacuse I have a total lack of desire to waste time replaying exactly the same experience.
I already know what every part of it would be like.$45 * 2 spent for a total of 2 weeks play doesn't represent good value to me.
Honestly I'd rather go and play Tetris or Sudoku.
I'm still playing those after years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28651727</id>
	<title>It depends on the gameplay</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247249280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, somebody mentioned star wars and how it could not have existed with the technology from the 1950's cinematics.</p><p>If done properly, better graphics can improve the gameplay.</p><p>Here is an example.  The original star wars arcade vs. the jump to lightspeed expansion for star wars galaxies (screw the main game, I am not talking about that travesty here).</p><p>Now, both of them were space flight shooters.  With the improved graphics also came the ability to highten the collision detection.  Instead of just a hit of miss like in the original 80's vector machine, you can skim the ship and do less damage, do full damage on a specific ship component, target specific ship components.</p><p>Now a game built on graphics is not always better.  Prototype did not get perfect reviews because its graphics were not as good, and not the fact that it was a next gen clone of Hulk: Ultimate Destruction.</p><p>Graphics only matter if they improve gameplay.  If I am playing a FPS, it will not enhance the gameplay if I accidently shoot a wall and a chunk breaks off and uses physics, but does not damage to anything, it just uses physics.  That is a waste of graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , somebody mentioned star wars and how it could not have existed with the technology from the 1950 's cinematics.If done properly , better graphics can improve the gameplay.Here is an example .
The original star wars arcade vs. the jump to lightspeed expansion for star wars galaxies ( screw the main game , I am not talking about that travesty here ) .Now , both of them were space flight shooters .
With the improved graphics also came the ability to highten the collision detection .
Instead of just a hit of miss like in the original 80 's vector machine , you can skim the ship and do less damage , do full damage on a specific ship component , target specific ship components.Now a game built on graphics is not always better .
Prototype did not get perfect reviews because its graphics were not as good , and not the fact that it was a next gen clone of Hulk : Ultimate Destruction.Graphics only matter if they improve gameplay .
If I am playing a FPS , it will not enhance the gameplay if I accidently shoot a wall and a chunk breaks off and uses physics , but does not damage to anything , it just uses physics .
That is a waste of graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, somebody mentioned star wars and how it could not have existed with the technology from the 1950's cinematics.If done properly, better graphics can improve the gameplay.Here is an example.
The original star wars arcade vs. the jump to lightspeed expansion for star wars galaxies (screw the main game, I am not talking about that travesty here).Now, both of them were space flight shooters.
With the improved graphics also came the ability to highten the collision detection.
Instead of just a hit of miss like in the original 80's vector machine, you can skim the ship and do less damage, do full damage on a specific ship component, target specific ship components.Now a game built on graphics is not always better.
Prototype did not get perfect reviews because its graphics were not as good, and not the fact that it was a next gen clone of Hulk: Ultimate Destruction.Graphics only matter if they improve gameplay.
If I am playing a FPS, it will not enhance the gameplay if I accidently shoot a wall and a chunk breaks off and uses physics, but does not damage to anything, it just uses physics.
That is a waste of graphics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638277</id>
	<title>Buy vs Play</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247161260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great graphics are important to persuade people to BUY the game.</p><p>Great gameplay is there to keep people PLAYING the game.</p><p>Of course critic scores and word of mouth about gameplay change minds, but that takes time and when a lot of competing games hit the shelves, it is about graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great graphics are important to persuade people to BUY the game.Great gameplay is there to keep people PLAYING the game.Of course critic scores and word of mouth about gameplay change minds , but that takes time and when a lot of competing games hit the shelves , it is about graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great graphics are important to persuade people to BUY the game.Great gameplay is there to keep people PLAYING the game.Of course critic scores and word of mouth about gameplay change minds, but that takes time and when a lot of competing games hit the shelves, it is about graphics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634101</id>
	<title>I play nethack...</title>
	<author>pedestrian crossing</author>
	<datestamp>1247138280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...you insensitive clod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634711</id>
	<title>Not current!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247145060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?"</p><p>The current generation?  Are you kidding?<br>When I was little I remember getting one of those prima game guides to "Killer Instinct" - a SNES game.  In it was a foreword from one of the project leaders and I distinctly remember him saying something like the following:<br>"With the cry for "more and better" getting louder than ever, the graphics in Killer Instinct..."</p><p>Graphics have ALWAYS been given high importance.  If you look at back of boxes of old MS-DOS games you'll see phrases like "cutting-edge graphics" and "beautiful environments" banded about just as often as they are today.  Ever since computer hardware has been improving, games developers have been trying to push it to its limits, and the primary way to do this has always been to put fancier stuff on the screen.  So don't go pretending that this is an issue that's only just recently occurred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So , why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games ?
" The current generation ?
Are you kidding ? When I was little I remember getting one of those prima game guides to " Killer Instinct " - a SNES game .
In it was a foreword from one of the project leaders and I distinctly remember him saying something like the following : " With the cry for " more and better " getting louder than ever , the graphics in Killer Instinct... " Graphics have ALWAYS been given high importance .
If you look at back of boxes of old MS-DOS games you 'll see phrases like " cutting-edge graphics " and " beautiful environments " banded about just as often as they are today .
Ever since computer hardware has been improving , games developers have been trying to push it to its limits , and the primary way to do this has always been to put fancier stuff on the screen .
So do n't go pretending that this is an issue that 's only just recently occurred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?
"The current generation?
Are you kidding?When I was little I remember getting one of those prima game guides to "Killer Instinct" - a SNES game.
In it was a foreword from one of the project leaders and I distinctly remember him saying something like the following:"With the cry for "more and better" getting louder than ever, the graphics in Killer Instinct..."Graphics have ALWAYS been given high importance.
If you look at back of boxes of old MS-DOS games you'll see phrases like "cutting-edge graphics" and "beautiful environments" banded about just as often as they are today.
Ever since computer hardware has been improving, games developers have been trying to push it to its limits, and the primary way to do this has always been to put fancier stuff on the screen.
So don't go pretending that this is an issue that's only just recently occurred.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635049</id>
	<title>The proof is in the pudding</title>
	<author>Adamazing</author>
	<datestamp>1247147580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>World of Warcraft is the most popular game of all time.  It attracts hardcore power gamers as well as 7 year old power nappers.  The graphics engine for that game has essentially never been upgraded, and most of the graphics are downright cartoony.  Subscription fees alone gross over $150 million every month.  Graphics only sell to hardcore gamers with high end machines, and while they most definitely add a great deal of immersion, many people who play games could care less how much better this water looks than the last game's water.  All that really matters is that it looks good enough, and plays very well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>World of Warcraft is the most popular game of all time .
It attracts hardcore power gamers as well as 7 year old power nappers .
The graphics engine for that game has essentially never been upgraded , and most of the graphics are downright cartoony .
Subscription fees alone gross over $ 150 million every month .
Graphics only sell to hardcore gamers with high end machines , and while they most definitely add a great deal of immersion , many people who play games could care less how much better this water looks than the last game 's water .
All that really matters is that it looks good enough , and plays very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World of Warcraft is the most popular game of all time.
It attracts hardcore power gamers as well as 7 year old power nappers.
The graphics engine for that game has essentially never been upgraded, and most of the graphics are downright cartoony.
Subscription fees alone gross over $150 million every month.
Graphics only sell to hardcore gamers with high end machines, and while they most definitely add a great deal of immersion, many people who play games could care less how much better this water looks than the last game's water.
All that really matters is that it looks good enough, and plays very well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637899</id>
	<title>Style is more important</title>
	<author>drexlor</author>
	<datestamp>1247159520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft's xbox community requires that the style be consistent throughout the game.  This is more important (in their game acceptance criteria) than how flashy the graphics are.  They want a person to be able to identify the game if they see a picture of any random unit, building, weapon, or anything like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's xbox community requires that the style be consistent throughout the game .
This is more important ( in their game acceptance criteria ) than how flashy the graphics are .
They want a person to be able to identify the game if they see a picture of any random unit , building , weapon , or anything like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's xbox community requires that the style be consistent throughout the game.
This is more important (in their game acceptance criteria) than how flashy the graphics are.
They want a person to be able to identify the game if they see a picture of any random unit, building, weapon, or anything like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28639853</id>
	<title>Split...</title>
	<author>7Prime</author>
	<datestamp>1247167320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's very obvious that there is a fairly deep schism in whether or not players care about graphis. This stems from the two fundimental reasons why we play video games. The first is to "play" the game, the second is to "experience" the game. Many people are a mixture of these two things, but you'll find a lot of people (especially geeks on slashdot) that don't care or even WANT to experience, they just want to play. Playing is challenging one's mental and physical abilities. SHMuP space shooters are a good example of a game with a high level of play with low level of experience. The purpose of a SHMuP is to challenge oneself through rediculously difficult trials. There is no attempt to experience the feeling of actually being in a spaceship, as most of the action is highly stylized and simply an excuse for the gameplay. On the flipside, you have the experiencial side of gaming, which stems from a pure entertainment/artistic side of us which wants to experience an interactive environment. RPGs and adventure games tend to appeal to the experiencial side of gaming more than most genres. Often, the gameplay is actually secondary to the experience: the gameplay being simply a reason to be in the environment, and to give direction in order to move a player one experience to another.</p><p>Every player has a certain balance between play and experience that they wish to have, though this also can change depending upon mood or state of mind. Most gamers tend to want their games to have a mixture of both. However, there are a few gamers who play games for ONE reason alone: the challenge. They have no interest in the gaming experience, in fact, many of them feel that the experiencial side gets in the way of their ability to achieve mastery over the gameplay.</p><p>Even within these reasons for playing, there are different stylistic differences: some experiencial players wish to have a high level of control over their experience, while others want to let go and be taken on a dramatic journey. Some experiencial players emphasize realism, others wish to be immersed in stylized environments that are drastically different from the world we normally experience.</p><p>There are no real right and wrongs in all of this. The Video Game genre spans an incredibly wide area of interests and philosphies. It's more a meta-genre, incorporating elements of both arts/entertainment as well as skill challenges. Some people subscribe to the notion that one aspect of these is wrong. If someone suggests that experience has no place in games and the genres of cinema and literature being fully capable of sustaining a person's experiencial desire, then I ask them, "but what if I wish to be an interactive part in exploring and controlling a fantasy world?" they're usually at loss for an answer, because games is the only place in which that is possible. So games provide an outlet for certain aspects of experience and challenge that no other genre can. Therefor, both are reasonable and both are here to stay. Both are worthwhile endevours to both create and play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's very obvious that there is a fairly deep schism in whether or not players care about graphis .
This stems from the two fundimental reasons why we play video games .
The first is to " play " the game , the second is to " experience " the game .
Many people are a mixture of these two things , but you 'll find a lot of people ( especially geeks on slashdot ) that do n't care or even WANT to experience , they just want to play .
Playing is challenging one 's mental and physical abilities .
SHMuP space shooters are a good example of a game with a high level of play with low level of experience .
The purpose of a SHMuP is to challenge oneself through rediculously difficult trials .
There is no attempt to experience the feeling of actually being in a spaceship , as most of the action is highly stylized and simply an excuse for the gameplay .
On the flipside , you have the experiencial side of gaming , which stems from a pure entertainment/artistic side of us which wants to experience an interactive environment .
RPGs and adventure games tend to appeal to the experiencial side of gaming more than most genres .
Often , the gameplay is actually secondary to the experience : the gameplay being simply a reason to be in the environment , and to give direction in order to move a player one experience to another.Every player has a certain balance between play and experience that they wish to have , though this also can change depending upon mood or state of mind .
Most gamers tend to want their games to have a mixture of both .
However , there are a few gamers who play games for ONE reason alone : the challenge .
They have no interest in the gaming experience , in fact , many of them feel that the experiencial side gets in the way of their ability to achieve mastery over the gameplay.Even within these reasons for playing , there are different stylistic differences : some experiencial players wish to have a high level of control over their experience , while others want to let go and be taken on a dramatic journey .
Some experiencial players emphasize realism , others wish to be immersed in stylized environments that are drastically different from the world we normally experience.There are no real right and wrongs in all of this .
The Video Game genre spans an incredibly wide area of interests and philosphies .
It 's more a meta-genre , incorporating elements of both arts/entertainment as well as skill challenges .
Some people subscribe to the notion that one aspect of these is wrong .
If someone suggests that experience has no place in games and the genres of cinema and literature being fully capable of sustaining a person 's experiencial desire , then I ask them , " but what if I wish to be an interactive part in exploring and controlling a fantasy world ?
" they 're usually at loss for an answer , because games is the only place in which that is possible .
So games provide an outlet for certain aspects of experience and challenge that no other genre can .
Therefor , both are reasonable and both are here to stay .
Both are worthwhile endevours to both create and play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's very obvious that there is a fairly deep schism in whether or not players care about graphis.
This stems from the two fundimental reasons why we play video games.
The first is to "play" the game, the second is to "experience" the game.
Many people are a mixture of these two things, but you'll find a lot of people (especially geeks on slashdot) that don't care or even WANT to experience, they just want to play.
Playing is challenging one's mental and physical abilities.
SHMuP space shooters are a good example of a game with a high level of play with low level of experience.
The purpose of a SHMuP is to challenge oneself through rediculously difficult trials.
There is no attempt to experience the feeling of actually being in a spaceship, as most of the action is highly stylized and simply an excuse for the gameplay.
On the flipside, you have the experiencial side of gaming, which stems from a pure entertainment/artistic side of us which wants to experience an interactive environment.
RPGs and adventure games tend to appeal to the experiencial side of gaming more than most genres.
Often, the gameplay is actually secondary to the experience: the gameplay being simply a reason to be in the environment, and to give direction in order to move a player one experience to another.Every player has a certain balance between play and experience that they wish to have, though this also can change depending upon mood or state of mind.
Most gamers tend to want their games to have a mixture of both.
However, there are a few gamers who play games for ONE reason alone: the challenge.
They have no interest in the gaming experience, in fact, many of them feel that the experiencial side gets in the way of their ability to achieve mastery over the gameplay.Even within these reasons for playing, there are different stylistic differences: some experiencial players wish to have a high level of control over their experience, while others want to let go and be taken on a dramatic journey.
Some experiencial players emphasize realism, others wish to be immersed in stylized environments that are drastically different from the world we normally experience.There are no real right and wrongs in all of this.
The Video Game genre spans an incredibly wide area of interests and philosphies.
It's more a meta-genre, incorporating elements of both arts/entertainment as well as skill challenges.
Some people subscribe to the notion that one aspect of these is wrong.
If someone suggests that experience has no place in games and the genres of cinema and literature being fully capable of sustaining a person's experiencial desire, then I ask them, "but what if I wish to be an interactive part in exploring and controlling a fantasy world?
" they're usually at loss for an answer, because games is the only place in which that is possible.
So games provide an outlet for certain aspects of experience and challenge that no other genre can.
Therefor, both are reasonable and both are here to stay.
Both are worthwhile endevours to both create and play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635951</id>
	<title>Graphics are limiting</title>
	<author>shiloh.sharps</author>
	<datestamp>1247152020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to play various Vampire Wars based MUDs and was only limited by my imagination.......
When I play a game with graphics I'm stuck with what's on the screen</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to play various Vampire Wars based MUDs and was only limited by my imagination...... . When I play a game with graphics I 'm stuck with what 's on the screen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to play various Vampire Wars based MUDs and was only limited by my imagination.......
When I play a game with graphics I'm stuck with what's on the screen</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636839</id>
	<title>Graphics...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247155080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a graphics boy... I'll admit.  I love a good plot line and game play mechanic as much as the next guy... but beautiful and highly technical graphics are a sure sale for me every time.  It's like a guy tinkering with his car to see how far he can push his engine... I love seeing companies and programmers producing highly complex, technical, and beautiful graphical scenes.  I think its a true testament to our ingenuity and grants the medium a certain artistic merit when a game is released that is graphically so game-changing that it gets folks even outside of the industry talking about the so-called "realism" of games (case-in-point, Gears of War or Heavy Rain).</p><p>Perhaps that's why I'm just as happy digging through open-source code for real time raytracing demos as I am playing games...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a graphics boy... I 'll admit .
I love a good plot line and game play mechanic as much as the next guy... but beautiful and highly technical graphics are a sure sale for me every time .
It 's like a guy tinkering with his car to see how far he can push his engine... I love seeing companies and programmers producing highly complex , technical , and beautiful graphical scenes .
I think its a true testament to our ingenuity and grants the medium a certain artistic merit when a game is released that is graphically so game-changing that it gets folks even outside of the industry talking about the so-called " realism " of games ( case-in-point , Gears of War or Heavy Rain ) .Perhaps that 's why I 'm just as happy digging through open-source code for real time raytracing demos as I am playing games.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a graphics boy... I'll admit.
I love a good plot line and game play mechanic as much as the next guy... but beautiful and highly technical graphics are a sure sale for me every time.
It's like a guy tinkering with his car to see how far he can push his engine... I love seeing companies and programmers producing highly complex, technical, and beautiful graphical scenes.
I think its a true testament to our ingenuity and grants the medium a certain artistic merit when a game is released that is graphically so game-changing that it gets folks even outside of the industry talking about the so-called "realism" of games (case-in-point, Gears of War or Heavy Rain).Perhaps that's why I'm just as happy digging through open-source code for real time raytracing demos as I am playing games...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634245</id>
	<title>Would you have watched ID4 or Transformers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247139720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....or the Matrix, or Star Wars, etc. if they didn't have amazing visuals?</p><p>There will always be similar games and films that don't have the amazing effects, and still be entertaining - the point is, these are usually outnumbered by those that do - and by a large margin....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....or the Matrix , or Star Wars , etc .
if they did n't have amazing visuals ? There will always be similar games and films that do n't have the amazing effects , and still be entertaining - the point is , these are usually outnumbered by those that do - and by a large margin... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....or the Matrix, or Star Wars, etc.
if they didn't have amazing visuals?There will always be similar games and films that don't have the amazing effects, and still be entertaining - the point is, these are usually outnumbered by those that do - and by a large margin....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636391</id>
	<title>Graphics are NOT important</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1247153580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody name your favourite game.</p><p>Yeah, thats what I thought, no one said Crysis. Your favourite game is never the latest and greatest graphical appeal. Its the most addicting Gameplay, and all Graphics have to do is suffice well enough to understand the gameplay.</p><p>I got into Red Faction: Guerrila Recently. It's graphics are about on par with Mass Effect, which was released like a year ago. What makes it fun is leveling buildings, not the stuble on my character.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody name your favourite game.Yeah , thats what I thought , no one said Crysis .
Your favourite game is never the latest and greatest graphical appeal .
Its the most addicting Gameplay , and all Graphics have to do is suffice well enough to understand the gameplay.I got into Red Faction : Guerrila Recently .
It 's graphics are about on par with Mass Effect , which was released like a year ago .
What makes it fun is leveling buildings , not the stuble on my character .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody name your favourite game.Yeah, thats what I thought, no one said Crysis.
Your favourite game is never the latest and greatest graphical appeal.
Its the most addicting Gameplay, and all Graphics have to do is suffice well enough to understand the gameplay.I got into Red Faction: Guerrila Recently.
It's graphics are about on par with Mass Effect, which was released like a year ago.
What makes it fun is leveling buildings, not the stuble on my character.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634735</id>
	<title>I still play nethack</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1247145300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you insensitive clod.</p><p>Seriously, wtf is wrong with the person writing the title? It's like saying "What's the importance of air for human beings?" or "What's the importance of water in the ocean?"</p><p>Graphics and eye candy should never be substituted for FUN gameplay, but they certainly enhance it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you insensitive clod.Seriously , wtf is wrong with the person writing the title ?
It 's like saying " What 's the importance of air for human beings ?
" or " What 's the importance of water in the ocean ?
" Graphics and eye candy should never be substituted for FUN gameplay , but they certainly enhance it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you insensitive clod.Seriously, wtf is wrong with the person writing the title?
It's like saying "What's the importance of air for human beings?
" or "What's the importance of water in the ocean?
"Graphics and eye candy should never be substituted for FUN gameplay, but they certainly enhance it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633933</id>
	<title>Yes, graphics are important, but..</title>
	<author>daid303</author>
	<datestamp>1247136600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, graphics are important, but they will never fix bad gameplay.<br>
<br>
Crysis had perfect graphics, and not that bad gameplay. Still, it scores low on my list, because it's to short in my opinion. They sacrificed game length for graphics, they shouldn't have.<br>
Braid is a perfect combination of gameplay and graphics, the whole environment blended nicely with the game, and the gameplay was a wonderful experience. It's not that long, but also not that expensive to buy.<br>
The new resident evil on the Wii is a perfect example of fail in my opinion. The graphics show horrible aliasing and the controls work frustrating making for a bad experience.<br>
<br>
Now, as a hobby game builder, you don't always have access to perfect graphics. So you'll have to make up with gameplay for that. But still work on the graphics, they are very important. A screenshot can 'sell' your game, if your game looks like an old 8bit nintendo game, it's harder to get people to try it. But not impossible (see 'Cave Story')<br>
<br>
Graphics are also an important gameplay element. I'm working on a GuitarHero clone which plays FretsOnFire songs for the Wii. And I noticed the game became much more enjoyable AND playable with a few very simple effects. As they provided more visual feedback on your actions. <a href="http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4216/57385867.jpg" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">See</a> [imageshack.us] how the dark grey area and small gauge on the left and right don't seem to fit that well. <a href="http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/2832/70658489.jpg" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">A few simple things</a> [imageshack.us] can make a whole lot of difference. The gray star provides feedback that you hit a note, and the rest just makes it more pleasant to look at. While you are playing you don't even notice the backdrops that much, but notice how they caught your attention just now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , graphics are important , but they will never fix bad gameplay .
Crysis had perfect graphics , and not that bad gameplay .
Still , it scores low on my list , because it 's to short in my opinion .
They sacrificed game length for graphics , they should n't have .
Braid is a perfect combination of gameplay and graphics , the whole environment blended nicely with the game , and the gameplay was a wonderful experience .
It 's not that long , but also not that expensive to buy .
The new resident evil on the Wii is a perfect example of fail in my opinion .
The graphics show horrible aliasing and the controls work frustrating making for a bad experience .
Now , as a hobby game builder , you do n't always have access to perfect graphics .
So you 'll have to make up with gameplay for that .
But still work on the graphics , they are very important .
A screenshot can 'sell ' your game , if your game looks like an old 8bit nintendo game , it 's harder to get people to try it .
But not impossible ( see 'Cave Story ' ) Graphics are also an important gameplay element .
I 'm working on a GuitarHero clone which plays FretsOnFire songs for the Wii .
And I noticed the game became much more enjoyable AND playable with a few very simple effects .
As they provided more visual feedback on your actions .
See [ imageshack.us ] how the dark grey area and small gauge on the left and right do n't seem to fit that well .
A few simple things [ imageshack.us ] can make a whole lot of difference .
The gray star provides feedback that you hit a note , and the rest just makes it more pleasant to look at .
While you are playing you do n't even notice the backdrops that much , but notice how they caught your attention just now ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, graphics are important, but they will never fix bad gameplay.
Crysis had perfect graphics, and not that bad gameplay.
Still, it scores low on my list, because it's to short in my opinion.
They sacrificed game length for graphics, they shouldn't have.
Braid is a perfect combination of gameplay and graphics, the whole environment blended nicely with the game, and the gameplay was a wonderful experience.
It's not that long, but also not that expensive to buy.
The new resident evil on the Wii is a perfect example of fail in my opinion.
The graphics show horrible aliasing and the controls work frustrating making for a bad experience.
Now, as a hobby game builder, you don't always have access to perfect graphics.
So you'll have to make up with gameplay for that.
But still work on the graphics, they are very important.
A screenshot can 'sell' your game, if your game looks like an old 8bit nintendo game, it's harder to get people to try it.
But not impossible (see 'Cave Story')

Graphics are also an important gameplay element.
I'm working on a GuitarHero clone which plays FretsOnFire songs for the Wii.
And I noticed the game became much more enjoyable AND playable with a few very simple effects.
As they provided more visual feedback on your actions.
See [imageshack.us] how the dark grey area and small gauge on the left and right don't seem to fit that well.
A few simple things [imageshack.us] can make a whole lot of difference.
The gray star provides feedback that you hit a note, and the rest just makes it more pleasant to look at.
While you are playing you don't even notice the backdrops that much, but notice how they caught your attention just now ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634111</id>
	<title>Immersion, not realism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247138340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think your assumption is wrong, people don't want realism, they want immersion.</p><p>A lot of detail in graphics helps provide that immersion, that escape from reality. While games as Pokemon, Final Fantasy 6, etc. can provide that immersion as well, once the player is used to high quality graphics, the lower quality graphics just don't really cut it anymore. Sad, in a way.</p><p>If a game with lower end graphics wants to do 'immersion' well, they have to do better than average on the other aspects of the game (Gameplay, story,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...).</p><p>Just my opinion, discard whenever you see fit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think your assumption is wrong , people do n't want realism , they want immersion.A lot of detail in graphics helps provide that immersion , that escape from reality .
While games as Pokemon , Final Fantasy 6 , etc .
can provide that immersion as well , once the player is used to high quality graphics , the lower quality graphics just do n't really cut it anymore .
Sad , in a way.If a game with lower end graphics wants to do 'immersion ' well , they have to do better than average on the other aspects of the game ( Gameplay , story , ... ) .Just my opinion , discard whenever you see fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think your assumption is wrong, people don't want realism, they want immersion.A lot of detail in graphics helps provide that immersion, that escape from reality.
While games as Pokemon, Final Fantasy 6, etc.
can provide that immersion as well, once the player is used to high quality graphics, the lower quality graphics just don't really cut it anymore.
Sad, in a way.If a game with lower end graphics wants to do 'immersion' well, they have to do better than average on the other aspects of the game (Gameplay, story, ...).Just my opinion, discard whenever you see fit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641251</id>
	<title>Music</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1247172660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fallout 3 was a great game. Graphics were not the best. I think one of may favorite elements what the music which I would think is odd, but I think I felt the same about Bioshock. Done right it establishes the mood and the surroundings just as much as any graphics. Best part is you don't need a 500$ card to take advantage of it either!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fallout 3 was a great game .
Graphics were not the best .
I think one of may favorite elements what the music which I would think is odd , but I think I felt the same about Bioshock .
Done right it establishes the mood and the surroundings just as much as any graphics .
Best part is you do n't need a 500 $ card to take advantage of it either !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fallout 3 was a great game.
Graphics were not the best.
I think one of may favorite elements what the music which I would think is odd, but I think I felt the same about Bioshock.
Done right it establishes the mood and the surroundings just as much as any graphics.
Best part is you don't need a 500$ card to take advantage of it either!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635059</id>
	<title>Game Play is first</title>
	<author>ITJC68</author>
	<datestamp>1247147640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a PC gamer I would say the game play is much more important. Graphics are good as long as they are not so intense that it brings the PC to its knees to draw them. I have a decent machine with a good graphics card (Nvidia 8800 GTS). If the graphics are very good but the game play sucks the game will tank. If the game play is really good and the graphics suck you will at least get some followers. Balancing these is the key. Game developers in some companies haven't figured that out yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a PC gamer I would say the game play is much more important .
Graphics are good as long as they are not so intense that it brings the PC to its knees to draw them .
I have a decent machine with a good graphics card ( Nvidia 8800 GTS ) .
If the graphics are very good but the game play sucks the game will tank .
If the game play is really good and the graphics suck you will at least get some followers .
Balancing these is the key .
Game developers in some companies have n't figured that out yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a PC gamer I would say the game play is much more important.
Graphics are good as long as they are not so intense that it brings the PC to its knees to draw them.
I have a decent machine with a good graphics card (Nvidia 8800 GTS).
If the graphics are very good but the game play sucks the game will tank.
If the game play is really good and the graphics suck you will at least get some followers.
Balancing these is the key.
Game developers in some companies haven't figured that out yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636667</id>
	<title>Immersed in Books</title>
	<author>rpillala</author>
	<datestamp>1247154480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been immersed in a book before, not to mention an interactive fiction game.  I don't mean that I completely forgot that I was holding a book or typing "take no tea."  I just mean that if an experience is compelling enough, it draws you in whether by great description and powerful language or high realism.  Once you abandon a verbal description, you kind of have to rely on the graphics, but a great deal can still be achieved by words, sounds, tones of voice, etc.</p><p>Take Diablo II as an example.  Half the fun of that game is the sound.  This post is getting a bit directionless so I'm going to stop now<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:|</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been immersed in a book before , not to mention an interactive fiction game .
I do n't mean that I completely forgot that I was holding a book or typing " take no tea .
" I just mean that if an experience is compelling enough , it draws you in whether by great description and powerful language or high realism .
Once you abandon a verbal description , you kind of have to rely on the graphics , but a great deal can still be achieved by words , sounds , tones of voice , etc.Take Diablo II as an example .
Half the fun of that game is the sound .
This post is getting a bit directionless so I 'm going to stop now : |</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been immersed in a book before, not to mention an interactive fiction game.
I don't mean that I completely forgot that I was holding a book or typing "take no tea.
"  I just mean that if an experience is compelling enough, it draws you in whether by great description and powerful language or high realism.
Once you abandon a verbal description, you kind of have to rely on the graphics, but a great deal can still be achieved by words, sounds, tones of voice, etc.Take Diablo II as an example.
Half the fun of that game is the sound.
This post is getting a bit directionless so I'm going to stop now :|</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28645329</id>
	<title>My opinion</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1247151480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For example, while the water in some games may not look as good as in Crysis, I can still tell it's water. What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics?</p></div><p>I prefer cartoony and abstract graphics, but I'm not a hardcore gamer.  I play games to escape, so they don't need to mimic real life.</p><p>So, with regard to water:  It doesn't have to look like real water, but it should look COOL and/or FUN.  You can define what COOL and/or FUN is, but I should enjoy looking at it and it should have some artistic merit.</p><p>Heck, for all I care, you could make a fun 2-D platform game using scans of crayon or marker drawings, as long as they are interesting and fun to look at.  On the other hand, realistic but robotic / cold graphics are an immediate turn-off to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , while the water in some games may not look as good as in Crysis , I can still tell it 's water .
What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics ? I prefer cartoony and abstract graphics , but I 'm not a hardcore gamer .
I play games to escape , so they do n't need to mimic real life.So , with regard to water : It does n't have to look like real water , but it should look COOL and/or FUN .
You can define what COOL and/or FUN is , but I should enjoy looking at it and it should have some artistic merit.Heck , for all I care , you could make a fun 2-D platform game using scans of crayon or marker drawings , as long as they are interesting and fun to look at .
On the other hand , realistic but robotic / cold graphics are an immediate turn-off to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, while the water in some games may not look as good as in Crysis, I can still tell it's water.
What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics?I prefer cartoony and abstract graphics, but I'm not a hardcore gamer.
I play games to escape, so they don't need to mimic real life.So, with regard to water:  It doesn't have to look like real water, but it should look COOL and/or FUN.
You can define what COOL and/or FUN is, but I should enjoy looking at it and it should have some artistic merit.Heck, for all I care, you could make a fun 2-D platform game using scans of crayon or marker drawings, as long as they are interesting and fun to look at.
On the other hand, realistic but robotic / cold graphics are an immediate turn-off to me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634411</id>
	<title>You must have balance</title>
	<author>gtirloni</author>
	<datestamp>1247141760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The graphics of the Pok&#195;&#169;mon games entertain me as much as the graphics of Crysis. I think both are beautiful. So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?</i>

You must balance realism, gameplay, etc. Some games will favor one over the other and will get some attention initially... then they'll fade with time.

But I think that's how it works. Some cool graphics technology will be invented and applied to extremes in a given game. Then another title will show up that favors a little bit more gameplay... then another one that mixes both.. that's evolution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The graphics of the Pok     mon games entertain me as much as the graphics of Crysis .
I think both are beautiful .
So , why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games ?
You must balance realism , gameplay , etc .
Some games will favor one over the other and will get some attention initially... then they 'll fade with time .
But I think that 's how it works .
Some cool graphics technology will be invented and applied to extremes in a given game .
Then another title will show up that favors a little bit more gameplay... then another one that mixes both.. that 's evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The graphics of the PokÃ©mon games entertain me as much as the graphics of Crysis.
I think both are beautiful.
So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?
You must balance realism, gameplay, etc.
Some games will favor one over the other and will get some attention initially... then they'll fade with time.
But I think that's how it works.
Some cool graphics technology will be invented and applied to extremes in a given game.
Then another title will show up that favors a little bit more gameplay... then another one that mixes both.. that's evolution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636745</id>
	<title>Re:This issue was thoroughly hashed out in the 199</title>
	<author>nobodylocalhost</author>
	<datestamp>1247154780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What sort of harebrained nonsense is this? Starcraft survived from 1990s to today, with 800x600 2d graphics. There are lots of people still playing the classic arcade and atari games on their hand held devices. Tetris is as popular as ever. The only reason to have nice graphics is so your game can 'wow' people and catch attention. The same can be achieved with a high end sales team.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What sort of harebrained nonsense is this ?
Starcraft survived from 1990s to today , with 800x600 2d graphics .
There are lots of people still playing the classic arcade and atari games on their hand held devices .
Tetris is as popular as ever .
The only reason to have nice graphics is so your game can 'wow ' people and catch attention .
The same can be achieved with a high end sales team .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What sort of harebrained nonsense is this?
Starcraft survived from 1990s to today, with 800x600 2d graphics.
There are lots of people still playing the classic arcade and atari games on their hand held devices.
Tetris is as popular as ever.
The only reason to have nice graphics is so your game can 'wow' people and catch attention.
The same can be achieved with a high end sales team.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637669</id>
	<title>depends on the game</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1247158440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I identify three distinct supergenres of games: skill games, immersion games, and social games. Skill games test the players skill, either against other players or a computer. Examples: chess, starcraft, DDR, pacman. Immersion games seek to awe the player with some sensory or story-driven experience. Doom, Oblivion, etc. Social games are glorified chat systems. Graphics are most important to immersion games, and game developers are constantly pushing the envelope on graphics to give the best immersive experience.</p><p>Better graphics are always good, despite what some purists say. But better doesn't necessarily mean more realistic. Skill games usually benefit from clear, iconic graphics, because players don't want to feel cheated by confusing graphics in a skill game. But in an immersion game, graphics can be intentionally unclear to build anxiety, and this can be a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I identify three distinct supergenres of games : skill games , immersion games , and social games .
Skill games test the players skill , either against other players or a computer .
Examples : chess , starcraft , DDR , pacman .
Immersion games seek to awe the player with some sensory or story-driven experience .
Doom , Oblivion , etc .
Social games are glorified chat systems .
Graphics are most important to immersion games , and game developers are constantly pushing the envelope on graphics to give the best immersive experience.Better graphics are always good , despite what some purists say .
But better does n't necessarily mean more realistic .
Skill games usually benefit from clear , iconic graphics , because players do n't want to feel cheated by confusing graphics in a skill game .
But in an immersion game , graphics can be intentionally unclear to build anxiety , and this can be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I identify three distinct supergenres of games: skill games, immersion games, and social games.
Skill games test the players skill, either against other players or a computer.
Examples: chess, starcraft, DDR, pacman.
Immersion games seek to awe the player with some sensory or story-driven experience.
Doom, Oblivion, etc.
Social games are glorified chat systems.
Graphics are most important to immersion games, and game developers are constantly pushing the envelope on graphics to give the best immersive experience.Better graphics are always good, despite what some purists say.
But better doesn't necessarily mean more realistic.
Skill games usually benefit from clear, iconic graphics, because players don't want to feel cheated by confusing graphics in a skill game.
But in an immersion game, graphics can be intentionally unclear to build anxiety, and this can be a good thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637301</id>
	<title>Badger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247156820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphics do come a close second to gameplay. I have been recently playing many of my titles from the past 3 years and with my current hardware I can crank to setting so it looks better, which is great, but the reason I am playing the game again is the gameplay, immersion and story. I tend to pick more on the little things now than the quality of graphics. like physics being just off, or AI being stupid.</p><p>I found though that good games standout regardless of graphics. Games like Oddworld, Halflife 1&amp;2, S.t.a.l.k.e.r., and Hexic. Hexic - great game, addictive , polished. Half life series has always been stunning but if you play the first one now it seems dated in the graphics department but its still a must have. Oddworld is a game I recently picked again and its really good all around; Still is. and STALKER is the great mesh of story/gameplay/graphics, only down fall by GSC is that it is WAY too buggy at launch. Even , *hurk*(I hate wow btw), WOW has qualities that lead to great gameplay and atmosphere and the graphics are far from stunning. Every example here shows small issues that would diswade anyone from playing the game if all combined into one game, but alone as small issues the gameplay pushes it forward to being a great game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics do come a close second to gameplay .
I have been recently playing many of my titles from the past 3 years and with my current hardware I can crank to setting so it looks better , which is great , but the reason I am playing the game again is the gameplay , immersion and story .
I tend to pick more on the little things now than the quality of graphics .
like physics being just off , or AI being stupid.I found though that good games standout regardless of graphics .
Games like Oddworld , Halflife 1&amp;2 , S.t.a.l.k.e.r. , and Hexic .
Hexic - great game , addictive , polished .
Half life series has always been stunning but if you play the first one now it seems dated in the graphics department but its still a must have .
Oddworld is a game I recently picked again and its really good all around ; Still is .
and STALKER is the great mesh of story/gameplay/graphics , only down fall by GSC is that it is WAY too buggy at launch .
Even , * hurk * ( I hate wow btw ) , WOW has qualities that lead to great gameplay and atmosphere and the graphics are far from stunning .
Every example here shows small issues that would diswade anyone from playing the game if all combined into one game , but alone as small issues the gameplay pushes it forward to being a great game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics do come a close second to gameplay.
I have been recently playing many of my titles from the past 3 years and with my current hardware I can crank to setting so it looks better, which is great, but the reason I am playing the game again is the gameplay, immersion and story.
I tend to pick more on the little things now than the quality of graphics.
like physics being just off, or AI being stupid.I found though that good games standout regardless of graphics.
Games like Oddworld, Halflife 1&amp;2, S.t.a.l.k.e.r., and Hexic.
Hexic - great game, addictive , polished.
Half life series has always been stunning but if you play the first one now it seems dated in the graphics department but its still a must have.
Oddworld is a game I recently picked again and its really good all around; Still is.
and STALKER is the great mesh of story/gameplay/graphics, only down fall by GSC is that it is WAY too buggy at launch.
Even , *hurk*(I hate wow btw), WOW has qualities that lead to great gameplay and atmosphere and the graphics are far from stunning.
Every example here shows small issues that would diswade anyone from playing the game if all combined into one game, but alone as small issues the gameplay pushes it forward to being a great game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28639633</id>
	<title>Re:Graphics need to be appropriate to the game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247166540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monkey Island 3 also balanced 2D and 3D graphics: you could enable "3D SCUMM"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monkey Island 3 also balanced 2D and 3D graphics : you could enable " 3D SCUMM " : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monkey Island 3 also balanced 2D and 3D graphics: you could enable "3D SCUMM" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28640585</id>
	<title>Ghostbusters</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1247170020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you asked me at any point in my life about graphics in video games, I would have always said that they didn't matter.  I have to say, though, I did finally find an exception to that.  I recently purchased Ghostbusters for the XBOX 360.   The game itself is, at best, mediochre, but the story and graphics really brought it up several levels.  In this fairly unique case, the visuals made the game.</p><p>I don't have much of a point to this post other than to say it's interesting to see the exception to the rule.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you asked me at any point in my life about graphics in video games , I would have always said that they did n't matter .
I have to say , though , I did finally find an exception to that .
I recently purchased Ghostbusters for the XBOX 360 .
The game itself is , at best , mediochre , but the story and graphics really brought it up several levels .
In this fairly unique case , the visuals made the game.I do n't have much of a point to this post other than to say it 's interesting to see the exception to the rule .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you asked me at any point in my life about graphics in video games, I would have always said that they didn't matter.
I have to say, though, I did finally find an exception to that.
I recently purchased Ghostbusters for the XBOX 360.
The game itself is, at best, mediochre, but the story and graphics really brought it up several levels.
In this fairly unique case, the visuals made the game.I don't have much of a point to this post other than to say it's interesting to see the exception to the rule.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28643285</id>
	<title>Re:This issue was thoroughly hashed out in the 199</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247138160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one of the few posts that makes me want to not post as an AC.  This is actually the most concise and correct answer I've ever seen regarding the issue of how important graphics are right down to making the point that high quality graphics doesn't mean high end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one of the few posts that makes me want to not post as an AC .
This is actually the most concise and correct answer I 've ever seen regarding the issue of how important graphics are right down to making the point that high quality graphics does n't mean high end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one of the few posts that makes me want to not post as an AC.
This is actually the most concise and correct answer I've ever seen regarding the issue of how important graphics are right down to making the point that high quality graphics doesn't mean high end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635925</id>
	<title>Less can be more.</title>
	<author>proslack</author>
	<datestamp>1247151900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends on the game. Zork didn't really rely on graphics, and that was a great game. Still available, free, at <a href="http://www.infocom-if.org/downloads/downloads.html" title="infocom-if.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.infocom-if.org/downloads/downloads.html</a> [infocom-if.org] .</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on the game .
Zork did n't really rely on graphics , and that was a great game .
Still available , free , at http : //www.infocom-if.org/downloads/downloads.html [ infocom-if.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on the game.
Zork didn't really rely on graphics, and that was a great game.
Still available, free, at http://www.infocom-if.org/downloads/downloads.html [infocom-if.org] .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637259</id>
	<title>Re:This issue was thoroughly hashed out in the 199</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247156640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(High quality doesn't necessarily mean high-end graphics technology; it means aesthetically competent and suited to the game's setting.)</p></div><p>This.  You can create an artistic style for your game that doesn't require high-end graphics, but if you're game has a realism based art style your graphics should match.  This is exceedingly important as your TV ad shows up on my big screen or during the ads at the movie theater.  I'd actually say graphics are more important from a marketing point of view than enjoyment point of view.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( High quality does n't necessarily mean high-end graphics technology ; it means aesthetically competent and suited to the game 's setting. ) This .
You can create an artistic style for your game that does n't require high-end graphics , but if you 're game has a realism based art style your graphics should match .
This is exceedingly important as your TV ad shows up on my big screen or during the ads at the movie theater .
I 'd actually say graphics are more important from a marketing point of view than enjoyment point of view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(High quality doesn't necessarily mean high-end graphics technology; it means aesthetically competent and suited to the game's setting.)This.
You can create an artistic style for your game that doesn't require high-end graphics, but if you're game has a realism based art style your graphics should match.
This is exceedingly important as your TV ad shows up on my big screen or during the ads at the movie theater.
I'd actually say graphics are more important from a marketing point of view than enjoyment point of view.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634353</id>
	<title>The best graphics engine...</title>
	<author>John Guilt</author>
	<datestamp>1247140800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is still the mind; it constantly fills in the gaps and extrapolates from what our eyes transmit.  When the mind is sufficiently engaged, almost any level of graphics can be adequate, and sometimes less leaves more room for our processing.  The mind does what good graphics engines can merely assist:  assign <i>meaning</i> and importance to the patterns on the screen; good writing can help there....
<p>
(This is, incidentally, one of the reasons why pr0n is always one of the first applications of any new graphics technology, e.g. printing, lithography, dial-up BBS and CGA or Hercules:  when the mind is intensely engaged, the limitations of the medium, ineptness of the plotting, and the crudeness of the rendering don't matter as much, and since pornography hacks the will of our Masters, the Genes, it guaranties engagement [but please don't marry it].)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is still the mind ; it constantly fills in the gaps and extrapolates from what our eyes transmit .
When the mind is sufficiently engaged , almost any level of graphics can be adequate , and sometimes less leaves more room for our processing .
The mind does what good graphics engines can merely assist : assign meaning and importance to the patterns on the screen ; good writing can help there... . ( This is , incidentally , one of the reasons why pr0n is always one of the first applications of any new graphics technology , e.g .
printing , lithography , dial-up BBS and CGA or Hercules : when the mind is intensely engaged , the limitations of the medium , ineptness of the plotting , and the crudeness of the rendering do n't matter as much , and since pornography hacks the will of our Masters , the Genes , it guaranties engagement [ but please do n't marry it ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is still the mind; it constantly fills in the gaps and extrapolates from what our eyes transmit.
When the mind is sufficiently engaged, almost any level of graphics can be adequate, and sometimes less leaves more room for our processing.
The mind does what good graphics engines can merely assist:  assign meaning and importance to the patterns on the screen; good writing can help there....

(This is, incidentally, one of the reasons why pr0n is always one of the first applications of any new graphics technology, e.g.
printing, lithography, dial-up BBS and CGA or Hercules:  when the mind is intensely engaged, the limitations of the medium, ineptness of the plotting, and the crudeness of the rendering don't matter as much, and since pornography hacks the will of our Masters, the Genes, it guaranties engagement [but please don't marry it].
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633871</id>
	<title>In my day, we had 7 bit text.</title>
	<author>bmo</author>
	<datestamp>1247136120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I want realistic imagery and soopah dense meshes, I'll go outside.</p><p>Changing the theme is a bitch sometimes, though.</p><p>If I want to play a game, it had better be a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/game/ because if it has suck-ass playability, it doesn't matter how dense the polygon meshes are.</p><p>Nethack/Rogue/Angband MUSH/MOO/ INFOCOM &gt; $BADGAMEANYGRAPHICS</p><p>--<br>BMO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I want realistic imagery and soopah dense meshes , I 'll go outside.Changing the theme is a bitch sometimes , though.If I want to play a game , it had better be a /game/ because if it has suck-ass playability , it does n't matter how dense the polygon meshes are.Nethack/Rogue/Angband MUSH/MOO/ INFOCOM &gt; $ BADGAMEANYGRAPHICS--BMO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I want realistic imagery and soopah dense meshes, I'll go outside.Changing the theme is a bitch sometimes, though.If I want to play a game, it had better be a /game/ because if it has suck-ass playability, it doesn't matter how dense the polygon meshes are.Nethack/Rogue/Angband MUSH/MOO/ INFOCOM &gt; $BADGAMEANYGRAPHICS--BMO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638711</id>
	<title>You may as well be asking a movie critic</title>
	<author>slashdime</author>
	<datestamp>1247163060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think this question is similar to asking a film critic why action movies do sell well at the box office.<br>
<br>
Before you ask "So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?", you should first ask the question "So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the average person rather than a gamer who can appreciate it in multiple facets?"<br>
<br>
And of course, that question is easily answered. Market.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this question is similar to asking a film critic why action movies do sell well at the box office .
Before you ask " So , why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games ?
" , you should first ask the question " So , why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the average person rather than a gamer who can appreciate it in multiple facets ?
" And of course , that question is easily answered .
Market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this question is similar to asking a film critic why action movies do sell well at the box office.
Before you ask "So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?
", you should first ask the question "So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the average person rather than a gamer who can appreciate it in multiple facets?
"

And of course, that question is easily answered.
Market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633681</id>
	<title>They sell the game.</title>
	<author>philmarcracken</author>
	<datestamp>1247134200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Flashy graphics appeal to people visually and stimulate you before you get to play the game and judge it's actual value. I'd say that to make a game look the best is a marketing decision for the screenshots and the trailers to sell the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Flashy graphics appeal to people visually and stimulate you before you get to play the game and judge it 's actual value .
I 'd say that to make a game look the best is a marketing decision for the screenshots and the trailers to sell the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flashy graphics appeal to people visually and stimulate you before you get to play the game and judge it's actual value.
I'd say that to make a game look the best is a marketing decision for the screenshots and the trailers to sell the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634623</id>
	<title>For best results.</title>
	<author>iCantSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1247144160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best games put gameplay first, controls second, and graphics/audio third.</p><p>Alot of games these days sadly no longer use this method of design. Today it's more of graphics first, physics second, and promotion third.</p><p>If you follow the older method of forever fun then you will get games like super smash bros 64, golden eye 64, mario cart 64, sonic adventure, shenmu, and of course wcw vs nwo 64.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best games put gameplay first , controls second , and graphics/audio third.Alot of games these days sadly no longer use this method of design .
Today it 's more of graphics first , physics second , and promotion third.If you follow the older method of forever fun then you will get games like super smash bros 64 , golden eye 64 , mario cart 64 , sonic adventure , shenmu , and of course wcw vs nwo 64 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best games put gameplay first, controls second, and graphics/audio third.Alot of games these days sadly no longer use this method of design.
Today it's more of graphics first, physics second, and promotion third.If you follow the older method of forever fun then you will get games like super smash bros 64, golden eye 64, mario cart 64, sonic adventure, shenmu, and of course wcw vs nwo 64.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637843</id>
	<title>Graphics sell games, sometimes.</title>
	<author>bingoManatee</author>
	<datestamp>1247159280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd love to say that as a long term gamer, the graphics are just a minor element in the overall expereince. However, when I played the C &amp; C retrospective, I found god old Red Alert (classic) to be nigh on unplayable with the primitive sprites.

Where games like Darwinia survive on play alone, BAD graphics can DESTROY a game.

Also "Good graphics" are relative. Just because something is overworked, highly detailed and colorful doesn't make it "good". I'll take a 90's "Wipeout" over the last DOOM - the doom graphics were elaborate, but I found them to be pretty insular and just left a bad taste in my mouth.

It's impossible to watch the GOW III trailers without thinking, "Flipping wow I want to play the game just to see that!"

However I would like to ask the question the other way: considering how expensive and time consuming the graphics element of a game is, why can't producers spend a fifth of the resources they dump into graphics on game play? Honestly, I don't think there is a FPS scenario left that will get me off my ass and make me want to spend $60 on the game. Isn't there other gameable aspects to life that are worth exploration -- how about a meter maid game? a religion sim? Dinosaur wars? really -- gaming has gotten glossier, but it has also gotten WAY too safe; "Hey lets put out tiger woods 10 because people are stupid!"

I think graphics have progressed where game design has regressed because the financial pressures run that way. Its safer to make a high-gloss racer that plays well on TV then a Darwinia that is just darn fun but doesn't have that "gotta have it" TV commercial appeal. Graphics are mechanistic and carry over value from game to game. Game play is by definition only valuable when it is unique and new concepts are risky, a phrase that investors are not really interested in.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to say that as a long term gamer , the graphics are just a minor element in the overall expereince .
However , when I played the C &amp; C retrospective , I found god old Red Alert ( classic ) to be nigh on unplayable with the primitive sprites .
Where games like Darwinia survive on play alone , BAD graphics can DESTROY a game .
Also " Good graphics " are relative .
Just because something is overworked , highly detailed and colorful does n't make it " good " .
I 'll take a 90 's " Wipeout " over the last DOOM - the doom graphics were elaborate , but I found them to be pretty insular and just left a bad taste in my mouth .
It 's impossible to watch the GOW III trailers without thinking , " Flipping wow I want to play the game just to see that !
" However I would like to ask the question the other way : considering how expensive and time consuming the graphics element of a game is , why ca n't producers spend a fifth of the resources they dump into graphics on game play ?
Honestly , I do n't think there is a FPS scenario left that will get me off my ass and make me want to spend $ 60 on the game .
Is n't there other gameable aspects to life that are worth exploration -- how about a meter maid game ?
a religion sim ?
Dinosaur wars ?
really -- gaming has gotten glossier , but it has also gotten WAY too safe ; " Hey lets put out tiger woods 10 because people are stupid !
" I think graphics have progressed where game design has regressed because the financial pressures run that way .
Its safer to make a high-gloss racer that plays well on TV then a Darwinia that is just darn fun but does n't have that " got ta have it " TV commercial appeal .
Graphics are mechanistic and carry over value from game to game .
Game play is by definition only valuable when it is unique and new concepts are risky , a phrase that investors are not really interested in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to say that as a long term gamer, the graphics are just a minor element in the overall expereince.
However, when I played the C &amp; C retrospective, I found god old Red Alert (classic) to be nigh on unplayable with the primitive sprites.
Where games like Darwinia survive on play alone, BAD graphics can DESTROY a game.
Also "Good graphics" are relative.
Just because something is overworked, highly detailed and colorful doesn't make it "good".
I'll take a 90's "Wipeout" over the last DOOM - the doom graphics were elaborate, but I found them to be pretty insular and just left a bad taste in my mouth.
It's impossible to watch the GOW III trailers without thinking, "Flipping wow I want to play the game just to see that!
"

However I would like to ask the question the other way: considering how expensive and time consuming the graphics element of a game is, why can't producers spend a fifth of the resources they dump into graphics on game play?
Honestly, I don't think there is a FPS scenario left that will get me off my ass and make me want to spend $60 on the game.
Isn't there other gameable aspects to life that are worth exploration -- how about a meter maid game?
a religion sim?
Dinosaur wars?
really -- gaming has gotten glossier, but it has also gotten WAY too safe; "Hey lets put out tiger woods 10 because people are stupid!
"

I think graphics have progressed where game design has regressed because the financial pressures run that way.
Its safer to make a high-gloss racer that plays well on TV then a Darwinia that is just darn fun but doesn't have that "gotta have it" TV commercial appeal.
Graphics are mechanistic and carry over value from game to game.
Game play is by definition only valuable when it is unique and new concepts are risky, a phrase that investors are not really interested in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633895</id>
	<title>Why should one be more important than the other?</title>
	<author>Knutsi</author>
	<datestamp>1247136300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Games are not a uniform thing.  There are games where the graphics are stunning, and really pull you into the world.  Then there are games where even the simplest graphics perform all the function needed to make a beautiful game.   Why should we not have both?  Independent games with interesting gameplay mechanism, an interesting visualization as well, are highly popular - it's not like we have lost anything?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Games are not a uniform thing .
There are games where the graphics are stunning , and really pull you into the world .
Then there are games where even the simplest graphics perform all the function needed to make a beautiful game .
Why should we not have both ?
Independent games with interesting gameplay mechanism , an interesting visualization as well , are highly popular - it 's not like we have lost anything ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games are not a uniform thing.
There are games where the graphics are stunning, and really pull you into the world.
Then there are games where even the simplest graphics perform all the function needed to make a beautiful game.
Why should we not have both?
Independent games with interesting gameplay mechanism, an interesting visualization as well, are highly popular - it's not like we have lost anything?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635405</id>
	<title>Re:Would you have watched ID4 or Transformers?</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1247149500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I watched the Original Transformers movie.  Unicron was better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I watched the Original Transformers movie .
Unicron was better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I watched the Original Transformers movie.
Unicron was better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636373</id>
	<title>It's like with websites for example</title>
	<author>Cloud K</author>
	<datestamp>1247153520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphics and prettiness are a Good Thing - BUT, should not be the first priority.  Function (websites) or Gameplay (games) should be the cake, and then you apply the icing afterwards  - if you have the resources, and if it doesn't spoil the cake.</p><p>Pardon the double layered metaphors.  Mmm double layered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics and prettiness are a Good Thing - BUT , should not be the first priority .
Function ( websites ) or Gameplay ( games ) should be the cake , and then you apply the icing afterwards - if you have the resources , and if it does n't spoil the cake.Pardon the double layered metaphors .
Mmm double layered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics and prettiness are a Good Thing - BUT, should not be the first priority.
Function (websites) or Gameplay (games) should be the cake, and then you apply the icing afterwards  - if you have the resources, and if it doesn't spoil the cake.Pardon the double layered metaphors.
Mmm double layered.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638137</id>
	<title>Blurred lines</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1247160720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Some graphic improvements are not clear cut. In the first sims the views were all locked and to change them slowed down game play. The ability to rotate your view in sims 2 was a vast improvement. I think currently graphics has little effect on game playability where as before it was very important and often affected the playability of the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some graphic improvements are not clear cut .
In the first sims the views were all locked and to change them slowed down game play .
The ability to rotate your view in sims 2 was a vast improvement .
I think currently graphics has little effect on game playability where as before it was very important and often affected the playability of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some graphic improvements are not clear cut.
In the first sims the views were all locked and to change them slowed down game play.
The ability to rotate your view in sims 2 was a vast improvement.
I think currently graphics has little effect on game playability where as before it was very important and often affected the playability of the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637437</id>
	<title>Re:I hate photorealism in video games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247157420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try the Lego games (especially Lego Star Wars Episodes I-III). Everything that is made out of lego bricks can be interacted with somehow. Everything that looks "realistic" (compared to the plastic bricks) is just terrain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try the Lego games ( especially Lego Star Wars Episodes I-III ) .
Everything that is made out of lego bricks can be interacted with somehow .
Everything that looks " realistic " ( compared to the plastic bricks ) is just terrain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try the Lego games (especially Lego Star Wars Episodes I-III).
Everything that is made out of lego bricks can be interacted with somehow.
Everything that looks "realistic" (compared to the plastic bricks) is just terrain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635311</id>
	<title>What's the importance of graphics in video games?</title>
	<author>Millennium</author>
	<datestamp>1247149020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One word, my friend: marketing. A shiny trailer, or a few nifty pics for reviewers to reference, will get the core gaming market to eat your game up like candy, with very little concern for anything else. It's an easy cash-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One word , my friend : marketing .
A shiny trailer , or a few nifty pics for reviewers to reference , will get the core gaming market to eat your game up like candy , with very little concern for anything else .
It 's an easy cash-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One word, my friend: marketing.
A shiny trailer, or a few nifty pics for reviewers to reference, will get the core gaming market to eat your game up like candy, with very little concern for anything else.
It's an easy cash-in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633847</id>
	<title>love asbstract visuals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247135940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does depend on the game but I love abstract graphics myself.  Most of the classic games that I've played and loved over the years have tended not to be particularly realistic.  If you look at something like Tempest say, or Robotron, or pretty much any of Jeff Minter's work.  The visuals for Minter's next project look stunning:<br>http://llamasoft.co.uk/yak/grppp\_jun.avi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does depend on the game but I love abstract graphics myself .
Most of the classic games that I 've played and loved over the years have tended not to be particularly realistic .
If you look at something like Tempest say , or Robotron , or pretty much any of Jeff Minter 's work .
The visuals for Minter 's next project look stunning : http : //llamasoft.co.uk/yak/grppp \ _jun.avi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does depend on the game but I love abstract graphics myself.
Most of the classic games that I've played and loved over the years have tended not to be particularly realistic.
If you look at something like Tempest say, or Robotron, or pretty much any of Jeff Minter's work.
The visuals for Minter's next project look stunning:http://llamasoft.co.uk/yak/grppp\_jun.avi</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28644051</id>
	<title>Squibs, anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247141940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you'll find Squibs Arcade demonstrates how modern games would handle, without their super cool graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find Squibs Arcade demonstrates how modern games would handle , without their super cool graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find Squibs Arcade demonstrates how modern games would handle, without their super cool graphics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635337</id>
	<title>Special Effects are used to Replace Storyline</title>
	<author>Herkum01</author>
	<datestamp>1247149200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact is, most places are replacing the story with special effects.  Why?  I think it has to do with corporate types who like to be able to see and understand what they are working on.</p><p>Special effects?  You can show these guys a clip of this great looking water for 10 seconds and there will be ohhs and ahhs all over.</p><p>Try to show them the story line for a game that will make a game last for 20 to 30 hours?  That means they would have to pay attention for a certain length of time.</p><p>Don't believe me?  Here is a nice <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/business/media/08porn.html?scp=1&amp;sq=Porn\%20scripts&amp;st=cse" title="nytimes.com">article on the subject.</a> [nytimes.com] </p><p>While they are referring to pron in the article, I believe this also applies to games. I prefer games where there is some sort of progression or storyline, which is why I have not bought a new computer game in like 2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is , most places are replacing the story with special effects .
Why ? I think it has to do with corporate types who like to be able to see and understand what they are working on.Special effects ?
You can show these guys a clip of this great looking water for 10 seconds and there will be ohhs and ahhs all over.Try to show them the story line for a game that will make a game last for 20 to 30 hours ?
That means they would have to pay attention for a certain length of time.Do n't believe me ?
Here is a nice article on the subject .
[ nytimes.com ] While they are referring to pron in the article , I believe this also applies to games .
I prefer games where there is some sort of progression or storyline , which is why I have not bought a new computer game in like 2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is, most places are replacing the story with special effects.
Why?  I think it has to do with corporate types who like to be able to see and understand what they are working on.Special effects?
You can show these guys a clip of this great looking water for 10 seconds and there will be ohhs and ahhs all over.Try to show them the story line for a game that will make a game last for 20 to 30 hours?
That means they would have to pay attention for a certain length of time.Don't believe me?
Here is a nice article on the subject.
[nytimes.com] While they are referring to pron in the article, I believe this also applies to games.
I prefer games where there is some sort of progression or storyline, which is why I have not bought a new computer game in like 2 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28645171</id>
	<title>Re:Yes, graphics are important, but..</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1247150220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Crysis had perfect graphics, and not that bad gameplay. Still, it scores low on my list, because it's to short in my opinion. <b>They sacrificed game length for graphics,</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>

Actually, there are more game assets in the game then are used in the story line, these assets (extra levels and so on) are on the DVD they shipped. They scarified game length to get the thing out by an arbitrary release date. <br> <br>

This is why I prefer to purchase from private developer/publishers like Valve, Stardock, and Blizzard (are they private any more since their merger with Activision?) who will not release a game until its done and will provide excellent after sales support (OK, OK, Stardock does sometimes release buggy games, but they all get fixed in short order).Public publishers like Blizzard, SOE, EA and Vivendi/Universal have to stick to release dates due to their stock price (could fall if the game is delayed). So they release half finished games and maybe release a patch fixing the problems later (creating patches does not produce revenue).<br> <br>

Also the Graphics in Crysis were not very well opimised, they required a high end PC due to the fact that EA release before the code was really finished. In other industries, the car industry for example to use an old<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. staple, if a company knowingly released a product that was not finished and prone to technical errors then it would have to be recalled and refunds given to those people who bought it, at the very least the company would be forced to provide a fix free of charge. I often wonder why the software industry is immune to this when they routinely sell products that are not "fit for purpose".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Crysis had perfect graphics , and not that bad gameplay .
Still , it scores low on my list , because it 's to short in my opinion .
They sacrificed game length for graphics , Actually , there are more game assets in the game then are used in the story line , these assets ( extra levels and so on ) are on the DVD they shipped .
They scarified game length to get the thing out by an arbitrary release date .
This is why I prefer to purchase from private developer/publishers like Valve , Stardock , and Blizzard ( are they private any more since their merger with Activision ?
) who will not release a game until its done and will provide excellent after sales support ( OK , OK , Stardock does sometimes release buggy games , but they all get fixed in short order ) .Public publishers like Blizzard , SOE , EA and Vivendi/Universal have to stick to release dates due to their stock price ( could fall if the game is delayed ) .
So they release half finished games and maybe release a patch fixing the problems later ( creating patches does not produce revenue ) .
Also the Graphics in Crysis were not very well opimised , they required a high end PC due to the fact that EA release before the code was really finished .
In other industries , the car industry for example to use an old / .
staple , if a company knowingly released a product that was not finished and prone to technical errors then it would have to be recalled and refunds given to those people who bought it , at the very least the company would be forced to provide a fix free of charge .
I often wonder why the software industry is immune to this when they routinely sell products that are not " fit for purpose " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Crysis had perfect graphics, and not that bad gameplay.
Still, it scores low on my list, because it's to short in my opinion.
They sacrificed game length for graphics, 

Actually, there are more game assets in the game then are used in the story line, these assets (extra levels and so on) are on the DVD they shipped.
They scarified game length to get the thing out by an arbitrary release date.
This is why I prefer to purchase from private developer/publishers like Valve, Stardock, and Blizzard (are they private any more since their merger with Activision?
) who will not release a game until its done and will provide excellent after sales support (OK, OK, Stardock does sometimes release buggy games, but they all get fixed in short order).Public publishers like Blizzard, SOE, EA and Vivendi/Universal have to stick to release dates due to their stock price (could fall if the game is delayed).
So they release half finished games and maybe release a patch fixing the problems later (creating patches does not produce revenue).
Also the Graphics in Crysis were not very well opimised, they required a high end PC due to the fact that EA release before the code was really finished.
In other industries, the car industry for example to use an old /.
staple, if a company knowingly released a product that was not finished and prone to technical errors then it would have to be recalled and refunds given to those people who bought it, at the very least the company would be forced to provide a fix free of charge.
I often wonder why the software industry is immune to this when they routinely sell products that are not "fit for purpose".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641429</id>
	<title>It's like the cover of a book</title>
	<author>cs668</author>
	<datestamp>1247130240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like cover art can sell a book, even though you need to read the book to know if you like it, the graphics can sell a game.</p><p>You might have to play a game for 2 weeks to know if it really is a great game, but awesome graphics can push you into making that impulse buy so that you will find out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like cover art can sell a book , even though you need to read the book to know if you like it , the graphics can sell a game.You might have to play a game for 2 weeks to know if it really is a great game , but awesome graphics can push you into making that impulse buy so that you will find out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like cover art can sell a book, even though you need to read the book to know if you like it, the graphics can sell a game.You might have to play a game for 2 weeks to know if it really is a great game, but awesome graphics can push you into making that impulse buy so that you will find out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633949</id>
	<title>Bigger than games</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247136660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>photorealistic, realtime CGI will be an advance equivalent to photography or television. While the industry is a major driving force, the intrinsic value of the technology extends way beyond gaming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>photorealistic , realtime CGI will be an advance equivalent to photography or television .
While the industry is a major driving force , the intrinsic value of the technology extends way beyond gaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>photorealistic, realtime CGI will be an advance equivalent to photography or television.
While the industry is a major driving force, the intrinsic value of the technology extends way beyond gaming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641001</id>
	<title>retrograde civilization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247171760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's simple; more people spend more money purchasing flashy graphics games, therefore, corporations vomit out more flashy graphics. It's sort of like Hollywierds suicidal mad dash to mediocrity in entertainment. Just look at your typical extended Michel Bay MTV video... err movie. Mile wide, inch deep, tastes great, less filling...</p><p>Corporations can today market a gold rush then mine the goodness out of it just like big government can with your freedoms.</p><p>Welcome to the bassackwards post modern world of the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple ; more people spend more money purchasing flashy graphics games , therefore , corporations vomit out more flashy graphics .
It 's sort of like Hollywierds suicidal mad dash to mediocrity in entertainment .
Just look at your typical extended Michel Bay MTV video... err movie .
Mile wide , inch deep , tastes great , less filling...Corporations can today market a gold rush then mine the goodness out of it just like big government can with your freedoms.Welcome to the bassackwards post modern world of the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple; more people spend more money purchasing flashy graphics games, therefore, corporations vomit out more flashy graphics.
It's sort of like Hollywierds suicidal mad dash to mediocrity in entertainment.
Just look at your typical extended Michel Bay MTV video... err movie.
Mile wide, inch deep, tastes great, less filling...Corporations can today market a gold rush then mine the goodness out of it just like big government can with your freedoms.Welcome to the bassackwards post modern world of the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634035</id>
	<title>off the top of my head</title>
	<author>turing\_m</author>
	<datestamp>1247137620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?</p></div></blockquote><p>
1. Larger potential market: A lot of the population are under-endowed with imagination (hence to become immersed in something, they need realism). If you make games that even they can enjoy, you increase your potential market.
<br> <br>
2. Barriers to entry: The higher the costs involved in producing a game (due to complexity), the less competitors you will have. You build yourself a nice little part of an oligopoly for yourself. After a while you widen the moat by lowering your costs (but the startup costs get higher), reuse code/art/story/experience/marketing/whatever to further advance the state of the art or lower costs, both of which are barriers to entry.
<br> <br>
3. E-penis wavery: those who have to have the latest and greatest of everything (and flaunt it) will have to have your game. Counterpoint: If you make it too hard to run, you also decrease your potential market. (But how many games does the low end actually buy?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games ?
1. Larger potential market : A lot of the population are under-endowed with imagination ( hence to become immersed in something , they need realism ) .
If you make games that even they can enjoy , you increase your potential market .
2. Barriers to entry : The higher the costs involved in producing a game ( due to complexity ) , the less competitors you will have .
You build yourself a nice little part of an oligopoly for yourself .
After a while you widen the moat by lowering your costs ( but the startup costs get higher ) , reuse code/art/story/experience/marketing/whatever to further advance the state of the art or lower costs , both of which are barriers to entry .
3. E-penis wavery : those who have to have the latest and greatest of everything ( and flaunt it ) will have to have your game .
Counterpoint : If you make it too hard to run , you also decrease your potential market .
( But how many games does the low end actually buy ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?
1. Larger potential market: A lot of the population are under-endowed with imagination (hence to become immersed in something, they need realism).
If you make games that even they can enjoy, you increase your potential market.
2. Barriers to entry: The higher the costs involved in producing a game (due to complexity), the less competitors you will have.
You build yourself a nice little part of an oligopoly for yourself.
After a while you widen the moat by lowering your costs (but the startup costs get higher), reuse code/art/story/experience/marketing/whatever to further advance the state of the art or lower costs, both of which are barriers to entry.
3. E-penis wavery: those who have to have the latest and greatest of everything (and flaunt it) will have to have your game.
Counterpoint: If you make it too hard to run, you also decrease your potential market.
(But how many games does the low end actually buy?
)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633767</id>
	<title>When you have a hammer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247134920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...everything starts to look like a nail.</p><p>The guys who are making the consoles are focusing on the hardware, and adding realistic graphics is a problem that hardware can help with.  Better hardware can't really help with story lines.  So they build the hardware for good graphics, and when you have that, suddenly developers start thinking 'what else can I add 3D realism too'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...everything starts to look like a nail.The guys who are making the consoles are focusing on the hardware , and adding realistic graphics is a problem that hardware can help with .
Better hardware ca n't really help with story lines .
So they build the hardware for good graphics , and when you have that , suddenly developers start thinking 'what else can I add 3D realism too'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...everything starts to look like a nail.The guys who are making the consoles are focusing on the hardware, and adding realistic graphics is a problem that hardware can help with.
Better hardware can't really help with story lines.
So they build the hardware for good graphics, and when you have that, suddenly developers start thinking 'what else can I add 3D realism too'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634907</id>
	<title>It's the selling point</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247146440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And unfortunately that's what counts.</p><p>When you look at the box of a new game or at a demo, what do you see? You can't see the gameplay, because that's something you have to experience. You do see the interface but it doesn't immediately make sense because, well, most interfaces first of all need a wee bit of explanation and maybe a tutorial. You certainly won't get to see its replay value because, well, you haven't even seen it's "first time play" value yet.</p><p>But you see the game's graphics.</p><p>So which of those I mentioned (graphics, gameplay, interface, replay value) will dictate whether the game sells? Sure, the other three are way more important in the long run and they will determine whether the game is considered "good", because graphics age poorly (seriously, Quake 2 graphics were HOT when it came out, but look at them from a 2009 point of view... bleagh), but when it comes to buying a AAA title right after release (i.e. when it generates real revenue for its maker), which one will count?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And unfortunately that 's what counts.When you look at the box of a new game or at a demo , what do you see ?
You ca n't see the gameplay , because that 's something you have to experience .
You do see the interface but it does n't immediately make sense because , well , most interfaces first of all need a wee bit of explanation and maybe a tutorial .
You certainly wo n't get to see its replay value because , well , you have n't even seen it 's " first time play " value yet.But you see the game 's graphics.So which of those I mentioned ( graphics , gameplay , interface , replay value ) will dictate whether the game sells ?
Sure , the other three are way more important in the long run and they will determine whether the game is considered " good " , because graphics age poorly ( seriously , Quake 2 graphics were HOT when it came out , but look at them from a 2009 point of view... bleagh ) , but when it comes to buying a AAA title right after release ( i.e .
when it generates real revenue for its maker ) , which one will count ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And unfortunately that's what counts.When you look at the box of a new game or at a demo, what do you see?
You can't see the gameplay, because that's something you have to experience.
You do see the interface but it doesn't immediately make sense because, well, most interfaces first of all need a wee bit of explanation and maybe a tutorial.
You certainly won't get to see its replay value because, well, you haven't even seen it's "first time play" value yet.But you see the game's graphics.So which of those I mentioned (graphics, gameplay, interface, replay value) will dictate whether the game sells?
Sure, the other three are way more important in the long run and they will determine whether the game is considered "good", because graphics age poorly (seriously, Quake 2 graphics were HOT when it came out, but look at them from a 2009 point of view... bleagh), but when it comes to buying a AAA title right after release (i.e.
when it generates real revenue for its maker), which one will count?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633519</id>
	<title>A good combination of a storyline and graphics...</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1247132700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is important in any game. Graphics can be cool and all, but they shouldn't be the primary reason for any game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is important in any game .
Graphics can be cool and all , but they should n't be the primary reason for any game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is important in any game.
Graphics can be cool and all, but they shouldn't be the primary reason for any game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635605</id>
	<title>Art, not graphics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247150460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The key is not graphics, but art. Nethack is probably the last game to be good with little artistic merit. Every good game after that has had great art. Art could mean things besides graphics, like good stories. But the most obvious thing is graphical art. Art is why the graphically-average Half-Life will be remembered, but the graphically-cutting edge but artistically weak Crysis will some day be forgotten.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The key is not graphics , but art .
Nethack is probably the last game to be good with little artistic merit .
Every good game after that has had great art .
Art could mean things besides graphics , like good stories .
But the most obvious thing is graphical art .
Art is why the graphically-average Half-Life will be remembered , but the graphically-cutting edge but artistically weak Crysis will some day be forgotten .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The key is not graphics, but art.
Nethack is probably the last game to be good with little artistic merit.
Every good game after that has had great art.
Art could mean things besides graphics, like good stories.
But the most obvious thing is graphical art.
Art is why the graphically-average Half-Life will be remembered, but the graphically-cutting edge but artistically weak Crysis will some day be forgotten.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634519</id>
	<title>Content, Controls, Graphics</title>
	<author>RaigetheFury</author>
	<datestamp>1247143020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the order of things. If you don't have content... your game is a pretty piece of trash. (Think most sports games from EA that are recycled). Sure... the first might be awesome... but we lack a tremendous amount of content these days. Content is what keeps a game interesting, it's what makes others want to buy it from friends recommending since most of us realize that the rating system on gamestop and most of the magazines is now manipulated completely. Look at the Final Fantasy series? A new story each time, each extremely enveloping... though most of us agree X-2 never happened.</p><p>Zelda, Metroid, Super Mario Brothers... each one has an amazing new amount of content and that's why they are classics and always a quick sell. How replay-able is the game?</p><p>Controls come in second to me. To be able to envelop myself in a game I need the controls to be configurable to how I want to play the game. I'm known to NOT buy games because of this. This is a joke to do.. and pure laziness by developers not to do it.</p><p>Graphics come in last of these three (not of all) because to me... there is a point where it's all candy and not needed but that also depends on the game. I wouldn't want to play Assassin's Creed in 8bit, but would settle for ps1 level if there was more content. The game kinda gets old after a while. In today's day an age with the engines available for development there just isn't any excuse for a fast paced game to look worse than the Quake 3 engine.</p><p>However, games played at a slower pace (Turn Based, etc) are complete different. They also range depending on the game itself and what it's trying to do. If all game manufactures would focus on that priority list we wouldn't have so many great looking paper weights on the market and their pockets would be much fuller.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the order of things .
If you do n't have content... your game is a pretty piece of trash .
( Think most sports games from EA that are recycled ) .
Sure... the first might be awesome... but we lack a tremendous amount of content these days .
Content is what keeps a game interesting , it 's what makes others want to buy it from friends recommending since most of us realize that the rating system on gamestop and most of the magazines is now manipulated completely .
Look at the Final Fantasy series ?
A new story each time , each extremely enveloping... though most of us agree X-2 never happened.Zelda , Metroid , Super Mario Brothers... each one has an amazing new amount of content and that 's why they are classics and always a quick sell .
How replay-able is the game ? Controls come in second to me .
To be able to envelop myself in a game I need the controls to be configurable to how I want to play the game .
I 'm known to NOT buy games because of this .
This is a joke to do.. and pure laziness by developers not to do it.Graphics come in last of these three ( not of all ) because to me... there is a point where it 's all candy and not needed but that also depends on the game .
I would n't want to play Assassin 's Creed in 8bit , but would settle for ps1 level if there was more content .
The game kinda gets old after a while .
In today 's day an age with the engines available for development there just is n't any excuse for a fast paced game to look worse than the Quake 3 engine.However , games played at a slower pace ( Turn Based , etc ) are complete different .
They also range depending on the game itself and what it 's trying to do .
If all game manufactures would focus on that priority list we would n't have so many great looking paper weights on the market and their pockets would be much fuller .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the order of things.
If you don't have content... your game is a pretty piece of trash.
(Think most sports games from EA that are recycled).
Sure... the first might be awesome... but we lack a tremendous amount of content these days.
Content is what keeps a game interesting, it's what makes others want to buy it from friends recommending since most of us realize that the rating system on gamestop and most of the magazines is now manipulated completely.
Look at the Final Fantasy series?
A new story each time, each extremely enveloping... though most of us agree X-2 never happened.Zelda, Metroid, Super Mario Brothers... each one has an amazing new amount of content and that's why they are classics and always a quick sell.
How replay-able is the game?Controls come in second to me.
To be able to envelop myself in a game I need the controls to be configurable to how I want to play the game.
I'm known to NOT buy games because of this.
This is a joke to do.. and pure laziness by developers not to do it.Graphics come in last of these three (not of all) because to me... there is a point where it's all candy and not needed but that also depends on the game.
I wouldn't want to play Assassin's Creed in 8bit, but would settle for ps1 level if there was more content.
The game kinda gets old after a while.
In today's day an age with the engines available for development there just isn't any excuse for a fast paced game to look worse than the Quake 3 engine.However, games played at a slower pace (Turn Based, etc) are complete different.
They also range depending on the game itself and what it's trying to do.
If all game manufactures would focus on that priority list we wouldn't have so many great looking paper weights on the market and their pockets would be much fuller.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637285</id>
	<title>Depends on the game, and that makes it an art</title>
	<author>PotatoHead</author>
	<datestamp>1247156760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the game is abstract, for example, realistic graphics generally don't make a lot of sense.  Should somebody do an abstract game with realistic graphics, I would appreciate the art of doing that, but I don't feel it's needed.</p><p>Simulation type games lean toward realistic graphics.  On those, I find quite a high value associated with realism.  The game is more immersive when this is done well.</p><p>RPG games are all over the map, but generally best done with recognizable objects and good art direction.  These things are an escape of sorts, and too much realism breaks that.</p><p>Then there is the simple text adventure.  No graphics at all!  I'm quite sure somebody could do up a 3D "Zork" like place, and a whole lot of people would recognize it for what it is, just like many people "recognized" places depicted in "Lord Of The Rings".</p><p>Pretty graphics alone don't add a lot of value, unless the game is lightweight, or maybe some kinds of puzzlers.</p><p>There just isn't one answer to this question.  There are enough variables to make it an art, not a science IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the game is abstract , for example , realistic graphics generally do n't make a lot of sense .
Should somebody do an abstract game with realistic graphics , I would appreciate the art of doing that , but I do n't feel it 's needed.Simulation type games lean toward realistic graphics .
On those , I find quite a high value associated with realism .
The game is more immersive when this is done well.RPG games are all over the map , but generally best done with recognizable objects and good art direction .
These things are an escape of sorts , and too much realism breaks that.Then there is the simple text adventure .
No graphics at all !
I 'm quite sure somebody could do up a 3D " Zork " like place , and a whole lot of people would recognize it for what it is , just like many people " recognized " places depicted in " Lord Of The Rings " .Pretty graphics alone do n't add a lot of value , unless the game is lightweight , or maybe some kinds of puzzlers.There just is n't one answer to this question .
There are enough variables to make it an art , not a science IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the game is abstract, for example, realistic graphics generally don't make a lot of sense.
Should somebody do an abstract game with realistic graphics, I would appreciate the art of doing that, but I don't feel it's needed.Simulation type games lean toward realistic graphics.
On those, I find quite a high value associated with realism.
The game is more immersive when this is done well.RPG games are all over the map, but generally best done with recognizable objects and good art direction.
These things are an escape of sorts, and too much realism breaks that.Then there is the simple text adventure.
No graphics at all!
I'm quite sure somebody could do up a 3D "Zork" like place, and a whole lot of people would recognize it for what it is, just like many people "recognized" places depicted in "Lord Of The Rings".Pretty graphics alone don't add a lot of value, unless the game is lightweight, or maybe some kinds of puzzlers.There just isn't one answer to this question.
There are enough variables to make it an art, not a science IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633719</id>
	<title>Graphics need to be appropriate to the game</title>
	<author>RogueyWon</author>
	<datestamp>1247134620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Graphics should be appropriate to the game experience you're trying to create. That's all there is to it, really.</p><p>In some cases, that means pushing for absolutely cutting edge technology. A big part of the Crysis experience is the "shock and awe" factor of the visuals, as well as the heavy use of foliage and other environmental factors that need to be done to a very high standard if they're not going to look silly. Personally, I think Crysis is a very, very good game - one of the best of recent years on any platform - and the graphics are a big part of that (though the fairly free-form gameplay is another big element). To be honest, if you're making a first or third person shooter these days that doesn't have a deliberately abstract setting, then you really should be pushing for the most technologically advanced graphics you can, because as gamers' expectations improve, games which fall behind the curve face a bigger and bigger challenge in not having their immersion broken through poor graphics. I remember playing Call of Cthulhu - Dark Corners of the Earth back when it was released and being generally very impressed by the atmosphere (despite the bugs). I tried replaying it recently, and the way that the graphics had aged so badly was quite a shocking bar to getting back into it.</p><p>However, not every game needs to be a technological powerhouse, and there are even cases where flash-whizz-bang 3d graphics can work against a game. My favorite example here (and yes, I know it's an old one) concerns the third and fourth Monkey Island games. Monkey Island 3 was for many years the closest thing I'd played to an interactive cartoon. The graphical quality certainly wasn't far short of the animation you were seeing in animated movies at the time, and was actually ahead of much of what you'd see in kids' TV cartoons and anime of the era. For a cartoony graphical adventure, it was perfect. Then for the fourth installment, everything went 3d and it looked rubbish. So we went stylistically from "interactive cartoon" to "badly designed Quake mod". You can see the same thing with the transition from Baldur's Gate 2 to Neverwinter Nights - beautifully drawn 2d backdrops changed to boring, bland 3d tilesets (though I guess this was necessary to make user created content easier).</p><p>Interestingly, the recent Sam &amp; Max episodic games seem to have found a decent middle ground here. They balance 3d and 2 graphics in a way that works really quite well, and have finally pulled things back up to the "interactive cartoon" level (and a prettier cartoon that Monkey Island 3 was, though perhaps not by far).</p><p>Then occasionally you get one of my favorite experiences; something which uses really quite advanced graphical effects to produce a deliberately highly stylised effect. The best example I've seen of this recently is Valkyria Chronicles for the PS3, which uses some quite advanced 3d graphics and visual effects, but aims for a unique look, which is going neither for realism, nor for the typical anime look you see in a lot of Japanese games. I know cell-shading is nothing new (and has been much abused, particularly by Nintendo), but Valkyria Chronicles combines it with other techniques to pull off a unique and distinctive look that really fits the game well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics should be appropriate to the game experience you 're trying to create .
That 's all there is to it , really.In some cases , that means pushing for absolutely cutting edge technology .
A big part of the Crysis experience is the " shock and awe " factor of the visuals , as well as the heavy use of foliage and other environmental factors that need to be done to a very high standard if they 're not going to look silly .
Personally , I think Crysis is a very , very good game - one of the best of recent years on any platform - and the graphics are a big part of that ( though the fairly free-form gameplay is another big element ) .
To be honest , if you 're making a first or third person shooter these days that does n't have a deliberately abstract setting , then you really should be pushing for the most technologically advanced graphics you can , because as gamers ' expectations improve , games which fall behind the curve face a bigger and bigger challenge in not having their immersion broken through poor graphics .
I remember playing Call of Cthulhu - Dark Corners of the Earth back when it was released and being generally very impressed by the atmosphere ( despite the bugs ) .
I tried replaying it recently , and the way that the graphics had aged so badly was quite a shocking bar to getting back into it.However , not every game needs to be a technological powerhouse , and there are even cases where flash-whizz-bang 3d graphics can work against a game .
My favorite example here ( and yes , I know it 's an old one ) concerns the third and fourth Monkey Island games .
Monkey Island 3 was for many years the closest thing I 'd played to an interactive cartoon .
The graphical quality certainly was n't far short of the animation you were seeing in animated movies at the time , and was actually ahead of much of what you 'd see in kids ' TV cartoons and anime of the era .
For a cartoony graphical adventure , it was perfect .
Then for the fourth installment , everything went 3d and it looked rubbish .
So we went stylistically from " interactive cartoon " to " badly designed Quake mod " .
You can see the same thing with the transition from Baldur 's Gate 2 to Neverwinter Nights - beautifully drawn 2d backdrops changed to boring , bland 3d tilesets ( though I guess this was necessary to make user created content easier ) .Interestingly , the recent Sam &amp; Max episodic games seem to have found a decent middle ground here .
They balance 3d and 2 graphics in a way that works really quite well , and have finally pulled things back up to the " interactive cartoon " level ( and a prettier cartoon that Monkey Island 3 was , though perhaps not by far ) .Then occasionally you get one of my favorite experiences ; something which uses really quite advanced graphical effects to produce a deliberately highly stylised effect .
The best example I 've seen of this recently is Valkyria Chronicles for the PS3 , which uses some quite advanced 3d graphics and visual effects , but aims for a unique look , which is going neither for realism , nor for the typical anime look you see in a lot of Japanese games .
I know cell-shading is nothing new ( and has been much abused , particularly by Nintendo ) , but Valkyria Chronicles combines it with other techniques to pull off a unique and distinctive look that really fits the game well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics should be appropriate to the game experience you're trying to create.
That's all there is to it, really.In some cases, that means pushing for absolutely cutting edge technology.
A big part of the Crysis experience is the "shock and awe" factor of the visuals, as well as the heavy use of foliage and other environmental factors that need to be done to a very high standard if they're not going to look silly.
Personally, I think Crysis is a very, very good game - one of the best of recent years on any platform - and the graphics are a big part of that (though the fairly free-form gameplay is another big element).
To be honest, if you're making a first or third person shooter these days that doesn't have a deliberately abstract setting, then you really should be pushing for the most technologically advanced graphics you can, because as gamers' expectations improve, games which fall behind the curve face a bigger and bigger challenge in not having their immersion broken through poor graphics.
I remember playing Call of Cthulhu - Dark Corners of the Earth back when it was released and being generally very impressed by the atmosphere (despite the bugs).
I tried replaying it recently, and the way that the graphics had aged so badly was quite a shocking bar to getting back into it.However, not every game needs to be a technological powerhouse, and there are even cases where flash-whizz-bang 3d graphics can work against a game.
My favorite example here (and yes, I know it's an old one) concerns the third and fourth Monkey Island games.
Monkey Island 3 was for many years the closest thing I'd played to an interactive cartoon.
The graphical quality certainly wasn't far short of the animation you were seeing in animated movies at the time, and was actually ahead of much of what you'd see in kids' TV cartoons and anime of the era.
For a cartoony graphical adventure, it was perfect.
Then for the fourth installment, everything went 3d and it looked rubbish.
So we went stylistically from "interactive cartoon" to "badly designed Quake mod".
You can see the same thing with the transition from Baldur's Gate 2 to Neverwinter Nights - beautifully drawn 2d backdrops changed to boring, bland 3d tilesets (though I guess this was necessary to make user created content easier).Interestingly, the recent Sam &amp; Max episodic games seem to have found a decent middle ground here.
They balance 3d and 2 graphics in a way that works really quite well, and have finally pulled things back up to the "interactive cartoon" level (and a prettier cartoon that Monkey Island 3 was, though perhaps not by far).Then occasionally you get one of my favorite experiences; something which uses really quite advanced graphical effects to produce a deliberately highly stylised effect.
The best example I've seen of this recently is Valkyria Chronicles for the PS3, which uses some quite advanced 3d graphics and visual effects, but aims for a unique look, which is going neither for realism, nor for the typical anime look you see in a lot of Japanese games.
I know cell-shading is nothing new (and has been much abused, particularly by Nintendo), but Valkyria Chronicles combines it with other techniques to pull off a unique and distinctive look that really fits the game well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28647607</id>
	<title>They aren't</title>
	<author>krilli</author>
	<datestamp>1247226600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?</p></div><p>You're looking at the wrong games. The realistic stuff is in the bulk market - which is composed of previous generations but with extra bells and whistles.</p><p>The actual current generation of games, IMO, are things like Braid, weird Flash games, Dwarf Fortress, Scribblenauts, Wii games. Where the innovation is. These don't have realistic graphics.</p><p>Except maybe Dwarf Fortress, which has very realistic, very low-resolution graphics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games ? You 're looking at the wrong games .
The realistic stuff is in the bulk market - which is composed of previous generations but with extra bells and whistles.The actual current generation of games , IMO , are things like Braid , weird Flash games , Dwarf Fortress , Scribblenauts , Wii games .
Where the innovation is .
These do n't have realistic graphics.Except maybe Dwarf Fortress , which has very realistic , very low-resolution graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?You're looking at the wrong games.
The realistic stuff is in the bulk market - which is composed of previous generations but with extra bells and whistles.The actual current generation of games, IMO, are things like Braid, weird Flash games, Dwarf Fortress, Scribblenauts, Wii games.
Where the innovation is.
These don't have realistic graphics.Except maybe Dwarf Fortress, which has very realistic, very low-resolution graphics.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633705</id>
	<title>Don't try too hard!</title>
	<author>Per Wigren</author>
	<datestamp>1247134560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For me it's all about the feeling. Graphics, background music, sound effects, narrating and of course the story line are all part of that.<br>I can love beautiful, near-photorealistic graphics and I can also love simple, cartoonish graphics. What I don't like is graphics that try to be photorealistic but fails to.</p><p>Remember that the more you put into details, the more the details you miss will become obvious. I wouldn't care that the water didn't look very realistic in a game where all graphics looks unrealistic, but if the grass and the trees are dead gorgeous, unrealistic water would suddenly become a minus point because it wouldn't fit in.</p><p>Basically, if you aren't willing to put major effort into making the graphics look realistic, don't try. Instead aim for some other style, like <a href="http://www.mobygames.com/game/prince-of-persia\_/screenshots" title="mobygames.com">Prince of Persia</a> [mobygames.com], <a href="http://www.mobygames.com/game/gamecube/legend-of-zelda-the-wind-waker/screenshots" title="mobygames.com">Zelda: Wind Waker</a> [mobygames.com] or <a href="http://www.mobygames.com/game/ps3/littlebigplanet/screenshots" title="mobygames.com">Little Big Planet</a> [mobygames.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For me it 's all about the feeling .
Graphics , background music , sound effects , narrating and of course the story line are all part of that.I can love beautiful , near-photorealistic graphics and I can also love simple , cartoonish graphics .
What I do n't like is graphics that try to be photorealistic but fails to.Remember that the more you put into details , the more the details you miss will become obvious .
I would n't care that the water did n't look very realistic in a game where all graphics looks unrealistic , but if the grass and the trees are dead gorgeous , unrealistic water would suddenly become a minus point because it would n't fit in.Basically , if you are n't willing to put major effort into making the graphics look realistic , do n't try .
Instead aim for some other style , like Prince of Persia [ mobygames.com ] , Zelda : Wind Waker [ mobygames.com ] or Little Big Planet [ mobygames.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me it's all about the feeling.
Graphics, background music, sound effects, narrating and of course the story line are all part of that.I can love beautiful, near-photorealistic graphics and I can also love simple, cartoonish graphics.
What I don't like is graphics that try to be photorealistic but fails to.Remember that the more you put into details, the more the details you miss will become obvious.
I wouldn't care that the water didn't look very realistic in a game where all graphics looks unrealistic, but if the grass and the trees are dead gorgeous, unrealistic water would suddenly become a minus point because it wouldn't fit in.Basically, if you aren't willing to put major effort into making the graphics look realistic, don't try.
Instead aim for some other style, like Prince of Persia [mobygames.com], Zelda: Wind Waker [mobygames.com] or Little Big Planet [mobygames.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633809</id>
	<title>Lack of imagination</title>
	<author>prof alan</author>
	<datestamp>1247135580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Q "why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?"
<p>
A. For the same reason that Hollywood attaches such importance to CGI and vastly expensive special effects: - they are unable or unwilling to provide storylines or dialogue that can grip the viewers attention without them.
</p><p>
The same lack of imagination is the reason for the preponderance of sequels and films based on comic books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Q " why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games ?
" A. For the same reason that Hollywood attaches such importance to CGI and vastly expensive special effects : - they are unable or unwilling to provide storylines or dialogue that can grip the viewers attention without them .
The same lack of imagination is the reason for the preponderance of sequels and films based on comic books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q "why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?
"

A. For the same reason that Hollywood attaches such importance to CGI and vastly expensive special effects: - they are unable or unwilling to provide storylines or dialogue that can grip the viewers attention without them.
The same lack of imagination is the reason for the preponderance of sequels and films based on comic books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637237</id>
	<title>Re:This issue was thoroughly hashed out in the 199</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247156520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  See "Too Human" for the Xbox....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
See " Too Human " for the Xbox... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
See "Too Human" for the Xbox....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634629</id>
	<title>One single word</title>
	<author>fph il quozientatore</author>
	<datestamp>1247144340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>nethack</htmltext>
<tokenext>nethack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nethack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28643219</id>
	<title>Re:I hate photorealism in video games</title>
	<author>Ithaca\_nz</author>
	<datestamp>1247137920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just in case you haven't found it, try <a href="http://www.gog.com/" title="gog.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.gog.com/</a> [gog.com]</p><p>I'm currently reliving my childhood, to the detriment of my adulthood, but ah well, plenty of time to be old later. Also Steam has a large number of smaller indie titles as well as the time-consuming AAA titles, not least of which is the old LucasArts games, with more to come.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just in case you have n't found it , try http : //www.gog.com/ [ gog.com ] I 'm currently reliving my childhood , to the detriment of my adulthood , but ah well , plenty of time to be old later .
Also Steam has a large number of smaller indie titles as well as the time-consuming AAA titles , not least of which is the old LucasArts games , with more to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just in case you haven't found it, try http://www.gog.com/ [gog.com]I'm currently reliving my childhood, to the detriment of my adulthood, but ah well, plenty of time to be old later.
Also Steam has a large number of smaller indie titles as well as the time-consuming AAA titles, not least of which is the old LucasArts games, with more to come.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28646469</id>
	<title>Re:Graphics need to be appropriate to the game</title>
	<author>shervinemami</author>
	<datestamp>1247167980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think most people would agree that for some types of games, like Crysis, new high-res &amp; realtistic graphics are very useful, whereas for other types of games like Tetris or Nintendo games, old &amp; simple graphics is equally suitable.

But the crazy thing is that it seems that game designers think they can only sell the types of games that need high quality graphics.  How often do you hear of a new 2D platform game on Xbox 360 or PS3? You don't, because its assumed that these days no-one would want to play those type of games if there's games around with more realistic graphics, but I don't think that's true. Nintendo Wii proves that you can still sell new games with lower quality graphics.  And look at the whole genre of Street Fighter style games, they have barely changed at all in nearly 20 years and are still very popular!

Basically what I'm saying is that if some games are suited to high 3D graphics and other games are suited to cartoon or 2D graphics, then why do people almost only every make the high 3D graphics type games now?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most people would agree that for some types of games , like Crysis , new high-res &amp; realtistic graphics are very useful , whereas for other types of games like Tetris or Nintendo games , old &amp; simple graphics is equally suitable .
But the crazy thing is that it seems that game designers think they can only sell the types of games that need high quality graphics .
How often do you hear of a new 2D platform game on Xbox 360 or PS3 ?
You do n't , because its assumed that these days no-one would want to play those type of games if there 's games around with more realistic graphics , but I do n't think that 's true .
Nintendo Wii proves that you can still sell new games with lower quality graphics .
And look at the whole genre of Street Fighter style games , they have barely changed at all in nearly 20 years and are still very popular !
Basically what I 'm saying is that if some games are suited to high 3D graphics and other games are suited to cartoon or 2D graphics , then why do people almost only every make the high 3D graphics type games now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most people would agree that for some types of games, like Crysis, new high-res &amp; realtistic graphics are very useful, whereas for other types of games like Tetris or Nintendo games, old &amp; simple graphics is equally suitable.
But the crazy thing is that it seems that game designers think they can only sell the types of games that need high quality graphics.
How often do you hear of a new 2D platform game on Xbox 360 or PS3?
You don't, because its assumed that these days no-one would want to play those type of games if there's games around with more realistic graphics, but I don't think that's true.
Nintendo Wii proves that you can still sell new games with lower quality graphics.
And look at the whole genre of Street Fighter style games, they have barely changed at all in nearly 20 years and are still very popular!
Basically what I'm saying is that if some games are suited to high 3D graphics and other games are suited to cartoon or 2D graphics, then why do people almost only every make the high 3D graphics type games now?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633719</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637733</id>
	<title>Re:Tie Fighter</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1247158740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>graphics were decent for the time, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>graphics were decent for the time , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>graphics were decent for the time, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636163</id>
	<title>As regards FPS games...</title>
	<author>Gaian-Orlanthii</author>
	<datestamp>1247152920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I'd like to see more time spent on making the game world more realistic to <b>be in</b>, not look at.
<br>
We already have (for example), games with beautiful reflective water, swaying foliage with real-time shadowing, stunning skies and scenery. With character modelling the way it's going, we're well on our way out of the uncanny valley too.
<br>
The problem is that none of this stuff matters if you - the player - is basically a camera pole mounted on tracks with a couple of utility arms tacked on.
You can swivel your vision around, you've got a gun for shooting stuff, you've got some kind of 'use' tool (most of the time) and you can alternate speeds and posture. I.e: Walk, run, crouch and jump a bit (usually without ever getting tired).
<br>
But you can't climb over that metre high wall, lie on your back and watch the sun rise and set in real-time and you can't dance.* You can't really interact with the game world at all except to "activate" stuff with your 'use' button. It's like being a brain in a robot body.
<br>
I'd like to see some basic physical interaction with the environment along the lines of things getting wet from water, fires started in grass and bush actually spreading by the wind, and then the scenery staying burned afterwards.
<br>
I'm not interested in how my gun fires individually modelled bullets or the floppiness of my enemies' corpses.
<br>
*<em>Jumping up and down on the spot and shuffling/running around is not dancing. Unless you're a punk or high.</em></htmltext>
<tokenext>...I 'd like to see more time spent on making the game world more realistic to be in , not look at .
We already have ( for example ) , games with beautiful reflective water , swaying foliage with real-time shadowing , stunning skies and scenery .
With character modelling the way it 's going , we 're well on our way out of the uncanny valley too .
The problem is that none of this stuff matters if you - the player - is basically a camera pole mounted on tracks with a couple of utility arms tacked on .
You can swivel your vision around , you 've got a gun for shooting stuff , you 've got some kind of 'use ' tool ( most of the time ) and you can alternate speeds and posture .
I.e : Walk , run , crouch and jump a bit ( usually without ever getting tired ) .
But you ca n't climb over that metre high wall , lie on your back and watch the sun rise and set in real-time and you ca n't dance .
* You ca n't really interact with the game world at all except to " activate " stuff with your 'use ' button .
It 's like being a brain in a robot body .
I 'd like to see some basic physical interaction with the environment along the lines of things getting wet from water , fires started in grass and bush actually spreading by the wind , and then the scenery staying burned afterwards .
I 'm not interested in how my gun fires individually modelled bullets or the floppiness of my enemies ' corpses .
* Jumping up and down on the spot and shuffling/running around is not dancing .
Unless you 're a punk or high .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I'd like to see more time spent on making the game world more realistic to be in, not look at.
We already have (for example), games with beautiful reflective water, swaying foliage with real-time shadowing, stunning skies and scenery.
With character modelling the way it's going, we're well on our way out of the uncanny valley too.
The problem is that none of this stuff matters if you - the player - is basically a camera pole mounted on tracks with a couple of utility arms tacked on.
You can swivel your vision around, you've got a gun for shooting stuff, you've got some kind of 'use' tool (most of the time) and you can alternate speeds and posture.
I.e: Walk, run, crouch and jump a bit (usually without ever getting tired).
But you can't climb over that metre high wall, lie on your back and watch the sun rise and set in real-time and you can't dance.
* You can't really interact with the game world at all except to "activate" stuff with your 'use' button.
It's like being a brain in a robot body.
I'd like to see some basic physical interaction with the environment along the lines of things getting wet from water, fires started in grass and bush actually spreading by the wind, and then the scenery staying burned afterwards.
I'm not interested in how my gun fires individually modelled bullets or the floppiness of my enemies' corpses.
*Jumping up and down on the spot and shuffling/running around is not dancing.
Unless you're a punk or high.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28639085</id>
	<title>Archive this thread for next time.</title>
	<author>Maxwell</author>
	<datestamp>1247164440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone plaase archive this thread. We had the same conversation in 1987, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2002, 2006 and 2008.  We'll have it again.</p><p>The answer , by the way, is 'why not?'. If gameplays is identical, I'll take the better looking game. Why not? Duh. There is no trade off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone plaase archive this thread .
We had the same conversation in 1987 , 1991 , 1996 , 2001 , 2002 , 2006 and 2008 .
We 'll have it again.The answer , by the way , is 'why not ? ' .
If gameplays is identical , I 'll take the better looking game .
Why not ?
Duh. There is no trade off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone plaase archive this thread.
We had the same conversation in 1987, 1991, 1996, 2001, 2002, 2006 and 2008.
We'll have it again.The answer , by the way, is 'why not?'.
If gameplays is identical, I'll take the better looking game.
Why not?
Duh. There is no trade off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287</id>
	<title>This issue was thoroughly hashed out in the 1990s.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247140080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been in the business for 20 years and heard all this before. We reached two conclusions:<ul>
<li>Different players want different things; you can't please everybody (as the comments above show).</li><li>To make a successful commercial game, you must have both high quality graphics AND high quality gameplay. (High quality doesn't necessarily mean high-end graphics technology; it means aesthetically competent and suited to the game's setting.) A game with great gameplay and graphics weaknesses <i>can</i> survive, but it will have a tough time at first, until the word spreads. A game with great graphics and poor gameplay will have decent early sales, but these will drop off quickly as people discover the bugs or design errors in the gameplay.</li></ul><p>
If you <i>must</i> err on one side or the other, err on the side of gameplay. But you should make both as high-quality as you can.</p><p>

Concerning graphics technology, that's down to audience. Hardware-oriented fanbois will drool over the latest gear and games that exploit it; adult women playing games on Yahoo during their coffee break will not. Decide who you are serving and what your game really needs first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been in the business for 20 years and heard all this before .
We reached two conclusions : Different players want different things ; you ca n't please everybody ( as the comments above show ) .To make a successful commercial game , you must have both high quality graphics AND high quality gameplay .
( High quality does n't necessarily mean high-end graphics technology ; it means aesthetically competent and suited to the game 's setting .
) A game with great gameplay and graphics weaknesses can survive , but it will have a tough time at first , until the word spreads .
A game with great graphics and poor gameplay will have decent early sales , but these will drop off quickly as people discover the bugs or design errors in the gameplay .
If you must err on one side or the other , err on the side of gameplay .
But you should make both as high-quality as you can .
Concerning graphics technology , that 's down to audience .
Hardware-oriented fanbois will drool over the latest gear and games that exploit it ; adult women playing games on Yahoo during their coffee break will not .
Decide who you are serving and what your game really needs first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been in the business for 20 years and heard all this before.
We reached two conclusions:
Different players want different things; you can't please everybody (as the comments above show).To make a successful commercial game, you must have both high quality graphics AND high quality gameplay.
(High quality doesn't necessarily mean high-end graphics technology; it means aesthetically competent and suited to the game's setting.
) A game with great gameplay and graphics weaknesses can survive, but it will have a tough time at first, until the word spreads.
A game with great graphics and poor gameplay will have decent early sales, but these will drop off quickly as people discover the bugs or design errors in the gameplay.
If you must err on one side or the other, err on the side of gameplay.
But you should make both as high-quality as you can.
Concerning graphics technology, that's down to audience.
Hardware-oriented fanbois will drool over the latest gear and games that exploit it; adult women playing games on Yahoo during their coffee break will not.
Decide who you are serving and what your game really needs first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638039</id>
	<title>None of the above</title>
	<author>fadethepolice</author>
	<datestamp>1247160300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I grew weary of most non-multiplayer games ages ago, and recently switched back to enemy territory from newer games due to the ability to have more players on the same server.  For me it is efficiency (speed of game) largest team size, and the ability for gamers to rapidly develop new boards to ensure novelty.  Graphics is an issue, but even a old game like enemy territory's graphics are good enough as long as the other prerequisites are met.  Even when I play strategy games I tend to play games that randomly produce their own environments.  Repeating storylines or boards over and over again just isn't fun.  I can't wait for a few years when users can easily produce high resolution environments at a whim.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew weary of most non-multiplayer games ages ago , and recently switched back to enemy territory from newer games due to the ability to have more players on the same server .
For me it is efficiency ( speed of game ) largest team size , and the ability for gamers to rapidly develop new boards to ensure novelty .
Graphics is an issue , but even a old game like enemy territory 's graphics are good enough as long as the other prerequisites are met .
Even when I play strategy games I tend to play games that randomly produce their own environments .
Repeating storylines or boards over and over again just is n't fun .
I ca n't wait for a few years when users can easily produce high resolution environments at a whim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew weary of most non-multiplayer games ages ago, and recently switched back to enemy territory from newer games due to the ability to have more players on the same server.
For me it is efficiency (speed of game) largest team size, and the ability for gamers to rapidly develop new boards to ensure novelty.
Graphics is an issue, but even a old game like enemy territory's graphics are good enough as long as the other prerequisites are met.
Even when I play strategy games I tend to play games that randomly produce their own environments.
Repeating storylines or boards over and over again just isn't fun.
I can't wait for a few years when users can easily produce high resolution environments at a whim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28642075</id>
	<title>Decent 3D graphics are tricky to do</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1247133240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps more interactive physics would help a lot more than graphics, even though in one sense they could be considered 'graphics'.</p><p>Stunt Car Racer for me is still one of the most thrilling, fun and scary games ever, despite its jerky frame rate (15 fps), and primitive vector graphics.</p><p>Changing topic, I suppose the detail in 2D games makes the graphics look better in one way than many 3D games anyway. It's harder to create decent 3D graphics because of the extra dimension artists need to play with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps more interactive physics would help a lot more than graphics , even though in one sense they could be considered 'graphics'.Stunt Car Racer for me is still one of the most thrilling , fun and scary games ever , despite its jerky frame rate ( 15 fps ) , and primitive vector graphics.Changing topic , I suppose the detail in 2D games makes the graphics look better in one way than many 3D games anyway .
It 's harder to create decent 3D graphics because of the extra dimension artists need to play with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps more interactive physics would help a lot more than graphics, even though in one sense they could be considered 'graphics'.Stunt Car Racer for me is still one of the most thrilling, fun and scary games ever, despite its jerky frame rate (15 fps), and primitive vector graphics.Changing topic, I suppose the detail in 2D games makes the graphics look better in one way than many 3D games anyway.
It's harder to create decent 3D graphics because of the extra dimension artists need to play with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28646221</id>
	<title>What actually works for each game.</title>
	<author>Dullstar</author>
	<datestamp>1247164200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer 2D games, actually.  In most cases anyways.  Basically, RPG's started out 2D (sort of).  Some series work better in 3D (for instance, Legend of Zelda).  Some *might* not, if I'd played more 3D RPG's which had their roots on 2D consoles.  Then Nintendo introduced Mario 64 and that probably proved that while 3D Mario is good in its own way, it worked better in 2D.  In my opinion, the graphics must be tolerable to look at, and be recognizable.  Except on games like Pokemon, where they are recognizable after you've seen the creature (in this example, a Pokemon) and know what it is.  I mean, of course one wouldn't recognize something they'd never seen or heard a description of before.  I think my favorite console era for graphics was 16 bit.  However, I admit that some games wouldn't be as good without the graphics they have.  SPORE, for instance, kinda needs 3D or the game just would have no way of working well (although on low settings some textures look like they could be displayed better by an NES, but...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer 2D games , actually .
In most cases anyways .
Basically , RPG 's started out 2D ( sort of ) .
Some series work better in 3D ( for instance , Legend of Zelda ) .
Some * might * not , if I 'd played more 3D RPG 's which had their roots on 2D consoles .
Then Nintendo introduced Mario 64 and that probably proved that while 3D Mario is good in its own way , it worked better in 2D .
In my opinion , the graphics must be tolerable to look at , and be recognizable .
Except on games like Pokemon , where they are recognizable after you 've seen the creature ( in this example , a Pokemon ) and know what it is .
I mean , of course one would n't recognize something they 'd never seen or heard a description of before .
I think my favorite console era for graphics was 16 bit .
However , I admit that some games would n't be as good without the graphics they have .
SPORE , for instance , kinda needs 3D or the game just would have no way of working well ( although on low settings some textures look like they could be displayed better by an NES , but... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer 2D games, actually.
In most cases anyways.
Basically, RPG's started out 2D (sort of).
Some series work better in 3D (for instance, Legend of Zelda).
Some *might* not, if I'd played more 3D RPG's which had their roots on 2D consoles.
Then Nintendo introduced Mario 64 and that probably proved that while 3D Mario is good in its own way, it worked better in 2D.
In my opinion, the graphics must be tolerable to look at, and be recognizable.
Except on games like Pokemon, where they are recognizable after you've seen the creature (in this example, a Pokemon) and know what it is.
I mean, of course one wouldn't recognize something they'd never seen or heard a description of before.
I think my favorite console era for graphics was 16 bit.
However, I admit that some games wouldn't be as good without the graphics they have.
SPORE, for instance, kinda needs 3D or the game just would have no way of working well (although on low settings some textures look like they could be displayed better by an NES, but...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633839</id>
	<title>Graphics Are Not the Key to a Great Game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247135880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just as it takes more than skillful special effects to make a great movie, it takes more than good graphics to make a great game.  You'd think these points would be obvious but there are quite clearly game (and movie) makers out there who don't get them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just as it takes more than skillful special effects to make a great movie , it takes more than good graphics to make a great game .
You 'd think these points would be obvious but there are quite clearly game ( and movie ) makers out there who do n't get them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just as it takes more than skillful special effects to make a great movie, it takes more than good graphics to make a great game.
You'd think these points would be obvious but there are quite clearly game (and movie) makers out there who don't get them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635383</id>
	<title>Gameplay and replayable storyline</title>
	<author>magnm</author>
	<datestamp>1247149380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think all games should have a good story that is replayable. Gamers are paying $50 plus for games now and developers are spending way too much time on graphics and they are losing franchises because of poor replay value or poor gameplay. It would be nice to see the prices come down, but that won't be happening, so let's see some better gameplay and storylines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think all games should have a good story that is replayable .
Gamers are paying $ 50 plus for games now and developers are spending way too much time on graphics and they are losing franchises because of poor replay value or poor gameplay .
It would be nice to see the prices come down , but that wo n't be happening , so let 's see some better gameplay and storylines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think all games should have a good story that is replayable.
Gamers are paying $50 plus for games now and developers are spending way too much time on graphics and they are losing franchises because of poor replay value or poor gameplay.
It would be nice to see the prices come down, but that won't be happening, so let's see some better gameplay and storylines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633749</id>
	<title>Graphics are really, really important for an hour</title>
	<author>BerntB</author>
	<datestamp>1247134860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Graphics are really important for an hour or two, then you turn them down to get maximum speed in the <i>real</i> goal -- killing your friends and unknown kids on the intertubes...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Graphics are really important for an hour or two , then you turn them down to get maximum speed in the real goal -- killing your friends and unknown kids on the intertubes... ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Graphics are really important for an hour or two, then you turn them down to get maximum speed in the real goal -- killing your friends and unknown kids on the intertubes... ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634957</id>
	<title>The bit Wars</title>
	<author>evilkasper</author>
	<datestamp>1247146980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its not just the current generation. In an earlier day we endured the bit wars; where the systems at the time boasted 8, 16, 32 and 64 bits. What it boiled down to was bragging rights. Look at the Atari Jaguar, promoted as the first 64 bit system, its rivals at the time were the SNES and Genesis. The graphics sucked, and the games sucked compared to the vast librairies from its rivals. Eventually the bit wars ended. Did more bits make a better game? The answer seems to be no as the Jaguar was Atari's last production model console. The lesson seems to be a balance of graphics and gameplay.  If the graphics are suited to the game then great, you've got a winner. Look at the Nintendo DS vs the Sony PSP... the PSP is capable of much higher quality graphics, but partially because of bad marketing and Sony trying to push it as a portable theater it is no where near as succesful as the DS.  It also does not have the same level of game library that the DS has.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not just the current generation .
In an earlier day we endured the bit wars ; where the systems at the time boasted 8 , 16 , 32 and 64 bits .
What it boiled down to was bragging rights .
Look at the Atari Jaguar , promoted as the first 64 bit system , its rivals at the time were the SNES and Genesis .
The graphics sucked , and the games sucked compared to the vast librairies from its rivals .
Eventually the bit wars ended .
Did more bits make a better game ?
The answer seems to be no as the Jaguar was Atari 's last production model console .
The lesson seems to be a balance of graphics and gameplay .
If the graphics are suited to the game then great , you 've got a winner .
Look at the Nintendo DS vs the Sony PSP... the PSP is capable of much higher quality graphics , but partially because of bad marketing and Sony trying to push it as a portable theater it is no where near as succesful as the DS .
It also does not have the same level of game library that the DS has .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not just the current generation.
In an earlier day we endured the bit wars; where the systems at the time boasted 8, 16, 32 and 64 bits.
What it boiled down to was bragging rights.
Look at the Atari Jaguar, promoted as the first 64 bit system, its rivals at the time were the SNES and Genesis.
The graphics sucked, and the games sucked compared to the vast librairies from its rivals.
Eventually the bit wars ended.
Did more bits make a better game?
The answer seems to be no as the Jaguar was Atari's last production model console.
The lesson seems to be a balance of graphics and gameplay.
If the graphics are suited to the game then great, you've got a winner.
Look at the Nintendo DS vs the Sony PSP... the PSP is capable of much higher quality graphics, but partially because of bad marketing and Sony trying to push it as a portable theater it is no where near as succesful as the DS.
It also does not have the same level of game library that the DS has.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635461</id>
	<title>The Darker Side of Game Development...</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1247149800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?"</p></div><p>Simple answer?  Money, Greed, and Profits.  Sure, Wii games compete with the best of them, but you sure as hell aren't gonna sell that hardcore gamer your brand new Dual-proc, Quad-SLI mobo and a double purchase of Nvidia Thundercrossflame 2GB DDR4 triple-headed SLI video cards and 1200W six-rail power supply with lame-ass graphics that can run on any embedded Intel chip.  We need to be convinced that $1500 worth of upgrades is "needed requirements" for ultra-real gameplay.  Again, no offense to Pokemon and Wii, to each their own, but seriously, like we actually need 8 cores and 6GB of memory to run the OS, an Office suite and a browser?  Please.</p><p>Really makes you wonder if Game companies aren't being "subsidized" by hardware vendors to keep sales up and convince us we "need" to be in the upgrade loop every 2 years with home PCs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" So , why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games ?
" Simple answer ?
Money , Greed , and Profits .
Sure , Wii games compete with the best of them , but you sure as hell are n't gon na sell that hardcore gamer your brand new Dual-proc , Quad-SLI mobo and a double purchase of Nvidia Thundercrossflame 2GB DDR4 triple-headed SLI video cards and 1200W six-rail power supply with lame-ass graphics that can run on any embedded Intel chip .
We need to be convinced that $ 1500 worth of upgrades is " needed requirements " for ultra-real gameplay .
Again , no offense to Pokemon and Wii , to each their own , but seriously , like we actually need 8 cores and 6GB of memory to run the OS , an Office suite and a browser ?
Please.Really makes you wonder if Game companies are n't being " subsidized " by hardware vendors to keep sales up and convince us we " need " to be in the upgrade loop every 2 years with home PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games?
"Simple answer?
Money, Greed, and Profits.
Sure, Wii games compete with the best of them, but you sure as hell aren't gonna sell that hardcore gamer your brand new Dual-proc, Quad-SLI mobo and a double purchase of Nvidia Thundercrossflame 2GB DDR4 triple-headed SLI video cards and 1200W six-rail power supply with lame-ass graphics that can run on any embedded Intel chip.
We need to be convinced that $1500 worth of upgrades is "needed requirements" for ultra-real gameplay.
Again, no offense to Pokemon and Wii, to each their own, but seriously, like we actually need 8 cores and 6GB of memory to run the OS, an Office suite and a browser?
Please.Really makes you wonder if Game companies aren't being "subsidized" by hardware vendors to keep sales up and convince us we "need" to be in the upgrade loop every 2 years with home PCs.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638999</id>
	<title>Simple Answer, Yes (Click for long answer)</title>
	<author>HannethCom</author>
	<datestamp>1247164140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one like a variety of different games. I've had great fun playing this one game where you run around beating people with sticks and blood unrealistically comes poring off of them turning the ground red. The graphics weren't very good and if they were I probably wouldn't have wanted to play that game. TF2 was originally going to be a highly realistic game and they changed to a cartoon style that I think has worked well for it.<br>
<br>
If I'm playing something that's slower moving than I generally want something that is prettier to look at. That can be stylistic, or more realistic. I prefer the graphics of NWN1 (Neverwinter Nights) to NWN2. While NWN2's graphics are "better" I think that NWN1 looks better because of how smoothly the engine reacts and when I get shot, or shoot someone with an arrow I want to see it sticking out of them. I know NWN2 had to get rid of the sticking out arrows to make a Teen rating, but it ruined the experience for me.<br>
<br>
One of the things that kept me in DaoC so long was the pretty graphics. Graphics cannot make up for gameplay. One of the reasons why I'm not impressed with most MMOs, they look pretty, but in the end they are just massive multiplayer medieval Quake.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one like a variety of different games .
I 've had great fun playing this one game where you run around beating people with sticks and blood unrealistically comes poring off of them turning the ground red .
The graphics were n't very good and if they were I probably would n't have wanted to play that game .
TF2 was originally going to be a highly realistic game and they changed to a cartoon style that I think has worked well for it .
If I 'm playing something that 's slower moving than I generally want something that is prettier to look at .
That can be stylistic , or more realistic .
I prefer the graphics of NWN1 ( Neverwinter Nights ) to NWN2 .
While NWN2 's graphics are " better " I think that NWN1 looks better because of how smoothly the engine reacts and when I get shot , or shoot someone with an arrow I want to see it sticking out of them .
I know NWN2 had to get rid of the sticking out arrows to make a Teen rating , but it ruined the experience for me .
One of the things that kept me in DaoC so long was the pretty graphics .
Graphics can not make up for gameplay .
One of the reasons why I 'm not impressed with most MMOs , they look pretty , but in the end they are just massive multiplayer medieval Quake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one like a variety of different games.
I've had great fun playing this one game where you run around beating people with sticks and blood unrealistically comes poring off of them turning the ground red.
The graphics weren't very good and if they were I probably wouldn't have wanted to play that game.
TF2 was originally going to be a highly realistic game and they changed to a cartoon style that I think has worked well for it.
If I'm playing something that's slower moving than I generally want something that is prettier to look at.
That can be stylistic, or more realistic.
I prefer the graphics of NWN1 (Neverwinter Nights) to NWN2.
While NWN2's graphics are "better" I think that NWN1 looks better because of how smoothly the engine reacts and when I get shot, or shoot someone with an arrow I want to see it sticking out of them.
I know NWN2 had to get rid of the sticking out arrows to make a Teen rating, but it ruined the experience for me.
One of the things that kept me in DaoC so long was the pretty graphics.
Graphics cannot make up for gameplay.
One of the reasons why I'm not impressed with most MMOs, they look pretty, but in the end they are just massive multiplayer medieval Quake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28649225</id>
	<title>Re:This issue was thoroughly hashed out in the 199</title>
	<author>misty4th</author>
	<datestamp>1247238600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All I can say that if there had been anything beyond Zork when my son was in collage, he would probably still be there.  He got me hooked too - his version was pirated and had no manual so we shared stratigies on the phone - the day I got the dragon to follow me to the ice wall by kicking him was a real "break-through"!  The graphichs that began (for him) with Wolfenstein, were incredable to us - those really were the days!</htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say that if there had been anything beyond Zork when my son was in collage , he would probably still be there .
He got me hooked too - his version was pirated and had no manual so we shared stratigies on the phone - the day I got the dragon to follow me to the ice wall by kicking him was a real " break-through " !
The graphichs that began ( for him ) with Wolfenstein , were incredable to us - those really were the days !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say that if there had been anything beyond Zork when my son was in collage, he would probably still be there.
He got me hooked too - his version was pirated and had no manual so we shared stratigies on the phone - the day I got the dragon to follow me to the ice wall by kicking him was a real "break-through"!
The graphichs that began (for him) with Wolfenstein, were incredable to us - those really were the days!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28643219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28639633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641251
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28645727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28645171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28666387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28643285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633765
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28642211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28640983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28646469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28649225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633839
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_09_058250_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28666387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635405
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28645171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28643219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634475
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28645727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28642211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28651727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28641421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28646469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28640983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28639633
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28634287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28643285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28638347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28637259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28649225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28635365
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28636699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_09_058250.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_09_058250.28633705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
