<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_13_078247</id>
	<title>Should Computer Games Adapt To the Way You Play?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1255444380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:julian@togelius.com" rel="nofollow">jtogel</a> writes <i>"Many games use 'rubberbanding' to adapt to your skill level, making the game harder if you're a better player and easier if you're not. Just think of <em>Mario Kart</em> and the obvious ways it punishes you for driving too well by giving the people who are hopelessly behind you super-weapons to smack you with. It's also very common to just increase the skill of the NPCs as you get better &mdash; see <em>Oblivion</em>. In my research group, <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427295.200-computer-games-that-adapt-to-the-way-you-play.html">we are working on slightly more sophisticated ways to adapt the game to you</a>, including <a href="http://julian.togelius.com/Togelius2007Towards.pdf">generating new level elements</a> (PDF) based on <a href="http://julian.togelius.com/Pedersen2009Modeling.pdf">your playing style</a> (PDF). Now, the question becomes: is this a good thing at all? Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity (i.e. you don't get rewarded for playing well). Others would say that it restricts the freedom of expression for the game designer. But still, game players have very different skill levels and skill sets when they come to a game, and we would like to cater to them all. And if you don't see playing skill as one-dimensional, maybe it's possible to do meaningful adaptation. What sort of game adaptation would you like to see?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jtogel writes " Many games use 'rubberbanding ' to adapt to your skill level , making the game harder if you 're a better player and easier if you 're not .
Just think of Mario Kart and the obvious ways it punishes you for driving too well by giving the people who are hopelessly behind you super-weapons to smack you with .
It 's also very common to just increase the skill of the NPCs as you get better    see Oblivion .
In my research group , we are working on slightly more sophisticated ways to adapt the game to you , including generating new level elements ( PDF ) based on your playing style ( PDF ) .
Now , the question becomes : is this a good thing at all ?
Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity ( i.e .
you do n't get rewarded for playing well ) .
Others would say that it restricts the freedom of expression for the game designer .
But still , game players have very different skill levels and skill sets when they come to a game , and we would like to cater to them all .
And if you do n't see playing skill as one-dimensional , maybe it 's possible to do meaningful adaptation .
What sort of game adaptation would you like to see ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jtogel writes "Many games use 'rubberbanding' to adapt to your skill level, making the game harder if you're a better player and easier if you're not.
Just think of Mario Kart and the obvious ways it punishes you for driving too well by giving the people who are hopelessly behind you super-weapons to smack you with.
It's also very common to just increase the skill of the NPCs as you get better — see Oblivion.
In my research group, we are working on slightly more sophisticated ways to adapt the game to you, including generating new level elements (PDF) based on your playing style (PDF).
Now, the question becomes: is this a good thing at all?
Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity (i.e.
you don't get rewarded for playing well).
Others would say that it restricts the freedom of expression for the game designer.
But still, game players have very different skill levels and skill sets when they come to a game, and we would like to cater to them all.
And if you don't see playing skill as one-dimensional, maybe it's possible to do meaningful adaptation.
What sort of game adaptation would you like to see?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733479</id>
	<title>Bring it on!</title>
	<author>mmandt</author>
	<datestamp>1255456320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think we should take it a step further. All of my points and health should be automatically given to other players in the game if they have less than me. This would not only make a great game, but a great way of living. <p>

"Yes we can!" If Obama was only a game designer... I could finally complete with all you stoners who used to torture me on Mortal Combat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think we should take it a step further .
All of my points and health should be automatically given to other players in the game if they have less than me .
This would not only make a great game , but a great way of living .
" Yes we can !
" If Obama was only a game designer... I could finally complete with all you stoners who used to torture me on Mortal Combat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think we should take it a step further.
All of my points and health should be automatically given to other players in the game if they have less than me.
This would not only make a great game, but a great way of living.
"Yes we can!
" If Obama was only a game designer... I could finally complete with all you stoners who used to torture me on Mortal Combat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733531</id>
	<title>just make it a game option... let's move on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255456440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just make it a game option... let's move on</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just make it a game option... let 's move on</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just make it a game option... let's move on</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732087</id>
	<title>Visible achievement differences</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255449660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd say: allow the lowest level of player that the game caters for to make it all the way through the game, even if at a reduced rate.
<p>
However, more advanced players should be able to access none-core parts of the game, whether these be items, abilities, story segements, additional characters, more complex and interesting locations and maps etc. What's more, it should be reinforced to the lower-level player that with practise, these things would become available - otherwise, they might just play through on the lowest setting and think "Well, that was boring."
</p><p>
There should also be cross-skill rubberbanding in games which offer multiple skill tests to proceed. There's already some forms of this, where (for example) great resource planning can counter weak button-mashing ability.
</p><p>
One option might be a time-based or counter-based seesaw, where the longer a player has bashed their head against a given game obstacle, the easier it becomes to overcome. Then, it's a matter of finding a balance relating to how \_fast\_ such a change occurs and to what minimum level it can drop. A number of counters might be available - time spent, miles travelled, opponents overcome, miniquests completed, etc - but remember, endless grinding doesn't suit everyone.
</p><p>
Or how about having several elements present in the game, and playing to the player's strength(s) in order to present a game which the player feels they can do well at? Alter the size of platforms to be jumped on, the number/level/placement of opponents, the emphasis on sneaking vs combat, intellectual puzzles vs smashfests, resource management vs grinding, hunts vs brawls.
</p><p>
Keep assessing and tweaking as the game progresses; players learn new skills at different rates, and it's fairly easy to game an adaptive system by pretending to be hopeless at one skill until the game offers an easy out or massive XP for any kind of use of the skill at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say : allow the lowest level of player that the game caters for to make it all the way through the game , even if at a reduced rate .
However , more advanced players should be able to access none-core parts of the game , whether these be items , abilities , story segements , additional characters , more complex and interesting locations and maps etc .
What 's more , it should be reinforced to the lower-level player that with practise , these things would become available - otherwise , they might just play through on the lowest setting and think " Well , that was boring .
" There should also be cross-skill rubberbanding in games which offer multiple skill tests to proceed .
There 's already some forms of this , where ( for example ) great resource planning can counter weak button-mashing ability .
One option might be a time-based or counter-based seesaw , where the longer a player has bashed their head against a given game obstacle , the easier it becomes to overcome .
Then , it 's a matter of finding a balance relating to how \ _fast \ _ such a change occurs and to what minimum level it can drop .
A number of counters might be available - time spent , miles travelled , opponents overcome , miniquests completed , etc - but remember , endless grinding does n't suit everyone .
Or how about having several elements present in the game , and playing to the player 's strength ( s ) in order to present a game which the player feels they can do well at ?
Alter the size of platforms to be jumped on , the number/level/placement of opponents , the emphasis on sneaking vs combat , intellectual puzzles vs smashfests , resource management vs grinding , hunts vs brawls .
Keep assessing and tweaking as the game progresses ; players learn new skills at different rates , and it 's fairly easy to game an adaptive system by pretending to be hopeless at one skill until the game offers an easy out or massive XP for any kind of use of the skill at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say: allow the lowest level of player that the game caters for to make it all the way through the game, even if at a reduced rate.
However, more advanced players should be able to access none-core parts of the game, whether these be items, abilities, story segements, additional characters, more complex and interesting locations and maps etc.
What's more, it should be reinforced to the lower-level player that with practise, these things would become available - otherwise, they might just play through on the lowest setting and think "Well, that was boring.
"

There should also be cross-skill rubberbanding in games which offer multiple skill tests to proceed.
There's already some forms of this, where (for example) great resource planning can counter weak button-mashing ability.
One option might be a time-based or counter-based seesaw, where the longer a player has bashed their head against a given game obstacle, the easier it becomes to overcome.
Then, it's a matter of finding a balance relating to how \_fast\_ such a change occurs and to what minimum level it can drop.
A number of counters might be available - time spent, miles travelled, opponents overcome, miniquests completed, etc - but remember, endless grinding doesn't suit everyone.
Or how about having several elements present in the game, and playing to the player's strength(s) in order to present a game which the player feels they can do well at?
Alter the size of platforms to be jumped on, the number/level/placement of opponents, the emphasis on sneaking vs combat, intellectual puzzles vs smashfests, resource management vs grinding, hunts vs brawls.
Keep assessing and tweaking as the game progresses; players learn new skills at different rates, and it's fairly easy to game an adaptive system by pretending to be hopeless at one skill until the game offers an easy out or massive XP for any kind of use of the skill at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734639</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>hibiki\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1255461000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, you have the opposite, like in Shadow Complex: As the game goes on, it only gets easier and easier, until it is so unbelievable easy that it's just a chore to go from point A to point B.</p><p>A game should have a few upward bumps in the difficulty level as you go along, precisely to provide a bit of texture to the experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , you have the opposite , like in Shadow Complex : As the game goes on , it only gets easier and easier , until it is so unbelievable easy that it 's just a chore to go from point A to point B.A game should have a few upward bumps in the difficulty level as you go along , precisely to provide a bit of texture to the experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, you have the opposite, like in Shadow Complex: As the game goes on, it only gets easier and easier, until it is so unbelievable easy that it's just a chore to go from point A to point B.A game should have a few upward bumps in the difficulty level as you go along, precisely to provide a bit of texture to the experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735109</id>
	<title>"Pity Mode" would be nice</title>
	<author>BBF\_BBF</author>
	<datestamp>1255463460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like it if the game would silently make things a little easier if I had died more than 6 times trying to get through some dexterity based feat.  (Like how I never finished psychonauts because I could never throw the knives at the rotating wheel accurately and fast enough to beat the clock on the last level.)  splosionman's "way of the coward" is just too wussy... I don't want to "skip" the feat, but just need a little help since I know *how* to solve the puzzle, but just don't have the razor sharp reaction times and coordination.<br> <br>  If I want to be humiliated I'd rather humans do it, rather than my computer... I'll join a multiplayer game if I want grief.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)<br> <br>

Also Braid's rewind mode is really good as well, so one doesn't have to restart at some predetermined checkpoint and have to repeat several minutes of play that you already did each time you die.  Add the toggleable behind the scenes "auto pity mode" and I'd be a happy puppy.
<br>
Sometimes I just need a helping hand to get past a "sticking point" and I'm good playing at the "hard" difficulty most of the time.  Games are for "fun" for me.  For the "elites" they can just turn pity mode off and the developers could reward them with a special "achievement" or "trophy" so they can show off their leetness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like it if the game would silently make things a little easier if I had died more than 6 times trying to get through some dexterity based feat .
( Like how I never finished psychonauts because I could never throw the knives at the rotating wheel accurately and fast enough to beat the clock on the last level .
) splosionman 's " way of the coward " is just too wussy... I do n't want to " skip " the feat , but just need a little help since I know * how * to solve the puzzle , but just do n't have the razor sharp reaction times and coordination .
If I want to be humiliated I 'd rather humans do it , rather than my computer... I 'll join a multiplayer game if I want grief .
; - ) Also Braid 's rewind mode is really good as well , so one does n't have to restart at some predetermined checkpoint and have to repeat several minutes of play that you already did each time you die .
Add the toggleable behind the scenes " auto pity mode " and I 'd be a happy puppy .
Sometimes I just need a helping hand to get past a " sticking point " and I 'm good playing at the " hard " difficulty most of the time .
Games are for " fun " for me .
For the " elites " they can just turn pity mode off and the developers could reward them with a special " achievement " or " trophy " so they can show off their leetness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like it if the game would silently make things a little easier if I had died more than 6 times trying to get through some dexterity based feat.
(Like how I never finished psychonauts because I could never throw the knives at the rotating wheel accurately and fast enough to beat the clock on the last level.
)  splosionman's "way of the coward" is just too wussy... I don't want to "skip" the feat, but just need a little help since I know *how* to solve the puzzle, but just don't have the razor sharp reaction times and coordination.
If I want to be humiliated I'd rather humans do it, rather than my computer... I'll join a multiplayer game if I want grief.
;-) 

Also Braid's rewind mode is really good as well, so one doesn't have to restart at some predetermined checkpoint and have to repeat several minutes of play that you already did each time you die.
Add the toggleable behind the scenes "auto pity mode" and I'd be a happy puppy.
Sometimes I just need a helping hand to get past a "sticking point" and I'm good playing at the "hard" difficulty most of the time.
Games are for "fun" for me.
For the "elites" they can just turn pity mode off and the developers could reward them with a special "achievement" or "trophy" so they can show off their leetness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732591</id>
	<title>Repeatable Content</title>
	<author>S77IM</author>
	<datestamp>1255452060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul> <li>Randomly generated content is a decent way to increase playability.  (Fresh new content is usually better, but not always.  Sometimes a fun level is fun to play over and over.)</li><li>Scaling the difficulty to the player is a decent way to ensure the right challenge level.  (But not always.  Sometimes the player wants to know that they defeated the level on their own merits, not because it was scaled down for them.)</li></ul><p>Putting the two together, I'd say, the first time the player goes through an area, they get a "fixed" difficulty -- easy areas are easy, hard areas are hard, etc.  When they revisit an area after beating it, THEN it should have appropriate-difficulty generated content in it.</p><p>So if you found an area too easy, you can go back to it and enjoy a better challenge.  If you found an area very difficult, you can go back to it and experience the satisfaction of having pounded it into an easier shape (the difficult enemies are gone because you beat them).</p><p>
&nbsp; -- 77IM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Randomly generated content is a decent way to increase playability .
( Fresh new content is usually better , but not always .
Sometimes a fun level is fun to play over and over .
) Scaling the difficulty to the player is a decent way to ensure the right challenge level .
( But not always .
Sometimes the player wants to know that they defeated the level on their own merits , not because it was scaled down for them .
) Putting the two together , I 'd say , the first time the player goes through an area , they get a " fixed " difficulty -- easy areas are easy , hard areas are hard , etc .
When they revisit an area after beating it , THEN it should have appropriate-difficulty generated content in it.So if you found an area too easy , you can go back to it and enjoy a better challenge .
If you found an area very difficult , you can go back to it and experience the satisfaction of having pounded it into an easier shape ( the difficult enemies are gone because you beat them ) .
  -- 77IM</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Randomly generated content is a decent way to increase playability.
(Fresh new content is usually better, but not always.
Sometimes a fun level is fun to play over and over.
)Scaling the difficulty to the player is a decent way to ensure the right challenge level.
(But not always.
Sometimes the player wants to know that they defeated the level on their own merits, not because it was scaled down for them.
)Putting the two together, I'd say, the first time the player goes through an area, they get a "fixed" difficulty -- easy areas are easy, hard areas are hard, etc.
When they revisit an area after beating it, THEN it should have appropriate-difficulty generated content in it.So if you found an area too easy, you can go back to it and enjoy a better challenge.
If you found an area very difficult, you can go back to it and experience the satisfaction of having pounded it into an easier shape (the difficult enemies are gone because you beat them).
  -- 77IM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733555</id>
	<title>Oblivion</title>
	<author>windex82</author>
	<datestamp>1255456500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the main reasons I disliked Oblivion was the scaling.</p><p>In an RPG I expect to be able to go back to a starting areas and completely decimate any enemies.  But in oblivion the enemies levels scale right along with yours so you can never go back and take on dozens at a time or even just ignore the one hitting you until he gives up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the main reasons I disliked Oblivion was the scaling.In an RPG I expect to be able to go back to a starting areas and completely decimate any enemies .
But in oblivion the enemies levels scale right along with yours so you can never go back and take on dozens at a time or even just ignore the one hitting you until he gives up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the main reasons I disliked Oblivion was the scaling.In an RPG I expect to be able to go back to a starting areas and completely decimate any enemies.
But in oblivion the enemies levels scale right along with yours so you can never go back and take on dozens at a time or even just ignore the one hitting you until he gives up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29741053</id>
	<title>Parallel content FTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255454160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about multiple optional paths with various rewards based on skill.<br>Challenging optional quests with decent optional rewards.<br>Get your upgrades early.. IF you have the skill to.<br>Plenty of RPG's have levelled areas.  Higher leveled areas reduce grind time in Xp based progression if nothing else.<br>Completely linear storylines kinda reduce replayability anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about multiple optional paths with various rewards based on skill.Challenging optional quests with decent optional rewards.Get your upgrades early.. IF you have the skill to.Plenty of RPG 's have levelled areas .
Higher leveled areas reduce grind time in Xp based progression if nothing else.Completely linear storylines kinda reduce replayability anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about multiple optional paths with various rewards based on skill.Challenging optional quests with decent optional rewards.Get your upgrades early.. IF you have the skill to.Plenty of RPG's have levelled areas.
Higher leveled areas reduce grind time in Xp based progression if nothing else.Completely linear storylines kinda reduce replayability anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732739</id>
	<title>Re:Less Grind, More Fun Time</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1255452780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This problem seems simple because you are thinking on one side of the problem.  What you fail to think about is how people will exploit whatever system you put in place.  That makes the problem much harder.  <br> <br>As far as loot tables, I agree with you there...drops should be based on what classes are in the instance.<br> <br>As far as your other ideas, if a group knows some hard instance becomes easy if they die x number of times they will die that number of times to make it as easy as possible to get their loot.  Making instances configure themselves based on class make up is extremely hard to balance.  It is tough enough to balance an instance in general...but to test it on every possible combination?  And you get in to these weird scenarios where a class is not included because you get a harder version of the instance than with other classes.  So if you take a hunter, the instance would spawn something that is a pain so now hunters can't find groups.  There are all kinds of exploits and side effects for every decision you make...you have to think about these things.<br> <br>Once again, I think WoW has it right.  They allow you to do boss fights in a normal way and you get a few drops.  But if you choose to, you can try to do it in a way that is more challenging for better rewards and achievements.  For example, once instance you can kill 3 minor dragons and then a major dragon and it isn't too hard.  But if you want, you can leave 1, 2, or 3 of the minor dragons up and fight them simultaneously with the major dragon giving you better drops.  You give the player the choice on how hard it is and you reward the ones who can beat it at a higher difficulty.  Trying to make the computer decide how hard to make it takes away choice and makes it a less enjoyable experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This problem seems simple because you are thinking on one side of the problem .
What you fail to think about is how people will exploit whatever system you put in place .
That makes the problem much harder .
As far as loot tables , I agree with you there...drops should be based on what classes are in the instance .
As far as your other ideas , if a group knows some hard instance becomes easy if they die x number of times they will die that number of times to make it as easy as possible to get their loot .
Making instances configure themselves based on class make up is extremely hard to balance .
It is tough enough to balance an instance in general...but to test it on every possible combination ?
And you get in to these weird scenarios where a class is not included because you get a harder version of the instance than with other classes .
So if you take a hunter , the instance would spawn something that is a pain so now hunters ca n't find groups .
There are all kinds of exploits and side effects for every decision you make...you have to think about these things .
Once again , I think WoW has it right .
They allow you to do boss fights in a normal way and you get a few drops .
But if you choose to , you can try to do it in a way that is more challenging for better rewards and achievements .
For example , once instance you can kill 3 minor dragons and then a major dragon and it is n't too hard .
But if you want , you can leave 1 , 2 , or 3 of the minor dragons up and fight them simultaneously with the major dragon giving you better drops .
You give the player the choice on how hard it is and you reward the ones who can beat it at a higher difficulty .
Trying to make the computer decide how hard to make it takes away choice and makes it a less enjoyable experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This problem seems simple because you are thinking on one side of the problem.
What you fail to think about is how people will exploit whatever system you put in place.
That makes the problem much harder.
As far as loot tables, I agree with you there...drops should be based on what classes are in the instance.
As far as your other ideas, if a group knows some hard instance becomes easy if they die x number of times they will die that number of times to make it as easy as possible to get their loot.
Making instances configure themselves based on class make up is extremely hard to balance.
It is tough enough to balance an instance in general...but to test it on every possible combination?
And you get in to these weird scenarios where a class is not included because you get a harder version of the instance than with other classes.
So if you take a hunter, the instance would spawn something that is a pain so now hunters can't find groups.
There are all kinds of exploits and side effects for every decision you make...you have to think about these things.
Once again, I think WoW has it right.
They allow you to do boss fights in a normal way and you get a few drops.
But if you choose to, you can try to do it in a way that is more challenging for better rewards and achievements.
For example, once instance you can kill 3 minor dragons and then a major dragon and it isn't too hard.
But if you want, you can leave 1, 2, or 3 of the minor dragons up and fight them simultaneously with the major dragon giving you better drops.
You give the player the choice on how hard it is and you reward the ones who can beat it at a higher difficulty.
Trying to make the computer decide how hard to make it takes away choice and makes it a less enjoyable experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29767151</id>
	<title>why just difficulty?</title>
	<author>Mirar</author>
	<datestamp>1255696080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's interesting that most people think of "difficulty" here. There might even be more importantly to cater to playstyle - reckless berserk, careful sniper, silent, never seen and non-killing thief, explorer... socializer.</p><p>Altogether way too few games today you can play without killing anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting that most people think of " difficulty " here .
There might even be more importantly to cater to playstyle - reckless berserk , careful sniper , silent , never seen and non-killing thief , explorer... socializer.Altogether way too few games today you can play without killing anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's interesting that most people think of "difficulty" here.
There might even be more importantly to cater to playstyle - reckless berserk, careful sniper, silent, never seen and non-killing thief, explorer... socializer.Altogether way too few games today you can play without killing anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097</id>
	<title>Less Grind, More Fun Time</title>
	<author>EXTomar</author>
	<datestamp>1255449660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Although these advanced systems can be done in single player, stand alone experiences, I predict we will see a lot of progress made in the MMO space where it is easier introduce dynamic content.  One thing sorely missing from MMOs is custom built challenges.  The game has access to all of that information on the character and how to play...why not start using it to change the things prsented to them?</p><p>- Using general terms for an example: If you enter an instance with a Warrior, a Thief, Wizard, and a Cleric but you kill the dragon and get some Ranger bow everyone goes "BOOO!".  The game knows what classes came in so instead of just tossing out static loot from a static table, start considering who walked in and what improvements they need.  Instead of forcing players to grind content for drops they know a monster has, they should come back for a chance on loot they know will be useful to someone.</p><p>- Since the game knows what classes came in, why not start seeding the instance with challenges configured for them?  Each of the classes in the example are strong and weak to attacks and monsters, like for instance this group is a little weak on "ranged attacks" but stronger on defense.  This group would avoid any static content they know would have a preponderance of stuff that flies or run around them.  How about have them go into an instance that configures it to have less fliers, less stand back but features stuff that hits a little harder than normal?</p><p>- If the group is working well together and is stomping everything, why not up the difficulty a little till they aren't stomping everything?  If the group isn't doing well, why not ease the difficulty so they aren't wiping every turn?</p><p>The basic idea is that the game should be smart enough to see at least the game/character data and evaluate what should be easy and hard for them to beat.  This isn't so much "hand holding" but crafting a more interesting experience.  If you swap the Thief for a Ranger and go into the same area you get a different mix of monsters and a guarantee that someone is going be rewarded.  If you come in with a weak group you get a challenging experience.  If you come in with a strong, expert group you get a very different but still challenging experience.  The game designers should want you get through the quest handed to the players, to experience the story of the content, but still provide enough of challenge to feel accomplishment.  Right now this is done with carefully crafted static content that involves a bit of statistical analysis that can be easily memorized or grow out of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Although these advanced systems can be done in single player , stand alone experiences , I predict we will see a lot of progress made in the MMO space where it is easier introduce dynamic content .
One thing sorely missing from MMOs is custom built challenges .
The game has access to all of that information on the character and how to play...why not start using it to change the things prsented to them ? - Using general terms for an example : If you enter an instance with a Warrior , a Thief , Wizard , and a Cleric but you kill the dragon and get some Ranger bow everyone goes " BOOO ! " .
The game knows what classes came in so instead of just tossing out static loot from a static table , start considering who walked in and what improvements they need .
Instead of forcing players to grind content for drops they know a monster has , they should come back for a chance on loot they know will be useful to someone.- Since the game knows what classes came in , why not start seeding the instance with challenges configured for them ?
Each of the classes in the example are strong and weak to attacks and monsters , like for instance this group is a little weak on " ranged attacks " but stronger on defense .
This group would avoid any static content they know would have a preponderance of stuff that flies or run around them .
How about have them go into an instance that configures it to have less fliers , less stand back but features stuff that hits a little harder than normal ? - If the group is working well together and is stomping everything , why not up the difficulty a little till they are n't stomping everything ?
If the group is n't doing well , why not ease the difficulty so they are n't wiping every turn ? The basic idea is that the game should be smart enough to see at least the game/character data and evaluate what should be easy and hard for them to beat .
This is n't so much " hand holding " but crafting a more interesting experience .
If you swap the Thief for a Ranger and go into the same area you get a different mix of monsters and a guarantee that someone is going be rewarded .
If you come in with a weak group you get a challenging experience .
If you come in with a strong , expert group you get a very different but still challenging experience .
The game designers should want you get through the quest handed to the players , to experience the story of the content , but still provide enough of challenge to feel accomplishment .
Right now this is done with carefully crafted static content that involves a bit of statistical analysis that can be easily memorized or grow out of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although these advanced systems can be done in single player, stand alone experiences, I predict we will see a lot of progress made in the MMO space where it is easier introduce dynamic content.
One thing sorely missing from MMOs is custom built challenges.
The game has access to all of that information on the character and how to play...why not start using it to change the things prsented to them?- Using general terms for an example: If you enter an instance with a Warrior, a Thief, Wizard, and a Cleric but you kill the dragon and get some Ranger bow everyone goes "BOOO!".
The game knows what classes came in so instead of just tossing out static loot from a static table, start considering who walked in and what improvements they need.
Instead of forcing players to grind content for drops they know a monster has, they should come back for a chance on loot they know will be useful to someone.- Since the game knows what classes came in, why not start seeding the instance with challenges configured for them?
Each of the classes in the example are strong and weak to attacks and monsters, like for instance this group is a little weak on "ranged attacks" but stronger on defense.
This group would avoid any static content they know would have a preponderance of stuff that flies or run around them.
How about have them go into an instance that configures it to have less fliers, less stand back but features stuff that hits a little harder than normal?- If the group is working well together and is stomping everything, why not up the difficulty a little till they aren't stomping everything?
If the group isn't doing well, why not ease the difficulty so they aren't wiping every turn?The basic idea is that the game should be smart enough to see at least the game/character data and evaluate what should be easy and hard for them to beat.
This isn't so much "hand holding" but crafting a more interesting experience.
If you swap the Thief for a Ranger and go into the same area you get a different mix of monsters and a guarantee that someone is going be rewarded.
If you come in with a weak group you get a challenging experience.
If you come in with a strong, expert group you get a very different but still challenging experience.
The game designers should want you get through the quest handed to the players, to experience the story of the content, but still provide enough of challenge to feel accomplishment.
Right now this is done with carefully crafted static content that involves a bit of statistical analysis that can be easily memorized or grow out of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735013</id>
	<title>In general yes.</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1255462920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In general yes, modifying game style to fit play style is a great concept.<br>
Modifying difficulty is a gray area IMHO.<br>
Mario Kart:
Now their is a to to be said for making the leader in a race not lap everyone else 20 times, he still wins but everyone else does not feel like a loser.<br>
but "Mario Kart Wii" throws that out the window allows a players who was in last place the entire game suddenly get the instant win item and you, the far superior player suddenly loses.<br>
And i have gone personally from last or close to it and winning the game in 
and the same goes for the first place player, i have been feet away from the finish line only to be pelted by homing leader shells and other non avoidable items<br>
In Mario Kart Wii the actual best player has to stay in second place for as much of the game as possible, as leading the pack means constantly being attacked by pretty much every time in the game</htmltext>
<tokenext>In general yes , modifying game style to fit play style is a great concept .
Modifying difficulty is a gray area IMHO .
Mario Kart : Now their is a to to be said for making the leader in a race not lap everyone else 20 times , he still wins but everyone else does not feel like a loser .
but " Mario Kart Wii " throws that out the window allows a players who was in last place the entire game suddenly get the instant win item and you , the far superior player suddenly loses .
And i have gone personally from last or close to it and winning the game in and the same goes for the first place player , i have been feet away from the finish line only to be pelted by homing leader shells and other non avoidable items In Mario Kart Wii the actual best player has to stay in second place for as much of the game as possible , as leading the pack means constantly being attacked by pretty much every time in the game</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In general yes, modifying game style to fit play style is a great concept.
Modifying difficulty is a gray area IMHO.
Mario Kart:
Now their is a to to be said for making the leader in a race not lap everyone else 20 times, he still wins but everyone else does not feel like a loser.
but "Mario Kart Wii" throws that out the window allows a players who was in last place the entire game suddenly get the instant win item and you, the far superior player suddenly loses.
And i have gone personally from last or close to it and winning the game in 
and the same goes for the first place player, i have been feet away from the finish line only to be pelted by homing leader shells and other non avoidable items
In Mario Kart Wii the actual best player has to stay in second place for as much of the game as possible, as leading the pack means constantly being attacked by pretty much every time in the game</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29748455</id>
	<title>Mystic Mine adapts difficulty to player's skill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255551000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My game <a href="http://www.mysticmine.com/" title="mysticmine.com" rel="nofollow">Mystic Mine</a> [mysticmine.com] adapts the difficulty to how good you actually play. So basically you're playing against your own skill level. Bytten has written the following in <a href="http://www.bytten.com/gamereview.php?id=335&amp;name=Mystic\%20Mine" title="bytten.com" rel="nofollow">their review</a> [bytten.com]: "This is a virtually unique system and I offer my commendations to Koonsolo for coming up with it!".</p><p>I created this system because basically it's very hard to fine-tune the difficulty of a game. It needs to be challenging, but not impossible. If you have a wide range of player skills it's almost impossible to make it fun for everyone. So my system kind of solves that problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My game Mystic Mine [ mysticmine.com ] adapts the difficulty to how good you actually play .
So basically you 're playing against your own skill level .
Bytten has written the following in their review [ bytten.com ] : " This is a virtually unique system and I offer my commendations to Koonsolo for coming up with it !
" .I created this system because basically it 's very hard to fine-tune the difficulty of a game .
It needs to be challenging , but not impossible .
If you have a wide range of player skills it 's almost impossible to make it fun for everyone .
So my system kind of solves that problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My game Mystic Mine [mysticmine.com] adapts the difficulty to how good you actually play.
So basically you're playing against your own skill level.
Bytten has written the following in their review [bytten.com]: "This is a virtually unique system and I offer my commendations to Koonsolo for coming up with it!
".I created this system because basically it's very hard to fine-tune the difficulty of a game.
It needs to be challenging, but not impossible.
If you have a wide range of player skills it's almost impossible to make it fun for everyone.
So my system kind of solves that problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738791</id>
	<title>knowing the AI level</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1255435380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With games that have adaptive AI everyone gets to ultimately succeed if you play long enough, as the AI just downgrades itself until you can win.<br>Consequently with those types of games I always wonder how relatively good/bad I actually am playing.<br>I would like to see all games with adaptive AI provide some sort of quantitative indicator for e.g. how hard the player pushed the AI (was it struggling to beat the player or did it shoot itself in the foot so the player could beat it), and how good as a player overall (perhaps relative to other players) you are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With games that have adaptive AI everyone gets to ultimately succeed if you play long enough , as the AI just downgrades itself until you can win.Consequently with those types of games I always wonder how relatively good/bad I actually am playing.I would like to see all games with adaptive AI provide some sort of quantitative indicator for e.g .
how hard the player pushed the AI ( was it struggling to beat the player or did it shoot itself in the foot so the player could beat it ) , and how good as a player overall ( perhaps relative to other players ) you are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With games that have adaptive AI everyone gets to ultimately succeed if you play long enough, as the AI just downgrades itself until you can win.Consequently with those types of games I always wonder how relatively good/bad I actually am playing.I would like to see all games with adaptive AI provide some sort of quantitative indicator for e.g.
how hard the player pushed the AI (was it struggling to beat the player or did it shoot itself in the foot so the player could beat it), and how good as a player overall (perhaps relative to other players) you are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735119</id>
	<title>Ahem...Left 4 Dead Director...Ahem</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1255463520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude. Has the writer of this article never played left 4 dead ? I don't think there has been a game since Pacman with such re~playability. The A.I. director manages the ebb and flow of the game, increasing and decreasing the difficulty depending on the players assembled and their progress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude .
Has the writer of this article never played left 4 dead ?
I do n't think there has been a game since Pacman with such re ~ playability .
The A.I .
director manages the ebb and flow of the game , increasing and decreasing the difficulty depending on the players assembled and their progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude.
Has the writer of this article never played left 4 dead ?
I don't think there has been a game since Pacman with such re~playability.
The A.I.
director manages the ebb and flow of the game, increasing and decreasing the difficulty depending on the players assembled and their progress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732659</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255452300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like this automatic configuration stuff. I rather see:<br>1. Selection for difficulty<br>2. Difficulty determined by area or map of the game<br>3. Make some of the hardest areas optional</p><p>That way the player can choose if he wants to just breeze through or try to challenge himself a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like this automatic configuration stuff .
I rather see : 1 .
Selection for difficulty2 .
Difficulty determined by area or map of the game3 .
Make some of the hardest areas optionalThat way the player can choose if he wants to just breeze through or try to challenge himself a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like this automatic configuration stuff.
I rather see:1.
Selection for difficulty2.
Difficulty determined by area or map of the game3.
Make some of the hardest areas optionalThat way the player can choose if he wants to just breeze through or try to challenge himself a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734317</id>
	<title>When done correctly...</title>
	<author>Der Huhn Teufel</author>
	<datestamp>1255459740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like anything else, if it's done correctly, it can be great. The problem is most people don't bother to spend the time at it and throw out a half-assed system. To date, Fallout 3 is the only one where the scaling isn't horribly done.

The first time I played through Bioshock (PC) I had adaptive difficulty turned on. About 1/2 way through the game, I began wondering why every enemy I came across took 5 or 6 headshots with anti-personnel rounds to bring down. Unfortunately, it took them a while to patch it so that the difficulty would turn itself back down if you weren't doing as well.

Oblivion was horribly done. Enemies would scale up as high as your level, but your ability to scale up your damage was often cut short long before that. A level gained due to speechcraft and alchemy would net the same increase in monster stats as a level in blades and repair. In the end I wound up editing the game via the construction set just so I could actually enjoy it again.

Ultimately, companies need to hire players rather than play testers. Someone who's going to go through a game because they enjoy it will find many more problems than someone who's told specifically what to test for and look at.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like anything else , if it 's done correctly , it can be great .
The problem is most people do n't bother to spend the time at it and throw out a half-assed system .
To date , Fallout 3 is the only one where the scaling is n't horribly done .
The first time I played through Bioshock ( PC ) I had adaptive difficulty turned on .
About 1/2 way through the game , I began wondering why every enemy I came across took 5 or 6 headshots with anti-personnel rounds to bring down .
Unfortunately , it took them a while to patch it so that the difficulty would turn itself back down if you were n't doing as well .
Oblivion was horribly done .
Enemies would scale up as high as your level , but your ability to scale up your damage was often cut short long before that .
A level gained due to speechcraft and alchemy would net the same increase in monster stats as a level in blades and repair .
In the end I wound up editing the game via the construction set just so I could actually enjoy it again .
Ultimately , companies need to hire players rather than play testers .
Someone who 's going to go through a game because they enjoy it will find many more problems than someone who 's told specifically what to test for and look at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like anything else, if it's done correctly, it can be great.
The problem is most people don't bother to spend the time at it and throw out a half-assed system.
To date, Fallout 3 is the only one where the scaling isn't horribly done.
The first time I played through Bioshock (PC) I had adaptive difficulty turned on.
About 1/2 way through the game, I began wondering why every enemy I came across took 5 or 6 headshots with anti-personnel rounds to bring down.
Unfortunately, it took them a while to patch it so that the difficulty would turn itself back down if you weren't doing as well.
Oblivion was horribly done.
Enemies would scale up as high as your level, but your ability to scale up your damage was often cut short long before that.
A level gained due to speechcraft and alchemy would net the same increase in monster stats as a level in blades and repair.
In the end I wound up editing the game via the construction set just so I could actually enjoy it again.
Ultimately, companies need to hire players rather than play testers.
Someone who's going to go through a game because they enjoy it will find many more problems than someone who's told specifically what to test for and look at.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732807</id>
	<title>Re:Less Grind, More Fun Time</title>
	<author>rotide</author>
	<datestamp>1255452960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the point of an MMO.  If you walked into a dungeon knowing you're going to get an upgrade (if you haven't farmed it all already), you're going to quickly realize that you'll get everything you need in X runs.  At that point you're going to get bored and leave the game.</p><p>The developers \_purposely\_ make it all random in the hope that you'll keep coming back for more, month after month.  If they give you what you want too quickly, you'll get bored and leave.</p><p>The same thing goes for difficulty.  If they just tuned it so everyone would win, why would you ever do the lower level stuff more than once?  You'd just go for the uber difficult stuff knowing that's where the best items drop.  So what if you fail?  It'll auto-tune to be easier next time and then you'll have every item you want.</p><p>And again, you'll get bored and stop playing/paying.</p><p>Like it or not, the grind is what people \_want\_ as it gives them a sense of accomplishment.  It's what the developers want as well since, at least on average, more people will play longer as they keep \_hoping\_ to be successful and \_hoping\_ their items drop.  It's just the way it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point of an MMO .
If you walked into a dungeon knowing you 're going to get an upgrade ( if you have n't farmed it all already ) , you 're going to quickly realize that you 'll get everything you need in X runs .
At that point you 're going to get bored and leave the game.The developers \ _purposely \ _ make it all random in the hope that you 'll keep coming back for more , month after month .
If they give you what you want too quickly , you 'll get bored and leave.The same thing goes for difficulty .
If they just tuned it so everyone would win , why would you ever do the lower level stuff more than once ?
You 'd just go for the uber difficult stuff knowing that 's where the best items drop .
So what if you fail ?
It 'll auto-tune to be easier next time and then you 'll have every item you want.And again , you 'll get bored and stop playing/paying.Like it or not , the grind is what people \ _want \ _ as it gives them a sense of accomplishment .
It 's what the developers want as well since , at least on average , more people will play longer as they keep \ _hoping \ _ to be successful and \ _hoping \ _ their items drop .
It 's just the way it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point of an MMO.
If you walked into a dungeon knowing you're going to get an upgrade (if you haven't farmed it all already), you're going to quickly realize that you'll get everything you need in X runs.
At that point you're going to get bored and leave the game.The developers \_purposely\_ make it all random in the hope that you'll keep coming back for more, month after month.
If they give you what you want too quickly, you'll get bored and leave.The same thing goes for difficulty.
If they just tuned it so everyone would win, why would you ever do the lower level stuff more than once?
You'd just go for the uber difficult stuff knowing that's where the best items drop.
So what if you fail?
It'll auto-tune to be easier next time and then you'll have every item you want.And again, you'll get bored and stop playing/paying.Like it or not, the grind is what people \_want\_ as it gives them a sense of accomplishment.
It's what the developers want as well since, at least on average, more people will play longer as they keep \_hoping\_ to be successful and \_hoping\_ their items drop.
It's just the way it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732185</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>bl8n8r</author>
	<datestamp>1255450080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I vote for that one too.  The "adjust skill" option is nice when you are doing multiplayer, like Unreal Tournament, so the bots just aren't easy frags.  Quake3 Arena lets you add bots (on the fly) at different skill levels so newbie players have something to kill (co-op), but there are still some targets running around that you can't just run down with a shotgun.</p><p>Some games simply suck-ass when the game adjusts to your level: Guild Wars: beating a map, gaining several levels, and then getting a quest later that takes you through the same map. All the monsters are now the equivalent of chuck norris and it takes you two more days to get through the same stupid map.</p><p>Best thing I can suggest is make your game mod'able and offer an editor for download.  You gain enthusiasm/publicity that can carry the interest in between releases, and there is a lot of creativity and fun being built in your user base.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I vote for that one too .
The " adjust skill " option is nice when you are doing multiplayer , like Unreal Tournament , so the bots just are n't easy frags .
Quake3 Arena lets you add bots ( on the fly ) at different skill levels so newbie players have something to kill ( co-op ) , but there are still some targets running around that you ca n't just run down with a shotgun.Some games simply suck-ass when the game adjusts to your level : Guild Wars : beating a map , gaining several levels , and then getting a quest later that takes you through the same map .
All the monsters are now the equivalent of chuck norris and it takes you two more days to get through the same stupid map.Best thing I can suggest is make your game mod'able and offer an editor for download .
You gain enthusiasm/publicity that can carry the interest in between releases , and there is a lot of creativity and fun being built in your user base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vote for that one too.
The "adjust skill" option is nice when you are doing multiplayer, like Unreal Tournament, so the bots just aren't easy frags.
Quake3 Arena lets you add bots (on the fly) at different skill levels so newbie players have something to kill (co-op), but there are still some targets running around that you can't just run down with a shotgun.Some games simply suck-ass when the game adjusts to your level: Guild Wars: beating a map, gaining several levels, and then getting a quest later that takes you through the same map.
All the monsters are now the equivalent of chuck norris and it takes you two more days to get through the same stupid map.Best thing I can suggest is make your game mod'able and offer an editor for download.
You gain enthusiasm/publicity that can carry the interest in between releases, and there is a lot of creativity and fun being built in your user base.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737365</id>
	<title>fairness</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1255429140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For single and co-op games adaptive difficulty is a plus - these games are all about the enjoyment of the player and "fairness" is not an issue. Things that players do use to compare with each other should be fair however, for example the hardest difficulty setting should always be comparable, as should achievements and a good lap time should <i>always</i> be a good lap time. </p><p>Never take the control away from the player either. Keep hard, medium and easy, the rubber-banding should just offer a bit of flexibility around the edges. </p><p>For multiplayer, there should be no artificial adaptation but ideally the design of the game should involve a degree of natural levelling. Ensure both teams have their opportunity, but it should never go so far as tipping the balance in favour of either winning. Spawn points should always be highly defendable, for example. The key here is any advantage to one is unfair on another.</p><p>Ironically perhaps the trend seems to be the reverse. Games are increasingly benefiting players who do well with unlockable weapons and such for demonstrations of skill or at least long play time. All this does it help skilled players "pwn n00bs" some more while lesser players seem to thrive on being "rewarded", or rather being given something to help them defeat even lesser players. Nobody ever gets rewarded for being a good guy, like a skilled player swapping to a weaker team.</p><p>I'm still "newbie" in TF2 but it seems to have a good take on unlockables. They seem to arrive almost at random and usually the advantages are outweighed with disadvantages, making them more "different" or specialist than "better". </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For single and co-op games adaptive difficulty is a plus - these games are all about the enjoyment of the player and " fairness " is not an issue .
Things that players do use to compare with each other should be fair however , for example the hardest difficulty setting should always be comparable , as should achievements and a good lap time should always be a good lap time .
Never take the control away from the player either .
Keep hard , medium and easy , the rubber-banding should just offer a bit of flexibility around the edges .
For multiplayer , there should be no artificial adaptation but ideally the design of the game should involve a degree of natural levelling .
Ensure both teams have their opportunity , but it should never go so far as tipping the balance in favour of either winning .
Spawn points should always be highly defendable , for example .
The key here is any advantage to one is unfair on another.Ironically perhaps the trend seems to be the reverse .
Games are increasingly benefiting players who do well with unlockable weapons and such for demonstrations of skill or at least long play time .
All this does it help skilled players " pwn n00bs " some more while lesser players seem to thrive on being " rewarded " , or rather being given something to help them defeat even lesser players .
Nobody ever gets rewarded for being a good guy , like a skilled player swapping to a weaker team.I 'm still " newbie " in TF2 but it seems to have a good take on unlockables .
They seem to arrive almost at random and usually the advantages are outweighed with disadvantages , making them more " different " or specialist than " better " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For single and co-op games adaptive difficulty is a plus - these games are all about the enjoyment of the player and "fairness" is not an issue.
Things that players do use to compare with each other should be fair however, for example the hardest difficulty setting should always be comparable, as should achievements and a good lap time should always be a good lap time.
Never take the control away from the player either.
Keep hard, medium and easy, the rubber-banding should just offer a bit of flexibility around the edges.
For multiplayer, there should be no artificial adaptation but ideally the design of the game should involve a degree of natural levelling.
Ensure both teams have their opportunity, but it should never go so far as tipping the balance in favour of either winning.
Spawn points should always be highly defendable, for example.
The key here is any advantage to one is unfair on another.Ironically perhaps the trend seems to be the reverse.
Games are increasingly benefiting players who do well with unlockable weapons and such for demonstrations of skill or at least long play time.
All this does it help skilled players "pwn n00bs" some more while lesser players seem to thrive on being "rewarded", or rather being given something to help them defeat even lesser players.
Nobody ever gets rewarded for being a good guy, like a skilled player swapping to a weaker team.I'm still "newbie" in TF2 but it seems to have a good take on unlockables.
They seem to arrive almost at random and usually the advantages are outweighed with disadvantages, making them more "different" or specialist than "better". </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737559</id>
	<title>depends</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1255429980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As all things, it depends on how you use it.</p><p>I'd certainly love a game that adapts to my style of play if that means when I sneak and use stealth, it'll give me more opportunities to do so, while when I shoot everything that moves, it'll throw more enemies to kill at me.</p><p>But if the game adapts so far that it gives me <b>only</b> that which I'm good at, then the challenge is gone. If it modifies the level of difficulty to exactly my abilities (instead of slightly above them, as it should), then it'll be boring.</p><p>Once more, it's a technology. Some game designers will use it to improve the game. A lot will tack it on to the next cheaply produced crapware just to make sure a so-so idea is ruined completely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As all things , it depends on how you use it.I 'd certainly love a game that adapts to my style of play if that means when I sneak and use stealth , it 'll give me more opportunities to do so , while when I shoot everything that moves , it 'll throw more enemies to kill at me.But if the game adapts so far that it gives me only that which I 'm good at , then the challenge is gone .
If it modifies the level of difficulty to exactly my abilities ( instead of slightly above them , as it should ) , then it 'll be boring.Once more , it 's a technology .
Some game designers will use it to improve the game .
A lot will tack it on to the next cheaply produced crapware just to make sure a so-so idea is ruined completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As all things, it depends on how you use it.I'd certainly love a game that adapts to my style of play if that means when I sneak and use stealth, it'll give me more opportunities to do so, while when I shoot everything that moves, it'll throw more enemies to kill at me.But if the game adapts so far that it gives me only that which I'm good at, then the challenge is gone.
If it modifies the level of difficulty to exactly my abilities (instead of slightly above them, as it should), then it'll be boring.Once more, it's a technology.
Some game designers will use it to improve the game.
A lot will tack it on to the next cheaply produced crapware just to make sure a so-so idea is ruined completely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732379</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1255451040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn good point. Maybe make some hard steps between levels doing the skill level stuff, instead of trying for a smooth leveling?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn good point .
Maybe make some hard steps between levels doing the skill level stuff , instead of trying for a smooth leveling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn good point.
Maybe make some hard steps between levels doing the skill level stuff, instead of trying for a smooth leveling?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735965</id>
	<title>It depends.</title>
	<author>FatherOfONe</author>
	<datestamp>1255467180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, just make a FUN game and don't worry about this.  If your game needs it then put it in, if you think it would be less fun with it in then leave it out.  Now obviously weigh that against the time and effort it would take to put in this automatic correction mode, if you want it in.  It may cost too much to put it in anyway.</p><p>My personal thought is that I kind of hate it in a game, and that almost every game that has done it I don't like.  Oblivion is a prime example.  I NEVER have the fear some games put in me because I know the game auto balances things out fairly well.  Yes I die some but to compare that to the traditional JRPG were you have fear of certain areas/monsters and also feel like a complete bad ass when you get to a certain point.  Again though, it depends on the game.  Mario Kart is great to play with kids and family and it works well.  It was a great design choice for that game.  Madden would suck.  It makes sense they left it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , just make a FUN game and do n't worry about this .
If your game needs it then put it in , if you think it would be less fun with it in then leave it out .
Now obviously weigh that against the time and effort it would take to put in this automatic correction mode , if you want it in .
It may cost too much to put it in anyway.My personal thought is that I kind of hate it in a game , and that almost every game that has done it I do n't like .
Oblivion is a prime example .
I NEVER have the fear some games put in me because I know the game auto balances things out fairly well .
Yes I die some but to compare that to the traditional JRPG were you have fear of certain areas/monsters and also feel like a complete bad ass when you get to a certain point .
Again though , it depends on the game .
Mario Kart is great to play with kids and family and it works well .
It was a great design choice for that game .
Madden would suck .
It makes sense they left it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, just make a FUN game and don't worry about this.
If your game needs it then put it in, if you think it would be less fun with it in then leave it out.
Now obviously weigh that against the time and effort it would take to put in this automatic correction mode, if you want it in.
It may cost too much to put it in anyway.My personal thought is that I kind of hate it in a game, and that almost every game that has done it I don't like.
Oblivion is a prime example.
I NEVER have the fear some games put in me because I know the game auto balances things out fairly well.
Yes I die some but to compare that to the traditional JRPG were you have fear of certain areas/monsters and also feel like a complete bad ass when you get to a certain point.
Again though, it depends on the game.
Mario Kart is great to play with kids and family and it works well.
It was a great design choice for that game.
Madden would suck.
It makes sense they left it out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29742495</id>
	<title>Quote</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The only way to get better is to play a better opponent".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The only way to get better is to play a better opponent " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The only way to get better is to play a better opponent".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734249</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer Zones or areas</title>
	<author>mathx314</author>
	<datestamp>1255459380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fallout 3 definitely worked better than Oblivion.  In FO3, Bethesda basically set up zones around the game world, where each zone had a level range (say, 8-12).  If you were beneath the range, the level of the area was the minimum of the zone.  If you were above, the level was the maximum.  If you were inside the range, your level was the zone's level.  Not only that, once you reached a zone its level was locked for the rest of the game.  This does mean that you can cheat the game and do early runs to minimize levels, but at least it's better how in Oblivion everything was always autoscaling to your level.</p><p>Where Bethesda really messed up, though, was that they don't know how to do difficulty.  I bought Broken Steel and Operation: Anchorage, got the best power armor in the game (Winterized T-51b) and leveled up to 22.  Then I bought Point Lookout, grabbed my plasma rifle, tri-beam laser rifle, minigun, rocket launcher, and gatling laser and went to explore the new area.  Cue me getting my ass handed to me by unarmored tribals.  Why?  Because Bethesda saw fit to outfit them with 35 points unresistable damage per hit.  This is bad design.  I certainly understand that if I had gone at, say, level 3, I should have died.  A game that does level scaling needs to preserve the feelings of the dangers of early levels (which FO3 did beautifully) while providing players with a sense of accomplishment (which FO3 sucked at).  FWIW, it's not just Point Lookout that sucked at that.  Your first trip to downtown DC sees a bunch of super mutants kicking your ass.  Your later trips see you mowing down super mutants but getting killed by super mutant masters.  And never, ever go back once you play Broken Steel.  Super mutant overlords are worse than tribals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fallout 3 definitely worked better than Oblivion .
In FO3 , Bethesda basically set up zones around the game world , where each zone had a level range ( say , 8-12 ) .
If you were beneath the range , the level of the area was the minimum of the zone .
If you were above , the level was the maximum .
If you were inside the range , your level was the zone 's level .
Not only that , once you reached a zone its level was locked for the rest of the game .
This does mean that you can cheat the game and do early runs to minimize levels , but at least it 's better how in Oblivion everything was always autoscaling to your level.Where Bethesda really messed up , though , was that they do n't know how to do difficulty .
I bought Broken Steel and Operation : Anchorage , got the best power armor in the game ( Winterized T-51b ) and leveled up to 22 .
Then I bought Point Lookout , grabbed my plasma rifle , tri-beam laser rifle , minigun , rocket launcher , and gatling laser and went to explore the new area .
Cue me getting my ass handed to me by unarmored tribals .
Why ? Because Bethesda saw fit to outfit them with 35 points unresistable damage per hit .
This is bad design .
I certainly understand that if I had gone at , say , level 3 , I should have died .
A game that does level scaling needs to preserve the feelings of the dangers of early levels ( which FO3 did beautifully ) while providing players with a sense of accomplishment ( which FO3 sucked at ) .
FWIW , it 's not just Point Lookout that sucked at that .
Your first trip to downtown DC sees a bunch of super mutants kicking your ass .
Your later trips see you mowing down super mutants but getting killed by super mutant masters .
And never , ever go back once you play Broken Steel .
Super mutant overlords are worse than tribals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fallout 3 definitely worked better than Oblivion.
In FO3, Bethesda basically set up zones around the game world, where each zone had a level range (say, 8-12).
If you were beneath the range, the level of the area was the minimum of the zone.
If you were above, the level was the maximum.
If you were inside the range, your level was the zone's level.
Not only that, once you reached a zone its level was locked for the rest of the game.
This does mean that you can cheat the game and do early runs to minimize levels, but at least it's better how in Oblivion everything was always autoscaling to your level.Where Bethesda really messed up, though, was that they don't know how to do difficulty.
I bought Broken Steel and Operation: Anchorage, got the best power armor in the game (Winterized T-51b) and leveled up to 22.
Then I bought Point Lookout, grabbed my plasma rifle, tri-beam laser rifle, minigun, rocket launcher, and gatling laser and went to explore the new area.
Cue me getting my ass handed to me by unarmored tribals.
Why?  Because Bethesda saw fit to outfit them with 35 points unresistable damage per hit.
This is bad design.
I certainly understand that if I had gone at, say, level 3, I should have died.
A game that does level scaling needs to preserve the feelings of the dangers of early levels (which FO3 did beautifully) while providing players with a sense of accomplishment (which FO3 sucked at).
FWIW, it's not just Point Lookout that sucked at that.
Your first trip to downtown DC sees a bunch of super mutants kicking your ass.
Your later trips see you mowing down super mutants but getting killed by super mutant masters.
And never, ever go back once you play Broken Steel.
Super mutant overlords are worse than tribals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735363</id>
	<title>Player selectable</title>
	<author>Sailing\_Nut</author>
	<datestamp>1255464480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer to be able to select my difficulty level and have the game simply react that way.

I may be an outlying data point but I don't play games for a massive challenge. I do it to pass the time and escape from reality. If a game becomes too difficult I simply cast it aside as it is not having the intended effect of relaxing me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer to be able to select my difficulty level and have the game simply react that way .
I may be an outlying data point but I do n't play games for a massive challenge .
I do it to pass the time and escape from reality .
If a game becomes too difficult I simply cast it aside as it is not having the intended effect of relaxing me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer to be able to select my difficulty level and have the game simply react that way.
I may be an outlying data point but I don't play games for a massive challenge.
I do it to pass the time and escape from reality.
If a game becomes too difficult I simply cast it aside as it is not having the intended effect of relaxing me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737319</id>
	<title>No, they shouldn't. AT ALL.</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1255428900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let me explain: what I want is a game where not only the world doesn't adapt to how I play but, also, that it's not even designed to how the developers *think* I'm gonna play. Things like Final Fantasy VII, for instance, where even the strongest bosses in the first few areas would be killed in a single hit from the random encounters you get at the final dungeon. I want a game where I feel I was just thrown in a different world, that I'm merely a participant in something bigger, rather than The One True Hero around whom the whole world is built.</p><p>STALKER did this, to a degree, where in the beginning with your trusty pistol and simple jacket you're forced to run from mere bandits, while in the end-game you can hunt military soldiers for fun and profit with your customized AK-74 and bulletproof suit. It did have an "NPC difficulty curve" (mostly due to quests leading you to more dangerous areas as the game progressed), but it was flatter than most and that worked to the game's favor, IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me explain : what I want is a game where not only the world does n't adapt to how I play but , also , that it 's not even designed to how the developers * think * I 'm gon na play .
Things like Final Fantasy VII , for instance , where even the strongest bosses in the first few areas would be killed in a single hit from the random encounters you get at the final dungeon .
I want a game where I feel I was just thrown in a different world , that I 'm merely a participant in something bigger , rather than The One True Hero around whom the whole world is built.STALKER did this , to a degree , where in the beginning with your trusty pistol and simple jacket you 're forced to run from mere bandits , while in the end-game you can hunt military soldiers for fun and profit with your customized AK-74 and bulletproof suit .
It did have an " NPC difficulty curve " ( mostly due to quests leading you to more dangerous areas as the game progressed ) , but it was flatter than most and that worked to the game 's favor , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me explain: what I want is a game where not only the world doesn't adapt to how I play but, also, that it's not even designed to how the developers *think* I'm gonna play.
Things like Final Fantasy VII, for instance, where even the strongest bosses in the first few areas would be killed in a single hit from the random encounters you get at the final dungeon.
I want a game where I feel I was just thrown in a different world, that I'm merely a participant in something bigger, rather than The One True Hero around whom the whole world is built.STALKER did this, to a degree, where in the beginning with your trusty pistol and simple jacket you're forced to run from mere bandits, while in the end-game you can hunt military soldiers for fun and profit with your customized AK-74 and bulletproof suit.
It did have an "NPC difficulty curve" (mostly due to quests leading you to more dangerous areas as the game progressed), but it was flatter than most and that worked to the game's favor, IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735623</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Specifically for games that have multiplayer and solo.</i> </p></div><p>I specifically like games that the computer just plays for you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Specifically for games that have multiplayer and solo .
I specifically like games that the computer just plays for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Specifically for games that have multiplayer and solo.
I specifically like games that the computer just plays for you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733033</id>
	<title>Rubberbanding = Teh Stupid</title>
	<author>dcollins</author>
	<datestamp>1255454100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Now, the question becomes: is this a good thing at all?"</p><p>No, it's stupid.</p><p>The slaughter will continue until play improves.</p><p><a href="http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/05/coddling-players.html" title="blogspot.com">http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/05/coddling-players.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now , the question becomes : is this a good thing at all ?
" No , it 's stupid.The slaughter will continue until play improves.http : //deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/05/coddling-players.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now, the question becomes: is this a good thing at all?
"No, it's stupid.The slaughter will continue until play improves.http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2009/05/coddling-players.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732137</id>
	<title>New add-on device</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255449840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh, how about game difficulty set via Breathalyzer!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , how about game difficulty set via Breathalyzer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, how about game difficulty set via Breathalyzer!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732045</id>
	<title>Reward? For what?</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1255449540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want to get a reward for playing well, I want to get a reward for my 60Eur I paid!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to get a reward for playing well , I want to get a reward for my 60Eur I paid !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to get a reward for playing well, I want to get a reward for my 60Eur I paid!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734259</id>
	<title>Nintendo</title>
	<author>trevelyn412</author>
	<datestamp>1255459440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nintendo already implemented this with a small device that reads your pulse in your fingertip.  didn't you guys see E3 videos of 2k9?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nintendo already implemented this with a small device that reads your pulse in your fingertip .
did n't you guys see E3 videos of 2k9 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nintendo already implemented this with a small device that reads your pulse in your fingertip.
didn't you guys see E3 videos of 2k9?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731977</id>
	<title>Just a Checkbox</title>
	<author>rcolbert</author>
	<datestamp>1255449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Adaptive difficulty should be implemented as a checkbox option.  At that point, who cares?  It's far more practical than having someone struggle for a few hours on the most difficult setting and then start all over at an easier setting.  Developers still have the option of what the bounds of difficulty are.  Difficulty can be adaptive without making the game a cakewalk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adaptive difficulty should be implemented as a checkbox option .
At that point , who cares ?
It 's far more practical than having someone struggle for a few hours on the most difficult setting and then start all over at an easier setting .
Developers still have the option of what the bounds of difficulty are .
Difficulty can be adaptive without making the game a cakewalk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adaptive difficulty should be implemented as a checkbox option.
At that point, who cares?
It's far more practical than having someone struggle for a few hours on the most difficult setting and then start all over at an easier setting.
Developers still have the option of what the bounds of difficulty are.
Difficulty can be adaptive without making the game a cakewalk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736787</id>
	<title>WoW has adaptive elements</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255427280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>World of Warcraft already sort of follows this game design. They have different modes for their raid dungeons for example (e.g. hard mode, heroic, etc.).</p><p>In a sense, even WoW's arena system tries to place players of equal skills against each other. Their rating system ensures that you will eventually only pvp with those of your team's skill level after you lose/win enough games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>World of Warcraft already sort of follows this game design .
They have different modes for their raid dungeons for example ( e.g .
hard mode , heroic , etc .
) .In a sense , even WoW 's arena system tries to place players of equal skills against each other .
Their rating system ensures that you will eventually only pvp with those of your team 's skill level after you lose/win enough games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>World of Warcraft already sort of follows this game design.
They have different modes for their raid dungeons for example (e.g.
hard mode, heroic, etc.
).In a sense, even WoW's arena system tries to place players of equal skills against each other.
Their rating system ensures that you will eventually only pvp with those of your team's skill level after you lose/win enough games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738543</id>
	<title>Re:"Rewards Mediocrity"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255434060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There should be rewards for playing <i>well</i>, otherwise, what is the point of getting good at a game?<br>"Rewarding mediocrity" just means that I believe. Could probably be coined better by the author.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be rewards for playing well , otherwise , what is the point of getting good at a game ?
" Rewarding mediocrity " just means that I believe .
Could probably be coined better by the author .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be rewards for playing well, otherwise, what is the point of getting good at a game?
"Rewarding mediocrity" just means that I believe.
Could probably be coined better by the author.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731811</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731965</id>
	<title>Oblivion "Increasing skill" feh.</title>
	<author>electrosoccertux</author>
	<datestamp>1255449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The enemies did not "Increase in skill", as if they matured and became better fighters, they simply leveled up as you did.<br>That's not adaptive AI<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p><p>There are 2 things that need work in games-- AI and facial animations. It's been 10 years since UT99 and in UT3 the computer basically rolls a dice that determines if it's going to kill you. If it's going to kill you, it usually kills you on the first shot. Which never happens in real life. Something as simple as this, which would be so easy to get around, makes the game feel so cheap. Yes, I play with people online, but when there's only 3 and we need a 4th for iCTF, having a bot ruins the fun.<br>Facial animations-- see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk8IdP-upKY&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com">Half Life 2</a> [youtube.com], in my opinion. Even though the character animations themselves are a little stiff, the lipsyncing is top notch, and the Gman can display emotions such as confusion, malice, irritation, etc. Combined these all work together for a great suspension of disbelief.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The enemies did not " Increase in skill " , as if they matured and became better fighters , they simply leveled up as you did.That 's not adaptive AI : /There are 2 things that need work in games-- AI and facial animations .
It 's been 10 years since UT99 and in UT3 the computer basically rolls a dice that determines if it 's going to kill you .
If it 's going to kill you , it usually kills you on the first shot .
Which never happens in real life .
Something as simple as this , which would be so easy to get around , makes the game feel so cheap .
Yes , I play with people online , but when there 's only 3 and we need a 4th for iCTF , having a bot ruins the fun.Facial animations-- see Half Life 2 [ youtube.com ] , in my opinion .
Even though the character animations themselves are a little stiff , the lipsyncing is top notch , and the Gman can display emotions such as confusion , malice , irritation , etc .
Combined these all work together for a great suspension of disbelief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The enemies did not "Increase in skill", as if they matured and became better fighters, they simply leveled up as you did.That's not adaptive AI :/There are 2 things that need work in games-- AI and facial animations.
It's been 10 years since UT99 and in UT3 the computer basically rolls a dice that determines if it's going to kill you.
If it's going to kill you, it usually kills you on the first shot.
Which never happens in real life.
Something as simple as this, which would be so easy to get around, makes the game feel so cheap.
Yes, I play with people online, but when there's only 3 and we need a 4th for iCTF, having a bot ruins the fun.Facial animations-- see Half Life 2 [youtube.com], in my opinion.
Even though the character animations themselves are a little stiff, the lipsyncing is top notch, and the Gman can display emotions such as confusion, malice, irritation, etc.
Combined these all work together for a great suspension of disbelief.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734345</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1255459860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd like to see it configurable.</p></div><p>Depends on the kind of game. In MarioKart multiplayer, sure, a few or even a lot options couldn't hurt, as you will quickly get familiar with them. But in a more story driven single player experience that you may play through only once I find to many options horribly distracting, as its impossible to judge the effects of them when you play the game for the first time. I'd much prefer letting the developer spend some time on good balance then letting the player do the fine tuning. That said, there is nothing wrong with a simple easy, normal, hard difficulty select, as long as that selection is available at all time from the option menu. Nothing sucks more then a game that only allows selection at the very start, thus making you stuck with a to hard or to easy difficulty when you select the wrong option.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see it configurable.Depends on the kind of game .
In MarioKart multiplayer , sure , a few or even a lot options could n't hurt , as you will quickly get familiar with them .
But in a more story driven single player experience that you may play through only once I find to many options horribly distracting , as its impossible to judge the effects of them when you play the game for the first time .
I 'd much prefer letting the developer spend some time on good balance then letting the player do the fine tuning .
That said , there is nothing wrong with a simple easy , normal , hard difficulty select , as long as that selection is available at all time from the option menu .
Nothing sucks more then a game that only allows selection at the very start , thus making you stuck with a to hard or to easy difficulty when you select the wrong option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see it configurable.Depends on the kind of game.
In MarioKart multiplayer, sure, a few or even a lot options couldn't hurt, as you will quickly get familiar with them.
But in a more story driven single player experience that you may play through only once I find to many options horribly distracting, as its impossible to judge the effects of them when you play the game for the first time.
I'd much prefer letting the developer spend some time on good balance then letting the player do the fine tuning.
That said, there is nothing wrong with a simple easy, normal, hard difficulty select, as long as that selection is available at all time from the option menu.
Nothing sucks more then a game that only allows selection at the very start, thus making you stuck with a to hard or to easy difficulty when you select the wrong option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735551</id>
	<title>bell curves and such</title>
	<author>evilWurst</author>
	<datestamp>1255465440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity (i.e. you don't get rewarded for playing well). Others would say that it restricts the freedom of expression for the game designer."</p><p>What, their freedom to guess wrong and alienate a large chunk of their playerbase? Player skill is going to be on a bell curve, and the best you can do without some dynamic adjustment is to hope to hell you've nailed the difficulty perfectly at the top of the curve; that way you're the least wrong for the fewest number of players... but even then, you're still going to be unplayably wrong for 10\% and irritating to another 20\%. And this will only reward skill for that narrow slice of players for which the game was initially slightly too hard (and then becomes pefect as the player improves).</p><p>The flaw in rubberbanding is only that it still can't read your mind. The developer's idea of "normal" may actually still be too easy or too hard, and then the game guarantees that it stays too easy or too hard throughout, no matter what you the player do. Really what we need is a hybrid between the old "easy/normal/hard" choice and dynamic adjustment. That puts enough wiggle room back in that the developer can be wrong yet the player can still fix it and have fun. And the holy grail here is to have it require minimal interaction - if you implement this right, it's correct by default for the largest reasonably attainable number of players, and for the rest it's correctable through the simple and well-understood easy/normal/hard mode choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity ( i.e .
you do n't get rewarded for playing well ) .
Others would say that it restricts the freedom of expression for the game designer .
" What , their freedom to guess wrong and alienate a large chunk of their playerbase ?
Player skill is going to be on a bell curve , and the best you can do without some dynamic adjustment is to hope to hell you 've nailed the difficulty perfectly at the top of the curve ; that way you 're the least wrong for the fewest number of players... but even then , you 're still going to be unplayably wrong for 10 \ % and irritating to another 20 \ % .
And this will only reward skill for that narrow slice of players for which the game was initially slightly too hard ( and then becomes pefect as the player improves ) .The flaw in rubberbanding is only that it still ca n't read your mind .
The developer 's idea of " normal " may actually still be too easy or too hard , and then the game guarantees that it stays too easy or too hard throughout , no matter what you the player do .
Really what we need is a hybrid between the old " easy/normal/hard " choice and dynamic adjustment .
That puts enough wiggle room back in that the developer can be wrong yet the player can still fix it and have fun .
And the holy grail here is to have it require minimal interaction - if you implement this right , it 's correct by default for the largest reasonably attainable number of players , and for the rest it 's correctable through the simple and well-understood easy/normal/hard mode choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity (i.e.
you don't get rewarded for playing well).
Others would say that it restricts the freedom of expression for the game designer.
"What, their freedom to guess wrong and alienate a large chunk of their playerbase?
Player skill is going to be on a bell curve, and the best you can do without some dynamic adjustment is to hope to hell you've nailed the difficulty perfectly at the top of the curve; that way you're the least wrong for the fewest number of players... but even then, you're still going to be unplayably wrong for 10\% and irritating to another 20\%.
And this will only reward skill for that narrow slice of players for which the game was initially slightly too hard (and then becomes pefect as the player improves).The flaw in rubberbanding is only that it still can't read your mind.
The developer's idea of "normal" may actually still be too easy or too hard, and then the game guarantees that it stays too easy or too hard throughout, no matter what you the player do.
Really what we need is a hybrid between the old "easy/normal/hard" choice and dynamic adjustment.
That puts enough wiggle room back in that the developer can be wrong yet the player can still fix it and have fun.
And the holy grail here is to have it require minimal interaction - if you implement this right, it's correct by default for the largest reasonably attainable number of players, and for the rest it's correctable through the simple and well-understood easy/normal/hard mode choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734001</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1255458420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's about the point I wanted to make too. Far too often you stumble upon an AI flaw, be it in the AIs approach to a problem (i.e. its way to attack in a RTS game) or in its choice of units/weapons/moves/pathing. From that moment on, you're essentially in god mode. You might not succeed every time (you might miss with the first shot), but you will know where the computer opponent is lurking, what path he chooses, what weapons he will use or what units he will field, you can plan ahead, you can counter his strategy simply because you already know it.</p><p>No, not even offering different AIs (a "rushing" AI, a "researching" AI,...) helps, even if you randomize it. Eventually you'll learn which AI you play against from one of their first moves (i.e. if you encounter some weak units a minute after start, you're playing against the 'rusher', if there's no encounter after 5, you're playing against the 'researcher'...), then it's just running down you counter-script.</p><p>Especially in games that rely on lengthy, strategic planning, an AI that responds to your strategy would be a real enrichment. Where reconnaissance should not only be limited to you but also the AI, where the AI may send spy planes into your area to see what you're building and build counter units according to what it finds. Which may allow you to build a "secret" base somewhere else where you build totally different units than the ones he knows about, to catch him off guard. I'd really call that a more realistic gameplay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's about the point I wanted to make too .
Far too often you stumble upon an AI flaw , be it in the AIs approach to a problem ( i.e .
its way to attack in a RTS game ) or in its choice of units/weapons/moves/pathing .
From that moment on , you 're essentially in god mode .
You might not succeed every time ( you might miss with the first shot ) , but you will know where the computer opponent is lurking , what path he chooses , what weapons he will use or what units he will field , you can plan ahead , you can counter his strategy simply because you already know it.No , not even offering different AIs ( a " rushing " AI , a " researching " AI,... ) helps , even if you randomize it .
Eventually you 'll learn which AI you play against from one of their first moves ( i.e .
if you encounter some weak units a minute after start , you 're playing against the 'rusher ' , if there 's no encounter after 5 , you 're playing against the 'researcher'... ) , then it 's just running down you counter-script.Especially in games that rely on lengthy , strategic planning , an AI that responds to your strategy would be a real enrichment .
Where reconnaissance should not only be limited to you but also the AI , where the AI may send spy planes into your area to see what you 're building and build counter units according to what it finds .
Which may allow you to build a " secret " base somewhere else where you build totally different units than the ones he knows about , to catch him off guard .
I 'd really call that a more realistic gameplay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's about the point I wanted to make too.
Far too often you stumble upon an AI flaw, be it in the AIs approach to a problem (i.e.
its way to attack in a RTS game) or in its choice of units/weapons/moves/pathing.
From that moment on, you're essentially in god mode.
You might not succeed every time (you might miss with the first shot), but you will know where the computer opponent is lurking, what path he chooses, what weapons he will use or what units he will field, you can plan ahead, you can counter his strategy simply because you already know it.No, not even offering different AIs (a "rushing" AI, a "researching" AI,...) helps, even if you randomize it.
Eventually you'll learn which AI you play against from one of their first moves (i.e.
if you encounter some weak units a minute after start, you're playing against the 'rusher', if there's no encounter after 5, you're playing against the 'researcher'...), then it's just running down you counter-script.Especially in games that rely on lengthy, strategic planning, an AI that responds to your strategy would be a real enrichment.
Where reconnaissance should not only be limited to you but also the AI, where the AI may send spy planes into your area to see what you're building and build counter units according to what it finds.
Which may allow you to build a "secret" base somewhere else where you build totally different units than the ones he knows about, to catch him off guard.
I'd really call that a more realistic gameplay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732221</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1255450260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Resident Evil 5 has a difficulty that adjusts based on how well you play. There's a difficulty slider that ranges from 0-10. There's hard min and max caps on how far up and down the slider can go based on chosen difficulty. As you play better and better the enemies you face take less damage from your weapons and deal more damage when they hit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Resident Evil 5 has a difficulty that adjusts based on how well you play .
There 's a difficulty slider that ranges from 0-10 .
There 's hard min and max caps on how far up and down the slider can go based on chosen difficulty .
As you play better and better the enemies you face take less damage from your weapons and deal more damage when they hit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resident Evil 5 has a difficulty that adjusts based on how well you play.
There's a difficulty slider that ranges from 0-10.
There's hard min and max caps on how far up and down the slider can go based on chosen difficulty.
As you play better and better the enemies you face take less damage from your weapons and deal more damage when they hit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</id>
	<title>Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>JSBiff</author>
	<datestamp>1255448580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One problem, potentially, if you 'adapt to players skill level' *too* well, is that as they get better (or as their character gets more powerful in an RPG type system), they might feel like they never get to enjoy the increase in either their skill, or power. It can feel like treading water, if as you get better, the game gets so much harder that you never get any feeling of accomplishment, no sense that you are any better or stronger than you started out, even though you *know* you've gotten better, or have more powerful abilities.</p><p>However, at some point, you do want more challenge. The trick will be, adapting to the players, while still giving them some opportunity to experience their increase in skill or strength.</p><p>This could be applied to almost any game genre, btw. I mean, consider an FPS. If you've gotten better at managing your economy, strategizing attack tactics, etc, but the computer remains in lockstep with your real skill increase as a player, then it can be very frustrating. At some point, you want the satisfaction of just slaughtering the AI player that used to beat you on the same 'skill level', because your skill has actually increased.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One problem , potentially , if you 'adapt to players skill level ' * too * well , is that as they get better ( or as their character gets more powerful in an RPG type system ) , they might feel like they never get to enjoy the increase in either their skill , or power .
It can feel like treading water , if as you get better , the game gets so much harder that you never get any feeling of accomplishment , no sense that you are any better or stronger than you started out , even though you * know * you 've gotten better , or have more powerful abilities.However , at some point , you do want more challenge .
The trick will be , adapting to the players , while still giving them some opportunity to experience their increase in skill or strength.This could be applied to almost any game genre , btw .
I mean , consider an FPS .
If you 've gotten better at managing your economy , strategizing attack tactics , etc , but the computer remains in lockstep with your real skill increase as a player , then it can be very frustrating .
At some point , you want the satisfaction of just slaughtering the AI player that used to beat you on the same 'skill level ' , because your skill has actually increased .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One problem, potentially, if you 'adapt to players skill level' *too* well, is that as they get better (or as their character gets more powerful in an RPG type system), they might feel like they never get to enjoy the increase in either their skill, or power.
It can feel like treading water, if as you get better, the game gets so much harder that you never get any feeling of accomplishment, no sense that you are any better or stronger than you started out, even though you *know* you've gotten better, or have more powerful abilities.However, at some point, you do want more challenge.
The trick will be, adapting to the players, while still giving them some opportunity to experience their increase in skill or strength.This could be applied to almost any game genre, btw.
I mean, consider an FPS.
If you've gotten better at managing your economy, strategizing attack tactics, etc, but the computer remains in lockstep with your real skill increase as a player, then it can be very frustrating.
At some point, you want the satisfaction of just slaughtering the AI player that used to beat you on the same 'skill level', because your skill has actually increased.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829</id>
	<title>I prefer Zones or areas</title>
	<author>Pvt\_Ryan</author>
	<datestamp>1255448700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Basically WoW has it right. Oblivion was annoying as as soon as i level those "bandits" suddenly had very very good gear. I don't like that it's no fun, sometimes it is nice to walk to an area you have been before with your gear and butcher the low level stuff for fun. <br>
Bestheda also fucked up Fallout 3 with this, you can pretty much complete the game in under 3hours (iirc) with hardly any leveling as the monsters are pretty much all scaled to the player.
<br> <br>
I do like rubber-banding as long as it is managed (eg a lvl 4 monster, depending on my skill, can have the stats of say a lvl 5 monster but never any higher) this allows for a small degree of rubber-banding so good players will have a harder time but can still return to low level places.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically WoW has it right .
Oblivion was annoying as as soon as i level those " bandits " suddenly had very very good gear .
I do n't like that it 's no fun , sometimes it is nice to walk to an area you have been before with your gear and butcher the low level stuff for fun .
Bestheda also fucked up Fallout 3 with this , you can pretty much complete the game in under 3hours ( iirc ) with hardly any leveling as the monsters are pretty much all scaled to the player .
I do like rubber-banding as long as it is managed ( eg a lvl 4 monster , depending on my skill , can have the stats of say a lvl 5 monster but never any higher ) this allows for a small degree of rubber-banding so good players will have a harder time but can still return to low level places .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically WoW has it right.
Oblivion was annoying as as soon as i level those "bandits" suddenly had very very good gear.
I don't like that it's no fun, sometimes it is nice to walk to an area you have been before with your gear and butcher the low level stuff for fun.
Bestheda also fucked up Fallout 3 with this, you can pretty much complete the game in under 3hours (iirc) with hardly any leveling as the monsters are pretty much all scaled to the player.
I do like rubber-banding as long as it is managed (eg a lvl 4 monster, depending on my skill, can have the stats of say a lvl 5 monster but never any higher) this allows for a small degree of rubber-banding so good players will have a harder time but can still return to low level places.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733375</id>
	<title>Avoid the Oblivion method.</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1255455660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have strong feeling on this topic. Pity I had a specially loaded day and didn't see the thread earlier. Anyway, to the point.</p><p>I get fun from certain games by beating them. I don't want a balanced threat, a "more fun" difficulty or however you justify changing the opposition to match the player.</p><p>If I want to play in a harder mode, to try to beat it too, I'm perfectly able to change the mode by myself. However, if I'm in the middle of discovering the perfect evolution algorithm that makes my character vaporise his enemies by dealing a damage orders of magnitude over their hps, and then the games decides I need different enemies to "have fun", I usually delete the game and sell it.</p><p>Oblivion is a special case. The evolving threat algorithm itself could be beaten. The optimal character never advanced a single lvl, to avoid triggering the algorithm. In that case, a player who enjoys games my way, plays for some hours, "solves" the game and quickly finds that playing a classic action RPG without advancing levels, is quite boring, as there's no progressive evolution to also "solve".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have strong feeling on this topic .
Pity I had a specially loaded day and did n't see the thread earlier .
Anyway , to the point.I get fun from certain games by beating them .
I do n't want a balanced threat , a " more fun " difficulty or however you justify changing the opposition to match the player.If I want to play in a harder mode , to try to beat it too , I 'm perfectly able to change the mode by myself .
However , if I 'm in the middle of discovering the perfect evolution algorithm that makes my character vaporise his enemies by dealing a damage orders of magnitude over their hps , and then the games decides I need different enemies to " have fun " , I usually delete the game and sell it.Oblivion is a special case .
The evolving threat algorithm itself could be beaten .
The optimal character never advanced a single lvl , to avoid triggering the algorithm .
In that case , a player who enjoys games my way , plays for some hours , " solves " the game and quickly finds that playing a classic action RPG without advancing levels , is quite boring , as there 's no progressive evolution to also " solve " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have strong feeling on this topic.
Pity I had a specially loaded day and didn't see the thread earlier.
Anyway, to the point.I get fun from certain games by beating them.
I don't want a balanced threat, a "more fun" difficulty or however you justify changing the opposition to match the player.If I want to play in a harder mode, to try to beat it too, I'm perfectly able to change the mode by myself.
However, if I'm in the middle of discovering the perfect evolution algorithm that makes my character vaporise his enemies by dealing a damage orders of magnitude over their hps, and then the games decides I need different enemies to "have fun", I usually delete the game and sell it.Oblivion is a special case.
The evolving threat algorithm itself could be beaten.
The optimal character never advanced a single lvl, to avoid triggering the algorithm.
In that case, a player who enjoys games my way, plays for some hours, "solves" the game and quickly finds that playing a classic action RPG without advancing levels, is quite boring, as there's no progressive evolution to also "solve".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733399</id>
	<title>Re:Old and Slow</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1255455780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I often play single player FPSes in slomo mode and increase difficulty, because it's fun. Particularly in Unreal Tournament '99 and Call of Duty 4. You always have a command to type in the console to set that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I often play single player FPSes in slomo mode and increase difficulty , because it 's fun .
Particularly in Unreal Tournament '99 and Call of Duty 4 .
You always have a command to type in the console to set that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I often play single player FPSes in slomo mode and increase difficulty, because it's fun.
Particularly in Unreal Tournament '99 and Call of Duty 4.
You always have a command to type in the console to set that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735321</id>
	<title>Crazy skill levels are the worst by far</title>
	<author>rnturn</author>
	<datestamp>1255464360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In one game that I like to play to blow off some steam, you can easily beat all the bots at one level (they seem to enjoy standing around waiting for you to blast 'em) and if you increase the difficulty by one level, the bots can be falling off a ledge or doing a double somersault and still manage to squeeze of a single shot that kills you.  And that's after you've hit them with 2-3 rockets.  Go figure.  I haven't tried it yet but I can't even imagine what the "Godlike" level would be like except that I suspect I wouldn't even be completely reborn before a bot killed me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In one game that I like to play to blow off some steam , you can easily beat all the bots at one level ( they seem to enjoy standing around waiting for you to blast 'em ) and if you increase the difficulty by one level , the bots can be falling off a ledge or doing a double somersault and still manage to squeeze of a single shot that kills you .
And that 's after you 've hit them with 2-3 rockets .
Go figure .
I have n't tried it yet but I ca n't even imagine what the " Godlike " level would be like except that I suspect I would n't even be completely reborn before a bot killed me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In one game that I like to play to blow off some steam, you can easily beat all the bots at one level (they seem to enjoy standing around waiting for you to blast 'em) and if you increase the difficulty by one level, the bots can be falling off a ledge or doing a double somersault and still manage to squeeze of a single shot that kills you.
And that's after you've hit them with 2-3 rockets.
Go figure.
I haven't tried it yet but I can't even imagine what the "Godlike" level would be like except that I suspect I wouldn't even be completely reborn before a bot killed me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731915</id>
	<title>Both options</title>
	<author>Blade</author>
	<datestamp>1255449000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there's room for choosing a difficulty level and having the game adapt as well.  Didn't RE5 do that?  You chose how hard you wanted it to be, but within that the game also decreased enemy health if you died over and over, and increased it if you survived fights without dying.  So it was self adapting but within constraints you could choose yourself.</p><p>There's also a clear difference between games in which you compete against other people which try to provide an enjoyable experience, and games in which you are trying to win by having more skill than the other players, and single player games that are intended to be enjoyable and what people enjoy varies from person to person.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there 's room for choosing a difficulty level and having the game adapt as well .
Did n't RE5 do that ?
You chose how hard you wanted it to be , but within that the game also decreased enemy health if you died over and over , and increased it if you survived fights without dying .
So it was self adapting but within constraints you could choose yourself.There 's also a clear difference between games in which you compete against other people which try to provide an enjoyable experience , and games in which you are trying to win by having more skill than the other players , and single player games that are intended to be enjoyable and what people enjoy varies from person to person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there's room for choosing a difficulty level and having the game adapt as well.
Didn't RE5 do that?
You chose how hard you wanted it to be, but within that the game also decreased enemy health if you died over and over, and increased it if you survived fights without dying.
So it was self adapting but within constraints you could choose yourself.There's also a clear difference between games in which you compete against other people which try to provide an enjoyable experience, and games in which you are trying to win by having more skill than the other players, and single player games that are intended to be enjoyable and what people enjoy varies from person to person.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29762843</id>
	<title>Depends entire on how it's implemented</title>
	<author>pugugly</author>
	<datestamp>1255602540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the things I liked about Morrowind and disliked about Oblivion was that, in Morrowind, if you walked off into the wilderness without a definite plan, you were gonna die - end of story. If you weren't ready to go head to head against beasts, you wanted to stay in the 'safe' areas. In Oblivion, a low level character can walk across the wilderness to Kvatch, and it's *safer* than taking the roads - no bandits.</p><p>So, I rather hated that system. It's dumb.</p><p>Now, a system that starts to *anticipate* strategies - Galactic Civilization II, the AI notes what you're developing, and develops counter-measures. I'd love a system that took even this basic principle and changed the NPC's to notice that you used swords and work with ranged weapons, or if you used ranged weaponry and avoided close combat to develop ambushes and so on. Sane reactive strategies that make it obvious the thieves guild (or whatever) is taking notes thank you very much.</p><p>Pug</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things I liked about Morrowind and disliked about Oblivion was that , in Morrowind , if you walked off into the wilderness without a definite plan , you were gon na die - end of story .
If you were n't ready to go head to head against beasts , you wanted to stay in the 'safe ' areas .
In Oblivion , a low level character can walk across the wilderness to Kvatch , and it 's * safer * than taking the roads - no bandits.So , I rather hated that system .
It 's dumb.Now , a system that starts to * anticipate * strategies - Galactic Civilization II , the AI notes what you 're developing , and develops counter-measures .
I 'd love a system that took even this basic principle and changed the NPC 's to notice that you used swords and work with ranged weapons , or if you used ranged weaponry and avoided close combat to develop ambushes and so on .
Sane reactive strategies that make it obvious the thieves guild ( or whatever ) is taking notes thank you very much.Pug</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things I liked about Morrowind and disliked about Oblivion was that, in Morrowind, if you walked off into the wilderness without a definite plan, you were gonna die - end of story.
If you weren't ready to go head to head against beasts, you wanted to stay in the 'safe' areas.
In Oblivion, a low level character can walk across the wilderness to Kvatch, and it's *safer* than taking the roads - no bandits.So, I rather hated that system.
It's dumb.Now, a system that starts to *anticipate* strategies - Galactic Civilization II, the AI notes what you're developing, and develops counter-measures.
I'd love a system that took even this basic principle and changed the NPC's to notice that you used swords and work with ranged weapons, or if you used ranged weaponry and avoided close combat to develop ambushes and so on.
Sane reactive strategies that make it obvious the thieves guild (or whatever) is taking notes thank you very much.Pug</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731811</id>
	<title>"Rewards Mediocrity"?</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1255448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity (i.e. you don't get rewarded for playing well).</p></div><p>Are you kidding me? So freakin' what? <i>It's a game</i>. It's not real life. You play it <i>for fun</i>. Should a person be "not qualified" to play a game if they're not good enough? And if so, by whose standards?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity ( i.e .
you do n't get rewarded for playing well ) .Are you kidding me ?
So freakin ' what ?
It 's a game .
It 's not real life .
You play it for fun .
Should a person be " not qualified " to play a game if they 're not good enough ?
And if so , by whose standards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity (i.e.
you don't get rewarded for playing well).Are you kidding me?
So freakin' what?
It's a game.
It's not real life.
You play it for fun.
Should a person be "not qualified" to play a game if they're not good enough?
And if so, by whose standards?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732003</id>
	<title>The WOW Factor</title>
	<author>skornenicholas</author>
	<datestamp>1255449360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is how I look at difficulty or how I would like it to be. Anyone can beat the game and have fun doing so, but make it so that when I take the harder routes or perfect harder combos, inventive problem solving, etc. I get rewarded by seeing my character do acts of absolute badassery. Ever watch a REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT player go through Ninja Gaiden Sigma? My character looks like a boring old movie extra in comparison, there guy is covered in gore, doing backflips, and generally looking like one bad-a$$ mofo. I can still complete the game AND enjoy it, but it's much less impressive doing it, personally I enjoy adaptive difficulty to a point. I like games that make me change my tactics as well, Call of Duty is ocassionally excellent at this on Veteran, if you sniper for too long the enemy will flank you and come around from behind, the same way real live players do. Now sometimes I just want to kill some Nazis, I drop the difficulty down, same thing I do on Rock Band/DDR. It all comes down to how impressive do I LOOK while doing this, making a pro LOOK like a pro is VERY important. It loses it's shine if anybody can play through looking like a God, I enjoy showing off my skills so when people watch me play they go, "How did you DO that?" Then again, that's just my opinion. The crux of this is why I HATE racing games, there is little middle ground, easy is too easy and I always win, but on expert I have to be consistently perfect lap after lap to even have a CHANCE of winning. One more example before I go, Metal Gear Solid 4, watching a first time player go through that game on Liquid Easy and watching somone on Boss Hard is a completely different experiance, as it should be, again the key is making a devoted and skilled player LOOK superior because he IS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is how I look at difficulty or how I would like it to be .
Anyone can beat the game and have fun doing so , but make it so that when I take the harder routes or perfect harder combos , inventive problem solving , etc .
I get rewarded by seeing my character do acts of absolute badassery .
Ever watch a REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT player go through Ninja Gaiden Sigma ?
My character looks like a boring old movie extra in comparison , there guy is covered in gore , doing backflips , and generally looking like one bad-a $ $ mofo .
I can still complete the game AND enjoy it , but it 's much less impressive doing it , personally I enjoy adaptive difficulty to a point .
I like games that make me change my tactics as well , Call of Duty is ocassionally excellent at this on Veteran , if you sniper for too long the enemy will flank you and come around from behind , the same way real live players do .
Now sometimes I just want to kill some Nazis , I drop the difficulty down , same thing I do on Rock Band/DDR .
It all comes down to how impressive do I LOOK while doing this , making a pro LOOK like a pro is VERY important .
It loses it 's shine if anybody can play through looking like a God , I enjoy showing off my skills so when people watch me play they go , " How did you DO that ?
" Then again , that 's just my opinion .
The crux of this is why I HATE racing games , there is little middle ground , easy is too easy and I always win , but on expert I have to be consistently perfect lap after lap to even have a CHANCE of winning .
One more example before I go , Metal Gear Solid 4 , watching a first time player go through that game on Liquid Easy and watching somone on Boss Hard is a completely different experiance , as it should be , again the key is making a devoted and skilled player LOOK superior because he IS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is how I look at difficulty or how I would like it to be.
Anyone can beat the game and have fun doing so, but make it so that when I take the harder routes or perfect harder combos, inventive problem solving, etc.
I get rewarded by seeing my character do acts of absolute badassery.
Ever watch a REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT player go through Ninja Gaiden Sigma?
My character looks like a boring old movie extra in comparison, there guy is covered in gore, doing backflips, and generally looking like one bad-a$$ mofo.
I can still complete the game AND enjoy it, but it's much less impressive doing it, personally I enjoy adaptive difficulty to a point.
I like games that make me change my tactics as well, Call of Duty is ocassionally excellent at this on Veteran, if you sniper for too long the enemy will flank you and come around from behind, the same way real live players do.
Now sometimes I just want to kill some Nazis, I drop the difficulty down, same thing I do on Rock Band/DDR.
It all comes down to how impressive do I LOOK while doing this, making a pro LOOK like a pro is VERY important.
It loses it's shine if anybody can play through looking like a God, I enjoy showing off my skills so when people watch me play they go, "How did you DO that?
" Then again, that's just my opinion.
The crux of this is why I HATE racing games, there is little middle ground, easy is too easy and I always win, but on expert I have to be consistently perfect lap after lap to even have a CHANCE of winning.
One more example before I go, Metal Gear Solid 4, watching a first time player go through that game on Liquid Easy and watching somone on Boss Hard is a completely different experiance, as it should be, again the key is making a devoted and skilled player LOOK superior because he IS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738571</id>
	<title>Beware the classics.</title>
	<author>John Pfeiffer</author>
	<datestamp>1255434300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The AI in old NEO-GEO arcade fighting games is rather remarkable from what I understand.  For example, in the Samurai Spirits series (a.k.a Samurai Shodown) it adapts to any patterns you exhibit early in the match and builds strategies to avoid and counter them later.  I never imagined that games from the 16-bit era could have adaptive enemy AI.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:O</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The AI in old NEO-GEO arcade fighting games is rather remarkable from what I understand .
For example , in the Samurai Spirits series ( a.k.a Samurai Shodown ) it adapts to any patterns you exhibit early in the match and builds strategies to avoid and counter them later .
I never imagined that games from the 16-bit era could have adaptive enemy AI .
: O</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AI in old NEO-GEO arcade fighting games is rather remarkable from what I understand.
For example, in the Samurai Spirits series (a.k.a Samurai Shodown) it adapts to any patterns you exhibit early in the match and builds strategies to avoid and counter them later.
I never imagined that games from the 16-bit era could have adaptive enemy AI.
:O</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731745</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>kantos</author>
	<datestamp>1255448340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed in the most emphatic terms. However, I should note that there is a reason Mario Kart does what it does, Nintendo has taken the "No Winners" strategy towards their party games in order to make less skilled players feel less put out, while it's not necessarily a bad strategy it does sometime alienate more skilled players, but in my experience it just makes the game fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed in the most emphatic terms .
However , I should note that there is a reason Mario Kart does what it does , Nintendo has taken the " No Winners " strategy towards their party games in order to make less skilled players feel less put out , while it 's not necessarily a bad strategy it does sometime alienate more skilled players , but in my experience it just makes the game fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed in the most emphatic terms.
However, I should note that there is a reason Mario Kart does what it does, Nintendo has taken the "No Winners" strategy towards their party games in order to make less skilled players feel less put out, while it's not necessarily a bad strategy it does sometime alienate more skilled players, but in my experience it just makes the game fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732103</id>
	<title>Always there</title>
	<author>Ractive</author>
	<datestamp>1255449720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's always been a form of adaptation to the user, call it difficulty levels, increasingly difficult stages or bosses, etc, it also depends on the game and it's structure, but it's implicit that you will get better as you play, so I guess the question is how to do it efficiently so you could keep balance to not dissuade  the user with a too difficult game or bore him to death with a too easy one</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's always been a form of adaptation to the user , call it difficulty levels , increasingly difficult stages or bosses , etc , it also depends on the game and it 's structure , but it 's implicit that you will get better as you play , so I guess the question is how to do it efficiently so you could keep balance to not dissuade the user with a too difficult game or bore him to death with a too easy one</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's always been a form of adaptation to the user, call it difficulty levels, increasingly difficult stages or bosses, etc, it also depends on the game and it's structure, but it's implicit that you will get better as you play, so I guess the question is how to do it efficiently so you could keep balance to not dissuade  the user with a too difficult game or bore him to death with a too easy one</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732473</id>
	<title>Zanac anyone?</title>
	<author>meadowsoft</author>
	<datestamp>1255451460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seem to remember in the promotional materials for the NES game Zanac (by FCI) that the game was supposed to get dynamically harder the better you played.  When I was playing, I specifically remember this being the case, and that I enjoyed the game more as a result.  I used to be able to play straight through to the 10th (out of 13) levels without dying once, and then I would die multiple times in a row.  As if sensing my desparation the game would scale back the number of baddies it was throwing at me, and then I could regain my footing, collect some powerups and move on.  Then the game would throw more and more at me until I got to the unholy nightmare 13th level.<br><br>Time to go dust this game off on the Wii...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember in the promotional materials for the NES game Zanac ( by FCI ) that the game was supposed to get dynamically harder the better you played .
When I was playing , I specifically remember this being the case , and that I enjoyed the game more as a result .
I used to be able to play straight through to the 10th ( out of 13 ) levels without dying once , and then I would die multiple times in a row .
As if sensing my desparation the game would scale back the number of baddies it was throwing at me , and then I could regain my footing , collect some powerups and move on .
Then the game would throw more and more at me until I got to the unholy nightmare 13th level.Time to go dust this game off on the Wii.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember in the promotional materials for the NES game Zanac (by FCI) that the game was supposed to get dynamically harder the better you played.
When I was playing, I specifically remember this being the case, and that I enjoyed the game more as a result.
I used to be able to play straight through to the 10th (out of 13) levels without dying once, and then I would die multiple times in a row.
As if sensing my desparation the game would scale back the number of baddies it was throwing at me, and then I could regain my footing, collect some powerups and move on.
Then the game would throw more and more at me until I got to the unholy nightmare 13th level.Time to go dust this game off on the Wii...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732733</id>
	<title>Adjustible stategies from enemies, anyone?</title>
	<author>Jahws</author>
	<datestamp>1255452720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on what sort of potential "adjustment" we'd be talking about.  A lot of video games allow you to adjust the difficulty, but most of the time this simply means an increase in stats that makes it easier for the same old AI to kill you and harder for you to kill it.
</p><p>
What a lot of video games DON'T seem to have is an adjustment in AI.  I don't know how many games (RPGs in particular) where it simply seems like the enemy is wailing on my characters at random, rather than attempting to *gasp* strategically isolate one character, kill them, and then move down the line!  If they see you use healing magic, then why can't they realize that they should mute - or eliminate - the mage(s) first?
</p><p>
Other posts above have mentioned that we'd like to be rewarded sometimes for our increased skill in a game - so accordingly, I'd agree that not all enemies should be able to adjust as much as others.  At the same time, what would really make a game more interesting is if a zone change resulted in a more strategic AI to combat, rather than just a simple stat increase.
</p><p>
Start off a game with a few areas (or dungeons) that allow you to comprehend the game mechanics and get strategies.  Then, allow the enemies to understand the mechanics and those same strategies, rather than just adding a status ailment or two and increased stats to their armament, and allow there to be a semblance of intelligence to what we're fighting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on what sort of potential " adjustment " we 'd be talking about .
A lot of video games allow you to adjust the difficulty , but most of the time this simply means an increase in stats that makes it easier for the same old AI to kill you and harder for you to kill it .
What a lot of video games DO N'T seem to have is an adjustment in AI .
I do n't know how many games ( RPGs in particular ) where it simply seems like the enemy is wailing on my characters at random , rather than attempting to * gasp * strategically isolate one character , kill them , and then move down the line !
If they see you use healing magic , then why ca n't they realize that they should mute - or eliminate - the mage ( s ) first ?
Other posts above have mentioned that we 'd like to be rewarded sometimes for our increased skill in a game - so accordingly , I 'd agree that not all enemies should be able to adjust as much as others .
At the same time , what would really make a game more interesting is if a zone change resulted in a more strategic AI to combat , rather than just a simple stat increase .
Start off a game with a few areas ( or dungeons ) that allow you to comprehend the game mechanics and get strategies .
Then , allow the enemies to understand the mechanics and those same strategies , rather than just adding a status ailment or two and increased stats to their armament , and allow there to be a semblance of intelligence to what we 're fighting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on what sort of potential "adjustment" we'd be talking about.
A lot of video games allow you to adjust the difficulty, but most of the time this simply means an increase in stats that makes it easier for the same old AI to kill you and harder for you to kill it.
What a lot of video games DON'T seem to have is an adjustment in AI.
I don't know how many games (RPGs in particular) where it simply seems like the enemy is wailing on my characters at random, rather than attempting to *gasp* strategically isolate one character, kill them, and then move down the line!
If they see you use healing magic, then why can't they realize that they should mute - or eliminate - the mage(s) first?
Other posts above have mentioned that we'd like to be rewarded sometimes for our increased skill in a game - so accordingly, I'd agree that not all enemies should be able to adjust as much as others.
At the same time, what would really make a game more interesting is if a zone change resulted in a more strategic AI to combat, rather than just a simple stat increase.
Start off a game with a few areas (or dungeons) that allow you to comprehend the game mechanics and get strategies.
Then, allow the enemies to understand the mechanics and those same strategies, rather than just adding a status ailment or two and increased stats to their armament, and allow there to be a semblance of intelligence to what we're fighting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738581</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255434360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say, let the enemies adapt to kill you more efficiently. For example, if every time they fire a rocket at you, you die, they should all use rockets. Eventually you'll get really good at dodging rockets, and they will find something else to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say , let the enemies adapt to kill you more efficiently .
For example , if every time they fire a rocket at you , you die , they should all use rockets .
Eventually you 'll get really good at dodging rockets , and they will find something else to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say, let the enemies adapt to kill you more efficiently.
For example, if every time they fire a rocket at you, you die, they should all use rockets.
Eventually you'll get really good at dodging rockets, and they will find something else to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732551</id>
	<title>Re:Enchance the fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255451880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I especially like your third point. A lot of players remember the times they almost died when they accidentally took on more challenge than they felt was safe, and adding a special reward to those situations would make for even better memories. I think those memories are critical to making a decent game into a truly great game.</p><p>I prefer a system that offers the choice of challenges throughout instead of sticking with a difficulty selection at the very beginning. I might feel like a challenge today, but want to kick back and casually slaughter the AI tomorrow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I especially like your third point .
A lot of players remember the times they almost died when they accidentally took on more challenge than they felt was safe , and adding a special reward to those situations would make for even better memories .
I think those memories are critical to making a decent game into a truly great game.I prefer a system that offers the choice of challenges throughout instead of sticking with a difficulty selection at the very beginning .
I might feel like a challenge today , but want to kick back and casually slaughter the AI tomorrow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I especially like your third point.
A lot of players remember the times they almost died when they accidentally took on more challenge than they felt was safe, and adding a special reward to those situations would make for even better memories.
I think those memories are critical to making a decent game into a truly great game.I prefer a system that offers the choice of challenges throughout instead of sticking with a difficulty selection at the very beginning.
I might feel like a challenge today, but want to kick back and casually slaughter the AI tomorrow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733333</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>luizesramos</author>
	<datestamp>1255455480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Playing a game that is currently beyond our expertise is also an opportunity to develop new skills. I think the adaptive playing difficulty would be nice within pre-established difficulty ranges, for example: the 'hard' mode has a minimum difficulty offered and from that minimum you could adapt to the player's skills but it would never get as hard as the 'very hard' mode. Also the adaptivity should be optional. Perhaps one adaptive element could be demanding quicker reflexes from the player, but the games would have to come with some tag saying that excessive playing may cause physical/emotional damage<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Excessive adaptation may be frustrating for the player if unbounded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Playing a game that is currently beyond our expertise is also an opportunity to develop new skills .
I think the adaptive playing difficulty would be nice within pre-established difficulty ranges , for example : the 'hard ' mode has a minimum difficulty offered and from that minimum you could adapt to the player 's skills but it would never get as hard as the 'very hard ' mode .
Also the adaptivity should be optional .
Perhaps one adaptive element could be demanding quicker reflexes from the player , but the games would have to come with some tag saying that excessive playing may cause physical/emotional damage : - ) Excessive adaptation may be frustrating for the player if unbounded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Playing a game that is currently beyond our expertise is also an opportunity to develop new skills.
I think the adaptive playing difficulty would be nice within pre-established difficulty ranges, for example: the 'hard' mode has a minimum difficulty offered and from that minimum you could adapt to the player's skills but it would never get as hard as the 'very hard' mode.
Also the adaptivity should be optional.
Perhaps one adaptive element could be demanding quicker reflexes from the player, but the games would have to come with some tag saying that excessive playing may cause physical/emotional damage :-) Excessive adaptation may be frustrating for the player if unbounded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733309</id>
	<title>Wrong Genre</title>
	<author>bistromath007</author>
	<datestamp>1255455420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In many types of games, this is a good idea. Puzzlers, platformers, shmups, and I'm sure others can all benefit from this approach.<br>
<br>
Racing games are the antithesis of this concept. They're all about practicing something until you can do it just right. This is why rubberbanding causes so much frustration, and why it needs to go away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In many types of games , this is a good idea .
Puzzlers , platformers , shmups , and I 'm sure others can all benefit from this approach .
Racing games are the antithesis of this concept .
They 're all about practicing something until you can do it just right .
This is why rubberbanding causes so much frustration , and why it needs to go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many types of games, this is a good idea.
Puzzlers, platformers, shmups, and I'm sure others can all benefit from this approach.
Racing games are the antithesis of this concept.
They're all about practicing something until you can do it just right.
This is why rubberbanding causes so much frustration, and why it needs to go away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732607</id>
	<title>Flow and thinking outside the box...</title>
	<author>chogori</author>
	<datestamp>1255452060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, I think it's important that a game never be frustrating. This is one of the principles of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow\_(psychology)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">flow</a> [wikipedia.org], and more importantly, when a game is frustrating, it really disrupts the player's immersion in the game. <p>
To that effect, one of the most frustrating game elements that I see time and again is the age old <i>"die, fight, repeat"</i> formula.<br>This is, quite frankly, annoying and has been done before.<br> <br>Don't get me wrong, some risk is required to have fun (coincidentally, it is also another principle of flow), but a game which forces the user to repeat themselves is a game that's run out of new ideas.<br>
I've seen <i>some</i> variation on this formula in the past with decent success, like bullet time effect, which allows the user to "cheat" and slow down the game when the going gets tough. However, it's still a very constrained way of tackling the problem.<br>
Thinking a little outside of the box, I'd like to see adaptive story lines, where based on a player's proficency and style, the story line changes in sensical ways. Also, tiered reward systems based on proficency, not on difficulty, and new ways to handle character death through story telling elements like ghosts, time warping (maybe the ability to go back or forwards in time?), etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , I think it 's important that a game never be frustrating .
This is one of the principles of flow [ wikipedia.org ] , and more importantly , when a game is frustrating , it really disrupts the player 's immersion in the game .
To that effect , one of the most frustrating game elements that I see time and again is the age old " die , fight , repeat " formula.This is , quite frankly , annoying and has been done before .
Do n't get me wrong , some risk is required to have fun ( coincidentally , it is also another principle of flow ) , but a game which forces the user to repeat themselves is a game that 's run out of new ideas .
I 've seen some variation on this formula in the past with decent success , like bullet time effect , which allows the user to " cheat " and slow down the game when the going gets tough .
However , it 's still a very constrained way of tackling the problem .
Thinking a little outside of the box , I 'd like to see adaptive story lines , where based on a player 's proficency and style , the story line changes in sensical ways .
Also , tiered reward systems based on proficency , not on difficulty , and new ways to handle character death through story telling elements like ghosts , time warping ( maybe the ability to go back or forwards in time ?
) , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, I think it's important that a game never be frustrating.
This is one of the principles of flow [wikipedia.org], and more importantly, when a game is frustrating, it really disrupts the player's immersion in the game.
To that effect, one of the most frustrating game elements that I see time and again is the age old "die, fight, repeat" formula.This is, quite frankly, annoying and has been done before.
Don't get me wrong, some risk is required to have fun (coincidentally, it is also another principle of flow), but a game which forces the user to repeat themselves is a game that's run out of new ideas.
I've seen some variation on this formula in the past with decent success, like bullet time effect, which allows the user to "cheat" and slow down the game when the going gets tough.
However, it's still a very constrained way of tackling the problem.
Thinking a little outside of the box, I'd like to see adaptive story lines, where based on a player's proficency and style, the story line changes in sensical ways.
Also, tiered reward systems based on proficency, not on difficulty, and new ways to handle character death through story telling elements like ghosts, time warping (maybe the ability to go back or forwards in time?
), etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732997</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1255453920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Should Computer Games Adapt To the Way You Play?</p></div></blockquote><p>Does doing so make the game more fun for most players?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should Computer Games Adapt To the Way You Play ? Does doing so make the game more fun for most players ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should Computer Games Adapt To the Way You Play?Does doing so make the game more fun for most players?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733203</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>djnforce9</author>
	<datestamp>1255454880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, by doing this (in the case of Mario Kart), Nintendo has taken what was normally a game of skill and changed it into a "game of chance". This becomes vary evident when you have a two player game. The person in second, gets the awesome items while the one in first gets the worst ones. At this point, you're success is based on getting the right items at the right time and being in second just long enough to use your special items near the very end to plow through to victory. I seriously doubt that was the intention Nintendo had with the Mario Kart series.</p><p>In 1P mode, there is an additional scaling factor in Mario Kart games. Basically, the CPU gets unrealistic speeds and can keep up regardless of how fast/efficient you are and even despite being way behind before (sometimes it gets ridiculous at least in Mario Kart 64 whereby you end up lapping everyone from 8th to 4th place just to keep up with the 3rd and 2nd place CPU's).</p><p>If a game scales to suit the player, it really needs to be done without changing the flow/purpose of the gameplay (like in my example above where your ability to stay on the track and go as fast as possible is trumped by pure luck). Maybe have the levels "branch" off based on how well you play. So in a platformer, if you take very few hits and/or reach a certain point quickly enough, the rest of the level is more difficult than someone who struggled a lot along the way. This could be applied to racing games as well (and would really add a twist as skilled players are suddenly faced with greater challenges preventing them from stomping over a newcomer to the game). This of course could be abused too but we can leave it to the designers to tweak it as much as possible to mitigate that and of course the players themselves to play and win fairly against others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , by doing this ( in the case of Mario Kart ) , Nintendo has taken what was normally a game of skill and changed it into a " game of chance " .
This becomes vary evident when you have a two player game .
The person in second , gets the awesome items while the one in first gets the worst ones .
At this point , you 're success is based on getting the right items at the right time and being in second just long enough to use your special items near the very end to plow through to victory .
I seriously doubt that was the intention Nintendo had with the Mario Kart series.In 1P mode , there is an additional scaling factor in Mario Kart games .
Basically , the CPU gets unrealistic speeds and can keep up regardless of how fast/efficient you are and even despite being way behind before ( sometimes it gets ridiculous at least in Mario Kart 64 whereby you end up lapping everyone from 8th to 4th place just to keep up with the 3rd and 2nd place CPU 's ) .If a game scales to suit the player , it really needs to be done without changing the flow/purpose of the gameplay ( like in my example above where your ability to stay on the track and go as fast as possible is trumped by pure luck ) .
Maybe have the levels " branch " off based on how well you play .
So in a platformer , if you take very few hits and/or reach a certain point quickly enough , the rest of the level is more difficult than someone who struggled a lot along the way .
This could be applied to racing games as well ( and would really add a twist as skilled players are suddenly faced with greater challenges preventing them from stomping over a newcomer to the game ) .
This of course could be abused too but we can leave it to the designers to tweak it as much as possible to mitigate that and of course the players themselves to play and win fairly against others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, by doing this (in the case of Mario Kart), Nintendo has taken what was normally a game of skill and changed it into a "game of chance".
This becomes vary evident when you have a two player game.
The person in second, gets the awesome items while the one in first gets the worst ones.
At this point, you're success is based on getting the right items at the right time and being in second just long enough to use your special items near the very end to plow through to victory.
I seriously doubt that was the intention Nintendo had with the Mario Kart series.In 1P mode, there is an additional scaling factor in Mario Kart games.
Basically, the CPU gets unrealistic speeds and can keep up regardless of how fast/efficient you are and even despite being way behind before (sometimes it gets ridiculous at least in Mario Kart 64 whereby you end up lapping everyone from 8th to 4th place just to keep up with the 3rd and 2nd place CPU's).If a game scales to suit the player, it really needs to be done without changing the flow/purpose of the gameplay (like in my example above where your ability to stay on the track and go as fast as possible is trumped by pure luck).
Maybe have the levels "branch" off based on how well you play.
So in a platformer, if you take very few hits and/or reach a certain point quickly enough, the rest of the level is more difficult than someone who struggled a lot along the way.
This could be applied to racing games as well (and would really add a twist as skilled players are suddenly faced with greater challenges preventing them from stomping over a newcomer to the game).
This of course could be abused too but we can leave it to the designers to tweak it as much as possible to mitigate that and of course the players themselves to play and win fairly against others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732213</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255450200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'd like to see it configurable</i></p><p><b>ABSOLUTELY</b></p><p>Specifically for games that have multiplayer and solo.  Solo gaming usually has this where you can set your difficulty level.  This allows you to play through it once or twice until it becomes easy, and THEN crank it up a notch.  This allows you to play the entire game through at a set pace, so that even the "final boss" is easy until you turn it up.  Games that auto-adjust NEVER have an easy boss because by the time you get there the game has already adjusted itself to your skill level.</p><p>For multiplayer, all I've seen in the past are ways to set the overall arena difficulty, not to set the players separately.  It's no fun as a new player playing against a seasoned vetran - no matter where you set the difficulty it's not a fun game for either player.  Either they just smack you around the entire game, or it becomes a matter of who happens (sometimes by chance alone) to get the drop because everything is instakill.  No fun for anyone.</p><p>There needs to be a separate setting for each player, or even a single slider that shifts between the two players, for a "balance of power".  So it could start at 50/50, and if player 1 is just more experienced, maybe set it to 40/60 or 30/70 etc.</p><p>I think part of the frustration in games that auto adjust is that sometimes the game plays in unexpected or infuriating ways.  If the game decides that you need to be nerfed, suddenly that combo that always was just enough now doesn't work quite as well anymore.  Seen plenty of people scream at a game because a move they did that had always worked for them in the past, didn't work or didn't work as well.  Makes you feel robbed.  Now if you deliberately have set the level up, it's understandable, you did it to yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see it configurableABSOLUTELYSpecifically for games that have multiplayer and solo .
Solo gaming usually has this where you can set your difficulty level .
This allows you to play through it once or twice until it becomes easy , and THEN crank it up a notch .
This allows you to play the entire game through at a set pace , so that even the " final boss " is easy until you turn it up .
Games that auto-adjust NEVER have an easy boss because by the time you get there the game has already adjusted itself to your skill level.For multiplayer , all I 've seen in the past are ways to set the overall arena difficulty , not to set the players separately .
It 's no fun as a new player playing against a seasoned vetran - no matter where you set the difficulty it 's not a fun game for either player .
Either they just smack you around the entire game , or it becomes a matter of who happens ( sometimes by chance alone ) to get the drop because everything is instakill .
No fun for anyone.There needs to be a separate setting for each player , or even a single slider that shifts between the two players , for a " balance of power " .
So it could start at 50/50 , and if player 1 is just more experienced , maybe set it to 40/60 or 30/70 etc.I think part of the frustration in games that auto adjust is that sometimes the game plays in unexpected or infuriating ways .
If the game decides that you need to be nerfed , suddenly that combo that always was just enough now does n't work quite as well anymore .
Seen plenty of people scream at a game because a move they did that had always worked for them in the past , did n't work or did n't work as well .
Makes you feel robbed .
Now if you deliberately have set the level up , it 's understandable , you did it to yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see it configurableABSOLUTELYSpecifically for games that have multiplayer and solo.
Solo gaming usually has this where you can set your difficulty level.
This allows you to play through it once or twice until it becomes easy, and THEN crank it up a notch.
This allows you to play the entire game through at a set pace, so that even the "final boss" is easy until you turn it up.
Games that auto-adjust NEVER have an easy boss because by the time you get there the game has already adjusted itself to your skill level.For multiplayer, all I've seen in the past are ways to set the overall arena difficulty, not to set the players separately.
It's no fun as a new player playing against a seasoned vetran - no matter where you set the difficulty it's not a fun game for either player.
Either they just smack you around the entire game, or it becomes a matter of who happens (sometimes by chance alone) to get the drop because everything is instakill.
No fun for anyone.There needs to be a separate setting for each player, or even a single slider that shifts between the two players, for a "balance of power".
So it could start at 50/50, and if player 1 is just more experienced, maybe set it to 40/60 or 30/70 etc.I think part of the frustration in games that auto adjust is that sometimes the game plays in unexpected or infuriating ways.
If the game decides that you need to be nerfed, suddenly that combo that always was just enough now doesn't work quite as well anymore.
Seen plenty of people scream at a game because a move they did that had always worked for them in the past, didn't work or didn't work as well.
Makes you feel robbed.
Now if you deliberately have set the level up, it's understandable, you did it to yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732983</id>
	<title>Nope</title>
	<author>EEDAm</author>
	<datestamp>1255453860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FWIW I don't like rubber-banding in my games.  Done too rigorously it can be a real put off on a game as it stretches to your level and makes stuff too hard.  I want a nice arc of growing difficulty throughout the game governed by the usual meta-level of easy, normal, difficult, hardcore etc.  Normal too normal?  Fine, I'll set it on difficult and see what happens.  Sometimes there's a lot of pleasure blasting through stuff and not having much problem with that - I don't need everything to be an effort and a trial.  Actually maybe I'm just a pussy, thinking about it, I think what I'm saying is I don't want the level ratcheted up on me, but I don't find it too objectionable if you ratchet down when I'm flailing around and dying for the umpteenth (but not first or second) time...</htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW I do n't like rubber-banding in my games .
Done too rigorously it can be a real put off on a game as it stretches to your level and makes stuff too hard .
I want a nice arc of growing difficulty throughout the game governed by the usual meta-level of easy , normal , difficult , hardcore etc .
Normal too normal ?
Fine , I 'll set it on difficult and see what happens .
Sometimes there 's a lot of pleasure blasting through stuff and not having much problem with that - I do n't need everything to be an effort and a trial .
Actually maybe I 'm just a pussy , thinking about it , I think what I 'm saying is I do n't want the level ratcheted up on me , but I do n't find it too objectionable if you ratchet down when I 'm flailing around and dying for the umpteenth ( but not first or second ) time.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW I don't like rubber-banding in my games.
Done too rigorously it can be a real put off on a game as it stretches to your level and makes stuff too hard.
I want a nice arc of growing difficulty throughout the game governed by the usual meta-level of easy, normal, difficult, hardcore etc.
Normal too normal?
Fine, I'll set it on difficult and see what happens.
Sometimes there's a lot of pleasure blasting through stuff and not having much problem with that - I don't need everything to be an effort and a trial.
Actually maybe I'm just a pussy, thinking about it, I think what I'm saying is I don't want the level ratcheted up on me, but I don't find it too objectionable if you ratchet down when I'm flailing around and dying for the umpteenth (but not first or second) time...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737301</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1255428900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean they should get worse over time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean they should get worse over time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean they should get worse over time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736533</id>
	<title>summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255426200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After reading the thread... maybe i'll sum it up.</p><p>configurable - awesome. checkbox form seems easiest.<br>i like the subset options as well. one for health adaptation, one for aim, one for gear, one for number of enemies, starting cash. etc. noobs dont care, they click easy. hard core guys need something to keep it interesting.</p><p>genre matters - true that. some reward systems do not translate. in counterstrike no one cares about rings, and in WOW no one cares about weapon kickback since you dont aim.</p><p>fun, not difficulty. all about the playtesting. noobs gotta have fun, and hard core guys gotta have fun. just watch them play.</p><p>single vs multi - team fortress 2 doesn't need single player (players provide difficulty), oblivion didn't need multiplayer (developers provide difficulty). which game is yours? or is it both?</p><p>rubberbanding - sucks when done wrong. best example i can think of is the Director from left 4 dead. look it up, it calculates a bunch of stuff and improvises the current environment accordingly. but it doesn't effect hp, damage, etc.</p><p>game examples. there's a reason people answer and append a game or two. really pay attention to that. it's been done right and wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading the thread... maybe i 'll sum it up.configurable - awesome .
checkbox form seems easiest.i like the subset options as well .
one for health adaptation , one for aim , one for gear , one for number of enemies , starting cash .
etc. noobs dont care , they click easy .
hard core guys need something to keep it interesting.genre matters - true that .
some reward systems do not translate .
in counterstrike no one cares about rings , and in WOW no one cares about weapon kickback since you dont aim.fun , not difficulty .
all about the playtesting .
noobs got ta have fun , and hard core guys got ta have fun .
just watch them play.single vs multi - team fortress 2 does n't need single player ( players provide difficulty ) , oblivion did n't need multiplayer ( developers provide difficulty ) .
which game is yours ?
or is it both ? rubberbanding - sucks when done wrong .
best example i can think of is the Director from left 4 dead .
look it up , it calculates a bunch of stuff and improvises the current environment accordingly .
but it does n't effect hp , damage , etc.game examples .
there 's a reason people answer and append a game or two .
really pay attention to that .
it 's been done right and wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading the thread... maybe i'll sum it up.configurable - awesome.
checkbox form seems easiest.i like the subset options as well.
one for health adaptation, one for aim, one for gear, one for number of enemies, starting cash.
etc. noobs dont care, they click easy.
hard core guys need something to keep it interesting.genre matters - true that.
some reward systems do not translate.
in counterstrike no one cares about rings, and in WOW no one cares about weapon kickback since you dont aim.fun, not difficulty.
all about the playtesting.
noobs gotta have fun, and hard core guys gotta have fun.
just watch them play.single vs multi - team fortress 2 doesn't need single player (players provide difficulty), oblivion didn't need multiplayer (developers provide difficulty).
which game is yours?
or is it both?rubberbanding - sucks when done wrong.
best example i can think of is the Director from left 4 dead.
look it up, it calculates a bunch of stuff and improvises the current environment accordingly.
but it doesn't effect hp, damage, etc.game examples.
there's a reason people answer and append a game or two.
really pay attention to that.
it's been done right and wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</id>
	<title>Configurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255448100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to see it configurable.  Check box that allows adaptation, with sub-items that define what type of adaptation will occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see it configurable .
Check box that allows adaptation , with sub-items that define what type of adaptation will occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see it configurable.
Check box that allows adaptation, with sub-items that define what type of adaptation will occur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29742535</id>
	<title>Re:I play games to relax.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255518300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you have nailed it. The whole idea sounds neurotic and because of the inverse feedback may be even harmful for the players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you have nailed it .
The whole idea sounds neurotic and because of the inverse feedback may be even harmful for the players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you have nailed it.
The whole idea sounds neurotic and because of the inverse feedback may be even harmful for the players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733379</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732699</id>
	<title>Gaming for 15 years...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and few things irritate me more than when computer "AI" gets to simply cheat to beat me.</p><p>If you're developing ramping skill difficulties, like previous posters, I'd recommend giving players options:</p><p>1. Turn off ramping difficulty, or set it at a specific point (x.5, x.75, x1, x1.5, x2.0, etc)<br>2. Set a base difficulty (Wussy, Easy, Moderate, Hard, Hellish)</p><p>Other things you may want to look at would be how fast the AI can react and function.  Example... in some RTS games, AI will settle a new colony and then *bink* it's up and running - 12 buildings and 100 miles of road appear as if by magic.  This is a clear advantage and frustrating to the player.  If the player "sees" AI building - slowly or quickly - at least they feel like the AI is trying to win, not just being given the "win button".</p><p>As a turtler myself, I do understand that you shouldn't just build AI that can be killed with simple patience.  Games that grant automagical bonuses to AI are frustrating, but needed sometimes.</p><p>Ultimately, it really depends on the kind of game you're building.  Sit down and look at your mechanic and think about it... better yet, explain it to a set of non-programming gamers and ask them if the challenge response sounds like fun.  People play games for fun - not to be tormented by increasing difficulty and ultimately impossible scenarios (unless they're some kind of sick in the head).</p><p>And for the love of Bob, whatever you do, don't make the game dumbed-down AND increasing in difficulty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and few things irritate me more than when computer " AI " gets to simply cheat to beat me.If you 're developing ramping skill difficulties , like previous posters , I 'd recommend giving players options : 1 .
Turn off ramping difficulty , or set it at a specific point ( x.5 , x.75 , x1 , x1.5 , x2.0 , etc ) 2 .
Set a base difficulty ( Wussy , Easy , Moderate , Hard , Hellish ) Other things you may want to look at would be how fast the AI can react and function .
Example... in some RTS games , AI will settle a new colony and then * bink * it 's up and running - 12 buildings and 100 miles of road appear as if by magic .
This is a clear advantage and frustrating to the player .
If the player " sees " AI building - slowly or quickly - at least they feel like the AI is trying to win , not just being given the " win button " .As a turtler myself , I do understand that you should n't just build AI that can be killed with simple patience .
Games that grant automagical bonuses to AI are frustrating , but needed sometimes.Ultimately , it really depends on the kind of game you 're building .
Sit down and look at your mechanic and think about it... better yet , explain it to a set of non-programming gamers and ask them if the challenge response sounds like fun .
People play games for fun - not to be tormented by increasing difficulty and ultimately impossible scenarios ( unless they 're some kind of sick in the head ) .And for the love of Bob , whatever you do , do n't make the game dumbed-down AND increasing in difficulty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and few things irritate me more than when computer "AI" gets to simply cheat to beat me.If you're developing ramping skill difficulties, like previous posters, I'd recommend giving players options:1.
Turn off ramping difficulty, or set it at a specific point (x.5, x.75, x1, x1.5, x2.0, etc)2.
Set a base difficulty (Wussy, Easy, Moderate, Hard, Hellish)Other things you may want to look at would be how fast the AI can react and function.
Example... in some RTS games, AI will settle a new colony and then *bink* it's up and running - 12 buildings and 100 miles of road appear as if by magic.
This is a clear advantage and frustrating to the player.
If the player "sees" AI building - slowly or quickly - at least they feel like the AI is trying to win, not just being given the "win button".As a turtler myself, I do understand that you shouldn't just build AI that can be killed with simple patience.
Games that grant automagical bonuses to AI are frustrating, but needed sometimes.Ultimately, it really depends on the kind of game you're building.
Sit down and look at your mechanic and think about it... better yet, explain it to a set of non-programming gamers and ask them if the challenge response sounds like fun.
People play games for fun - not to be tormented by increasing difficulty and ultimately impossible scenarios (unless they're some kind of sick in the head).And for the love of Bob, whatever you do, don't make the game dumbed-down AND increasing in difficulty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734949</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>CronoCloud</author>
	<datestamp>1255462500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with Oblivion's auto-leveling is that it's too easy to level up faster than your equipment or offensive skill levels (which is how you increase your damage.)  for example, you might start running into clannfear or Minotaurs when your equipment is still Dwarven or Orcish.  Or worse, run into enemies that you can't hurt at all because you don't have a silver, magical, or daedric weapon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with Oblivion 's auto-leveling is that it 's too easy to level up faster than your equipment or offensive skill levels ( which is how you increase your damage .
) for example , you might start running into clannfear or Minotaurs when your equipment is still Dwarven or Orcish .
Or worse , run into enemies that you ca n't hurt at all because you do n't have a silver , magical , or daedric weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with Oblivion's auto-leveling is that it's too easy to level up faster than your equipment or offensive skill levels (which is how you increase your damage.
)  for example, you might start running into clannfear or Minotaurs when your equipment is still Dwarven or Orcish.
Or worse, run into enemies that you can't hurt at all because you don't have a silver, magical, or daedric weapon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29748921</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255552980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kindly skip the paragraph on Guild Wars as it is not true.</p><p>Guild Wars PvE is divided into two modes: normal and hard. In order to access the latte one must complete one of story lines (four storylines, one for each major part of the game), however the harder version is not mandatory to the completion of the game - it is there just for challenging players. Also, hard mode is very well documented by players and, apart from some really difficult missions, it's not hard to beat.</p><p>regards,<br>ruemere</p><p>(posting as AC to avoid losing points)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kindly skip the paragraph on Guild Wars as it is not true.Guild Wars PvE is divided into two modes : normal and hard .
In order to access the latte one must complete one of story lines ( four storylines , one for each major part of the game ) , however the harder version is not mandatory to the completion of the game - it is there just for challenging players .
Also , hard mode is very well documented by players and , apart from some really difficult missions , it 's not hard to beat.regards,ruemere ( posting as AC to avoid losing points )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kindly skip the paragraph on Guild Wars as it is not true.Guild Wars PvE is divided into two modes: normal and hard.
In order to access the latte one must complete one of story lines (four storylines, one for each major part of the game), however the harder version is not mandatory to the completion of the game - it is there just for challenging players.
Also, hard mode is very well documented by players and, apart from some really difficult missions, it's not hard to beat.regards,ruemere(posting as AC to avoid losing points)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732857</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255453260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of adjusting the difficulty of the base game, reward players that do well with unlockables.</p><p>So, once they finish their level, if they did well enough, they get to go to a bonus mid-level that is more matched to their skill, then return to the normal plot-line after completing the additional challenge.  Add rewards (items, experience, etc) to the bonus area, but give the player the option of taking that route or staying with the base game.  Now, those who want a nominal challenge can continue through the game unimpeded, but the "lets see how good I really am" players can cut their teeth on something more difficult and garner a reward for the additional time spent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of adjusting the difficulty of the base game , reward players that do well with unlockables.So , once they finish their level , if they did well enough , they get to go to a bonus mid-level that is more matched to their skill , then return to the normal plot-line after completing the additional challenge .
Add rewards ( items , experience , etc ) to the bonus area , but give the player the option of taking that route or staying with the base game .
Now , those who want a nominal challenge can continue through the game unimpeded , but the " lets see how good I really am " players can cut their teeth on something more difficult and garner a reward for the additional time spent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of adjusting the difficulty of the base game, reward players that do well with unlockables.So, once they finish their level, if they did well enough, they get to go to a bonus mid-level that is more matched to their skill, then return to the normal plot-line after completing the additional challenge.
Add rewards (items, experience, etc) to the bonus area, but give the player the option of taking that route or staying with the base game.
Now, those who want a nominal challenge can continue through the game unimpeded, but the "lets see how good I really am" players can cut their teeth on something more difficult and garner a reward for the additional time spent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733053</id>
	<title>why not?</title>
	<author>fudabushi</author>
	<datestamp>1255454220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That seems to be how our education system works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That seems to be how our education system works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That seems to be how our education system works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29739807</id>
	<title>UCSC Symposium asks the same question</title>
	<author>tjanke</author>
	<datestamp>1255443000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just yesterday (Oct 12), there was a symposium at UC Santa Cruz on Procedural Content Generation that addressed that very question (among others).  No strong conclusions, but it's evident there are many in the game industry and game academia asking the very same question, and trying to figure out an answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just yesterday ( Oct 12 ) , there was a symposium at UC Santa Cruz on Procedural Content Generation that addressed that very question ( among others ) .
No strong conclusions , but it 's evident there are many in the game industry and game academia asking the very same question , and trying to figure out an answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just yesterday (Oct 12), there was a symposium at UC Santa Cruz on Procedural Content Generation that addressed that very question (among others).
No strong conclusions, but it's evident there are many in the game industry and game academia asking the very same question, and trying to figure out an answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29743687</id>
	<title>Pattern Recognition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255530600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adaptation is typically predictable. Unless you add some entropy when needed, but I've seen a lot of games that do this "randomization" combined with a simple difficulty scaling.<br>The problem is that the adaptation becomes a pattern, which the game user learns specific methods to counter and the experience for the user becomes repetitive, thus replay value goes down. I've found the best gaming experiences (in terms of choice of solution) are often at the beginning of the game, rather than mid or late in the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adaptation is typically predictable .
Unless you add some entropy when needed , but I 've seen a lot of games that do this " randomization " combined with a simple difficulty scaling.The problem is that the adaptation becomes a pattern , which the game user learns specific methods to counter and the experience for the user becomes repetitive , thus replay value goes down .
I 've found the best gaming experiences ( in terms of choice of solution ) are often at the beginning of the game , rather than mid or late in the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adaptation is typically predictable.
Unless you add some entropy when needed, but I've seen a lot of games that do this "randomization" combined with a simple difficulty scaling.The problem is that the adaptation becomes a pattern, which the game user learns specific methods to counter and the experience for the user becomes repetitive, thus replay value goes down.
I've found the best gaming experiences (in terms of choice of solution) are often at the beginning of the game, rather than mid or late in the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731783</id>
	<title>area under the demand curve</title>
	<author>goombah99</author>
	<datestamp>1255448520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for a game to achieve a given level of revenue at a given price then you can compute the number of items you need to sell.  if you make it too hard, your demographic won't support it.  if you make it too easy then you bore the hard core and also may lose the demographic size you need.</p><p>the question is does medium hard work?</p><p>if not then you need to have variable difficulty to capture the area under the demand curve.</p><p>Also if lets freinds and guests compete on the turf of an expert.  the expert may enjoy having more freinds than the person at his level.</p><p>Configurable is nice but i'd probably not be an expert enough to know what  i needed until I had played it for a while and gotten frustrated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for a game to achieve a given level of revenue at a given price then you can compute the number of items you need to sell .
if you make it too hard , your demographic wo n't support it .
if you make it too easy then you bore the hard core and also may lose the demographic size you need.the question is does medium hard work ? if not then you need to have variable difficulty to capture the area under the demand curve.Also if lets freinds and guests compete on the turf of an expert .
the expert may enjoy having more freinds than the person at his level.Configurable is nice but i 'd probably not be an expert enough to know what i needed until I had played it for a while and gotten frustrated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for a game to achieve a given level of revenue at a given price then you can compute the number of items you need to sell.
if you make it too hard, your demographic won't support it.
if you make it too easy then you bore the hard core and also may lose the demographic size you need.the question is does medium hard work?if not then you need to have variable difficulty to capture the area under the demand curve.Also if lets freinds and guests compete on the turf of an expert.
the expert may enjoy having more freinds than the person at his level.Configurable is nice but i'd probably not be an expert enough to know what  i needed until I had played it for a while and gotten frustrated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29744899</id>
	<title>old fashioned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255535820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This idea reminds me of what we used to call 'grade inflation' when referring to our educational system. It is the idea that today's A grade is yesterday's C grade. Here we have video game developers wanting to tell the C players they really got an A. Sounds like they are trying to sell more games to average players, to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This idea reminds me of what we used to call 'grade inflation ' when referring to our educational system .
It is the idea that today 's A grade is yesterday 's C grade .
Here we have video game developers wanting to tell the C players they really got an A. Sounds like they are trying to sell more games to average players , to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This idea reminds me of what we used to call 'grade inflation' when referring to our educational system.
It is the idea that today's A grade is yesterday's C grade.
Here we have video game developers wanting to tell the C players they really got an A. Sounds like they are trying to sell more games to average players, to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732167</id>
	<title>Choose Your Skill</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255450020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>* Easy<br>* Medium<br>* Hard<br>* Nightmare!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Easy * Medium * Hard * Nightmare !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Easy* Medium* Hard* Nightmare!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732533</id>
	<title>Skill vs. Fun and other false dichotomies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rubber-banding sucks.  Plain and simple it ruins the player's ability to "become good" at the game.  It robs you of real fun.  A large part of the fun of a game comes from that you can fail.  Fail in real life, and you generally don't get a second or third chance.  But a game is different, you can fail again and again until you learn.  Rubber-banding robs you of the cycle of failure and learning, by not rewarding the development of skill.  It also shifts the focus of game play from player-skill towards "luck" and meaningless power-ups.  Look at any game you can still play after 10 years, and you will find that the game is one that doesn't rubber-band.</p><p>Just because a game is hard doesn't mean that people don't play it for fun, like say Chess.  No one would claim that changing the rules of chess mid-game to make it easier for a newbie to compete with a grand master.  It wouldn't be fair if a newbie's knights could suddenly move anywhere within 3 squares in any direction just because he's unskilled.  It also wouldn't be fair, if the pawns got special power-ups to account for the inept play of the newbi.  It might be fun for the newbi in the short term to beat up on a grand master, but it ultimately robs the newbie of the ability to master the game.</p><p>Repeat after me, "Losing is Fun".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rubber-banding sucks .
Plain and simple it ruins the player 's ability to " become good " at the game .
It robs you of real fun .
A large part of the fun of a game comes from that you can fail .
Fail in real life , and you generally do n't get a second or third chance .
But a game is different , you can fail again and again until you learn .
Rubber-banding robs you of the cycle of failure and learning , by not rewarding the development of skill .
It also shifts the focus of game play from player-skill towards " luck " and meaningless power-ups .
Look at any game you can still play after 10 years , and you will find that the game is one that does n't rubber-band.Just because a game is hard does n't mean that people do n't play it for fun , like say Chess .
No one would claim that changing the rules of chess mid-game to make it easier for a newbie to compete with a grand master .
It would n't be fair if a newbie 's knights could suddenly move anywhere within 3 squares in any direction just because he 's unskilled .
It also would n't be fair , if the pawns got special power-ups to account for the inept play of the newbi .
It might be fun for the newbi in the short term to beat up on a grand master , but it ultimately robs the newbie of the ability to master the game.Repeat after me , " Losing is Fun " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rubber-banding sucks.
Plain and simple it ruins the player's ability to "become good" at the game.
It robs you of real fun.
A large part of the fun of a game comes from that you can fail.
Fail in real life, and you generally don't get a second or third chance.
But a game is different, you can fail again and again until you learn.
Rubber-banding robs you of the cycle of failure and learning, by not rewarding the development of skill.
It also shifts the focus of game play from player-skill towards "luck" and meaningless power-ups.
Look at any game you can still play after 10 years, and you will find that the game is one that doesn't rubber-band.Just because a game is hard doesn't mean that people don't play it for fun, like say Chess.
No one would claim that changing the rules of chess mid-game to make it easier for a newbie to compete with a grand master.
It wouldn't be fair if a newbie's knights could suddenly move anywhere within 3 squares in any direction just because he's unskilled.
It also wouldn't be fair, if the pawns got special power-ups to account for the inept play of the newbi.
It might be fun for the newbi in the short term to beat up on a grand master, but it ultimately robs the newbie of the ability to master the game.Repeat after me, "Losing is Fun".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731971</id>
	<title>Adaptation = replayability</title>
	<author>Absolut187</author>
	<datestamp>1255449240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adaptive games (like Oblivion) definitely increase replayability.<br>In Oblivion you actually fight different mobs on different quests depending on what level your character is when you do it.</p><p>The Mario Kart example with the blue turtle shell - that is just annoying.<br>I wish there was an option to turn it off - (or even turn off all the items).</p><p>But ultimately the most fun games are the ones that test intellect and/or reflexes against other real people.  Because its not that much fun to beat a computer.<br>Thats what made Ultima Online so much fun back in the days when it was a giant free-for-all.<br>Too bad they nerfed the PvP and every MMO since has followed suit.. (except for indy games like Darkfall and Mortal Online).<br>This is because 20\% of the player base will dominate 80\% of the players in an open PvP context, which tends to drive away the 80\%..<br><a href="http://pker.org/forums/index.php?autocom=blog&amp;blogid=5&amp;showentry=30" title="pker.org">http://pker.org/forums/index.php?autocom=blog&amp;blogid=5&amp;showentry=30</a> [pker.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adaptive games ( like Oblivion ) definitely increase replayability.In Oblivion you actually fight different mobs on different quests depending on what level your character is when you do it.The Mario Kart example with the blue turtle shell - that is just annoying.I wish there was an option to turn it off - ( or even turn off all the items ) .But ultimately the most fun games are the ones that test intellect and/or reflexes against other real people .
Because its not that much fun to beat a computer.Thats what made Ultima Online so much fun back in the days when it was a giant free-for-all.Too bad they nerfed the PvP and every MMO since has followed suit.. ( except for indy games like Darkfall and Mortal Online ) .This is because 20 \ % of the player base will dominate 80 \ % of the players in an open PvP context , which tends to drive away the 80 \ % ..http : //pker.org/forums/index.php ? autocom = blog&amp;blogid = 5&amp;showentry = 30 [ pker.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adaptive games (like Oblivion) definitely increase replayability.In Oblivion you actually fight different mobs on different quests depending on what level your character is when you do it.The Mario Kart example with the blue turtle shell - that is just annoying.I wish there was an option to turn it off - (or even turn off all the items).But ultimately the most fun games are the ones that test intellect and/or reflexes against other real people.
Because its not that much fun to beat a computer.Thats what made Ultima Online so much fun back in the days when it was a giant free-for-all.Too bad they nerfed the PvP and every MMO since has followed suit.. (except for indy games like Darkfall and Mortal Online).This is because 20\% of the player base will dominate 80\% of the players in an open PvP context, which tends to drive away the 80\%..http://pker.org/forums/index.php?autocom=blog&amp;blogid=5&amp;showentry=30 [pker.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732967</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255453800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we really this far from what we've always known?</p><p>In the early 80's (probably before that too, but that's the earliest I can remember) it was common for games to start out with a skill level selection.  This is manual and leaves the choice up to the user.  It still rewards good play because "I beat the 'hard' level" is a different accomplishment from "I beat the 'easy' level".  One of the best relatively recent examples I can think of is F-Zero, which starts out offering 3 levels of difficulty (on each of 3 progressively harder sets of track), and when you beat the 3rd level on a set of tracks it unlocks a 4th.</p><p>Another common technique is for the game to get progressively more difficult as you play successfully.  Tetris is probably the purest example.  Again, anyone can play but the best players are "more rewarded" ('I got to level 30!')</p><p>That idea was expanded on by games like Super Mario Brothers and The Legend of Zelda, which have a "second quest" should you be good enough to beat the game (or if you know the codes to skip ahead).</p><p>This idea of "rubber banding" seems to aim for making skill-level adaptation automatic (take control from the player), dynamic, and transparent.</p><p>Finding creative ways to make skill-level adaptation dynamic could be a good thing for some types of game.</p><p>Making it automatic is murkier.  Generally I think the user should be able to override skill-level adaptation to get the game experience he/she wants, though I'm not opposed to the idea that you have to acheive a certain skill level to unlock higher levels.</p><p>Making it transparent is a bad idea IMO.  There should always be clear feedback - You are playing at this level; you beat the game at this level; etc.</p><p>Especially in games where the implied goal is "finish the game", a dynamic, automatic, transparent handicapping system just encourages sandbagging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we really this far from what we 've always known ? In the early 80 's ( probably before that too , but that 's the earliest I can remember ) it was common for games to start out with a skill level selection .
This is manual and leaves the choice up to the user .
It still rewards good play because " I beat the 'hard ' level " is a different accomplishment from " I beat the 'easy ' level " .
One of the best relatively recent examples I can think of is F-Zero , which starts out offering 3 levels of difficulty ( on each of 3 progressively harder sets of track ) , and when you beat the 3rd level on a set of tracks it unlocks a 4th.Another common technique is for the game to get progressively more difficult as you play successfully .
Tetris is probably the purest example .
Again , anyone can play but the best players are " more rewarded " ( 'I got to level 30 !
' ) That idea was expanded on by games like Super Mario Brothers and The Legend of Zelda , which have a " second quest " should you be good enough to beat the game ( or if you know the codes to skip ahead ) .This idea of " rubber banding " seems to aim for making skill-level adaptation automatic ( take control from the player ) , dynamic , and transparent.Finding creative ways to make skill-level adaptation dynamic could be a good thing for some types of game.Making it automatic is murkier .
Generally I think the user should be able to override skill-level adaptation to get the game experience he/she wants , though I 'm not opposed to the idea that you have to acheive a certain skill level to unlock higher levels.Making it transparent is a bad idea IMO .
There should always be clear feedback - You are playing at this level ; you beat the game at this level ; etc.Especially in games where the implied goal is " finish the game " , a dynamic , automatic , transparent handicapping system just encourages sandbagging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we really this far from what we've always known?In the early 80's (probably before that too, but that's the earliest I can remember) it was common for games to start out with a skill level selection.
This is manual and leaves the choice up to the user.
It still rewards good play because "I beat the 'hard' level" is a different accomplishment from "I beat the 'easy' level".
One of the best relatively recent examples I can think of is F-Zero, which starts out offering 3 levels of difficulty (on each of 3 progressively harder sets of track), and when you beat the 3rd level on a set of tracks it unlocks a 4th.Another common technique is for the game to get progressively more difficult as you play successfully.
Tetris is probably the purest example.
Again, anyone can play but the best players are "more rewarded" ('I got to level 30!
')That idea was expanded on by games like Super Mario Brothers and The Legend of Zelda, which have a "second quest" should you be good enough to beat the game (or if you know the codes to skip ahead).This idea of "rubber banding" seems to aim for making skill-level adaptation automatic (take control from the player), dynamic, and transparent.Finding creative ways to make skill-level adaptation dynamic could be a good thing for some types of game.Making it automatic is murkier.
Generally I think the user should be able to override skill-level adaptation to get the game experience he/she wants, though I'm not opposed to the idea that you have to acheive a certain skill level to unlock higher levels.Making it transparent is a bad idea IMO.
There should always be clear feedback - You are playing at this level; you beat the game at this level; etc.Especially in games where the implied goal is "finish the game", a dynamic, automatic, transparent handicapping system just encourages sandbagging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734103</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1255458780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I am better at the game, I want to be able to see the results, I don't want the game to ramp up, that would just be frustrating.  Here is an example:  In Oblivion and Fallout, the more you level up, the enemies do so as well.  I don't want enemies to get harder the better I do!  Normally the point of an experience system is so that your character can get better to overcome the enemy, not to bring the entire game to a more advanced level.<br> <br>All we need is difficulty settings at the title screen.  Some games even let you change the difficulty level in the pause menu on the fly, so you don't have to restart your game if you want to change difficulty and lose all your progress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I am better at the game , I want to be able to see the results , I do n't want the game to ramp up , that would just be frustrating .
Here is an example : In Oblivion and Fallout , the more you level up , the enemies do so as well .
I do n't want enemies to get harder the better I do !
Normally the point of an experience system is so that your character can get better to overcome the enemy , not to bring the entire game to a more advanced level .
All we need is difficulty settings at the title screen .
Some games even let you change the difficulty level in the pause menu on the fly , so you do n't have to restart your game if you want to change difficulty and lose all your progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I am better at the game, I want to be able to see the results, I don't want the game to ramp up, that would just be frustrating.
Here is an example:  In Oblivion and Fallout, the more you level up, the enemies do so as well.
I don't want enemies to get harder the better I do!
Normally the point of an experience system is so that your character can get better to overcome the enemy, not to bring the entire game to a more advanced level.
All we need is difficulty settings at the title screen.
Some games even let you change the difficulty level in the pause menu on the fly, so you don't have to restart your game if you want to change difficulty and lose all your progress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733721</id>
	<title>Reverse Rubberbanding</title>
	<author>cyberfunkr</author>
	<datestamp>1255457280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with most adaptive games is that they only take level into consideration. When in fact, it should be looking at everything BUT level</p><p>Why? Because leveling just happens; always. In any RPG, you can gain levels without a single fight just by doing side-missions; fed-ex runs being the main source. So by level 5 I've never swung a sword yet the game thinks I'm ready for High Orcs. Shooters, just toss a grenade or a missile in general area and you'll do some damage.</p><p>Instead, it should look at what you've accomplished, and how you did it. For a shoot-em-up, it should being looking at my hit ratio. If I can't hit the broadside of a barn, then to make things "easier" send MORE things at me. That way I'm more likely to hit targets even while I'm sporadic making a much funner game while I learn how to aim. If I'm dead-eye, then send only single, but highly agile opponents at me. If they keep dodging all my sniper shots, I will have to adapt a new strategy to take him out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with most adaptive games is that they only take level into consideration .
When in fact , it should be looking at everything BUT levelWhy ?
Because leveling just happens ; always .
In any RPG , you can gain levels without a single fight just by doing side-missions ; fed-ex runs being the main source .
So by level 5 I 've never swung a sword yet the game thinks I 'm ready for High Orcs .
Shooters , just toss a grenade or a missile in general area and you 'll do some damage.Instead , it should look at what you 've accomplished , and how you did it .
For a shoot-em-up , it should being looking at my hit ratio .
If I ca n't hit the broadside of a barn , then to make things " easier " send MORE things at me .
That way I 'm more likely to hit targets even while I 'm sporadic making a much funner game while I learn how to aim .
If I 'm dead-eye , then send only single , but highly agile opponents at me .
If they keep dodging all my sniper shots , I will have to adapt a new strategy to take him out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with most adaptive games is that they only take level into consideration.
When in fact, it should be looking at everything BUT levelWhy?
Because leveling just happens; always.
In any RPG, you can gain levels without a single fight just by doing side-missions; fed-ex runs being the main source.
So by level 5 I've never swung a sword yet the game thinks I'm ready for High Orcs.
Shooters, just toss a grenade or a missile in general area and you'll do some damage.Instead, it should look at what you've accomplished, and how you did it.
For a shoot-em-up, it should being looking at my hit ratio.
If I can't hit the broadside of a barn, then to make things "easier" send MORE things at me.
That way I'm more likely to hit targets even while I'm sporadic making a much funner game while I learn how to aim.
If I'm dead-eye, then send only single, but highly agile opponents at me.
If they keep dodging all my sniper shots, I will have to adapt a new strategy to take him out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732187</id>
	<title>FFVIII</title>
	<author>Neoprofin</author>
	<datestamp>1255450080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whose brilliant ideas about having the difficulty increase based on the parties level in fact made the game easier to beat with Lvl. 10 characters that had been dead for half the game then with a Lvl. 99 party.<br> <br>

This of course made it somewhat interesting, but as a novelty rather than a design element I wish to see continued.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whose brilliant ideas about having the difficulty increase based on the parties level in fact made the game easier to beat with Lvl .
10 characters that had been dead for half the game then with a Lvl .
99 party .
This of course made it somewhat interesting , but as a novelty rather than a design element I wish to see continued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whose brilliant ideas about having the difficulty increase based on the parties level in fact made the game easier to beat with Lvl.
10 characters that had been dead for half the game then with a Lvl.
99 party.
This of course made it somewhat interesting, but as a novelty rather than a design element I wish to see continued.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737839</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1255431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I prefer just simple "Easy", "Normal", "Hard", "Very Hard" settings. Ideally with "Normal" being a little easy, so I get to feel good about myself when I choose "Hard"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-). (Only half joking here. The psychology really does matter.)</p></div><p>I actually prefer accurate naming, or jokingly bad naming.</p><p>For accurate naming, in the game King's Bounty, "Normal" is what is challenging for most people. I don't really want the same challenge though - I went for Easy mode, and challenged myself to lose as few creatures as possible.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with letting the computer decide what the challenge level is, is that it doesn't have a clue about my preferences. It only knows how well I'm doing, not whether or not I enjoy being challenged. This is not enough information to determine if I'm having fun or not. Doubly so if the system is flawed. For instance, Oblivion takes only your level into account, not your skill, or even your character's skills. This means that if you level up by, for instance, trading, you are constantly hounded by all kinds of nasty critters that you have no hope of defeating with your puny combat stats. Obviously, that's no fun at all.</p></div><p>You really deserve that +5. Oblivion's system was horribly flawed. I was just enjoying myself exploring, but pretty soon I came across bears and bandits and stuff, and all of them killed me outright. Just about everything had more regeneration than I could do damage.</p><p>Morrowind was impressive. I never played it, but my brother loved it, and I've seen how it plays. Unfortunately, I'm a tad shallow, and I find clipping problems and shallow combat detract hugely from my enjoyment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer just simple " Easy " , " Normal " , " Hard " , " Very Hard " settings .
Ideally with " Normal " being a little easy , so I get to feel good about myself when I choose " Hard " : - ) .
( Only half joking here .
The psychology really does matter .
) I actually prefer accurate naming , or jokingly bad naming.For accurate naming , in the game King 's Bounty , " Normal " is what is challenging for most people .
I do n't really want the same challenge though - I went for Easy mode , and challenged myself to lose as few creatures as possible .
; ) The problem with letting the computer decide what the challenge level is , is that it does n't have a clue about my preferences .
It only knows how well I 'm doing , not whether or not I enjoy being challenged .
This is not enough information to determine if I 'm having fun or not .
Doubly so if the system is flawed .
For instance , Oblivion takes only your level into account , not your skill , or even your character 's skills .
This means that if you level up by , for instance , trading , you are constantly hounded by all kinds of nasty critters that you have no hope of defeating with your puny combat stats .
Obviously , that 's no fun at all.You really deserve that + 5 .
Oblivion 's system was horribly flawed .
I was just enjoying myself exploring , but pretty soon I came across bears and bandits and stuff , and all of them killed me outright .
Just about everything had more regeneration than I could do damage.Morrowind was impressive .
I never played it , but my brother loved it , and I 've seen how it plays .
Unfortunately , I 'm a tad shallow , and I find clipping problems and shallow combat detract hugely from my enjoyment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer just simple "Easy", "Normal", "Hard", "Very Hard" settings.
Ideally with "Normal" being a little easy, so I get to feel good about myself when I choose "Hard" :-).
(Only half joking here.
The psychology really does matter.
)I actually prefer accurate naming, or jokingly bad naming.For accurate naming, in the game King's Bounty, "Normal" is what is challenging for most people.
I don't really want the same challenge though - I went for Easy mode, and challenged myself to lose as few creatures as possible.
;)The problem with letting the computer decide what the challenge level is, is that it doesn't have a clue about my preferences.
It only knows how well I'm doing, not whether or not I enjoy being challenged.
This is not enough information to determine if I'm having fun or not.
Doubly so if the system is flawed.
For instance, Oblivion takes only your level into account, not your skill, or even your character's skills.
This means that if you level up by, for instance, trading, you are constantly hounded by all kinds of nasty critters that you have no hope of defeating with your puny combat stats.
Obviously, that's no fun at all.You really deserve that +5.
Oblivion's system was horribly flawed.
I was just enjoying myself exploring, but pretty soon I came across bears and bandits and stuff, and all of them killed me outright.
Just about everything had more regeneration than I could do damage.Morrowind was impressive.
I never played it, but my brother loved it, and I've seen how it plays.
Unfortunately, I'm a tad shallow, and I find clipping problems and shallow combat detract hugely from my enjoyment.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732399</id>
	<title>i dopn't like when the game cheat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255451160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like it when the game cheat on you.   By example in a FPS you can try to be stategic by using a path rather than another one to better kill the ennemy and have a position advantage but generally the AI punish you by spawning ennemy where there was none just before.  Some of the later game were better played by running in the fire really fast and to go directly to the end of the level instead of advancing logically.</p><p>Same thing happen in need for speed. If you take a risk of making a collision you are cheated by the game by having the other car comeback in a way that was not fair for the risk you took just before</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like it when the game cheat on you .
By example in a FPS you can try to be stategic by using a path rather than another one to better kill the ennemy and have a position advantage but generally the AI punish you by spawning ennemy where there was none just before .
Some of the later game were better played by running in the fire really fast and to go directly to the end of the level instead of advancing logically.Same thing happen in need for speed .
If you take a risk of making a collision you are cheated by the game by having the other car comeback in a way that was not fair for the risk you took just before</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like it when the game cheat on you.
By example in a FPS you can try to be stategic by using a path rather than another one to better kill the ennemy and have a position advantage but generally the AI punish you by spawning ennemy where there was none just before.
Some of the later game were better played by running in the fire really fast and to go directly to the end of the level instead of advancing logically.Same thing happen in need for speed.
If you take a risk of making a collision you are cheated by the game by having the other car comeback in a way that was not fair for the risk you took just before</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733931</id>
	<title>Freespace 2?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255458180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with the people who prefer the classic Easy-Medium-Hard-Very Hard approach. I think that works fine up to 5 difficulty levels (any more and it becomes too much). But difficulty is hard to do sometimes. Some games make enemies have more health, their weapons do more damage, they have better aim etc. That works out OK most times. Other games just go nuts on very hard and make you unable to quick save, or limit the times you can save per level, or just take away any kind of chance you have of surviving and I find that kinda cheap.</p><p>As for adaptation, I think Freespace 2 got this part right when they made the game pop up a question box asking if you want to change the difficulty level after dying 10 times on the same mission. That's about as adaptive as you can get without taking control away from the player. I recently played a game at the 3/4 difficulty and it was pretty hard at some points, but I like it that way. I like the challenge and the annoyance. If it dropped the difficulty automatically without asking or informing me and I just got away without a scratch the 10th time I'd feel like I was cheating.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the people who prefer the classic Easy-Medium-Hard-Very Hard approach .
I think that works fine up to 5 difficulty levels ( any more and it becomes too much ) .
But difficulty is hard to do sometimes .
Some games make enemies have more health , their weapons do more damage , they have better aim etc .
That works out OK most times .
Other games just go nuts on very hard and make you unable to quick save , or limit the times you can save per level , or just take away any kind of chance you have of surviving and I find that kinda cheap.As for adaptation , I think Freespace 2 got this part right when they made the game pop up a question box asking if you want to change the difficulty level after dying 10 times on the same mission .
That 's about as adaptive as you can get without taking control away from the player .
I recently played a game at the 3/4 difficulty and it was pretty hard at some points , but I like it that way .
I like the challenge and the annoyance .
If it dropped the difficulty automatically without asking or informing me and I just got away without a scratch the 10th time I 'd feel like I was cheating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the people who prefer the classic Easy-Medium-Hard-Very Hard approach.
I think that works fine up to 5 difficulty levels (any more and it becomes too much).
But difficulty is hard to do sometimes.
Some games make enemies have more health, their weapons do more damage, they have better aim etc.
That works out OK most times.
Other games just go nuts on very hard and make you unable to quick save, or limit the times you can save per level, or just take away any kind of chance you have of surviving and I find that kinda cheap.As for adaptation, I think Freespace 2 got this part right when they made the game pop up a question box asking if you want to change the difficulty level after dying 10 times on the same mission.
That's about as adaptive as you can get without taking control away from the player.
I recently played a game at the 3/4 difficulty and it was pretty hard at some points, but I like it that way.
I like the challenge and the annoyance.
If it dropped the difficulty automatically without asking or informing me and I just got away without a scratch the 10th time I'd feel like I was cheating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731845</id>
	<title>K.I.S.S.</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1255448760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Adaptive gameplay doesn't need to be complicated. Take chess for instance. Most computer chess games let you choose your initial opponent (level), and based upon how you do, it changes your opponent (up/down a level) to the point where you can play without destroying the computer or the computer mangling you in gameplay... and you still get the same out of the game, regardless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adaptive gameplay does n't need to be complicated .
Take chess for instance .
Most computer chess games let you choose your initial opponent ( level ) , and based upon how you do , it changes your opponent ( up/down a level ) to the point where you can play without destroying the computer or the computer mangling you in gameplay... and you still get the same out of the game , regardless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adaptive gameplay doesn't need to be complicated.
Take chess for instance.
Most computer chess games let you choose your initial opponent (level), and based upon how you do, it changes your opponent (up/down a level) to the point where you can play without destroying the computer or the computer mangling you in gameplay... and you still get the same out of the game, regardless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737849</id>
	<title>Are you in the games industry?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255431060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to ask this to the person behind this particular Ask Slashdot, because having to Ask Slashdot for this, I really wonder what you're doing in the industry and what you've been doing the last couple of years.. You should really study the latest freeware games, like free MMORPGs and other genres, how they do business out of exactly these kinds of things. Just google "free MMORPG" to get started. There are alot of MMORPGs, as well as action-games, board-games, etc., and they all make money out of catering to different types of players. Like some players are hardcore achievers, some like to socialize, some like to show off status symbols (pets, money, levels, equipment, magic, you name it), some like to explore (ok, these should really BUY a game to get more quality and depth), etc. All this can be capitalized in a free game, when done right, and can give some ideas what is possible regarding difficulty levels as well.</p><p>With parent poster, I totally agree about configurability and visibility, instead of trying to obscure some "adaption" algorithm which you think is cool, but will be seen as absolutely lame and obvious to hardcore gamers. It can even ruin gameplay for many, when it is "hidden" away.</p><p>I remember playing a car-game automat, don't remember the name but its still popular in India, and then discovered when I drove slower, I won more! Of course, I quickly realized if I drove 2nd to last place in all but the last lap, I could turbo-charge past- or simply drive better the last lap, and almost always win. While if I drove my best through the whole race, I would be squashed by some silly mistake in the end on the more hardcore tracks, and the bots would just "float" past me without any trouble. Yes, that was it. No more point to play at that mode anymore, so I tried to compete with other players for time. On some laps I scored top rank, while on others some dedicated guy had made som really good times I couldn't beat. But it worked for a while until I realized I had maxed out my skill for now and wouldn't be able to beat those guys on those particular tracks (I honestly suspect they know of some cheating method to achieve those results. I saw the clerk had some "codes" to give extra credit at least.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;*).Unless they had used tons of credits to discover the perfect car-combination to every track, but still, they were miles ahead of anything I could achieve on those tracks.</p><p>But this added some replay value, after discovering this lame "reward for mediocricy", which totally ruined my gameplay against the computer bots.<br>The positive lesson is that multiplayer, in any form, also brings something more to a game than just playing against bots, or the same storyline.<br>The other side of the coin is that making the computer "unnatural", just destroys the illusion you're trying to create and maintain in the first place.</p><p>Rule #1 should be to never destroy this illusion! Because after that, the player might well be gone for good! The successful games, keep their players, like Quake, Quake Team Fortress (my only reason I played Quake - a whole book in itself in game-design), CS, WoW, even for years. On the business-side, if you keep some, profitable players, you can even give your game away for free to most people in the world!</p><p>Regarding difficulty, the bots should really act more like a human, than just ramp up amount of units, speed or any such simple factor that you think would make the game "harder". Even if the game "detects" you're good, it should be optional to have it harder I think, because some people just want to relax and kick ass, not having to save and load at every corner. If the player selects a harder mode, it should be harder in an intelligent way, like in chess, where the computer can think longer into the future and anticipate results (but not too far!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br>So the difficulty level should be configurable, otherwise it might become too unrealistic, indeterminable and even exploitable.</p><p>Another example that comes to mind is Shaiya, a</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to ask this to the person behind this particular Ask Slashdot , because having to Ask Slashdot for this , I really wonder what you 're doing in the industry and what you 've been doing the last couple of years.. You should really study the latest freeware games , like free MMORPGs and other genres , how they do business out of exactly these kinds of things .
Just google " free MMORPG " to get started .
There are alot of MMORPGs , as well as action-games , board-games , etc. , and they all make money out of catering to different types of players .
Like some players are hardcore achievers , some like to socialize , some like to show off status symbols ( pets , money , levels , equipment , magic , you name it ) , some like to explore ( ok , these should really BUY a game to get more quality and depth ) , etc .
All this can be capitalized in a free game , when done right , and can give some ideas what is possible regarding difficulty levels as well.With parent poster , I totally agree about configurability and visibility , instead of trying to obscure some " adaption " algorithm which you think is cool , but will be seen as absolutely lame and obvious to hardcore gamers .
It can even ruin gameplay for many , when it is " hidden " away.I remember playing a car-game automat , do n't remember the name but its still popular in India , and then discovered when I drove slower , I won more !
Of course , I quickly realized if I drove 2nd to last place in all but the last lap , I could turbo-charge past- or simply drive better the last lap , and almost always win .
While if I drove my best through the whole race , I would be squashed by some silly mistake in the end on the more hardcore tracks , and the bots would just " float " past me without any trouble .
Yes , that was it .
No more point to play at that mode anymore , so I tried to compete with other players for time .
On some laps I scored top rank , while on others some dedicated guy had made som really good times I could n't beat .
But it worked for a while until I realized I had maxed out my skill for now and would n't be able to beat those guys on those particular tracks ( I honestly suspect they know of some cheating method to achieve those results .
I saw the clerk had some " codes " to give extra credit at least .
; * ) .Unless they had used tons of credits to discover the perfect car-combination to every track , but still , they were miles ahead of anything I could achieve on those tracks.But this added some replay value , after discovering this lame " reward for mediocricy " , which totally ruined my gameplay against the computer bots.The positive lesson is that multiplayer , in any form , also brings something more to a game than just playing against bots , or the same storyline.The other side of the coin is that making the computer " unnatural " , just destroys the illusion you 're trying to create and maintain in the first place.Rule # 1 should be to never destroy this illusion !
Because after that , the player might well be gone for good !
The successful games , keep their players , like Quake , Quake Team Fortress ( my only reason I played Quake - a whole book in itself in game-design ) , CS , WoW , even for years .
On the business-side , if you keep some , profitable players , you can even give your game away for free to most people in the world ! Regarding difficulty , the bots should really act more like a human , than just ramp up amount of units , speed or any such simple factor that you think would make the game " harder " .
Even if the game " detects " you 're good , it should be optional to have it harder I think , because some people just want to relax and kick ass , not having to save and load at every corner .
If the player selects a harder mode , it should be harder in an intelligent way , like in chess , where the computer can think longer into the future and anticipate results ( but not too far ! !
; ) So the difficulty level should be configurable , otherwise it might become too unrealistic , indeterminable and even exploitable.Another example that comes to mind is Shaiya , a</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to ask this to the person behind this particular Ask Slashdot, because having to Ask Slashdot for this, I really wonder what you're doing in the industry and what you've been doing the last couple of years.. You should really study the latest freeware games, like free MMORPGs and other genres, how they do business out of exactly these kinds of things.
Just google "free MMORPG" to get started.
There are alot of MMORPGs, as well as action-games, board-games, etc., and they all make money out of catering to different types of players.
Like some players are hardcore achievers, some like to socialize, some like to show off status symbols (pets, money, levels, equipment, magic, you name it), some like to explore (ok, these should really BUY a game to get more quality and depth), etc.
All this can be capitalized in a free game, when done right, and can give some ideas what is possible regarding difficulty levels as well.With parent poster, I totally agree about configurability and visibility, instead of trying to obscure some "adaption" algorithm which you think is cool, but will be seen as absolutely lame and obvious to hardcore gamers.
It can even ruin gameplay for many, when it is "hidden" away.I remember playing a car-game automat, don't remember the name but its still popular in India, and then discovered when I drove slower, I won more!
Of course, I quickly realized if I drove 2nd to last place in all but the last lap, I could turbo-charge past- or simply drive better the last lap, and almost always win.
While if I drove my best through the whole race, I would be squashed by some silly mistake in the end on the more hardcore tracks, and the bots would just "float" past me without any trouble.
Yes, that was it.
No more point to play at that mode anymore, so I tried to compete with other players for time.
On some laps I scored top rank, while on others some dedicated guy had made som really good times I couldn't beat.
But it worked for a while until I realized I had maxed out my skill for now and wouldn't be able to beat those guys on those particular tracks (I honestly suspect they know of some cheating method to achieve those results.
I saw the clerk had some "codes" to give extra credit at least.
;*).Unless they had used tons of credits to discover the perfect car-combination to every track, but still, they were miles ahead of anything I could achieve on those tracks.But this added some replay value, after discovering this lame "reward for mediocricy", which totally ruined my gameplay against the computer bots.The positive lesson is that multiplayer, in any form, also brings something more to a game than just playing against bots, or the same storyline.The other side of the coin is that making the computer "unnatural", just destroys the illusion you're trying to create and maintain in the first place.Rule #1 should be to never destroy this illusion!
Because after that, the player might well be gone for good!
The successful games, keep their players, like Quake, Quake Team Fortress (my only reason I played Quake - a whole book in itself in game-design), CS, WoW, even for years.
On the business-side, if you keep some, profitable players, you can even give your game away for free to most people in the world!Regarding difficulty, the bots should really act more like a human, than just ramp up amount of units, speed or any such simple factor that you think would make the game "harder".
Even if the game "detects" you're good, it should be optional to have it harder I think, because some people just want to relax and kick ass, not having to save and load at every corner.
If the player selects a harder mode, it should be harder in an intelligent way, like in chess, where the computer can think longer into the future and anticipate results (but not too far!!
;)So the difficulty level should be configurable, otherwise it might become too unrealistic, indeterminable and even exploitable.Another example that comes to mind is Shaiya, a</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731949</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1255449120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All I can say is that the original Starfleet Command had a similar 'we match the challenge to your power' and it got old VERY quickly.  In fact, due to scaling issues, it was far easier to progress in the campaign if you simply kept to the smaller ships, where the opponents then stayed as smaller ships and repair costs were always low.</p><p>Rank up to an uber-dreadnought?  Your AI opponent would have one too.</p><p>It actually got old very quickly.</p><p>Part of the fun is NOT KNOWING if this 'next challenge' is going to be too much for you to handle.  If you always know you can win, that's just boring.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All I can say is that the original Starfleet Command had a similar 'we match the challenge to your power ' and it got old VERY quickly .
In fact , due to scaling issues , it was far easier to progress in the campaign if you simply kept to the smaller ships , where the opponents then stayed as smaller ships and repair costs were always low.Rank up to an uber-dreadnought ?
Your AI opponent would have one too.It actually got old very quickly.Part of the fun is NOT KNOWING if this 'next challenge ' is going to be too much for you to handle .
If you always know you can win , that 's just boring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All I can say is that the original Starfleet Command had a similar 'we match the challenge to your power' and it got old VERY quickly.
In fact, due to scaling issues, it was far easier to progress in the campaign if you simply kept to the smaller ships, where the opponents then stayed as smaller ships and repair costs were always low.Rank up to an uber-dreadnought?
Your AI opponent would have one too.It actually got old very quickly.Part of the fun is NOT KNOWING if this 'next challenge' is going to be too much for you to handle.
If you always know you can win, that's just boring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731855</id>
	<title>Enchance the fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255448820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Players enjoy certain aspects of particular genres:</p><p>1) In an RTS like Battle for Middle Earth, the draw is general defending large armies with large armies, the thrill of out-strategizing the enemy (AI), and the final devastating blow to your opponent's base.  If you're playing well, and dominating the enemy, then make the game last a little longer: send out a large "backup" force from the enemy that really makes your main force struggle...but once your main force is weakened (or not), you're given time to rebuild.  You may be prepared for these reinforcements to hit you and split your main force to flank them when they do arrive, etc.</p><p>2) In an FPS like Quake or Doom, you might reward run'n'gun playstyles with simply more enemies to slaughter, or be slaughtered by.  More strategic FPS players may actually get the same reward, or perhaps have enemies begin to spawn behind them to make them start watching their backs, heightening the tension that comes from playing an FPS slowly.</p><p>3) World of Warcraft players might get the Amazing Sword of Brilliance if they actually attack two mobs at once instead of ganging up on one.</p><p>It has a lot to do with what people decide is fun in a game, and one reward system won't work for each genre -- but it may work for the majority of players in that genre.  Find what the players are looking for in that game, and give them more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Players enjoy certain aspects of particular genres : 1 ) In an RTS like Battle for Middle Earth , the draw is general defending large armies with large armies , the thrill of out-strategizing the enemy ( AI ) , and the final devastating blow to your opponent 's base .
If you 're playing well , and dominating the enemy , then make the game last a little longer : send out a large " backup " force from the enemy that really makes your main force struggle...but once your main force is weakened ( or not ) , you 're given time to rebuild .
You may be prepared for these reinforcements to hit you and split your main force to flank them when they do arrive , etc.2 ) In an FPS like Quake or Doom , you might reward run'n'gun playstyles with simply more enemies to slaughter , or be slaughtered by .
More strategic FPS players may actually get the same reward , or perhaps have enemies begin to spawn behind them to make them start watching their backs , heightening the tension that comes from playing an FPS slowly.3 ) World of Warcraft players might get the Amazing Sword of Brilliance if they actually attack two mobs at once instead of ganging up on one.It has a lot to do with what people decide is fun in a game , and one reward system wo n't work for each genre -- but it may work for the majority of players in that genre .
Find what the players are looking for in that game , and give them more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Players enjoy certain aspects of particular genres:1) In an RTS like Battle for Middle Earth, the draw is general defending large armies with large armies, the thrill of out-strategizing the enemy (AI), and the final devastating blow to your opponent's base.
If you're playing well, and dominating the enemy, then make the game last a little longer: send out a large "backup" force from the enemy that really makes your main force struggle...but once your main force is weakened (or not), you're given time to rebuild.
You may be prepared for these reinforcements to hit you and split your main force to flank them when they do arrive, etc.2) In an FPS like Quake or Doom, you might reward run'n'gun playstyles with simply more enemies to slaughter, or be slaughtered by.
More strategic FPS players may actually get the same reward, or perhaps have enemies begin to spawn behind them to make them start watching their backs, heightening the tension that comes from playing an FPS slowly.3) World of Warcraft players might get the Amazing Sword of Brilliance if they actually attack two mobs at once instead of ganging up on one.It has a lot to do with what people decide is fun in a game, and one reward system won't work for each genre -- but it may work for the majority of players in that genre.
Find what the players are looking for in that game, and give them more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734553</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255460640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There needs to be a separate setting for each player</i></p><p>You mean like two difficulty switches, that could be labelled A and B<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Well that only dates from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari\_2600" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">1977</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There needs to be a separate setting for each playerYou mean like two difficulty switches , that could be labelled A and B : - ) Well that only dates from 1977 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There needs to be a separate setting for each playerYou mean like two difficulty switches, that could be labelled A and B :-)Well that only dates from 1977 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733491</id>
	<title>Challenge settings</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255456320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I would like to see is a challenge setting instead of a difficulty setting to adjust how the game plays. If you want to breeze through, set it to a low challenge, or if you are Awesome gamer extreme, you can set it to high and get a truly challenging experience. And adjusting health/damage is a really cheap way to do that; change the composition of the enemy forces. Add an extra guard to this group, make that guy extra strong, etc. Allow better AI's against players that do well. Changing the mechanics of the game is problematic, so change the content. Make ammo scarce, or better hidden. OR on the flip side, gamers without a lot of skill could have some measure of aim-assist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I would like to see is a challenge setting instead of a difficulty setting to adjust how the game plays .
If you want to breeze through , set it to a low challenge , or if you are Awesome gamer extreme , you can set it to high and get a truly challenging experience .
And adjusting health/damage is a really cheap way to do that ; change the composition of the enemy forces .
Add an extra guard to this group , make that guy extra strong , etc .
Allow better AI 's against players that do well .
Changing the mechanics of the game is problematic , so change the content .
Make ammo scarce , or better hidden .
OR on the flip side , gamers without a lot of skill could have some measure of aim-assist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I would like to see is a challenge setting instead of a difficulty setting to adjust how the game plays.
If you want to breeze through, set it to a low challenge, or if you are Awesome gamer extreme, you can set it to high and get a truly challenging experience.
And adjusting health/damage is a really cheap way to do that; change the composition of the enemy forces.
Add an extra guard to this group, make that guy extra strong, etc.
Allow better AI's against players that do well.
Changing the mechanics of the game is problematic, so change the content.
Make ammo scarce, or better hidden.
OR on the flip side, gamers without a lot of skill could have some measure of aim-assist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735717</id>
	<title>Depends on game, should award good play too</title>
	<author>tommituura</author>
	<datestamp>1255466160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on a game and overall design. I'm not going to say that there is a genre where it would never work (because someone would just prove me wrong with a single datapoint saying otherwise) but I'd say that </p><p>a) It must be very carefully balanced<br>
b) Game should have better rewards for those who handle the greater challenge. That should solve the problem of "rewarding mediocrity".</p><p>Take shmups, for instance. The better the player plays in them, the harder they usually get. (at least most of the good ones.) However, the "better" playing is also tightly coupled with the mechanics of scoring, which is essentially the main rewarding system, which means that harder difficulty=higher scores. I actually like this type of system more than pre-set easy-normal-hard-very hard -steps, because first, they are by definition able (when executed right) to give the "right" difficulty for everyone, and second because it keeps everyone's scores on the same scale. </p><p>Of course, this type of system does not fit into every game. Also, if awards for good playing are items, completely losing opportunity to get some specialized gear because of good play would be mildly off-putting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on a game and overall design .
I 'm not going to say that there is a genre where it would never work ( because someone would just prove me wrong with a single datapoint saying otherwise ) but I 'd say that a ) It must be very carefully balanced b ) Game should have better rewards for those who handle the greater challenge .
That should solve the problem of " rewarding mediocrity " .Take shmups , for instance .
The better the player plays in them , the harder they usually get .
( at least most of the good ones .
) However , the " better " playing is also tightly coupled with the mechanics of scoring , which is essentially the main rewarding system , which means that harder difficulty = higher scores .
I actually like this type of system more than pre-set easy-normal-hard-very hard -steps , because first , they are by definition able ( when executed right ) to give the " right " difficulty for everyone , and second because it keeps everyone 's scores on the same scale .
Of course , this type of system does not fit into every game .
Also , if awards for good playing are items , completely losing opportunity to get some specialized gear because of good play would be mildly off-putting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on a game and overall design.
I'm not going to say that there is a genre where it would never work (because someone would just prove me wrong with a single datapoint saying otherwise) but I'd say that a) It must be very carefully balanced
b) Game should have better rewards for those who handle the greater challenge.
That should solve the problem of "rewarding mediocrity".Take shmups, for instance.
The better the player plays in them, the harder they usually get.
(at least most of the good ones.
) However, the "better" playing is also tightly coupled with the mechanics of scoring, which is essentially the main rewarding system, which means that harder difficulty=higher scores.
I actually like this type of system more than pre-set easy-normal-hard-very hard -steps, because first, they are by definition able (when executed right) to give the "right" difficulty for everyone, and second because it keeps everyone's scores on the same scale.
Of course, this type of system does not fit into every game.
Also, if awards for good playing are items, completely losing opportunity to get some specialized gear because of good play would be mildly off-putting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735817</id>
	<title>Adaptive game AI</title>
	<author>mcoletti</author>
	<datestamp>1255466520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As pointed out below, the easy way to dynamically adapt game play is to add or subtract game elements as needed.  However, it may be more interesting to allow the game AI to adapt -- instead of adding or subtracting objects have the AI continue to learn during game play.  That is, for some games the AI learns "offline" -- it may be trained using many runs in a headless simulation mode; once the game is shipped the AI's knowledge doesn't change since learning is "turned off."  But if learning can still happen during normal game play, then adaption will happen implicitly.<br><br>Of course that sounds really simple, but may actually be a bear to implement.  For example, learning has associated overhead which might have an impact on game performance.   (Which is normally why it would be done offline during development.)   And if the AI is fairly simple to begin with then it might not make sense to have it learn during normal game play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As pointed out below , the easy way to dynamically adapt game play is to add or subtract game elements as needed .
However , it may be more interesting to allow the game AI to adapt -- instead of adding or subtracting objects have the AI continue to learn during game play .
That is , for some games the AI learns " offline " -- it may be trained using many runs in a headless simulation mode ; once the game is shipped the AI 's knowledge does n't change since learning is " turned off .
" But if learning can still happen during normal game play , then adaption will happen implicitly.Of course that sounds really simple , but may actually be a bear to implement .
For example , learning has associated overhead which might have an impact on game performance .
( Which is normally why it would be done offline during development .
) And if the AI is fairly simple to begin with then it might not make sense to have it learn during normal game play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As pointed out below, the easy way to dynamically adapt game play is to add or subtract game elements as needed.
However, it may be more interesting to allow the game AI to adapt -- instead of adding or subtracting objects have the AI continue to learn during game play.
That is, for some games the AI learns "offline" -- it may be trained using many runs in a headless simulation mode; once the game is shipped the AI's knowledge doesn't change since learning is "turned off.
"  But if learning can still happen during normal game play, then adaption will happen implicitly.Of course that sounds really simple, but may actually be a bear to implement.
For example, learning has associated overhead which might have an impact on game performance.
(Which is normally why it would be done offline during development.
)   And if the AI is fairly simple to begin with then it might not make sense to have it learn during normal game play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733183</id>
	<title>Even more important...</title>
	<author>rAiNsT0rm</author>
	<datestamp>1255454820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had worked as a game reviewer and playtester for some years and the one thing I always brought up was... they're games, we design them, back in the day they had to use certain cheesy tactics to suck up more quarters or to deal with hardware/software limitations... those are largely gone now... why not just make the whole game awesome? You could have amazing powers from the start and be able to do amazing things from start to finish... why limit and aggravate the player unnecessarily? You have the power and ability to make anything happen, why limit yourself and the player?</p><p>It was always met with initial "well you have to or there is no reason to play" and then as we would talk more, light bulbs would go off and they would finally realize a lot of the trappings and assumed constructs really weren't necessary after all... but they still would ignore it.</p><p>What benefit or importance is it if I can fly, shoot laser beams, and finish with the awesome rip your spine out fatality with easy button presses or complex cryptic sequences? There aren't actual quarters involved anymore (for the most part). Why have your character punch with a fist instead of plunging a plasma sword through flesh? They could accomplish the same goal but one is infinitely cooler. You can still have a progression and you can still have obstacle and challenges but make the entire damn thing awesome... it's a GAME!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had worked as a game reviewer and playtester for some years and the one thing I always brought up was... they 're games , we design them , back in the day they had to use certain cheesy tactics to suck up more quarters or to deal with hardware/software limitations... those are largely gone now... why not just make the whole game awesome ?
You could have amazing powers from the start and be able to do amazing things from start to finish... why limit and aggravate the player unnecessarily ?
You have the power and ability to make anything happen , why limit yourself and the player ? It was always met with initial " well you have to or there is no reason to play " and then as we would talk more , light bulbs would go off and they would finally realize a lot of the trappings and assumed constructs really were n't necessary after all... but they still would ignore it.What benefit or importance is it if I can fly , shoot laser beams , and finish with the awesome rip your spine out fatality with easy button presses or complex cryptic sequences ?
There are n't actual quarters involved anymore ( for the most part ) .
Why have your character punch with a fist instead of plunging a plasma sword through flesh ?
They could accomplish the same goal but one is infinitely cooler .
You can still have a progression and you can still have obstacle and challenges but make the entire damn thing awesome... it 's a GAME !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had worked as a game reviewer and playtester for some years and the one thing I always brought up was... they're games, we design them, back in the day they had to use certain cheesy tactics to suck up more quarters or to deal with hardware/software limitations... those are largely gone now... why not just make the whole game awesome?
You could have amazing powers from the start and be able to do amazing things from start to finish... why limit and aggravate the player unnecessarily?
You have the power and ability to make anything happen, why limit yourself and the player?It was always met with initial "well you have to or there is no reason to play" and then as we would talk more, light bulbs would go off and they would finally realize a lot of the trappings and assumed constructs really weren't necessary after all... but they still would ignore it.What benefit or importance is it if I can fly, shoot laser beams, and finish with the awesome rip your spine out fatality with easy button presses or complex cryptic sequences?
There aren't actual quarters involved anymore (for the most part).
Why have your character punch with a fist instead of plunging a plasma sword through flesh?
They could accomplish the same goal but one is infinitely cooler.
You can still have a progression and you can still have obstacle and challenges but make the entire damn thing awesome... it's a GAME!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732677</id>
	<title>Two points.</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1255452420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One - Most games are not sophisticated enough to alter their actual play to match that of an actual player. Most just cheat by increasing stats (health, speed, number of, etc...) arbitrarily to make it more difficult. This bugs me a bit. It is the cheap easy stupid way to do it, so it is common. If someone can design a computer game that will alter its strategy or tactics in order to best me, that is the game I want to play. If it only gives itself 150\% health, or 175\% speed, or spawns 100 more extra guys, that is the computer just cheating against my superior intellect. Shame on you, I don't want o to play you any more.</p><p>Two - Having said that, most games cannot even handle simple friendly AI, let alone enemy AI. I just finished playing the solo campaign of World at War, and wow, my squad mates are dumb as bricks. I couldn't count the times where I would get "stuck" because some stupid squad mate decided to take cover right next to you, and you can even shoot the damn sumbitch as it won't let you. Only choice is to drop a grenade at your own feet, and hope you make it, or just commit yourself to the sweet embrace of death. If you don't have a grenade, you better hope someone can hit you standing up, or you are hitting the power button.</p><p>Generally speaking this is why people enjoy multiplayer games. Sure you get noobs out there (and everyone is at some point), however playing with people generally is more entertaining that the computer. Of course then again computers are rarely asshats that team kill, or act like complete morons, or scream obcenities and racist remarks for that matter.... Now there would be a real turning test, program an AI to be an asshole, and most players would probably be fooled... "That guy is too much of an asshole to be a bot!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One - Most games are not sophisticated enough to alter their actual play to match that of an actual player .
Most just cheat by increasing stats ( health , speed , number of , etc... ) arbitrarily to make it more difficult .
This bugs me a bit .
It is the cheap easy stupid way to do it , so it is common .
If someone can design a computer game that will alter its strategy or tactics in order to best me , that is the game I want to play .
If it only gives itself 150 \ % health , or 175 \ % speed , or spawns 100 more extra guys , that is the computer just cheating against my superior intellect .
Shame on you , I do n't want o to play you any more.Two - Having said that , most games can not even handle simple friendly AI , let alone enemy AI .
I just finished playing the solo campaign of World at War , and wow , my squad mates are dumb as bricks .
I could n't count the times where I would get " stuck " because some stupid squad mate decided to take cover right next to you , and you can even shoot the damn sumbitch as it wo n't let you .
Only choice is to drop a grenade at your own feet , and hope you make it , or just commit yourself to the sweet embrace of death .
If you do n't have a grenade , you better hope someone can hit you standing up , or you are hitting the power button.Generally speaking this is why people enjoy multiplayer games .
Sure you get noobs out there ( and everyone is at some point ) , however playing with people generally is more entertaining that the computer .
Of course then again computers are rarely asshats that team kill , or act like complete morons , or scream obcenities and racist remarks for that matter.... Now there would be a real turning test , program an AI to be an asshole , and most players would probably be fooled... " That guy is too much of an asshole to be a bot !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One - Most games are not sophisticated enough to alter their actual play to match that of an actual player.
Most just cheat by increasing stats (health, speed, number of, etc...) arbitrarily to make it more difficult.
This bugs me a bit.
It is the cheap easy stupid way to do it, so it is common.
If someone can design a computer game that will alter its strategy or tactics in order to best me, that is the game I want to play.
If it only gives itself 150\% health, or 175\% speed, or spawns 100 more extra guys, that is the computer just cheating against my superior intellect.
Shame on you, I don't want o to play you any more.Two - Having said that, most games cannot even handle simple friendly AI, let alone enemy AI.
I just finished playing the solo campaign of World at War, and wow, my squad mates are dumb as bricks.
I couldn't count the times where I would get "stuck" because some stupid squad mate decided to take cover right next to you, and you can even shoot the damn sumbitch as it won't let you.
Only choice is to drop a grenade at your own feet, and hope you make it, or just commit yourself to the sweet embrace of death.
If you don't have a grenade, you better hope someone can hit you standing up, or you are hitting the power button.Generally speaking this is why people enjoy multiplayer games.
Sure you get noobs out there (and everyone is at some point), however playing with people generally is more entertaining that the computer.
Of course then again computers are rarely asshats that team kill, or act like complete morons, or scream obcenities and racist remarks for that matter.... Now there would be a real turning test, program an AI to be an asshole, and most players would probably be fooled... "That guy is too much of an asshole to be a bot!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735235</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>MpVpRb</author>
	<datestamp>1255464060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any computer program, whether a game or not, should be repeatable, consistent and comprehensible.

</p><p>You learn how a program works in a similar way that a scientist learns how nature works.

</p><p>Do something...observe the result.

</p><p>Do the identical thing again...observe the identical result.

</p><p>If the result is not identical, the program becomes incomprehensible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any computer program , whether a game or not , should be repeatable , consistent and comprehensible .
You learn how a program works in a similar way that a scientist learns how nature works .
Do something...observe the result .
Do the identical thing again...observe the identical result .
If the result is not identical , the program becomes incomprehensible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any computer program, whether a game or not, should be repeatable, consistent and comprehensible.
You learn how a program works in a similar way that a scientist learns how nature works.
Do something...observe the result.
Do the identical thing again...observe the identical result.
If the result is not identical, the program becomes incomprehensible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733045</id>
	<title>Final Fantasy VIII?</title>
	<author>Arakageeta</author>
	<datestamp>1255454220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did Final Fantasy VIII play this way?  It sure felt like I was treading water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did Final Fantasy VIII play this way ?
It sure felt like I was treading water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did Final Fantasy VIII play this way?
It sure felt like I was treading water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733127</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1255454580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about a play level that told you that it adjusted to your skill. Then you could boast about your skill level as you advanced. This could go in one of two ways: 1) There's infinite difficulty levels or 2) There's a cap.</p><p>With infinite difficulty increases, the goal could potentially devolve from "winning" the game itself to maximizing your ability rating, like WoW arena rating, leading to people to seek ways to exploit the system. This would best be avoided if the only gain from having a higher rating is facing better competition, as those who didn't belong at the highest levels would quickly be found and forced back down the ladder by better players. I think this type would be best utilized in multiplayer games in order to match people better by ability or give people with lesser ability levels a fair shot.</p><p>The capped difficulty settings would come into play for single person games where the intent is solely to win the game. This would allow players to face an appropriate amount of challenge to maximize enjoyment. Again, there are two options with this: 1) force the difficulty to increase with player skill or 2) Give the player the option. I personally enjoy the thought of the game insulting sandbaggers who insist playing games at a skill level lower than what they are actually capable of. &ldquo;Wow, you just beat the Colts 98-0, maybe you should leave the rookie setting and move up to pro, that is, unless you PREFER to be treated like a six year old.&rdquo;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about a play level that told you that it adjusted to your skill .
Then you could boast about your skill level as you advanced .
This could go in one of two ways : 1 ) There 's infinite difficulty levels or 2 ) There 's a cap.With infinite difficulty increases , the goal could potentially devolve from " winning " the game itself to maximizing your ability rating , like WoW arena rating , leading to people to seek ways to exploit the system .
This would best be avoided if the only gain from having a higher rating is facing better competition , as those who did n't belong at the highest levels would quickly be found and forced back down the ladder by better players .
I think this type would be best utilized in multiplayer games in order to match people better by ability or give people with lesser ability levels a fair shot.The capped difficulty settings would come into play for single person games where the intent is solely to win the game .
This would allow players to face an appropriate amount of challenge to maximize enjoyment .
Again , there are two options with this : 1 ) force the difficulty to increase with player skill or 2 ) Give the player the option .
I personally enjoy the thought of the game insulting sandbaggers who insist playing games at a skill level lower than what they are actually capable of .
   Wow , you just beat the Colts 98-0 , maybe you should leave the rookie setting and move up to pro , that is , unless you PREFER to be treated like a six year old.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about a play level that told you that it adjusted to your skill.
Then you could boast about your skill level as you advanced.
This could go in one of two ways: 1) There's infinite difficulty levels or 2) There's a cap.With infinite difficulty increases, the goal could potentially devolve from "winning" the game itself to maximizing your ability rating, like WoW arena rating, leading to people to seek ways to exploit the system.
This would best be avoided if the only gain from having a higher rating is facing better competition, as those who didn't belong at the highest levels would quickly be found and forced back down the ladder by better players.
I think this type would be best utilized in multiplayer games in order to match people better by ability or give people with lesser ability levels a fair shot.The capped difficulty settings would come into play for single person games where the intent is solely to win the game.
This would allow players to face an appropriate amount of challenge to maximize enjoyment.
Again, there are two options with this: 1) force the difficulty to increase with player skill or 2) Give the player the option.
I personally enjoy the thought of the game insulting sandbaggers who insist playing games at a skill level lower than what they are actually capable of.
“Wow, you just beat the Colts 98-0, maybe you should leave the rookie setting and move up to pro, that is, unless you PREFER to be treated like a six year old.”</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732149</id>
	<title>RPGs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255449900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always liked the way RPGs and the like handled this, where as you progress in the game, the enemies become increasingly difficult - however going back to an earlier point in the game awards you a clear advantage over anything you may encounter. MMOs work on this principle as well with the concept of "zones." This has always worked best for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always liked the way RPGs and the like handled this , where as you progress in the game , the enemies become increasingly difficult - however going back to an earlier point in the game awards you a clear advantage over anything you may encounter .
MMOs work on this principle as well with the concept of " zones .
" This has always worked best for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always liked the way RPGs and the like handled this, where as you progress in the game, the enemies become increasingly difficult - however going back to an earlier point in the game awards you a clear advantage over anything you may encounter.
MMOs work on this principle as well with the concept of "zones.
" This has always worked best for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736635</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer Zones or areas</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1255426680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FO3 is *far* better then Oblivion.  Yes, you can do the MQ at level 3 and all you'll see are Super Mutants and regular Feral Ghouls.<br>
<br>
What happens instead in FO3 is that tougher enemies start appearing at higher levels.  They don't take low level bandits and give them uber armors/weapons.  The Raiders are typically limited to nasty things like full-auto weapons or maybe a flamer.  Which means that past level 10 or so, Raiders are pretty easy to kill, yet still drop loot useful to you.<br>
<br>
In addition, FO3 does a good job of basing the level system off of XP instead of nebulous skill activity.  And you can assign your skill points as desired when you level up, rather then it being dictated to you based on what you did during the previous level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>FO3 is * far * better then Oblivion .
Yes , you can do the MQ at level 3 and all you 'll see are Super Mutants and regular Feral Ghouls .
What happens instead in FO3 is that tougher enemies start appearing at higher levels .
They do n't take low level bandits and give them uber armors/weapons .
The Raiders are typically limited to nasty things like full-auto weapons or maybe a flamer .
Which means that past level 10 or so , Raiders are pretty easy to kill , yet still drop loot useful to you .
In addition , FO3 does a good job of basing the level system off of XP instead of nebulous skill activity .
And you can assign your skill points as desired when you level up , rather then it being dictated to you based on what you did during the previous level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FO3 is *far* better then Oblivion.
Yes, you can do the MQ at level 3 and all you'll see are Super Mutants and regular Feral Ghouls.
What happens instead in FO3 is that tougher enemies start appearing at higher levels.
They don't take low level bandits and give them uber armors/weapons.
The Raiders are typically limited to nasty things like full-auto weapons or maybe a flamer.
Which means that past level 10 or so, Raiders are pretty easy to kill, yet still drop loot useful to you.
In addition, FO3 does a good job of basing the level system off of XP instead of nebulous skill activity.
And you can assign your skill points as desired when you level up, rather then it being dictated to you based on what you did during the previous level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735131</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer Zones or areas</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1255463580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oblivion was annoying as as soon as i level those "bandits" suddenly had very very good gear. I don't like that it's no fun, sometimes it is nice to walk to an area you have been before with your gear and butcher the low level stuff for fun.</p></div><p>And that is why, months after the game was released, some very sophisticated mods began to be released which fixed this "feature".  Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul is one of my favorites, and has undergone a massive amount of development work in the past few years.  It makes Oblivion feel like a new game each time I return to it, update the mods, and play again.  <br> <br>To explain, the 'vanilla' Oblivion has an unusual feature where the enemies you face are generated either a few levels up or down from the PC's level, with corresponding gear.  Therefore, a level 20 PC (that's fairly high--think more towards D&amp;D, not WoW) can walk out of city gates and find a pair of bandits outfitted in gleaming Ebony armor, Glass helmets, and Daedric weapons which alone cost as much as a small house in-game.  One of these, if allowed into the city, could probably take out the entire town guard<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... except that they level with you, as well.  What the many mods do is, in addition to re-writing the leveled lists entirely, fix the skill and equipment windows of enemies into a small range.  Therefore, some enemies are generated at level 8 when you are a level 1, and so you had best stay out of their way.  However, when you are level 20, they may only be level 12, meaning that you can rampage through without a second thought.  <br> <br>I love the game Oblivion.  I am under no illusions that Bethesda is fully responsible for that, however.  Bethesda designs some very interesting-yet-incomplete worlds and an engine that, though infamously unstable, is tremendously open to modding and design.  It's comparable to the Lord of the Rings, in a way... Tolkien's writing style is very dry, and the text is anything but gripping, however the world he imagined has proven to be an incredible resource for plenty of other "modders", from Gary Gygax to Peter Jackson to the individual readers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oblivion was annoying as as soon as i level those " bandits " suddenly had very very good gear .
I do n't like that it 's no fun , sometimes it is nice to walk to an area you have been before with your gear and butcher the low level stuff for fun.And that is why , months after the game was released , some very sophisticated mods began to be released which fixed this " feature " .
Oscuro 's Oblivion Overhaul is one of my favorites , and has undergone a massive amount of development work in the past few years .
It makes Oblivion feel like a new game each time I return to it , update the mods , and play again .
To explain , the 'vanilla ' Oblivion has an unusual feature where the enemies you face are generated either a few levels up or down from the PC 's level , with corresponding gear .
Therefore , a level 20 PC ( that 's fairly high--think more towards D&amp;D , not WoW ) can walk out of city gates and find a pair of bandits outfitted in gleaming Ebony armor , Glass helmets , and Daedric weapons which alone cost as much as a small house in-game .
One of these , if allowed into the city , could probably take out the entire town guard .... except that they level with you , as well .
What the many mods do is , in addition to re-writing the leveled lists entirely , fix the skill and equipment windows of enemies into a small range .
Therefore , some enemies are generated at level 8 when you are a level 1 , and so you had best stay out of their way .
However , when you are level 20 , they may only be level 12 , meaning that you can rampage through without a second thought .
I love the game Oblivion .
I am under no illusions that Bethesda is fully responsible for that , however .
Bethesda designs some very interesting-yet-incomplete worlds and an engine that , though infamously unstable , is tremendously open to modding and design .
It 's comparable to the Lord of the Rings , in a way... Tolkien 's writing style is very dry , and the text is anything but gripping , however the world he imagined has proven to be an incredible resource for plenty of other " modders " , from Gary Gygax to Peter Jackson to the individual readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oblivion was annoying as as soon as i level those "bandits" suddenly had very very good gear.
I don't like that it's no fun, sometimes it is nice to walk to an area you have been before with your gear and butcher the low level stuff for fun.And that is why, months after the game was released, some very sophisticated mods began to be released which fixed this "feature".
Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul is one of my favorites, and has undergone a massive amount of development work in the past few years.
It makes Oblivion feel like a new game each time I return to it, update the mods, and play again.
To explain, the 'vanilla' Oblivion has an unusual feature where the enemies you face are generated either a few levels up or down from the PC's level, with corresponding gear.
Therefore, a level 20 PC (that's fairly high--think more towards D&amp;D, not WoW) can walk out of city gates and find a pair of bandits outfitted in gleaming Ebony armor, Glass helmets, and Daedric weapons which alone cost as much as a small house in-game.
One of these, if allowed into the city, could probably take out the entire town guard .... except that they level with you, as well.
What the many mods do is, in addition to re-writing the leveled lists entirely, fix the skill and equipment windows of enemies into a small range.
Therefore, some enemies are generated at level 8 when you are a level 1, and so you had best stay out of their way.
However, when you are level 20, they may only be level 12, meaning that you can rampage through without a second thought.
I love the game Oblivion.
I am under no illusions that Bethesda is fully responsible for that, however.
Bethesda designs some very interesting-yet-incomplete worlds and an engine that, though infamously unstable, is tremendously open to modding and design.
It's comparable to the Lord of the Rings, in a way... Tolkien's writing style is very dry, and the text is anything but gripping, however the world he imagined has proven to be an incredible resource for plenty of other "modders", from Gary Gygax to Peter Jackson to the individual readers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733069</id>
	<title>Re:Less Grind, More Fun Time</title>
	<author>dstar</author>
	<datestamp>1255454340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Using general terms for an example: If you enter an instance with a Warrior, a Thief, Wizard, and a Cleric but you kill the dragon and get some Ranger bow everyone goes "BOOO!".  The game knows what classes came in so instead of just tossing out static loot from a static table, start considering who walked in and what improvements they need.</p></div><p>Well, based on what I saw in Guild Wars, they're doing just this -- to ensure they rarely give you anything you can use. The chance of getting a good item for your class seemed to be a third or less of what it would have been if the loot was actually random.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Using general terms for an example : If you enter an instance with a Warrior , a Thief , Wizard , and a Cleric but you kill the dragon and get some Ranger bow everyone goes " BOOO ! " .
The game knows what classes came in so instead of just tossing out static loot from a static table , start considering who walked in and what improvements they need.Well , based on what I saw in Guild Wars , they 're doing just this -- to ensure they rarely give you anything you can use .
The chance of getting a good item for your class seemed to be a third or less of what it would have been if the loot was actually random .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Using general terms for an example: If you enter an instance with a Warrior, a Thief, Wizard, and a Cleric but you kill the dragon and get some Ranger bow everyone goes "BOOO!".
The game knows what classes came in so instead of just tossing out static loot from a static table, start considering who walked in and what improvements they need.Well, based on what I saw in Guild Wars, they're doing just this -- to ensure they rarely give you anything you can use.
The chance of getting a good item for your class seemed to be a third or less of what it would have been if the loot was actually random.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732845</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>LordAndrewSama</author>
	<datestamp>1255453200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you play Doom 3?  Some interesting tactics the little buggers used.  closest thing i've seen to an adapting opponent.  Never seen a good AI in a strategy game though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you play Doom 3 ?
Some interesting tactics the little buggers used .
closest thing i 've seen to an adapting opponent .
Never seen a good AI in a strategy game though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you play Doom 3?
Some interesting tactics the little buggers used.
closest thing i've seen to an adapting opponent.
Never seen a good AI in a strategy game though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733715</id>
	<title>L4D as a good Example</title>
	<author>Crouse45</author>
	<datestamp>1255457280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my mind Left 4 Dead,in the co-op and solo campaigns, does a fair job of adjusting to the playing level of the group. If your playing through and not taking much damage, then the 2nd lvl weapons are further along then they otherwise might be, or more zombies get thrown at you. Conversly if your getting killed off multiple times in a section then you'll start seeing more pills or pipe bomb/moltovs.

The end result is you can play through and feel challenged, regardless of whether your playing with hardcore players, or some friends that just picked up the game.

The key that makes this constant challenge work is that you have that option to drop down to advanced (or even easy) if you are in the mood to just breeze through and kill zombies.

Obviously a game that was more persistant such as a MMO or RPG wouldn't have to find a different formula for acheiving this.  Prehaps as someone already suggested having some sort of leveling cap on enemies in specific areas (I believe the orginal pokemon games did this).  However the more open world nature of most recent games would make this more difficult to implement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my mind Left 4 Dead,in the co-op and solo campaigns , does a fair job of adjusting to the playing level of the group .
If your playing through and not taking much damage , then the 2nd lvl weapons are further along then they otherwise might be , or more zombies get thrown at you .
Conversly if your getting killed off multiple times in a section then you 'll start seeing more pills or pipe bomb/moltovs .
The end result is you can play through and feel challenged , regardless of whether your playing with hardcore players , or some friends that just picked up the game .
The key that makes this constant challenge work is that you have that option to drop down to advanced ( or even easy ) if you are in the mood to just breeze through and kill zombies .
Obviously a game that was more persistant such as a MMO or RPG would n't have to find a different formula for acheiving this .
Prehaps as someone already suggested having some sort of leveling cap on enemies in specific areas ( I believe the orginal pokemon games did this ) .
However the more open world nature of most recent games would make this more difficult to implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my mind Left 4 Dead,in the co-op and solo campaigns, does a fair job of adjusting to the playing level of the group.
If your playing through and not taking much damage, then the 2nd lvl weapons are further along then they otherwise might be, or more zombies get thrown at you.
Conversly if your getting killed off multiple times in a section then you'll start seeing more pills or pipe bomb/moltovs.
The end result is you can play through and feel challenged, regardless of whether your playing with hardcore players, or some friends that just picked up the game.
The key that makes this constant challenge work is that you have that option to drop down to advanced (or even easy) if you are in the mood to just breeze through and kill zombies.
Obviously a game that was more persistant such as a MMO or RPG wouldn't have to find a different formula for acheiving this.
Prehaps as someone already suggested having some sort of leveling cap on enemies in specific areas (I believe the orginal pokemon games did this).
However the more open world nature of most recent games would make this more difficult to implement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736039</id>
	<title>Simple question - friend or foe?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1255467360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is this a good thing" depends on your goals.  This would vary based on whether you are:</p><p>A) Hoping to eat up as much of my time as possible,</p><p>B) Hoping to force me down a particular game path,</p><p>C) Trying to establish yourselves as the makers of the smartest product,</p><p>or</p><p>D) Trying to make sure I have the most fun possible.</p><p>While D is the only acceptable choice from my point of view, A, B, and C are going to be damn hard to avoid.  And as a consumer I'll never know which I'm purchasing until I reach the point where I cannot have a refund.  If you're noticing the parts of the game I like and are making a few more of those happen, great.  If you are noticing the parts that are 'too easy' for me, taking note of the parts I am skipping, and/or recording that I spend too little time on a particular feature so you can force more of that on me - well that would suck.</p><p>Assuming I can trust you, please shoot for D.  Otherwise, please just leave it out due to the risks involved.  Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is this a good thing " depends on your goals .
This would vary based on whether you are : A ) Hoping to eat up as much of my time as possible,B ) Hoping to force me down a particular game path,C ) Trying to establish yourselves as the makers of the smartest product,orD ) Trying to make sure I have the most fun possible.While D is the only acceptable choice from my point of view , A , B , and C are going to be damn hard to avoid .
And as a consumer I 'll never know which I 'm purchasing until I reach the point where I can not have a refund .
If you 're noticing the parts of the game I like and are making a few more of those happen , great .
If you are noticing the parts that are 'too easy ' for me , taking note of the parts I am skipping , and/or recording that I spend too little time on a particular feature so you can force more of that on me - well that would suck.Assuming I can trust you , please shoot for D. Otherwise , please just leave it out due to the risks involved .
Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is this a good thing" depends on your goals.
This would vary based on whether you are:A) Hoping to eat up as much of my time as possible,B) Hoping to force me down a particular game path,C) Trying to establish yourselves as the makers of the smartest product,orD) Trying to make sure I have the most fun possible.While D is the only acceptable choice from my point of view, A, B, and C are going to be damn hard to avoid.
And as a consumer I'll never know which I'm purchasing until I reach the point where I cannot have a refund.
If you're noticing the parts of the game I like and are making a few more of those happen, great.
If you are noticing the parts that are 'too easy' for me, taking note of the parts I am skipping, and/or recording that I spend too little time on a particular feature so you can force more of that on me - well that would suck.Assuming I can trust you, please shoot for D.  Otherwise, please just leave it out due to the risks involved.
Thanks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735395</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1255464720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree absolutely about Oblivion. You felt like you were achieving nothing by leveling up. I want to eventually get so powerful that the world around me whimpers when I walk past, or so that I can kill things I was never able to before. That's the whole damn point of leveling.</p><p>Oblivion is tons of fun, though, when you use mods that create a static game population (that is, mods that disable the world leveling up along with you). I recommend <a href="http://devnull.sweetdanger.net/OOO/" title="sweetdanger.net">Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul</a> [sweetdanger.net] or, better yet, <a href="http://devnull.sweetdanger.net/convergence.html" title="sweetdanger.net">FCOM: Convergence</a> [sweetdanger.net].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree absolutely about Oblivion .
You felt like you were achieving nothing by leveling up .
I want to eventually get so powerful that the world around me whimpers when I walk past , or so that I can kill things I was never able to before .
That 's the whole damn point of leveling.Oblivion is tons of fun , though , when you use mods that create a static game population ( that is , mods that disable the world leveling up along with you ) .
I recommend Oscuro 's Oblivion Overhaul [ sweetdanger.net ] or , better yet , FCOM : Convergence [ sweetdanger.net ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree absolutely about Oblivion.
You felt like you were achieving nothing by leveling up.
I want to eventually get so powerful that the world around me whimpers when I walk past, or so that I can kill things I was never able to before.
That's the whole damn point of leveling.Oblivion is tons of fun, though, when you use mods that create a static game population (that is, mods that disable the world leveling up along with you).
I recommend Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul [sweetdanger.net] or, better yet, FCOM: Convergence [sweetdanger.net].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732625</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>gedrin</author>
	<datestamp>1255452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even worse, you might not be able to tell what tactics worked and the constant scaling may yield a "false false" in terms of feedback concerning skill increase.

I prefer stages of difficulty; easy, normal, hard.  Adjust granularity to taste.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even worse , you might not be able to tell what tactics worked and the constant scaling may yield a " false false " in terms of feedback concerning skill increase .
I prefer stages of difficulty ; easy , normal , hard .
Adjust granularity to taste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even worse, you might not be able to tell what tactics worked and the constant scaling may yield a "false false" in terms of feedback concerning skill increase.
I prefer stages of difficulty; easy, normal, hard.
Adjust granularity to taste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29745255</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer Zones or areas</title>
	<author>camazotz</author>
	<datestamp>1255537260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That must be why I liked Oblivion more than games like WoW these days, I prefer a challenge over a cake walk....although the best system is one in which older explored areas are "slightly" easier than newer areas, I imagine. But it always seemed highly unrealistic to me that I could eventually have a character who was clearly superhuman in  game where that was not a plot point. I blame the legacy fo D&amp;D, though, where the idea of a guy who can take 50 hits with a sword and half a dozen fireballs up the poop chute before toppling at high levels is normal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That must be why I liked Oblivion more than games like WoW these days , I prefer a challenge over a cake walk....although the best system is one in which older explored areas are " slightly " easier than newer areas , I imagine .
But it always seemed highly unrealistic to me that I could eventually have a character who was clearly superhuman in game where that was not a plot point .
I blame the legacy fo D&amp;D , though , where the idea of a guy who can take 50 hits with a sword and half a dozen fireballs up the poop chute before toppling at high levels is normal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That must be why I liked Oblivion more than games like WoW these days, I prefer a challenge over a cake walk....although the best system is one in which older explored areas are "slightly" easier than newer areas, I imagine.
But it always seemed highly unrealistic to me that I could eventually have a character who was clearly superhuman in  game where that was not a plot point.
I blame the legacy fo D&amp;D, though, where the idea of a guy who can take 50 hits with a sword and half a dozen fireballs up the poop chute before toppling at high levels is normal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733169</id>
	<title>Of course they should</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255454760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That brings maximum enjoyment and creates a challenge the challenging to a specific users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That brings maximum enjoyment and creates a challenge the challenging to a specific users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That brings maximum enjoyment and creates a challenge the challenging to a specific users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732029</id>
	<title>Oblivion is the perfect example.</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1255449480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was intrigued by the concept of adaptable games until I played Oblivion. Granted, Oblivion made the worst possible decisions when it came to adapting Mobs to your level: it had an uneven leveling "curve" to the point where gaining a level could make previously easy monsters into a nightmare. It used obscure leveling mechanisms where you could gimp your character to an unplayable point if you didn't happen to pick the right class or jump often enough between leveling.</p><p>Since then, I don't care about adaptive leveling, because it is a much harder problem than it appears to be on the surface. Part of the fun for me is to go from getting stomped by the computer to stomping the computer, just because I got better at the game. Sometimes I want the challenge, but then I select it, not the game.  Judging from the amount of Starcraft games that are labeled "7v1 stomp the comp", I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.</p><p>Adaptive difficulty should really come only in two flavors: select an overall game difficulty, so that you know what to expect; or enter some dungeon or bonus level/path that you know is much harder than what you've done so far. Don't force me into a harder game just because I've been doing so well so far. It could have been just a lucky streak, in which case I'll get really frustrated with the sudden ramp-up in difficulty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was intrigued by the concept of adaptable games until I played Oblivion .
Granted , Oblivion made the worst possible decisions when it came to adapting Mobs to your level : it had an uneven leveling " curve " to the point where gaining a level could make previously easy monsters into a nightmare .
It used obscure leveling mechanisms where you could gimp your character to an unplayable point if you did n't happen to pick the right class or jump often enough between leveling.Since then , I do n't care about adaptive leveling , because it is a much harder problem than it appears to be on the surface .
Part of the fun for me is to go from getting stomped by the computer to stomping the computer , just because I got better at the game .
Sometimes I want the challenge , but then I select it , not the game .
Judging from the amount of Starcraft games that are labeled " 7v1 stomp the comp " , I 'm pretty sure I 'm not alone in this.Adaptive difficulty should really come only in two flavors : select an overall game difficulty , so that you know what to expect ; or enter some dungeon or bonus level/path that you know is much harder than what you 've done so far .
Do n't force me into a harder game just because I 've been doing so well so far .
It could have been just a lucky streak , in which case I 'll get really frustrated with the sudden ramp-up in difficulty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was intrigued by the concept of adaptable games until I played Oblivion.
Granted, Oblivion made the worst possible decisions when it came to adapting Mobs to your level: it had an uneven leveling "curve" to the point where gaining a level could make previously easy monsters into a nightmare.
It used obscure leveling mechanisms where you could gimp your character to an unplayable point if you didn't happen to pick the right class or jump often enough between leveling.Since then, I don't care about adaptive leveling, because it is a much harder problem than it appears to be on the surface.
Part of the fun for me is to go from getting stomped by the computer to stomping the computer, just because I got better at the game.
Sometimes I want the challenge, but then I select it, not the game.
Judging from the amount of Starcraft games that are labeled "7v1 stomp the comp", I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.Adaptive difficulty should really come only in two flavors: select an overall game difficulty, so that you know what to expect; or enter some dungeon or bonus level/path that you know is much harder than what you've done so far.
Don't force me into a harder game just because I've been doing so well so far.
It could have been just a lucky streak, in which case I'll get really frustrated with the sudden ramp-up in difficulty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732889</id>
	<title>what about</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255453380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they should then invent choices like</p><p>1.Easy<br>2.Normal<br>3.Hard</p><p>Oh Wait it already does.</p><p>DOHHHHHHHHH!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they should then invent choices like1.Easy2.Normal3.HardOh Wait it already does.DOHHHHHHHHH ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they should then invent choices like1.Easy2.Normal3.HardOh Wait it already does.DOHHHHHHHHH!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734047</id>
	<title>poll</title>
	<author>eric-x</author>
	<datestamp>1255458600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This calls for a poll</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This calls for a poll</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This calls for a poll</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732177</id>
	<title>Oblivion and Bioshock - Ugh adaptiveness</title>
	<author>naz404</author>
	<datestamp>1255450020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Oblivion, this was terribly implemented, where all enemies would also level up as you leveled up. At higher levels, you ended up with ultra-powerful enemies that took just too long to kill and made the game a tiring slog to fight through if you didn't particularly like the combat mechanics and just wanted to get on with the story. It was also as if you weren't an uber-leveled up character because *all* enemies were uber-high-level around you at high levels.
<br> <br>
In Bioshock, the game would adapt to how well you were playing by raising enemy hitpoints if you were skilled enough at killing them quickly. Basically, my same complaint with Oblivion. I just want the enemies to die fast so I can get on with the story, but they get tougher and tougher to kill, making things very tiring for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Oblivion , this was terribly implemented , where all enemies would also level up as you leveled up .
At higher levels , you ended up with ultra-powerful enemies that took just too long to kill and made the game a tiring slog to fight through if you did n't particularly like the combat mechanics and just wanted to get on with the story .
It was also as if you were n't an uber-leveled up character because * all * enemies were uber-high-level around you at high levels .
In Bioshock , the game would adapt to how well you were playing by raising enemy hitpoints if you were skilled enough at killing them quickly .
Basically , my same complaint with Oblivion .
I just want the enemies to die fast so I can get on with the story , but they get tougher and tougher to kill , making things very tiring for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Oblivion, this was terribly implemented, where all enemies would also level up as you leveled up.
At higher levels, you ended up with ultra-powerful enemies that took just too long to kill and made the game a tiring slog to fight through if you didn't particularly like the combat mechanics and just wanted to get on with the story.
It was also as if you weren't an uber-leveled up character because *all* enemies were uber-high-level around you at high levels.
In Bioshock, the game would adapt to how well you were playing by raising enemy hitpoints if you were skilled enough at killing them quickly.
Basically, my same complaint with Oblivion.
I just want the enemies to die fast so I can get on with the story, but they get tougher and tougher to kill, making things very tiring for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737033</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>Draped Crusader</author>
	<datestamp>1255428120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, the teamwork aspect is something that you just can't have with computer AI. I can't foresee any computer AI responding to voice chat, like "Can anyone buy me a weapon? Please?".</p></div><p>Actually, in Unreal Tournament 2004(maybe 2003 as well?) if you had a mic and voice recognition set up on your computer you could command teammate bots to give you their guns, hold a point, attack/defend/freelance, among other things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , the teamwork aspect is something that you just ca n't have with computer AI .
I ca n't foresee any computer AI responding to voice chat , like " Can anyone buy me a weapon ?
Please ? " .Actually , in Unreal Tournament 2004 ( maybe 2003 as well ?
) if you had a mic and voice recognition set up on your computer you could command teammate bots to give you their guns , hold a point , attack/defend/freelance , among other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, the teamwork aspect is something that you just can't have with computer AI.
I can't foresee any computer AI responding to voice chat, like "Can anyone buy me a weapon?
Please?".Actually, in Unreal Tournament 2004(maybe 2003 as well?
) if you had a mic and voice recognition set up on your computer you could command teammate bots to give you their guns, hold a point, attack/defend/freelance, among other things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733879</id>
	<title>reward good players!</title>
	<author>Denihil</author>
	<datestamp>1255457940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i don't mind the adaptability, but at least show the players of the games that have the "auto-adjust" enemies that they're owning them at a much higher than normal difficulty! For example, maybe make the enemies say different things when they die/walk around depending on 'how adjusted they are, or add a special combo meter that increases faster the harder the adjusted difficulty is. That was the players feel rewarded, even if that special combo meter doesn't do much, so much as its there and they're getting ~something~ you know?</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't mind the adaptability , but at least show the players of the games that have the " auto-adjust " enemies that they 're owning them at a much higher than normal difficulty !
For example , maybe make the enemies say different things when they die/walk around depending on 'how adjusted they are , or add a special combo meter that increases faster the harder the adjusted difficulty is .
That was the players feel rewarded , even if that special combo meter does n't do much , so much as its there and they 're getting ~ something ~ you know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't mind the adaptability, but at least show the players of the games that have the "auto-adjust" enemies that they're owning them at a much higher than normal difficulty!
For example, maybe make the enemies say different things when they die/walk around depending on 'how adjusted they are, or add a special combo meter that increases faster the harder the adjusted difficulty is.
That was the players feel rewarded, even if that special combo meter doesn't do much, so much as its there and they're getting ~something~ you know?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733653</id>
	<title>Re:Oblivion "Increasing skill" feh.</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1255456980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If it's going to kill you, it usually kills you on the first shot. Which never happens in real life.</p></div></blockquote><p>Real life you say? Do you really want a game like UT to be like real life where a single shot will kill or incapacitate you?</p><p>You know, real life where, you may not die on the first shot, but instead get shot in the leg and not be able to walk, let alone run, as you slowly bleed to death while waiting for someone to take the time to kill you off?</p><p>Maybe you want a gut shot, with its slow, painful death while immobilized on the floor?  Do you want the agonized screaming, too?</p><p>Or, are you thinking about movie "real life" where people can be shot a few times and still run around popping off shots and end up killing the bad guy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's going to kill you , it usually kills you on the first shot .
Which never happens in real life.Real life you say ?
Do you really want a game like UT to be like real life where a single shot will kill or incapacitate you ? You know , real life where , you may not die on the first shot , but instead get shot in the leg and not be able to walk , let alone run , as you slowly bleed to death while waiting for someone to take the time to kill you off ? Maybe you want a gut shot , with its slow , painful death while immobilized on the floor ?
Do you want the agonized screaming , too ? Or , are you thinking about movie " real life " where people can be shot a few times and still run around popping off shots and end up killing the bad guy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's going to kill you, it usually kills you on the first shot.
Which never happens in real life.Real life you say?
Do you really want a game like UT to be like real life where a single shot will kill or incapacitate you?You know, real life where, you may not die on the first shot, but instead get shot in the leg and not be able to walk, let alone run, as you slowly bleed to death while waiting for someone to take the time to kill you off?Maybe you want a gut shot, with its slow, painful death while immobilized on the floor?
Do you want the agonized screaming, too?Or, are you thinking about movie "real life" where people can be shot a few times and still run around popping off shots and end up killing the bad guy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732735</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer Zones or areas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255452720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You couldn't have played Oblivion for long. My character was hardly maxed out and I could destroy anything in the Arena with my bare hands.</p><p>Again, you clearly missed most of Fallout3 if you didn't come across things in the wild that could take you out in two or three swipes, and your nukes would hardly scratch them. Perhaps you should explore places and do side missions if you buy RPG games? You'll get far better value from them, whereas being a runner on the main quest suggests you'd be better off sticking to FPS titles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could n't have played Oblivion for long .
My character was hardly maxed out and I could destroy anything in the Arena with my bare hands.Again , you clearly missed most of Fallout3 if you did n't come across things in the wild that could take you out in two or three swipes , and your nukes would hardly scratch them .
Perhaps you should explore places and do side missions if you buy RPG games ?
You 'll get far better value from them , whereas being a runner on the main quest suggests you 'd be better off sticking to FPS titles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You couldn't have played Oblivion for long.
My character was hardly maxed out and I could destroy anything in the Arena with my bare hands.Again, you clearly missed most of Fallout3 if you didn't come across things in the wild that could take you out in two or three swipes, and your nukes would hardly scratch them.
Perhaps you should explore places and do side missions if you buy RPG games?
You'll get far better value from them, whereas being a runner on the main quest suggests you'd be better off sticking to FPS titles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732951</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>Arguendo</author>
	<datestamp>1255453680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always thought Nintendo had nailed the feeling of getting more powerful while still being challenged in games like Metroid and Zelda by showing players a lot of the level without letting them get to it.  Then on your second pass through the world, your new skills/tools allowed to you explore a lot more even while feeling challenged because the creatures were harder to kill.  By the time you took your third/fourth pass through the level, you were probably either flying (literally) or could use some kind of other tool to basically go anywhere you wanted to.  Definitely gave a sense of leveling up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought Nintendo had nailed the feeling of getting more powerful while still being challenged in games like Metroid and Zelda by showing players a lot of the level without letting them get to it .
Then on your second pass through the world , your new skills/tools allowed to you explore a lot more even while feeling challenged because the creatures were harder to kill .
By the time you took your third/fourth pass through the level , you were probably either flying ( literally ) or could use some kind of other tool to basically go anywhere you wanted to .
Definitely gave a sense of leveling up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought Nintendo had nailed the feeling of getting more powerful while still being challenged in games like Metroid and Zelda by showing players a lot of the level without letting them get to it.
Then on your second pass through the world, your new skills/tools allowed to you explore a lot more even while feeling challenged because the creatures were harder to kill.
By the time you took your third/fourth pass through the level, you were probably either flying (literally) or could use some kind of other tool to basically go anywhere you wanted to.
Definitely gave a sense of leveling up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733769</id>
	<title>Only one message in all of these comments</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1255457460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Make it easier, and keep the emphasis purely on rewards."</p><p>Don't make it so we have to use our brains.  Don't make it so that we have to do anything remotely challenging.  Just make everything utterly superficial, and over in 5 seconds flat.  We don't want to have to spend more than a minute on any single thing we do; our TV reared attention spans can't take it.  We also don't want anything that requires more than a 50+ IQ, because we don't have one.  For anyone who might want something minutely more interesting than Minesweeper, that's just too damn bad, because we want our cookie and bear and potty, and we want them RIGHT NOW, damn it; and if we don't get them, we're going to hold our breath until we turn blue.</p><p>Seriously, when did the human race degenerate into such perpetual, mindless infants?  How old are you people?  I get the feeling that what you'd probably consider the single greatest reward for getting through a game, (or anything else, for that matter) would be to find someone next to your chair with a clean nappy and a warm bottle fresh out of the microwave when you'd finished.  Either that or a pacifier.</p><p>It honestly looks as though the corporate goal has been entirely achieved, looking at this thread.  The only thing I'm seeing here is post after post written by servile, utterly dependent consumers.</p><p>I'm ashamed to be human, sometimes.  I don't want to be associated with this type of mentality, at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Make it easier , and keep the emphasis purely on rewards .
" Do n't make it so we have to use our brains .
Do n't make it so that we have to do anything remotely challenging .
Just make everything utterly superficial , and over in 5 seconds flat .
We do n't want to have to spend more than a minute on any single thing we do ; our TV reared attention spans ca n't take it .
We also do n't want anything that requires more than a 50 + IQ , because we do n't have one .
For anyone who might want something minutely more interesting than Minesweeper , that 's just too damn bad , because we want our cookie and bear and potty , and we want them RIGHT NOW , damn it ; and if we do n't get them , we 're going to hold our breath until we turn blue.Seriously , when did the human race degenerate into such perpetual , mindless infants ?
How old are you people ?
I get the feeling that what you 'd probably consider the single greatest reward for getting through a game , ( or anything else , for that matter ) would be to find someone next to your chair with a clean nappy and a warm bottle fresh out of the microwave when you 'd finished .
Either that or a pacifier.It honestly looks as though the corporate goal has been entirely achieved , looking at this thread .
The only thing I 'm seeing here is post after post written by servile , utterly dependent consumers.I 'm ashamed to be human , sometimes .
I do n't want to be associated with this type of mentality , at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Make it easier, and keep the emphasis purely on rewards.
"Don't make it so we have to use our brains.
Don't make it so that we have to do anything remotely challenging.
Just make everything utterly superficial, and over in 5 seconds flat.
We don't want to have to spend more than a minute on any single thing we do; our TV reared attention spans can't take it.
We also don't want anything that requires more than a 50+ IQ, because we don't have one.
For anyone who might want something minutely more interesting than Minesweeper, that's just too damn bad, because we want our cookie and bear and potty, and we want them RIGHT NOW, damn it; and if we don't get them, we're going to hold our breath until we turn blue.Seriously, when did the human race degenerate into such perpetual, mindless infants?
How old are you people?
I get the feeling that what you'd probably consider the single greatest reward for getting through a game, (or anything else, for that matter) would be to find someone next to your chair with a clean nappy and a warm bottle fresh out of the microwave when you'd finished.
Either that or a pacifier.It honestly looks as though the corporate goal has been entirely achieved, looking at this thread.
The only thing I'm seeing here is post after post written by servile, utterly dependent consumers.I'm ashamed to be human, sometimes.
I don't want to be associated with this type of mentality, at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733199</id>
	<title>Re:Yes and no and stuff</title>
	<author>asdf7890</author>
	<datestamp>1255454880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In my opinion though, I hate games that level up with me. I like the thought of an area in a game that will kick my arse because I am clearly not ready and at the same time, being able to go back to an 'early' area and kick them about if need be.</p></div><p>I like the way many modern FPSs manage difficulty: set level but you can at your option change them mid-game.</p><p>I play most games at "normal" levels - I'm no expert gamer but nor am I new at it either (I say most: I did find DeadSpace a bit too easy on "normal" so restarted it on the harder setting), but I like the fact that if I've banged my head on an area to the point where I'm getting irritated (and may just start thinking about not bothering any further) I can tone down the difficulty to get past that one boss/room/whatever to see the rest of the plot without lpaying the rest of the game at "no real challenge" level. This make little or no difference for brain-required puzzles (I wouldn't want it to) and some timing challenges, but it does mean that hitting on super-hard boss (perhaps while not fully powered up yourself because of an earlier mistake), some other test of twitch reflex, doesn't mean you are simply stuck, have to "cheat" by other means (like a level skip, which could mean missing more content than just that battle), or have to backtrack or go back to a save from hours ago.</p><p>This way *I* get to choose the level of difficulty, depending on my ability, my mood (sometimes I want to be kicked and will get great satisfaction from eventually winning, sometimes I just want to gib zombies, and so on), and, sometimes, the specifics of the challenge at hand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my opinion though , I hate games that level up with me .
I like the thought of an area in a game that will kick my arse because I am clearly not ready and at the same time , being able to go back to an 'early ' area and kick them about if need be.I like the way many modern FPSs manage difficulty : set level but you can at your option change them mid-game.I play most games at " normal " levels - I 'm no expert gamer but nor am I new at it either ( I say most : I did find DeadSpace a bit too easy on " normal " so restarted it on the harder setting ) , but I like the fact that if I 've banged my head on an area to the point where I 'm getting irritated ( and may just start thinking about not bothering any further ) I can tone down the difficulty to get past that one boss/room/whatever to see the rest of the plot without lpaying the rest of the game at " no real challenge " level .
This make little or no difference for brain-required puzzles ( I would n't want it to ) and some timing challenges , but it does mean that hitting on super-hard boss ( perhaps while not fully powered up yourself because of an earlier mistake ) , some other test of twitch reflex , does n't mean you are simply stuck , have to " cheat " by other means ( like a level skip , which could mean missing more content than just that battle ) , or have to backtrack or go back to a save from hours ago.This way * I * get to choose the level of difficulty , depending on my ability , my mood ( sometimes I want to be kicked and will get great satisfaction from eventually winning , sometimes I just want to gib zombies , and so on ) , and , sometimes , the specifics of the challenge at hand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my opinion though, I hate games that level up with me.
I like the thought of an area in a game that will kick my arse because I am clearly not ready and at the same time, being able to go back to an 'early' area and kick them about if need be.I like the way many modern FPSs manage difficulty: set level but you can at your option change them mid-game.I play most games at "normal" levels - I'm no expert gamer but nor am I new at it either (I say most: I did find DeadSpace a bit too easy on "normal" so restarted it on the harder setting), but I like the fact that if I've banged my head on an area to the point where I'm getting irritated (and may just start thinking about not bothering any further) I can tone down the difficulty to get past that one boss/room/whatever to see the rest of the plot without lpaying the rest of the game at "no real challenge" level.
This make little or no difference for brain-required puzzles (I wouldn't want it to) and some timing challenges, but it does mean that hitting on super-hard boss (perhaps while not fully powered up yourself because of an earlier mistake), some other test of twitch reflex, doesn't mean you are simply stuck, have to "cheat" by other means (like a level skip, which could mean missing more content than just that battle), or have to backtrack or go back to a save from hours ago.This way *I* get to choose the level of difficulty, depending on my ability, my mood (sometimes I want to be kicked and will get great satisfaction from eventually winning, sometimes I just want to gib zombies, and so on), and, sometimes, the specifics of the challenge at hand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734721</id>
	<title>1 Setting Pls</title>
	<author>anonix</author>
	<datestamp>1255461420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets go back to the OLD days when we used to play games that we still play today. All of nintendo had 2 settings.. 1 HARD and 2 Cheating... those games were all epic and made me want to get good at them to win. old PC games like X-com UFO defense even on easy its so hard.. but i love it cause I WANT to get good and see what happens next.

Its so annoying with games today where I can sit there and play mindlessly smashing a button. As you say mario Kart does not take skill its strategy dont fly light years ahead of everyone.

No matter what you pick Rubber band or an AI that learns from your moves if the game does not challenge you then why play it. If I can change it to easy then maybe I should just go play a spongebob game.

This era is mass producing gamers and if you dont challenge them and give them something to hold over other gamers then its not impressive. Make an Epic game that challenges the players and gets hard and harder as you play through.. start the game on easyish and then get harder and harder until you really gotta be good.. cause after you put 20 hours into a game you will put 20 hours just trying to get to the next part.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets go back to the OLD days when we used to play games that we still play today .
All of nintendo had 2 settings.. 1 HARD and 2 Cheating... those games were all epic and made me want to get good at them to win .
old PC games like X-com UFO defense even on easy its so hard.. but i love it cause I WANT to get good and see what happens next .
Its so annoying with games today where I can sit there and play mindlessly smashing a button .
As you say mario Kart does not take skill its strategy dont fly light years ahead of everyone .
No matter what you pick Rubber band or an AI that learns from your moves if the game does not challenge you then why play it .
If I can change it to easy then maybe I should just go play a spongebob game .
This era is mass producing gamers and if you dont challenge them and give them something to hold over other gamers then its not impressive .
Make an Epic game that challenges the players and gets hard and harder as you play through.. start the game on easyish and then get harder and harder until you really got ta be good.. cause after you put 20 hours into a game you will put 20 hours just trying to get to the next part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets go back to the OLD days when we used to play games that we still play today.
All of nintendo had 2 settings.. 1 HARD and 2 Cheating... those games were all epic and made me want to get good at them to win.
old PC games like X-com UFO defense even on easy its so hard.. but i love it cause I WANT to get good and see what happens next.
Its so annoying with games today where I can sit there and play mindlessly smashing a button.
As you say mario Kart does not take skill its strategy dont fly light years ahead of everyone.
No matter what you pick Rubber band or an AI that learns from your moves if the game does not challenge you then why play it.
If I can change it to easy then maybe I should just go play a spongebob game.
This era is mass producing gamers and if you dont challenge them and give them something to hold over other gamers then its not impressive.
Make an Epic game that challenges the players and gets hard and harder as you play through.. start the game on easyish and then get harder and harder until you really gotta be good.. cause after you put 20 hours into a game you will put 20 hours just trying to get to the next part.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29743057</id>
	<title>AI</title>
	<author>hellfish006</author>
	<datestamp>1255525800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wouldn't it just be smarter to develop a more sophisticated AI that responds like a human would?  Then not only are you pushing the limit for AI in games but also its useful research for robotics</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would n't it just be smarter to develop a more sophisticated AI that responds like a human would ?
Then not only are you pushing the limit for AI in games but also its useful research for robotics</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn't it just be smarter to develop a more sophisticated AI that responds like a human would?
Then not only are you pushing the limit for AI in games but also its useful research for robotics</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732395</id>
	<title>Depends</title>
	<author>Lord Lode</author>
	<datestamp>1255451160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think in the Mario Kart example, it's a good thing, in Oblivion not. In the Mario Kart example, it makes the game more challenging if you're doing good. In the Oblivion example, it means stats are meaningless, which sort of ruined the "leveling up" gameplay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think in the Mario Kart example , it 's a good thing , in Oblivion not .
In the Mario Kart example , it makes the game more challenging if you 're doing good .
In the Oblivion example , it means stats are meaningless , which sort of ruined the " leveling up " gameplay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think in the Mario Kart example, it's a good thing, in Oblivion not.
In the Mario Kart example, it makes the game more challenging if you're doing good.
In the Oblivion example, it means stats are meaningless, which sort of ruined the "leveling up" gameplay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29742837</id>
	<title>Adjust, but with a purpose</title>
	<author>jeffrlamb</author>
	<datestamp>1255523520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A good adjustment, in my mind, is one that allows lower skills to play the game with enjoyment for as long as it takes to obtain the skill with the game that an experienced gamer would have. <br>
The closest example I have is Rock Band (and it's a poor example, so follow with me)
Playing easy allows you to enjoy playing the game. If you suck, you could play easy forever and have fun. There is point though where you can't go any further with easy. You've obtained all the fans you are going to obtain. If you don't step it up to medium, you aren't going to go any further. Those other things will forever be outside your reach.<p>

If a game automatically adjusted to this dynamic, leaving it fun, but "slowing down" progress until the skill with the game was sufficient to progress to the end, instead of forcing the users into "pick easy or medium" that would be a great, immersion-enhancing, addition.</p><p>

The adjustments widely panned in the other comments (and I agree with) are adjustments that allow false satisfaction. It would suck if you could get every achievement in any game without being good at the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A good adjustment , in my mind , is one that allows lower skills to play the game with enjoyment for as long as it takes to obtain the skill with the game that an experienced gamer would have .
The closest example I have is Rock Band ( and it 's a poor example , so follow with me ) Playing easy allows you to enjoy playing the game .
If you suck , you could play easy forever and have fun .
There is point though where you ca n't go any further with easy .
You 've obtained all the fans you are going to obtain .
If you do n't step it up to medium , you are n't going to go any further .
Those other things will forever be outside your reach .
If a game automatically adjusted to this dynamic , leaving it fun , but " slowing down " progress until the skill with the game was sufficient to progress to the end , instead of forcing the users into " pick easy or medium " that would be a great , immersion-enhancing , addition .
The adjustments widely panned in the other comments ( and I agree with ) are adjustments that allow false satisfaction .
It would suck if you could get every achievement in any game without being good at the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A good adjustment, in my mind, is one that allows lower skills to play the game with enjoyment for as long as it takes to obtain the skill with the game that an experienced gamer would have.
The closest example I have is Rock Band (and it's a poor example, so follow with me)
Playing easy allows you to enjoy playing the game.
If you suck, you could play easy forever and have fun.
There is point though where you can't go any further with easy.
You've obtained all the fans you are going to obtain.
If you don't step it up to medium, you aren't going to go any further.
Those other things will forever be outside your reach.
If a game automatically adjusted to this dynamic, leaving it fun, but "slowing down" progress until the skill with the game was sufficient to progress to the end, instead of forcing the users into "pick easy or medium" that would be a great, immersion-enhancing, addition.
The adjustments widely panned in the other comments (and I agree with) are adjustments that allow false satisfaction.
It would suck if you could get every achievement in any game without being good at the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733285</id>
	<title>A negative variation of this kind of coding</title>
	<author>DementedOracle</author>
	<datestamp>1255455360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the idea of this type of adaptability in games is interesting, but one unfortunate instance of this kind of system is the searcher for Battle.net's Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. Every time you win, it will pair you at a greater disadvantage, whether this means you get an ally who has never played before, or an opponent who is exponentially better than you. Unless you're just an incredible player, you rarely win more than two or three games in a row. The system works in reverse when you lose. The consequence I notice is that the vast majority of players have records around 50\%, give or take 5\%, while a very small majority can keep a 80\%+ record, with very few players falling in between. It's incredibly unrewarding and frustrating, and leads many people to simply abuse the system by purposefully losing many games in a row before starting to play in earnest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the idea of this type of adaptability in games is interesting , but one unfortunate instance of this kind of system is the searcher for Battle.net 's Warcraft III : The Frozen Throne .
Every time you win , it will pair you at a greater disadvantage , whether this means you get an ally who has never played before , or an opponent who is exponentially better than you .
Unless you 're just an incredible player , you rarely win more than two or three games in a row .
The system works in reverse when you lose .
The consequence I notice is that the vast majority of players have records around 50 \ % , give or take 5 \ % , while a very small majority can keep a 80 \ % + record , with very few players falling in between .
It 's incredibly unrewarding and frustrating , and leads many people to simply abuse the system by purposefully losing many games in a row before starting to play in earnest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the idea of this type of adaptability in games is interesting, but one unfortunate instance of this kind of system is the searcher for Battle.net's Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne.
Every time you win, it will pair you at a greater disadvantage, whether this means you get an ally who has never played before, or an opponent who is exponentially better than you.
Unless you're just an incredible player, you rarely win more than two or three games in a row.
The system works in reverse when you lose.
The consequence I notice is that the vast majority of players have records around 50\%, give or take 5\%, while a very small majority can keep a 80\%+ record, with very few players falling in between.
It's incredibly unrewarding and frustrating, and leads many people to simply abuse the system by purposefully losing many games in a row before starting to play in earnest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733583</id>
	<title>Re:Less Grind, More Fun Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255456680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to recall that there was an MMO that implemented(or was planning on implementing) your first suggestion and only dropping party appropriate loot.  Unfortunately, I don't remember any more than that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall that there was an MMO that implemented ( or was planning on implementing ) your first suggestion and only dropping party appropriate loot .
Unfortunately , I do n't remember any more than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall that there was an MMO that implemented(or was planning on implementing) your first suggestion and only dropping party appropriate loot.
Unfortunately, I don't remember any more than that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733271</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer Zones or areas</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1255455300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The underlying issue with fantasy games is that they continue the legacy of D20 based systems.</p><p>You get an *exponential* progression of "skills" with level so there is a narrow window of enemies with close enough levels to yourself to be challenging but possible.  Everything past a couple levels lower will be so easy that you won't care to bother, and everything above a couple levels higher will be able to easily beat YOU, no matter how clever you are.  (you probably even have a "cleverness" stat that goes into the dice roll, rather than demonstrate actual ingenuity, too....)</p><p>The rate constant can, of course, be adjusted to make the window wider or not, but it still makes most of your progress vain.</p><p>Perhaps, an interesting game would do away with levels and enact some kind of "conservation of skills" such that you never really improve overall, instead becoming more specialized.  A sword that increases power maybe is heavy and cause you to need rest more often.  A really sharp dagger maybe decays quickly so you have to do frequent, costly maintenance.  That super stamina potion you took works great for a limited time period, is costly, interacts poorly with certain other potions, and if you take too many of them your character dies or becomes addicted. You get a bonus in casting time to your top moves based on relative frequency, but *every* move is on the list, so your run speed or punching ability suffers if you spend lots of time on healing spells.</p><p>As long as there is a cost to everything that balances out the benefits, you ought to be able to improve through adapting your skills and gear to your tactics and vice versa, while still having some openings for challenges from enemies of all levels.</p><p>I don't know.  It just seems that certain genres are kind of stagnating at the moment and need to drop some basic assumptions to move forward.  You're not going to beat WoW by making a WoW clone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The underlying issue with fantasy games is that they continue the legacy of D20 based systems.You get an * exponential * progression of " skills " with level so there is a narrow window of enemies with close enough levels to yourself to be challenging but possible .
Everything past a couple levels lower will be so easy that you wo n't care to bother , and everything above a couple levels higher will be able to easily beat YOU , no matter how clever you are .
( you probably even have a " cleverness " stat that goes into the dice roll , rather than demonstrate actual ingenuity , too.... ) The rate constant can , of course , be adjusted to make the window wider or not , but it still makes most of your progress vain.Perhaps , an interesting game would do away with levels and enact some kind of " conservation of skills " such that you never really improve overall , instead becoming more specialized .
A sword that increases power maybe is heavy and cause you to need rest more often .
A really sharp dagger maybe decays quickly so you have to do frequent , costly maintenance .
That super stamina potion you took works great for a limited time period , is costly , interacts poorly with certain other potions , and if you take too many of them your character dies or becomes addicted .
You get a bonus in casting time to your top moves based on relative frequency , but * every * move is on the list , so your run speed or punching ability suffers if you spend lots of time on healing spells.As long as there is a cost to everything that balances out the benefits , you ought to be able to improve through adapting your skills and gear to your tactics and vice versa , while still having some openings for challenges from enemies of all levels.I do n't know .
It just seems that certain genres are kind of stagnating at the moment and need to drop some basic assumptions to move forward .
You 're not going to beat WoW by making a WoW clone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The underlying issue with fantasy games is that they continue the legacy of D20 based systems.You get an *exponential* progression of "skills" with level so there is a narrow window of enemies with close enough levels to yourself to be challenging but possible.
Everything past a couple levels lower will be so easy that you won't care to bother, and everything above a couple levels higher will be able to easily beat YOU, no matter how clever you are.
(you probably even have a "cleverness" stat that goes into the dice roll, rather than demonstrate actual ingenuity, too....)The rate constant can, of course, be adjusted to make the window wider or not, but it still makes most of your progress vain.Perhaps, an interesting game would do away with levels and enact some kind of "conservation of skills" such that you never really improve overall, instead becoming more specialized.
A sword that increases power maybe is heavy and cause you to need rest more often.
A really sharp dagger maybe decays quickly so you have to do frequent, costly maintenance.
That super stamina potion you took works great for a limited time period, is costly, interacts poorly with certain other potions, and if you take too many of them your character dies or becomes addicted.
You get a bonus in casting time to your top moves based on relative frequency, but *every* move is on the list, so your run speed or punching ability suffers if you spend lots of time on healing spells.As long as there is a cost to everything that balances out the benefits, you ought to be able to improve through adapting your skills and gear to your tactics and vice versa, while still having some openings for challenges from enemies of all levels.I don't know.
It just seems that certain genres are kind of stagnating at the moment and need to drop some basic assumptions to move forward.
You're not going to beat WoW by making a WoW clone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734985</id>
	<title>Only when applicable</title>
	<author>^\_^x</author>
	<datestamp>1255462800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like all game design questions, it depends on whether or not the designer SHOULD make the game scale to you.</p><p>The World Ends With You for the DS is a great example - you can choose whatever attack types and styles suit you best. You can also turn up the difficulty to get better item drops. You basically tailor the game to your play style and change it as needed.</p><p>Touhou 6: Embodiment of Scarlet Devil on the other hand, will notice that you're doing well, and crank up the difficulty higher and higher until you die, basically only ensuring that you never see the end of the game. Brilliant, but not entirely unexpected for a game of its sort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like all game design questions , it depends on whether or not the designer SHOULD make the game scale to you.The World Ends With You for the DS is a great example - you can choose whatever attack types and styles suit you best .
You can also turn up the difficulty to get better item drops .
You basically tailor the game to your play style and change it as needed.Touhou 6 : Embodiment of Scarlet Devil on the other hand , will notice that you 're doing well , and crank up the difficulty higher and higher until you die , basically only ensuring that you never see the end of the game .
Brilliant , but not entirely unexpected for a game of its sort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like all game design questions, it depends on whether or not the designer SHOULD make the game scale to you.The World Ends With You for the DS is a great example - you can choose whatever attack types and styles suit you best.
You can also turn up the difficulty to get better item drops.
You basically tailor the game to your play style and change it as needed.Touhou 6: Embodiment of Scarlet Devil on the other hand, will notice that you're doing well, and crank up the difficulty higher and higher until you die, basically only ensuring that you never see the end of the game.
Brilliant, but not entirely unexpected for a game of its sort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732293</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>purpledinoz</author>
	<datestamp>1255450680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally, I would like to see computer AI to adapt. Otherwise, you find one flaw with the AI, and you can exploit it all you want. That's why I stopped playing single player games. Either the computer AI was too good, too easy, or too predictable. I still love playing Counter-Strike because playing against other human players is just more rewarding and challenging. If I find a hiding spot where I get 10 kills, the next round that same spot won't work. The fun is adapting to the other players, and the challenge of defeating the other players who are also adapting. Also, the teamwork aspect is something that you just can't have with computer AI. I can't foresee any computer AI responding to voice chat, like "Can anyone buy me a weapon? Please?".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I would like to see computer AI to adapt .
Otherwise , you find one flaw with the AI , and you can exploit it all you want .
That 's why I stopped playing single player games .
Either the computer AI was too good , too easy , or too predictable .
I still love playing Counter-Strike because playing against other human players is just more rewarding and challenging .
If I find a hiding spot where I get 10 kills , the next round that same spot wo n't work .
The fun is adapting to the other players , and the challenge of defeating the other players who are also adapting .
Also , the teamwork aspect is something that you just ca n't have with computer AI .
I ca n't foresee any computer AI responding to voice chat , like " Can anyone buy me a weapon ?
Please ? " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I would like to see computer AI to adapt.
Otherwise, you find one flaw with the AI, and you can exploit it all you want.
That's why I stopped playing single player games.
Either the computer AI was too good, too easy, or too predictable.
I still love playing Counter-Strike because playing against other human players is just more rewarding and challenging.
If I find a hiding spot where I get 10 kills, the next round that same spot won't work.
The fun is adapting to the other players, and the challenge of defeating the other players who are also adapting.
Also, the teamwork aspect is something that you just can't have with computer AI.
I can't foresee any computer AI responding to voice chat, like "Can anyone buy me a weapon?
Please?".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29739119</id>
	<title>One problem at a time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255437720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a wonderful and worthy task you're undertaking.  Yes, video games should adapt to the player's skill, but I think that BEFORE you address that issue, you have to either address or make a conscious decision to ignore another problem:</p><p>Make losing fun.</p><p>I play 2 games more than any others.  One, I play Unreal Tournament 3.  I always play singleplayer, and always in god mode.  Why?  Because there's nothing fun about losing or getting fragged and spending the next 5 minutes trying to get the rocket launcher and flak cannon before someone else does.  The other is Red Alert 3: Uprising which is singleplayer-only.  When playing that, I always play against easy AIs and I turtle.  A lot.  I discovered that if you can build a lot of units and keep yours alive while the AI bashes low tech units hopelessly against your defenses, victory is somewhat easy.  Why not risk losing my base and go for an early rush or another tactic?  Because losing is no fun whatsoever!</p><p>So, if you're going to make an adaptive AI, that's fine, but remember this.  If your game is too hard to win for any decent portion of the player base, you must do one of 2 things.  Either the AI must be easy to defeat at any skill level (though a little less easy for veterans) OR else it must be FUN to LOSE, and that's very hard to do.  In a game like MarioKart, coming in 3rd can still be fun so long as I take/lose second place a couple times and get to hit the person in first with a few red shells.  But in UT3, a loss is pretty much never fun (unless you camp a spawn point and point-blank flak people as they spawn, but they'll snipe you for that so fast it's not even funny...)  The point is, either losing has to be fun, or else losing has to be hard (i.e. only a total n00b can even possibly lose).  If losing is both easy and depressing, then the game is just one huge mountain and it's not FUN any more, and that's the whole point of ANY game - fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a wonderful and worthy task you 're undertaking .
Yes , video games should adapt to the player 's skill , but I think that BEFORE you address that issue , you have to either address or make a conscious decision to ignore another problem : Make losing fun.I play 2 games more than any others .
One , I play Unreal Tournament 3 .
I always play singleplayer , and always in god mode .
Why ? Because there 's nothing fun about losing or getting fragged and spending the next 5 minutes trying to get the rocket launcher and flak cannon before someone else does .
The other is Red Alert 3 : Uprising which is singleplayer-only .
When playing that , I always play against easy AIs and I turtle .
A lot .
I discovered that if you can build a lot of units and keep yours alive while the AI bashes low tech units hopelessly against your defenses , victory is somewhat easy .
Why not risk losing my base and go for an early rush or another tactic ?
Because losing is no fun whatsoever ! So , if you 're going to make an adaptive AI , that 's fine , but remember this .
If your game is too hard to win for any decent portion of the player base , you must do one of 2 things .
Either the AI must be easy to defeat at any skill level ( though a little less easy for veterans ) OR else it must be FUN to LOSE , and that 's very hard to do .
In a game like MarioKart , coming in 3rd can still be fun so long as I take/lose second place a couple times and get to hit the person in first with a few red shells .
But in UT3 , a loss is pretty much never fun ( unless you camp a spawn point and point-blank flak people as they spawn , but they 'll snipe you for that so fast it 's not even funny... ) The point is , either losing has to be fun , or else losing has to be hard ( i.e .
only a total n00b can even possibly lose ) .
If losing is both easy and depressing , then the game is just one huge mountain and it 's not FUN any more , and that 's the whole point of ANY game - fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a wonderful and worthy task you're undertaking.
Yes, video games should adapt to the player's skill, but I think that BEFORE you address that issue, you have to either address or make a conscious decision to ignore another problem:Make losing fun.I play 2 games more than any others.
One, I play Unreal Tournament 3.
I always play singleplayer, and always in god mode.
Why?  Because there's nothing fun about losing or getting fragged and spending the next 5 minutes trying to get the rocket launcher and flak cannon before someone else does.
The other is Red Alert 3: Uprising which is singleplayer-only.
When playing that, I always play against easy AIs and I turtle.
A lot.
I discovered that if you can build a lot of units and keep yours alive while the AI bashes low tech units hopelessly against your defenses, victory is somewhat easy.
Why not risk losing my base and go for an early rush or another tactic?
Because losing is no fun whatsoever!So, if you're going to make an adaptive AI, that's fine, but remember this.
If your game is too hard to win for any decent portion of the player base, you must do one of 2 things.
Either the AI must be easy to defeat at any skill level (though a little less easy for veterans) OR else it must be FUN to LOSE, and that's very hard to do.
In a game like MarioKart, coming in 3rd can still be fun so long as I take/lose second place a couple times and get to hit the person in first with a few red shells.
But in UT3, a loss is pretty much never fun (unless you camp a spawn point and point-blank flak people as they spawn, but they'll snipe you for that so fast it's not even funny...)  The point is, either losing has to be fun, or else losing has to be hard (i.e.
only a total n00b can even possibly lose).
If losing is both easy and depressing, then the game is just one huge mountain and it's not FUN any more, and that's the whole point of ANY game - fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732135</id>
	<title>It depends on the game?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255449840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is really going to depend on the game that you are developing. Adaptive elements of a game would certainly be appropriate for single player games or even multiplayer games with cooperative elements. When it comes to competitive multiplayer games however handicapping player skill through game mechanics will definitely come down to striking a balance between fun and reward.</p><p>Regarding the question posed however assuming you had two players of differing skill and were offering an equal reward then you should be using time as an additional cost for the under skilled players. For example, a simple RPG might award a piece of armour for slaying the dragon and rescuing the princess. A skilled player may be able to slay the dragon with little effort. An unskilled player may be unable to kill the dragon - unless they first collect a salve of fire protection. In the end both players received an equal reward however the skilled player did so faster and then has more time to invest into</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is really going to depend on the game that you are developing .
Adaptive elements of a game would certainly be appropriate for single player games or even multiplayer games with cooperative elements .
When it comes to competitive multiplayer games however handicapping player skill through game mechanics will definitely come down to striking a balance between fun and reward.Regarding the question posed however assuming you had two players of differing skill and were offering an equal reward then you should be using time as an additional cost for the under skilled players .
For example , a simple RPG might award a piece of armour for slaying the dragon and rescuing the princess .
A skilled player may be able to slay the dragon with little effort .
An unskilled player may be unable to kill the dragon - unless they first collect a salve of fire protection .
In the end both players received an equal reward however the skilled player did so faster and then has more time to invest into</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is really going to depend on the game that you are developing.
Adaptive elements of a game would certainly be appropriate for single player games or even multiplayer games with cooperative elements.
When it comes to competitive multiplayer games however handicapping player skill through game mechanics will definitely come down to striking a balance between fun and reward.Regarding the question posed however assuming you had two players of differing skill and were offering an equal reward then you should be using time as an additional cost for the under skilled players.
For example, a simple RPG might award a piece of armour for slaying the dragon and rescuing the princess.
A skilled player may be able to slay the dragon with little effort.
An unskilled player may be unable to kill the dragon - unless they first collect a salve of fire protection.
In the end both players received an equal reward however the skilled player did so faster and then has more time to invest into</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733059</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1255454280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Oblivion did it perfectly, with one gripe.</p><p>In Oblivion's system, you had a "easy - difficult" slider that influenced how the game auto-leveled opponents, so you could still create an extremely challenging game if you wanted, simply by sliding the bar all the way to the right. The default was in the middle, and if you put it on easy pretty much everything dies in one hit (i.e. boring.)</p><p>In older RPGs, if you wandered into an area the developers hadn't intended you to be yet, you just got nuked by the first random encounter you came across. That's no fun. At least with Oblivion, you can explore the whole map without being ganked.</p><p>(This is a complaint I have about a lot of MMOs, too: I like to explore. Just let me fucking explore without having to fight 46 monsters an hour or hitting a place I instantly die and I'd be happy! It's done that MMOs cater to people who like to RP, people who like to play PVP, people who like to craft... but if you like to just walk around? Nope.)</p><p>Anyway, the one exception to Oblivion is that the auto-leveling is kind of... weird. Some enemies, like goblins will remain decently tough the entire game, but others will hit a "cap" at some point and be really easy to beat-- even supposedly tough creatures like minotaurs. Also, highway robbers don't get the amounts they're trying to steal, so it's pretty ridiculous for them to accost you for 100 gold when they're wearing a full set of glass armor worth like 4000+ gold.</p><p>But all-in-all, Oblivion is my favorite RPG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Oblivion did it perfectly , with one gripe.In Oblivion 's system , you had a " easy - difficult " slider that influenced how the game auto-leveled opponents , so you could still create an extremely challenging game if you wanted , simply by sliding the bar all the way to the right .
The default was in the middle , and if you put it on easy pretty much everything dies in one hit ( i.e .
boring. ) In older RPGs , if you wandered into an area the developers had n't intended you to be yet , you just got nuked by the first random encounter you came across .
That 's no fun .
At least with Oblivion , you can explore the whole map without being ganked .
( This is a complaint I have about a lot of MMOs , too : I like to explore .
Just let me fucking explore without having to fight 46 monsters an hour or hitting a place I instantly die and I 'd be happy !
It 's done that MMOs cater to people who like to RP , people who like to play PVP , people who like to craft... but if you like to just walk around ?
Nope. ) Anyway , the one exception to Oblivion is that the auto-leveling is kind of... weird. Some enemies , like goblins will remain decently tough the entire game , but others will hit a " cap " at some point and be really easy to beat-- even supposedly tough creatures like minotaurs .
Also , highway robbers do n't get the amounts they 're trying to steal , so it 's pretty ridiculous for them to accost you for 100 gold when they 're wearing a full set of glass armor worth like 4000 + gold.But all-in-all , Oblivion is my favorite RPG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Oblivion did it perfectly, with one gripe.In Oblivion's system, you had a "easy - difficult" slider that influenced how the game auto-leveled opponents, so you could still create an extremely challenging game if you wanted, simply by sliding the bar all the way to the right.
The default was in the middle, and if you put it on easy pretty much everything dies in one hit (i.e.
boring.)In older RPGs, if you wandered into an area the developers hadn't intended you to be yet, you just got nuked by the first random encounter you came across.
That's no fun.
At least with Oblivion, you can explore the whole map without being ganked.
(This is a complaint I have about a lot of MMOs, too: I like to explore.
Just let me fucking explore without having to fight 46 monsters an hour or hitting a place I instantly die and I'd be happy!
It's done that MMOs cater to people who like to RP, people who like to play PVP, people who like to craft... but if you like to just walk around?
Nope.)Anyway, the one exception to Oblivion is that the auto-leveling is kind of... weird. Some enemies, like goblins will remain decently tough the entire game, but others will hit a "cap" at some point and be really easy to beat-- even supposedly tough creatures like minotaurs.
Also, highway robbers don't get the amounts they're trying to steal, so it's pretty ridiculous for them to accost you for 100 gold when they're wearing a full set of glass armor worth like 4000+ gold.But all-in-all, Oblivion is my favorite RPG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732121</id>
	<title>Embrace communism!</title>
	<author>beatsme</author>
	<datestamp>1255449780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the Mario Kart example is probably the most unique. The way that competition in MK racing works is heavily (read: enormously) influenced by the items you have, especially in the newest one where  a Bullet can send you from 8th to 1st.

The fact that the very mechanics of which item you receive is governed by your position in the race, is even more interesting because it's a kind of communism. The balancing aspect, being done in this way, is also highly transparent, as opposed to manipulating the AI of all the computer opponents which is completely unobservable (read: frustrating). At the same time, this kind of balancing works just as well when you translate it to Human vs. Human races. I think it's great because, as a handicap that works in all races so the good players have to keep on their toes, and the not so good players can still manage top-5 placement as they learn the ropes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Mario Kart example is probably the most unique .
The way that competition in MK racing works is heavily ( read : enormously ) influenced by the items you have , especially in the newest one where a Bullet can send you from 8th to 1st .
The fact that the very mechanics of which item you receive is governed by your position in the race , is even more interesting because it 's a kind of communism .
The balancing aspect , being done in this way , is also highly transparent , as opposed to manipulating the AI of all the computer opponents which is completely unobservable ( read : frustrating ) .
At the same time , this kind of balancing works just as well when you translate it to Human vs. Human races .
I think it 's great because , as a handicap that works in all races so the good players have to keep on their toes , and the not so good players can still manage top-5 placement as they learn the ropes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Mario Kart example is probably the most unique.
The way that competition in MK racing works is heavily (read: enormously) influenced by the items you have, especially in the newest one where  a Bullet can send you from 8th to 1st.
The fact that the very mechanics of which item you receive is governed by your position in the race, is even more interesting because it's a kind of communism.
The balancing aspect, being done in this way, is also highly transparent, as opposed to manipulating the AI of all the computer opponents which is completely unobservable (read: frustrating).
At the same time, this kind of balancing works just as well when you translate it to Human vs. Human races.
I think it's great because, as a handicap that works in all races so the good players have to keep on their toes, and the not so good players can still manage top-5 placement as they learn the ropes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732925</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>nametaken</author>
	<datestamp>1255453560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  Back in my day we levels that increased in difficulty and had some fancy games with "Easy", "Medium" and "Hard" settings.  And we LIKED it that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Back in my day we levels that increased in difficulty and had some fancy games with " Easy " , " Medium " and " Hard " settings .
And we LIKED it that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Back in my day we levels that increased in difficulty and had some fancy games with "Easy", "Medium" and "Hard" settings.
And we LIKED it that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735543</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>mobby\_6kl</author>
	<datestamp>1255465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, UT (at least '99) was pretty awesome for this. Not only were the bots pretty good on their own, but the ways in which you could change them as well were also very useful. Each bot had a personality which you could adjust as you wanted, so you could change things like aggression, accuracy, or, IIRC, jumpiness as well as some other stuff, for each AI player. Sadly, I don't think the later UT games had this possibility<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , UT ( at least '99 ) was pretty awesome for this .
Not only were the bots pretty good on their own , but the ways in which you could change them as well were also very useful .
Each bot had a personality which you could adjust as you wanted , so you could change things like aggression , accuracy , or , IIRC , jumpiness as well as some other stuff , for each AI player .
Sadly , I do n't think the later UT games had this possibility : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, UT (at least '99) was pretty awesome for this.
Not only were the bots pretty good on their own, but the ways in which you could change them as well were also very useful.
Each bot had a personality which you could adjust as you wanted, so you could change things like aggression, accuracy, or, IIRC, jumpiness as well as some other stuff, for each AI player.
Sadly, I don't think the later UT games had this possibility :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732765</id>
	<title>Make it different, not just harder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255452840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For something like an FPS, I'd like to see the "ramped up difficulty level" have:</p><ul>
<li>New, interesting enemies (not just tougher or smarter) that you don't see at the easy level</li><li>New twists in the story line. For example, this time before you reach the castle on foot, an earthquake opens a pit beneath you, and you have to fight your way through a tough underground level and enter the basement of the castle, which also changes the strategy for attacking it.</li><li>New weapons that you didn't get to use at the easy level.</li></ul><p>If the harder level is JUST harder, what's the point of replaying the game? But if there's a lot of undiscovered fun in the harder level, well, bring it on. That means more hours of fun in the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For something like an FPS , I 'd like to see the " ramped up difficulty level " have : New , interesting enemies ( not just tougher or smarter ) that you do n't see at the easy levelNew twists in the story line .
For example , this time before you reach the castle on foot , an earthquake opens a pit beneath you , and you have to fight your way through a tough underground level and enter the basement of the castle , which also changes the strategy for attacking it.New weapons that you did n't get to use at the easy level.If the harder level is JUST harder , what 's the point of replaying the game ?
But if there 's a lot of undiscovered fun in the harder level , well , bring it on .
That means more hours of fun in the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For something like an FPS, I'd like to see the "ramped up difficulty level" have:
New, interesting enemies (not just tougher or smarter) that you don't see at the easy levelNew twists in the story line.
For example, this time before you reach the castle on foot, an earthquake opens a pit beneath you, and you have to fight your way through a tough underground level and enter the basement of the castle, which also changes the strategy for attacking it.New weapons that you didn't get to use at the easy level.If the harder level is JUST harder, what's the point of replaying the game?
But if there's a lot of undiscovered fun in the harder level, well, bring it on.
That means more hours of fun in the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29742219</id>
	<title>Real challenge is procedural drama</title>
	<author>ScaledLizard</author>
	<datestamp>1255513920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adaptive content does not necessarily mean that difficulty changes. There is a reason why many games allow the player to change difficulty, and some players might welcome a hint that they wouldn't die as often on lower difficulty, but that may be as far as it should go.</p><p>On the other hand, what I miss in many games are several options to solve problems. Fallout does this in some cases, but the game still leaves me wondering how I should communicate my ideas to the game in other cases. And the answer is: probably even more complex scripts. Creating games as an open environment where problems can be solved by talking, thinking and shooting is difficult. And even if many might think that shooting is all that most people want anyway, and that it is easiest to program, people beyond 30 years might pay for that kind of entertainment.</p><p>Non-linear gameplay gets more difficult the more flexible the user's and AI's options are. I believe that many players would welcome new ideas here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adaptive content does not necessarily mean that difficulty changes .
There is a reason why many games allow the player to change difficulty , and some players might welcome a hint that they would n't die as often on lower difficulty , but that may be as far as it should go.On the other hand , what I miss in many games are several options to solve problems .
Fallout does this in some cases , but the game still leaves me wondering how I should communicate my ideas to the game in other cases .
And the answer is : probably even more complex scripts .
Creating games as an open environment where problems can be solved by talking , thinking and shooting is difficult .
And even if many might think that shooting is all that most people want anyway , and that it is easiest to program , people beyond 30 years might pay for that kind of entertainment.Non-linear gameplay gets more difficult the more flexible the user 's and AI 's options are .
I believe that many players would welcome new ideas here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adaptive content does not necessarily mean that difficulty changes.
There is a reason why many games allow the player to change difficulty, and some players might welcome a hint that they wouldn't die as often on lower difficulty, but that may be as far as it should go.On the other hand, what I miss in many games are several options to solve problems.
Fallout does this in some cases, but the game still leaves me wondering how I should communicate my ideas to the game in other cases.
And the answer is: probably even more complex scripts.
Creating games as an open environment where problems can be solved by talking, thinking and shooting is difficult.
And even if many might think that shooting is all that most people want anyway, and that it is easiest to program, people beyond 30 years might pay for that kind of entertainment.Non-linear gameplay gets more difficult the more flexible the user's and AI's options are.
I believe that many players would welcome new ideas here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732601</id>
	<title>Challenge</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1255452060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not about rewarding mediocrity, it's about keeping it challenging. If the game is too easy people stop playing. If the game is too hard people stop playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not about rewarding mediocrity , it 's about keeping it challenging .
If the game is too easy people stop playing .
If the game is too hard people stop playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not about rewarding mediocrity, it's about keeping it challenging.
If the game is too easy people stop playing.
If the game is too hard people stop playing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733559</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>COMON$</author>
	<datestamp>1255456500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be great, but just selecting easy, medium, hard isnt good enough.  I think what you are alluding to would be great, if I dont like a certain adaptation then I can turn it off. However, I find some of the most rewarding parts in a game are when I have been pounding on a scenario and am absolutely positive it is rigged and I figure it out...not sure if my willpower would be strong enough in those situations to overcome the desire to uncheck the box.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be great , but just selecting easy , medium , hard isnt good enough .
I think what you are alluding to would be great , if I dont like a certain adaptation then I can turn it off .
However , I find some of the most rewarding parts in a game are when I have been pounding on a scenario and am absolutely positive it is rigged and I figure it out...not sure if my willpower would be strong enough in those situations to overcome the desire to uncheck the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be great, but just selecting easy, medium, hard isnt good enough.
I think what you are alluding to would be great, if I dont like a certain adaptation then I can turn it off.
However, I find some of the most rewarding parts in a game are when I have been pounding on a scenario and am absolutely positive it is rigged and I figure it out...not sure if my willpower would be strong enough in those situations to overcome the desire to uncheck the box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735509</id>
	<title>It depends on the game and hwo it is done...</title>
	<author>TavisJohn</author>
	<datestamp>1255465260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some games I have played are just too hard.  Even on easy settings, it is nearly impossible to beat the game because there are just too many enemies.</p><p>What I would like to see is adaptive games...  But also have "Easy, Medium, Hard, Expert" levels of difficulties.  That way if I want it to be easy, I choose Easy, but the game will adapt if I am doing really well, or really poor.  However if I I am a fantastic gamer, and I choose hard or expert, then the game adapting to that would be a good way to keep expert gamers engaged.<br>And it could increase re-play ability of games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some games I have played are just too hard .
Even on easy settings , it is nearly impossible to beat the game because there are just too many enemies.What I would like to see is adaptive games... But also have " Easy , Medium , Hard , Expert " levels of difficulties .
That way if I want it to be easy , I choose Easy , but the game will adapt if I am doing really well , or really poor .
However if I I am a fantastic gamer , and I choose hard or expert , then the game adapting to that would be a good way to keep expert gamers engaged.And it could increase re-play ability of games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some games I have played are just too hard.
Even on easy settings, it is nearly impossible to beat the game because there are just too many enemies.What I would like to see is adaptive games...  But also have "Easy, Medium, Hard, Expert" levels of difficulties.
That way if I want it to be easy, I choose Easy, but the game will adapt if I am doing really well, or really poor.
However if I I am a fantastic gamer, and I choose hard or expert, then the game adapting to that would be a good way to keep expert gamers engaged.And it could increase re-play ability of games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733123</id>
	<title>Real life does not adjust to how much you suck.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255454580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This automatic adjustment is the reason I've stopped playing games. Real life does not adjust the world to how much you suck.</p><p>exp. If you suck at the game, and don't have the brains to outhink your opponent, there is no reason why the game world should be dumbed down just so that you can get to the next zone.</p><p>exp. If I can race faster than you, and you keep crashing, why should the game slow me down just cause you're a dumb epileptic that can't even steer?</p><p>This kind of dynamic difficulty adjustment just panders to the idiots of our society... in this case, it seems most of you people.</p><p>I'll stick with games coming from Russia, like Stalker, where if you don't have the skills, or the brains, or the equipment, you simply won't survive an encounter with the more powerful stalkers. Hey, if you want to quit because the game does not dumb down to suit your level of stupidity,... well, that's your problem. Everyone should populate the same gaming world, and just like in real life if you're better than your competitor, you should go further and be rewarded, the world should not bend backwards just because there are tards in the area...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This automatic adjustment is the reason I 've stopped playing games .
Real life does not adjust the world to how much you suck.exp .
If you suck at the game , and do n't have the brains to outhink your opponent , there is no reason why the game world should be dumbed down just so that you can get to the next zone.exp .
If I can race faster than you , and you keep crashing , why should the game slow me down just cause you 're a dumb epileptic that ca n't even steer ? This kind of dynamic difficulty adjustment just panders to the idiots of our society... in this case , it seems most of you people.I 'll stick with games coming from Russia , like Stalker , where if you do n't have the skills , or the brains , or the equipment , you simply wo n't survive an encounter with the more powerful stalkers .
Hey , if you want to quit because the game does not dumb down to suit your level of stupidity,... well , that 's your problem .
Everyone should populate the same gaming world , and just like in real life if you 're better than your competitor , you should go further and be rewarded , the world should not bend backwards just because there are tards in the area.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This automatic adjustment is the reason I've stopped playing games.
Real life does not adjust the world to how much you suck.exp.
If you suck at the game, and don't have the brains to outhink your opponent, there is no reason why the game world should be dumbed down just so that you can get to the next zone.exp.
If I can race faster than you, and you keep crashing, why should the game slow me down just cause you're a dumb epileptic that can't even steer?This kind of dynamic difficulty adjustment just panders to the idiots of our society... in this case, it seems most of you people.I'll stick with games coming from Russia, like Stalker, where if you don't have the skills, or the brains, or the equipment, you simply won't survive an encounter with the more powerful stalkers.
Hey, if you want to quit because the game does not dumb down to suit your level of stupidity,... well, that's your problem.
Everyone should populate the same gaming world, and just like in real life if you're better than your competitor, you should go further and be rewarded, the world should not bend backwards just because there are tards in the area...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732629</id>
	<title>Re:Enchance the fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't like this - my enemy should be as powerful as they are, regardless of my skills.  Instead, make it easy for me to obtain a marginal victory - but if I'm skillful, and play well, there should be additional goals that I can achieve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't like this - my enemy should be as powerful as they are , regardless of my skills .
Instead , make it easy for me to obtain a marginal victory - but if I 'm skillful , and play well , there should be additional goals that I can achieve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't like this - my enemy should be as powerful as they are, regardless of my skills.
Instead, make it easy for me to obtain a marginal victory - but if I'm skillful, and play well, there should be additional goals that I can achieve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734593</id>
	<title>The point of the game</title>
	<author>NoCowardsHere</author>
	<datestamp>1255460820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity (i.e. you don't get rewarded for playing well). Others would say that it restricts the freedom of expression for the game designer."</p><p>The point of a video game is NOT to reward greatness or maximize freedom of expression of the designer. The main point of most games these days is usually simply to be fun, but more generally, games as an artistic medium may aim to provide any sort of valuable experience. Rewarding mediocrity or limiting the designers' freedom of expression are only a problem if they get in the way of these goals. (It should be noted that working within a strict framework of limitations can even *increase* an artists' ability to express him/herself, but that's an essay [or book, or library] in and of itself.)</p><p>Many games which aim to be fun can be made more fun by adapting themselves to the player; hence, it's probably a good thing to do. However, as you point out, changing the difficulty is only one way the game may adapt; adapting to the player's gameplay style may be more difficult, but more rewarding. The adaptation may be integrated into the game's plot; consider the old Escape Velocity series, where a more combat-oriented player who attacks whenever he gets a chance will quickly make lots of enemies, and hence find himself with a lot more combat opportunities. On the other hand, a diplomat who focuses on trading may make a lot of friends, opening up extra trading opportunities.</p><p>Alternately, the adaptations may be more explicit; consider Spore, where a player who plays aggressively is rewarded with additional weapons and tools that add a bit of depth and fun to the combat side of the game; players who aim for a friendly or balanced strategy are given tools that directly enrich their own style of play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity ( i.e .
you do n't get rewarded for playing well ) .
Others would say that it restricts the freedom of expression for the game designer .
" The point of a video game is NOT to reward greatness or maximize freedom of expression of the designer .
The main point of most games these days is usually simply to be fun , but more generally , games as an artistic medium may aim to provide any sort of valuable experience .
Rewarding mediocrity or limiting the designers ' freedom of expression are only a problem if they get in the way of these goals .
( It should be noted that working within a strict framework of limitations can even * increase * an artists ' ability to express him/herself , but that 's an essay [ or book , or library ] in and of itself .
) Many games which aim to be fun can be made more fun by adapting themselves to the player ; hence , it 's probably a good thing to do .
However , as you point out , changing the difficulty is only one way the game may adapt ; adapting to the player 's gameplay style may be more difficult , but more rewarding .
The adaptation may be integrated into the game 's plot ; consider the old Escape Velocity series , where a more combat-oriented player who attacks whenever he gets a chance will quickly make lots of enemies , and hence find himself with a lot more combat opportunities .
On the other hand , a diplomat who focuses on trading may make a lot of friends , opening up extra trading opportunities.Alternately , the adaptations may be more explicit ; consider Spore , where a player who plays aggressively is rewarded with additional weapons and tools that add a bit of depth and fun to the combat side of the game ; players who aim for a friendly or balanced strategy are given tools that directly enrich their own style of play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity (i.e.
you don't get rewarded for playing well).
Others would say that it restricts the freedom of expression for the game designer.
"The point of a video game is NOT to reward greatness or maximize freedom of expression of the designer.
The main point of most games these days is usually simply to be fun, but more generally, games as an artistic medium may aim to provide any sort of valuable experience.
Rewarding mediocrity or limiting the designers' freedom of expression are only a problem if they get in the way of these goals.
(It should be noted that working within a strict framework of limitations can even *increase* an artists' ability to express him/herself, but that's an essay [or book, or library] in and of itself.
)Many games which aim to be fun can be made more fun by adapting themselves to the player; hence, it's probably a good thing to do.
However, as you point out, changing the difficulty is only one way the game may adapt; adapting to the player's gameplay style may be more difficult, but more rewarding.
The adaptation may be integrated into the game's plot; consider the old Escape Velocity series, where a more combat-oriented player who attacks whenever he gets a chance will quickly make lots of enemies, and hence find himself with a lot more combat opportunities.
On the other hand, a diplomat who focuses on trading may make a lot of friends, opening up extra trading opportunities.Alternately, the adaptations may be more explicit; consider Spore, where a player who plays aggressively is rewarded with additional weapons and tools that add a bit of depth and fun to the combat side of the game; players who aim for a friendly or balanced strategy are given tools that directly enrich their own style of play.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732615</id>
	<title>God of War Anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255452120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that adaptive difficulty would be sweet. Usually I find Normal/Medium too easy and Hard/er too hard. I will not even touch Easy difficulty levels they are just a waste of my time. I find this happens too often. Take God of War for example Easy is a joke, Medium is just barely challenging and Hard and Very Hard? Well, let us just say "eff you developers!" I do not want a game to be ridiculously difficult but I do not want it too easy either. If a game got harder as I did better and easier when I did not that would be ideal, at least for me. I do believe God of War had some of that for I noticed that after repeated game overs I always got slightly more health back each time I restarted from a checkpoint. And let us not forget the Devil May Crys, by the gods were they difficult! I do not want to have to "work" at a game to become decent enough to enjoy it. I know I cannot master every game when I pick it up; it is acceptable to have some "orientation" time. I feel that adaptive difficulty would be enjoyable. A set difficulty of Hard may not be Hard to some, yet too hard for others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that adaptive difficulty would be sweet .
Usually I find Normal/Medium too easy and Hard/er too hard .
I will not even touch Easy difficulty levels they are just a waste of my time .
I find this happens too often .
Take God of War for example Easy is a joke , Medium is just barely challenging and Hard and Very Hard ?
Well , let us just say " eff you developers !
" I do not want a game to be ridiculously difficult but I do not want it too easy either .
If a game got harder as I did better and easier when I did not that would be ideal , at least for me .
I do believe God of War had some of that for I noticed that after repeated game overs I always got slightly more health back each time I restarted from a checkpoint .
And let us not forget the Devil May Crys , by the gods were they difficult !
I do not want to have to " work " at a game to become decent enough to enjoy it .
I know I can not master every game when I pick it up ; it is acceptable to have some " orientation " time .
I feel that adaptive difficulty would be enjoyable .
A set difficulty of Hard may not be Hard to some , yet too hard for others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that adaptive difficulty would be sweet.
Usually I find Normal/Medium too easy and Hard/er too hard.
I will not even touch Easy difficulty levels they are just a waste of my time.
I find this happens too often.
Take God of War for example Easy is a joke, Medium is just barely challenging and Hard and Very Hard?
Well, let us just say "eff you developers!
" I do not want a game to be ridiculously difficult but I do not want it too easy either.
If a game got harder as I did better and easier when I did not that would be ideal, at least for me.
I do believe God of War had some of that for I noticed that after repeated game overs I always got slightly more health back each time I restarted from a checkpoint.
And let us not forget the Devil May Crys, by the gods were they difficult!
I do not want to have to "work" at a game to become decent enough to enjoy it.
I know I cannot master every game when I pick it up; it is acceptable to have some "orientation" time.
I feel that adaptive difficulty would be enjoyable.
A set difficulty of Hard may not be Hard to some, yet too hard for others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736025</id>
	<title>Facial animation</title>
	<author>mcoletti</author>
	<datestamp>1255467360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an aside I thought that Bioshock addressed the facial animation problem with a clever hack: have the agents wear masquerade masks.  No visible face!  No need for animations!  (And they even managed to make it fit into the back story.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As an aside I thought that Bioshock addressed the facial animation problem with a clever hack : have the agents wear masquerade masks .
No visible face !
No need for animations !
( And they even managed to make it fit into the back story .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an aside I thought that Bioshock addressed the facial animation problem with a clever hack: have the agents wear masquerade masks.
No visible face!
No need for animations!
(And they even managed to make it fit into the back story.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735669</id>
	<title>Auto tune based on preferences?</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1255465860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, why not design the auto-tune so that it's based on your skill difficulty selection?</p><p>On easy, the auto tune could reduce the difficulty of enemies when you start slowing down, allowing you to blow through the game at a relatively quick pace. It should ramp the difficulty back up only when things are getting trivially easy.</p><p>On normal, it should keep the game constantly challenging, but not difficult. The player should be able have to work, but not too hard.</p><p>On hard mode, the game should provide a constant challenge.</p><p>A game that I think would benefit from a dynamic difficulty curve would be Far Cry 2 - it has a huge open world, where it's possible to sneak around enemy checkpoints, and take multiple approaches to achieving objectives; E.g.: Assult a base with rockets, morters, or grenades and then run in guns blazing... Or set the camp on fire using a flare gun and a shoot the enemy when they try to escape... Or to pick off unsuspecting foes with a dart gun, and then finish off any remaining troops with a silenced MP5.</p><p>It would be nice to see the enemy respond by changing their tactics along with yours - for instance, deploying counter-snipers and taking cover as you build a reputation for sniping their position, or spreading out and posting patrols to counter the explosive approach.</p><p>In a game like that, it's too easy to adapt a single tactic that works in most any situation, and the only change in approach needed is based on environmental factors - sniping and fire isn't as effective in the jungle, and running in guns blazing doesn't work very well in the desert.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , why not design the auto-tune so that it 's based on your skill difficulty selection ? On easy , the auto tune could reduce the difficulty of enemies when you start slowing down , allowing you to blow through the game at a relatively quick pace .
It should ramp the difficulty back up only when things are getting trivially easy.On normal , it should keep the game constantly challenging , but not difficult .
The player should be able have to work , but not too hard.On hard mode , the game should provide a constant challenge.A game that I think would benefit from a dynamic difficulty curve would be Far Cry 2 - it has a huge open world , where it 's possible to sneak around enemy checkpoints , and take multiple approaches to achieving objectives ; E.g .
: Assult a base with rockets , morters , or grenades and then run in guns blazing... Or set the camp on fire using a flare gun and a shoot the enemy when they try to escape... Or to pick off unsuspecting foes with a dart gun , and then finish off any remaining troops with a silenced MP5.It would be nice to see the enemy respond by changing their tactics along with yours - for instance , deploying counter-snipers and taking cover as you build a reputation for sniping their position , or spreading out and posting patrols to counter the explosive approach.In a game like that , it 's too easy to adapt a single tactic that works in most any situation , and the only change in approach needed is based on environmental factors - sniping and fire is n't as effective in the jungle , and running in guns blazing does n't work very well in the desert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, why not design the auto-tune so that it's based on your skill difficulty selection?On easy, the auto tune could reduce the difficulty of enemies when you start slowing down, allowing you to blow through the game at a relatively quick pace.
It should ramp the difficulty back up only when things are getting trivially easy.On normal, it should keep the game constantly challenging, but not difficult.
The player should be able have to work, but not too hard.On hard mode, the game should provide a constant challenge.A game that I think would benefit from a dynamic difficulty curve would be Far Cry 2 - it has a huge open world, where it's possible to sneak around enemy checkpoints, and take multiple approaches to achieving objectives; E.g.
: Assult a base with rockets, morters, or grenades and then run in guns blazing... Or set the camp on fire using a flare gun and a shoot the enemy when they try to escape... Or to pick off unsuspecting foes with a dart gun, and then finish off any remaining troops with a silenced MP5.It would be nice to see the enemy respond by changing their tactics along with yours - for instance, deploying counter-snipers and taking cover as you build a reputation for sniping their position, or spreading out and posting patrols to counter the explosive approach.In a game like that, it's too easy to adapt a single tactic that works in most any situation, and the only change in approach needed is based on environmental factors - sniping and fire isn't as effective in the jungle, and running in guns blazing doesn't work very well in the desert.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734705</id>
	<title>More on "rewards mediocrity."</title>
	<author>Lemmy Caution</author>
	<datestamp>1255461360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that adaptive difficulty "rewards mediocrity" reveals a huge crate full of bad thinking - as if videogames are a meritocracy meant to reward the skilled few and cull the weak from the herd! To me, that's a sentiment that would come from a very game-obsessed 7th grader, whose Xbox achievements meant more to him than anything else the world could possibly offer. It earns and gets derision all around.</p><p>More importantly, it is trivially easy to create challenges that are insurmountable. Pretty much all computer-based challenges are handicapped to give players a chance.</p><p>A more interesting question is whether and when multiplayer games should provide positive and negative feedback loops: when you're winning, should the game get harder for you and easier for your opponents (Mario Kart?) Or should it race to its conclusion, letting a won-game be won and allowing for the next one to start quickly (Risk?) There are advantages to either design concept, and playtesting is the best way to figure out which works for your game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that adaptive difficulty " rewards mediocrity " reveals a huge crate full of bad thinking - as if videogames are a meritocracy meant to reward the skilled few and cull the weak from the herd !
To me , that 's a sentiment that would come from a very game-obsessed 7th grader , whose Xbox achievements meant more to him than anything else the world could possibly offer .
It earns and gets derision all around.More importantly , it is trivially easy to create challenges that are insurmountable .
Pretty much all computer-based challenges are handicapped to give players a chance.A more interesting question is whether and when multiplayer games should provide positive and negative feedback loops : when you 're winning , should the game get harder for you and easier for your opponents ( Mario Kart ?
) Or should it race to its conclusion , letting a won-game be won and allowing for the next one to start quickly ( Risk ?
) There are advantages to either design concept , and playtesting is the best way to figure out which works for your game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that adaptive difficulty "rewards mediocrity" reveals a huge crate full of bad thinking - as if videogames are a meritocracy meant to reward the skilled few and cull the weak from the herd!
To me, that's a sentiment that would come from a very game-obsessed 7th grader, whose Xbox achievements meant more to him than anything else the world could possibly offer.
It earns and gets derision all around.More importantly, it is trivially easy to create challenges that are insurmountable.
Pretty much all computer-based challenges are handicapped to give players a chance.A more interesting question is whether and when multiplayer games should provide positive and negative feedback loops: when you're winning, should the game get harder for you and easier for your opponents (Mario Kart?
) Or should it race to its conclusion, letting a won-game be won and allowing for the next one to start quickly (Risk?
) There are advantages to either design concept, and playtesting is the best way to figure out which works for your game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738715</id>
	<title>Re:Less Grind, More Fun Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255435020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Problem is that sometimes you kill for better gear for your alt. An even bigger problem is that "custom experience" quickly becomes very exploitable, as players quicly undertands the algorithms. But with care, maybe something like it is possible. For now, it seems a challenge enough to balance static content though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is that sometimes you kill for better gear for your alt .
An even bigger problem is that " custom experience " quickly becomes very exploitable , as players quicly undertands the algorithms .
But with care , maybe something like it is possible .
For now , it seems a challenge enough to balance static content though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is that sometimes you kill for better gear for your alt.
An even bigger problem is that "custom experience" quickly becomes very exploitable, as players quicly undertands the algorithms.
But with care, maybe something like it is possible.
For now, it seems a challenge enough to balance static content though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731803</id>
	<title>just tech.</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1255448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adapting the game is just tech, its how you use it that makes the game better worse.<br>Notice that I kill the grunts like noobs, unless you send more than 5 in at a time, then decide to send them in in groups of 6-10 = good<br>Notice that I'm simple too much of a noob to kill 11, stop sending in 11 = questionable but it will make the game more enjoyable for many (maybe in hard mode just make me suffer)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity (i.e. you don't get rewarded for playing well)</p></div><p>So easy mode makes the game worse? IMO no, it lets players choose the game THEY want to play, only so many of us can give the boses infinite health and still win!</p><p>OFC i hope the tech is much more interesting that just adding/removing grunts, but basically giving game developers more options is always good (yes even flash), but it can lead to some crappy game if used badly (yes especially flash)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adapting the game is just tech , its how you use it that makes the game better worse.Notice that I kill the grunts like noobs , unless you send more than 5 in at a time , then decide to send them in in groups of 6-10 = goodNotice that I 'm simple too much of a noob to kill 11 , stop sending in 11 = questionable but it will make the game more enjoyable for many ( maybe in hard mode just make me suffer ) Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity ( i.e .
you do n't get rewarded for playing well ) So easy mode makes the game worse ?
IMO no , it lets players choose the game THEY want to play , only so many of us can give the boses infinite health and still win ! OFC i hope the tech is much more interesting that just adding/removing grunts , but basically giving game developers more options is always good ( yes even flash ) , but it can lead to some crappy game if used badly ( yes especially flash )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adapting the game is just tech, its how you use it that makes the game better worse.Notice that I kill the grunts like noobs, unless you send more than 5 in at a time, then decide to send them in in groups of 6-10 = goodNotice that I'm simple too much of a noob to kill 11, stop sending in 11 = questionable but it will make the game more enjoyable for many (maybe in hard mode just make me suffer)Some people would claim that adapting the game to you just rewards mediocrity (i.e.
you don't get rewarded for playing well)So easy mode makes the game worse?
IMO no, it lets players choose the game THEY want to play, only so many of us can give the boses infinite health and still win!OFC i hope the tech is much more interesting that just adding/removing grunts, but basically giving game developers more options is always good (yes even flash), but it can lead to some crappy game if used badly (yes especially flash)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733409</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>elfprince13</author>
	<datestamp>1255455840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only configurable? Did no one else immediately thing of the Fantasy Game and how it responded to Ender's needs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only configurable ?
Did no one else immediately thing of the Fantasy Game and how it responded to Ender 's needs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only configurable?
Did no one else immediately thing of the Fantasy Game and how it responded to Ender's needs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732535</id>
	<title>Zanac Did It</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it was pretty awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it was pretty awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it was pretty awesome.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734105</id>
	<title>Not a good idea, and here's why.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255458780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to play Mario Kart 64 a lot. It was a fun game, but the AI opponents had a habbit of getting random speed boosts to magically catch up to you, no matter how many shells/bananas you hit them with. This detracted from the game experience IMO.</p><p>In the SNES version,you could target one specific AI opponent and completely ruin their race. They wouldn't miraculously catch up. It was great!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to play Mario Kart 64 a lot .
It was a fun game , but the AI opponents had a habbit of getting random speed boosts to magically catch up to you , no matter how many shells/bananas you hit them with .
This detracted from the game experience IMO.In the SNES version,you could target one specific AI opponent and completely ruin their race .
They would n't miraculously catch up .
It was great !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to play Mario Kart 64 a lot.
It was a fun game, but the AI opponents had a habbit of getting random speed boosts to magically catch up to you, no matter how many shells/bananas you hit them with.
This detracted from the game experience IMO.In the SNES version,you could target one specific AI opponent and completely ruin their race.
They wouldn't miraculously catch up.
It was great!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735573</id>
	<title>UT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255465440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unreal Tournament 3 ftw. Bot skill levels plus toggle skill-adapt on/off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unreal Tournament 3 ftw .
Bot skill levels plus toggle skill-adapt on/off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unreal Tournament 3 ftw.
Bot skill levels plus toggle skill-adapt on/off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29742049</id>
	<title>sure why not?</title>
	<author>jumagoca78</author>
	<datestamp>1255512000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do like video games but I do not have the time anymore to stay days trying to find my way through a labyrinth. Some guidance would be nice for those who just want to have fun without wasting time or getting frustrated with a game. Grandparents who would like to share time with their kids playing video games, for example mario bross, died just by trying to do the &ldquo;simplest&rdquo; action, for instance jump over a turtle. Super powers, eternal life, why not? I do not thing that is cheating is just another way to enjoy the game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do like video games but I do not have the time anymore to stay days trying to find my way through a labyrinth .
Some guidance would be nice for those who just want to have fun without wasting time or getting frustrated with a game .
Grandparents who would like to share time with their kids playing video games , for example mario bross , died just by trying to do the    simplest    action , for instance jump over a turtle .
Super powers , eternal life , why not ?
I do not thing that is cheating is just another way to enjoy the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do like video games but I do not have the time anymore to stay days trying to find my way through a labyrinth.
Some guidance would be nice for those who just want to have fun without wasting time or getting frustrated with a game.
Grandparents who would like to share time with their kids playing video games, for example mario bross, died just by trying to do the “simplest” action, for instance jump over a turtle.
Super powers, eternal life, why not?
I do not thing that is cheating is just another way to enjoy the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731823</id>
	<title>Less Jews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255448640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are too many Jews in the Mario games.</p><p>Koopa Troopas, Ghosts, those little shelled spikey things, the fucking plants that come out of the pipes. All Jews.</p><p>Just like everything else, Mario games would be alot better without the Jews.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are too many Jews in the Mario games.Koopa Troopas , Ghosts , those little shelled spikey things , the fucking plants that come out of the pipes .
All Jews.Just like everything else , Mario games would be alot better without the Jews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are too many Jews in the Mario games.Koopa Troopas, Ghosts, those little shelled spikey things, the fucking plants that come out of the pipes.
All Jews.Just like everything else, Mario games would be alot better without the Jews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736401</id>
	<title>Some players like it that way</title>
	<author>jc42</author>
	<datestamp>1255425720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first thought on reading the summary was that it sounded a lot like the local chess and go competitions when I was in high school (a few decades ago, before computer games were common).  I was one of the top players.  I didn't much get that way by reading a lot of chess strategy books or by beating a lot of novices.  I did it by consciously deciding that I liked losing better.  That is, I challenged players who were better than I was.  They usually learned to try each trick on me just once, because the second time I'd have worked out a reply.  Also, from then on, they had to look out for the same trick from me.</p><p>Nowadays, I don't play many computer games.  But if I decide to take it up, it'll be because of access to slowly-increasing challenges.  If a game doesn't behave as described here, I'll get bored with it fast and go looking for something that's more interesting.</p><p>Actually, part of the reasons for getting out of games is that I realized that software development is a kind of game that you can get paid well for.  The basic setup is:  When you get the recalcitrant little beastie to do what you want, you get points (and possibly a raise for the next project).  When the designers of the system (OS, runtime libs, compilers, data designers, whatever) trick you and the machine interprets your code differently than you expected, the people responsible for the system code get points (and possibly a good position building the next release of the system<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-).  A good programmer is one who can win at this game against the system designers.</p><p>So as a programmer, you're constantly challenged by the new challenges that are hiding out in the latest releases of the systems that you're programming for.  You really are playing against some of the brightest human opponents on the planet.  It's a much more interesting and challenging computer game than anything actually advertised as a game.</p><p>I've described this theory to a number of bosses in the past.  One of them chuckled, and explained that this was probably why I hadn't ever "graduated" into management.  He'd seen my code, and it was too clear and well-documented to ever be a good player on the "system" team in the game.  The other programmers wouldn't face the challenges they expected from my code, so it was obvious that I wouldn't be welcome on the other team.  So I chuckled to, and told him that I was happy playing for my current team.  I got to build things that users actually use, which was a nice bennie.  Sometimes they've even paid me for copies of my code, while people only pay for "systems" code because they have to for the machine to be usable.  We both thought it was all pretty funny.  But maybe this was partly because we were both paid pretty well to play.</p><p>For some reason many "system" programmers don't seem to appreciate this characterization of the software industry<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought on reading the summary was that it sounded a lot like the local chess and go competitions when I was in high school ( a few decades ago , before computer games were common ) .
I was one of the top players .
I did n't much get that way by reading a lot of chess strategy books or by beating a lot of novices .
I did it by consciously deciding that I liked losing better .
That is , I challenged players who were better than I was .
They usually learned to try each trick on me just once , because the second time I 'd have worked out a reply .
Also , from then on , they had to look out for the same trick from me.Nowadays , I do n't play many computer games .
But if I decide to take it up , it 'll be because of access to slowly-increasing challenges .
If a game does n't behave as described here , I 'll get bored with it fast and go looking for something that 's more interesting.Actually , part of the reasons for getting out of games is that I realized that software development is a kind of game that you can get paid well for .
The basic setup is : When you get the recalcitrant little beastie to do what you want , you get points ( and possibly a raise for the next project ) .
When the designers of the system ( OS , runtime libs , compilers , data designers , whatever ) trick you and the machine interprets your code differently than you expected , the people responsible for the system code get points ( and possibly a good position building the next release of the system ; - ) .
A good programmer is one who can win at this game against the system designers.So as a programmer , you 're constantly challenged by the new challenges that are hiding out in the latest releases of the systems that you 're programming for .
You really are playing against some of the brightest human opponents on the planet .
It 's a much more interesting and challenging computer game than anything actually advertised as a game.I 've described this theory to a number of bosses in the past .
One of them chuckled , and explained that this was probably why I had n't ever " graduated " into management .
He 'd seen my code , and it was too clear and well-documented to ever be a good player on the " system " team in the game .
The other programmers would n't face the challenges they expected from my code , so it was obvious that I would n't be welcome on the other team .
So I chuckled to , and told him that I was happy playing for my current team .
I got to build things that users actually use , which was a nice bennie .
Sometimes they 've even paid me for copies of my code , while people only pay for " systems " code because they have to for the machine to be usable .
We both thought it was all pretty funny .
But maybe this was partly because we were both paid pretty well to play.For some reason many " system " programmers do n't seem to appreciate this characterization of the software industry .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought on reading the summary was that it sounded a lot like the local chess and go competitions when I was in high school (a few decades ago, before computer games were common).
I was one of the top players.
I didn't much get that way by reading a lot of chess strategy books or by beating a lot of novices.
I did it by consciously deciding that I liked losing better.
That is, I challenged players who were better than I was.
They usually learned to try each trick on me just once, because the second time I'd have worked out a reply.
Also, from then on, they had to look out for the same trick from me.Nowadays, I don't play many computer games.
But if I decide to take it up, it'll be because of access to slowly-increasing challenges.
If a game doesn't behave as described here, I'll get bored with it fast and go looking for something that's more interesting.Actually, part of the reasons for getting out of games is that I realized that software development is a kind of game that you can get paid well for.
The basic setup is:  When you get the recalcitrant little beastie to do what you want, you get points (and possibly a raise for the next project).
When the designers of the system (OS, runtime libs, compilers, data designers, whatever) trick you and the machine interprets your code differently than you expected, the people responsible for the system code get points (and possibly a good position building the next release of the system ;-).
A good programmer is one who can win at this game against the system designers.So as a programmer, you're constantly challenged by the new challenges that are hiding out in the latest releases of the systems that you're programming for.
You really are playing against some of the brightest human opponents on the planet.
It's a much more interesting and challenging computer game than anything actually advertised as a game.I've described this theory to a number of bosses in the past.
One of them chuckled, and explained that this was probably why I hadn't ever "graduated" into management.
He'd seen my code, and it was too clear and well-documented to ever be a good player on the "system" team in the game.
The other programmers wouldn't face the challenges they expected from my code, so it was obvious that I wouldn't be welcome on the other team.
So I chuckled to, and told him that I was happy playing for my current team.
I got to build things that users actually use, which was a nice bennie.
Sometimes they've even paid me for copies of my code, while people only pay for "systems" code because they have to for the machine to be usable.
We both thought it was all pretty funny.
But maybe this was partly because we were both paid pretty well to play.For some reason many "system" programmers don't seem to appreciate this characterization of the software industry ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29749465</id>
	<title>Realistic AI?</title>
	<author>rawr\_one</author>
	<datestamp>1255512300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always felt that games need to adapt more realistic AI that adapts to the players actions as they go on.  I fully understand that what I'm about to describe is an incredibly complicated system that would be pretty difficult to implement, but it does seem like a good guide to go by.</p><p>Say I'm playing Splinter Cell.  I've been going pretty stealthy throughout this mission, and the guards should be getting more and more wary of this, paying more attention to air vents, shadowy areas, et cetera.  Because of this, they're leaving the more bombastic pathways a little bit less guarded, meaning I could tear in through the front door, guns blazing, taking them completely by surprise.  Or, if I have a history of disabling people in a particular way, the guards could start protecting themselves from those particular attacks.</p><p>Maybe I'm just crazy, but I think this seems entirely reasonable!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always felt that games need to adapt more realistic AI that adapts to the players actions as they go on .
I fully understand that what I 'm about to describe is an incredibly complicated system that would be pretty difficult to implement , but it does seem like a good guide to go by.Say I 'm playing Splinter Cell .
I 've been going pretty stealthy throughout this mission , and the guards should be getting more and more wary of this , paying more attention to air vents , shadowy areas , et cetera .
Because of this , they 're leaving the more bombastic pathways a little bit less guarded , meaning I could tear in through the front door , guns blazing , taking them completely by surprise .
Or , if I have a history of disabling people in a particular way , the guards could start protecting themselves from those particular attacks.Maybe I 'm just crazy , but I think this seems entirely reasonable !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always felt that games need to adapt more realistic AI that adapts to the players actions as they go on.
I fully understand that what I'm about to describe is an incredibly complicated system that would be pretty difficult to implement, but it does seem like a good guide to go by.Say I'm playing Splinter Cell.
I've been going pretty stealthy throughout this mission, and the guards should be getting more and more wary of this, paying more attention to air vents, shadowy areas, et cetera.
Because of this, they're leaving the more bombastic pathways a little bit less guarded, meaning I could tear in through the front door, guns blazing, taking them completely by surprise.
Or, if I have a history of disabling people in a particular way, the guards could start protecting themselves from those particular attacks.Maybe I'm just crazy, but I think this seems entirely reasonable!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732621</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1255452180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree completely with this. Another problem with upping the AI "skill" is that AI simply isn't good enough yet, leaving the player with the feeling the computer is cheating (because it is). Take Civilization for example, on the higher difficulty levels the AI players simply get access to technology and units impossibly fast. If your AI has the advantage simply by violating the in-game rules players have to follow you will end up with an unrewarding experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree completely with this .
Another problem with upping the AI " skill " is that AI simply is n't good enough yet , leaving the player with the feeling the computer is cheating ( because it is ) .
Take Civilization for example , on the higher difficulty levels the AI players simply get access to technology and units impossibly fast .
If your AI has the advantage simply by violating the in-game rules players have to follow you will end up with an unrewarding experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree completely with this.
Another problem with upping the AI "skill" is that AI simply isn't good enough yet, leaving the player with the feeling the computer is cheating (because it is).
Take Civilization for example, on the higher difficulty levels the AI players simply get access to technology and units impossibly fast.
If your AI has the advantage simply by violating the in-game rules players have to follow you will end up with an unrewarding experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732359</id>
	<title>Yes and no and stuff</title>
	<author>DeanLearner</author>
	<datestamp>1255450920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone from the UK see the recent episode of Gameswipe?

Dara O Briain had a rant where he discussed why he should be made to work to earn the game content when he's bought it. He used the analogy "When you finish reading a chapter in a book, you aren't made to prove your understanding of it before you can move to the next one. It's my book, if I want to go to the last page, I can. Why can't I do that in a game?" (or words to that effect).

It seems like a fair point, so you should have the choice about the game you play.

In my opinion though, I hate games that level up with me. I like the thought of an area in a game that will kick my arse because I am clearly not ready and at the same time, being able to go back to an 'early' area and kick them about if need be.

This is why I found Oblivion quite a repetitive experience of a game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone from the UK see the recent episode of Gameswipe ?
Dara O Briain had a rant where he discussed why he should be made to work to earn the game content when he 's bought it .
He used the analogy " When you finish reading a chapter in a book , you are n't made to prove your understanding of it before you can move to the next one .
It 's my book , if I want to go to the last page , I can .
Why ca n't I do that in a game ?
" ( or words to that effect ) .
It seems like a fair point , so you should have the choice about the game you play .
In my opinion though , I hate games that level up with me .
I like the thought of an area in a game that will kick my arse because I am clearly not ready and at the same time , being able to go back to an 'early ' area and kick them about if need be .
This is why I found Oblivion quite a repetitive experience of a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone from the UK see the recent episode of Gameswipe?
Dara O Briain had a rant where he discussed why he should be made to work to earn the game content when he's bought it.
He used the analogy "When you finish reading a chapter in a book, you aren't made to prove your understanding of it before you can move to the next one.
It's my book, if I want to go to the last page, I can.
Why can't I do that in a game?
" (or words to that effect).
It seems like a fair point, so you should have the choice about the game you play.
In my opinion though, I hate games that level up with me.
I like the thought of an area in a game that will kick my arse because I am clearly not ready and at the same time, being able to go back to an 'early' area and kick them about if need be.
This is why I found Oblivion quite a repetitive experience of a game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733519</id>
	<title>Don't punish for progress!</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1255456380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scale difficulty, but scale rewards too. Always allow to scale back and never let the game overwhelm the player.</p><p>This is precisely what Oblivion did wrong. It decided about your difficulty basing on your character level, never caring if your character mastered in Speechcraft, Mercantile, lockpicking and Acrobatics. It still threw strongest ogres and meanest trolls at you. OTOH if you -avoided- levelling up, you could beat the enemies better. Also, by making the whole world levelled flat with your progress, it removed incentive for exploration and made it hard to scale difficulty yourself by picking your battles.</p><p>So instead of arbitrarily deciding "this player is good, let's give him a hard path", present the player with three paths of various difficulty, AND various rewards. Say, you can only get the "best" ending if you finish on "hard", because only then you will have to snipe the main boss precisely instead of blowing up the whole place, and the collateral damage will be reduced - and best if the difficulty is chosen by the player by gameplay decisions. Picking the right opponents, choosing the right weaponry etc.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...also, never deprive the player of the pleasure of squashing the strongest enemy like a bug, if they earned it by hard work. My fav moment of STALKER-SOTC? The final assault on the Reactor, armed with the Bulldog grenade launcher and a stash of grenades saved over the whole gameplay. They would make common battles way easier, but I saved them and then the over-the-top weapon made the final difficult battle a breeze, elite enemies thrown left and right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scale difficulty , but scale rewards too .
Always allow to scale back and never let the game overwhelm the player.This is precisely what Oblivion did wrong .
It decided about your difficulty basing on your character level , never caring if your character mastered in Speechcraft , Mercantile , lockpicking and Acrobatics .
It still threw strongest ogres and meanest trolls at you .
OTOH if you -avoided- levelling up , you could beat the enemies better .
Also , by making the whole world levelled flat with your progress , it removed incentive for exploration and made it hard to scale difficulty yourself by picking your battles.So instead of arbitrarily deciding " this player is good , let 's give him a hard path " , present the player with three paths of various difficulty , AND various rewards .
Say , you can only get the " best " ending if you finish on " hard " , because only then you will have to snipe the main boss precisely instead of blowing up the whole place , and the collateral damage will be reduced - and best if the difficulty is chosen by the player by gameplay decisions .
Picking the right opponents , choosing the right weaponry etc .
...also , never deprive the player of the pleasure of squashing the strongest enemy like a bug , if they earned it by hard work .
My fav moment of STALKER-SOTC ?
The final assault on the Reactor , armed with the Bulldog grenade launcher and a stash of grenades saved over the whole gameplay .
They would make common battles way easier , but I saved them and then the over-the-top weapon made the final difficult battle a breeze , elite enemies thrown left and right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scale difficulty, but scale rewards too.
Always allow to scale back and never let the game overwhelm the player.This is precisely what Oblivion did wrong.
It decided about your difficulty basing on your character level, never caring if your character mastered in Speechcraft, Mercantile, lockpicking and Acrobatics.
It still threw strongest ogres and meanest trolls at you.
OTOH if you -avoided- levelling up, you could beat the enemies better.
Also, by making the whole world levelled flat with your progress, it removed incentive for exploration and made it hard to scale difficulty yourself by picking your battles.So instead of arbitrarily deciding "this player is good, let's give him a hard path", present the player with three paths of various difficulty, AND various rewards.
Say, you can only get the "best" ending if you finish on "hard", because only then you will have to snipe the main boss precisely instead of blowing up the whole place, and the collateral damage will be reduced - and best if the difficulty is chosen by the player by gameplay decisions.
Picking the right opponents, choosing the right weaponry etc.
...also, never deprive the player of the pleasure of squashing the strongest enemy like a bug, if they earned it by hard work.
My fav moment of STALKER-SOTC?
The final assault on the Reactor, armed with the Bulldog grenade launcher and a stash of grenades saved over the whole gameplay.
They would make common battles way easier, but I saved them and then the over-the-top weapon made the final difficult battle a breeze, elite enemies thrown left and right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732345</id>
	<title>MMOs are like this too.</title>
	<author>dbet</author>
	<datestamp>1255450860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In WoW, you can play at the edge of new content, high difficulty rating, or just play casually through the game, low difficulty rating.  You both end up at the same place.  Those playing hard mode just get there a bit faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In WoW , you can play at the edge of new content , high difficulty rating , or just play casually through the game , low difficulty rating .
You both end up at the same place .
Those playing hard mode just get there a bit faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In WoW, you can play at the edge of new content, high difficulty rating, or just play casually through the game, low difficulty rating.
You both end up at the same place.
Those playing hard mode just get there a bit faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732209</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1255450200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The game difficulty should be like a stairway instead of a straight line. That way, you struggle a bit a the beginning of each step and feel more powerful toward the end of each step.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The game difficulty should be like a stairway instead of a straight line .
That way , you struggle a bit a the beginning of each step and feel more powerful toward the end of each step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The game difficulty should be like a stairway instead of a straight line.
That way, you struggle a bit a the beginning of each step and feel more powerful toward the end of each step.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733439</id>
	<title>side-content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255456020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i have found the inclusion of content that is not vital to storyline is one of the best ways to adjust for the "difficulty level" challenge.<br>most games I will play on normal mode. most games I will not play a second time (i dont care if there's another ending/quest/item of superpower).</p><p>i want a game to have the following:<br>1. adjustable difficulty level *mid-game* - if i start the game on normal and it's a snooze fest and i have died twice in 30 hours of gameplay, there is very low chance i will even care to finish the game. let me change the difficulty at hour 20 instead of making me start a new game on a higher difficulty level<br>2. side content - so the main plot line only requires you to get to xx level or xx weapon upgrade? fine. leave that 20 hour game intact for the casual gamers who dont WANT the challenge. give me a level 30 zone where i can go crazy and still enjoy playing. give me the ability to upgrade my [item] to compete with a higher calibre AI.<br>3. a big FU to the 'hard' mode AI - good AI does not mean they see through walls, are invincible, or have ungodly upgrades. FPS are notorious for making the AI impossible at higher difficulty. AI for "auto-aim headshots" is not harder, just annoying. make the AI SMARTER at higher difficulty. 'hard' on a racing game should not mean the ai should never crash. make them smarter.<br>4. make power leveling viable - if i'm going to waste my time grinding out levels/items/cash/whatever, force me to spend more points/cash/time attaining future levels. don't make the "appropriate" plotline harder, i'm power leveling for a reason.<br>5. introduce the smart AI right off the bat - why do i always have to wait until halfway through a game to have the fear of death/loss/competition? 'normal' should be a 50/50 for the average user to win. 'hard' 50/50 for a skilled player to win.<br>6. allow the player to level outside of the 'appropriate' area - don't block off the vampire crypt. if i'm level 2 and want a swift death, let me in. similarly, if i'm level 40 and i want to kill 1 legged zombie bunnies, let me. just dont give me anything useful for it. and dont even think of making things that low-level aggressive towards me. and on that note...<br>7. i pick my battles, why doesnt the AI? - if i can see that i'm horridly outclassed, i will avoid the encounter. why do hordes of fiends swarm me after i have been running around laying waste to the encampment like rambo. if i can pick my battle, i'd like them to as well. make the ai pick.<br>8. don't ever put an impossible segment in to prevent me from leveling too much - i get frustrated on some tower defense games for this reason. i will get to a certain level where it becomes, quite literally, impossible to pass. if my config is the absolute best possible without cheating, why would you force my game to end? maybe i like winning. or at least showing that i can build the tower defense to be self sufficient and destroy anything thrown at it (within reason).<br>9. allow the ai to advance skill if they complete things i dont - if i skip the zombie bunny camp at level 2, have some ai actively clear it out by level 5 and make them a bit stronger when i try to defeat that group at level 10. make the ai work for power, just like i do. make the ai hunt for weapons, ammo, skills, [item].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i have found the inclusion of content that is not vital to storyline is one of the best ways to adjust for the " difficulty level " challenge.most games I will play on normal mode .
most games I will not play a second time ( i dont care if there 's another ending/quest/item of superpower ) .i want a game to have the following : 1. adjustable difficulty level * mid-game * - if i start the game on normal and it 's a snooze fest and i have died twice in 30 hours of gameplay , there is very low chance i will even care to finish the game .
let me change the difficulty at hour 20 instead of making me start a new game on a higher difficulty level2 .
side content - so the main plot line only requires you to get to xx level or xx weapon upgrade ?
fine. leave that 20 hour game intact for the casual gamers who dont WANT the challenge .
give me a level 30 zone where i can go crazy and still enjoy playing .
give me the ability to upgrade my [ item ] to compete with a higher calibre AI.3 .
a big FU to the 'hard ' mode AI - good AI does not mean they see through walls , are invincible , or have ungodly upgrades .
FPS are notorious for making the AI impossible at higher difficulty .
AI for " auto-aim headshots " is not harder , just annoying .
make the AI SMARTER at higher difficulty .
'hard ' on a racing game should not mean the ai should never crash .
make them smarter.4 .
make power leveling viable - if i 'm going to waste my time grinding out levels/items/cash/whatever , force me to spend more points/cash/time attaining future levels .
do n't make the " appropriate " plotline harder , i 'm power leveling for a reason.5 .
introduce the smart AI right off the bat - why do i always have to wait until halfway through a game to have the fear of death/loss/competition ?
'normal ' should be a 50/50 for the average user to win .
'hard ' 50/50 for a skilled player to win.6 .
allow the player to level outside of the 'appropriate ' area - do n't block off the vampire crypt .
if i 'm level 2 and want a swift death , let me in .
similarly , if i 'm level 40 and i want to kill 1 legged zombie bunnies , let me .
just dont give me anything useful for it .
and dont even think of making things that low-level aggressive towards me .
and on that note...7. i pick my battles , why doesnt the AI ?
- if i can see that i 'm horridly outclassed , i will avoid the encounter .
why do hordes of fiends swarm me after i have been running around laying waste to the encampment like rambo .
if i can pick my battle , i 'd like them to as well .
make the ai pick.8 .
do n't ever put an impossible segment in to prevent me from leveling too much - i get frustrated on some tower defense games for this reason .
i will get to a certain level where it becomes , quite literally , impossible to pass .
if my config is the absolute best possible without cheating , why would you force my game to end ?
maybe i like winning .
or at least showing that i can build the tower defense to be self sufficient and destroy anything thrown at it ( within reason ) .9. allow the ai to advance skill if they complete things i dont - if i skip the zombie bunny camp at level 2 , have some ai actively clear it out by level 5 and make them a bit stronger when i try to defeat that group at level 10. make the ai work for power , just like i do .
make the ai hunt for weapons , ammo , skills , [ item ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i have found the inclusion of content that is not vital to storyline is one of the best ways to adjust for the "difficulty level" challenge.most games I will play on normal mode.
most games I will not play a second time (i dont care if there's another ending/quest/item of superpower).i want a game to have the following:1. adjustable difficulty level *mid-game* - if i start the game on normal and it's a snooze fest and i have died twice in 30 hours of gameplay, there is very low chance i will even care to finish the game.
let me change the difficulty at hour 20 instead of making me start a new game on a higher difficulty level2.
side content - so the main plot line only requires you to get to xx level or xx weapon upgrade?
fine. leave that 20 hour game intact for the casual gamers who dont WANT the challenge.
give me a level 30 zone where i can go crazy and still enjoy playing.
give me the ability to upgrade my [item] to compete with a higher calibre AI.3.
a big FU to the 'hard' mode AI - good AI does not mean they see through walls, are invincible, or have ungodly upgrades.
FPS are notorious for making the AI impossible at higher difficulty.
AI for "auto-aim headshots" is not harder, just annoying.
make the AI SMARTER at higher difficulty.
'hard' on a racing game should not mean the ai should never crash.
make them smarter.4.
make power leveling viable - if i'm going to waste my time grinding out levels/items/cash/whatever, force me to spend more points/cash/time attaining future levels.
don't make the "appropriate" plotline harder, i'm power leveling for a reason.5.
introduce the smart AI right off the bat - why do i always have to wait until halfway through a game to have the fear of death/loss/competition?
'normal' should be a 50/50 for the average user to win.
'hard' 50/50 for a skilled player to win.6.
allow the player to level outside of the 'appropriate' area - don't block off the vampire crypt.
if i'm level 2 and want a swift death, let me in.
similarly, if i'm level 40 and i want to kill 1 legged zombie bunnies, let me.
just dont give me anything useful for it.
and dont even think of making things that low-level aggressive towards me.
and on that note...7. i pick my battles, why doesnt the AI?
- if i can see that i'm horridly outclassed, i will avoid the encounter.
why do hordes of fiends swarm me after i have been running around laying waste to the encampment like rambo.
if i can pick my battle, i'd like them to as well.
make the ai pick.8.
don't ever put an impossible segment in to prevent me from leveling too much - i get frustrated on some tower defense games for this reason.
i will get to a certain level where it becomes, quite literally, impossible to pass.
if my config is the absolute best possible without cheating, why would you force my game to end?
maybe i like winning.
or at least showing that i can build the tower defense to be self sufficient and destroy anything thrown at it (within reason).9. allow the ai to advance skill if they complete things i dont - if i skip the zombie bunny camp at level 2, have some ai actively clear it out by level 5 and make them a bit stronger when i try to defeat that group at level 10. make the ai work for power, just like i do.
make the ai hunt for weapons, ammo, skills, [item].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736743</id>
	<title>Re:Oblivion "Increasing skill" feh.</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1255427100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The big problem with game AI.<br>
<br>
Every game uses a different engine, which means you pretty much have to write the AI from scratch for every game.  Since very few developers want to spend lots of money on a non-visible feature, the AI gets short-changed.<br>
<br>
Smarter companies make the AI mod'able.  So you end up with Civ IV's "Better AI" project.<br>
<br>
(The best FPS AI that I've seen so far is FEAR's.  Those enemies are nasty and fairly capable.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big problem with game AI .
Every game uses a different engine , which means you pretty much have to write the AI from scratch for every game .
Since very few developers want to spend lots of money on a non-visible feature , the AI gets short-changed .
Smarter companies make the AI mod'able .
So you end up with Civ IV 's " Better AI " project .
( The best FPS AI that I 've seen so far is FEAR 's .
Those enemies are nasty and fairly capable .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big problem with game AI.
Every game uses a different engine, which means you pretty much have to write the AI from scratch for every game.
Since very few developers want to spend lots of money on a non-visible feature, the AI gets short-changed.
Smarter companies make the AI mod'able.
So you end up with Civ IV's "Better AI" project.
(The best FPS AI that I've seen so far is FEAR's.
Those enemies are nasty and fairly capable.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732091</id>
	<title>Difficulty level becomes your score?</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1255449660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When we developed Tracers back in the '80s we tuned the reward system so that the game would just run at a higher speed (voltage, in the circuit-board language of the game)... every time you won a level, the voltage would ramp up, when you lost a life it would ramp down. Most people found themselves in a cycle where the game would get harder until they started losing lives, and then it slowed down again until they started winning levels again.</p><p>The higher the voltage, the more points you got for blocking off and killing an opponent... but we found that the best players quit paying attention to the score. The challenge in the game was pushing the voltage higher and higher. That number was the thing to beat.</p><p>I don't like games that try and hide the mechanics of the process from people, but when it's exposed like this it can be extremely effective.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When we developed Tracers back in the '80s we tuned the reward system so that the game would just run at a higher speed ( voltage , in the circuit-board language of the game ) ... every time you won a level , the voltage would ramp up , when you lost a life it would ramp down .
Most people found themselves in a cycle where the game would get harder until they started losing lives , and then it slowed down again until they started winning levels again.The higher the voltage , the more points you got for blocking off and killing an opponent... but we found that the best players quit paying attention to the score .
The challenge in the game was pushing the voltage higher and higher .
That number was the thing to beat.I do n't like games that try and hide the mechanics of the process from people , but when it 's exposed like this it can be extremely effective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When we developed Tracers back in the '80s we tuned the reward system so that the game would just run at a higher speed (voltage, in the circuit-board language of the game)... every time you won a level, the voltage would ramp up, when you lost a life it would ramp down.
Most people found themselves in a cycle where the game would get harder until they started losing lives, and then it slowed down again until they started winning levels again.The higher the voltage, the more points you got for blocking off and killing an opponent... but we found that the best players quit paying attention to the score.
The challenge in the game was pushing the voltage higher and higher.
That number was the thing to beat.I don't like games that try and hide the mechanics of the process from people, but when it's exposed like this it can be extremely effective.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29739929</id>
	<title>lawn, etc</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1255443840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Call me old-fashioned but I've always believed that one of the pre-requisites of calling something a "game" is that it should challenge you. Give you something to learn and get better at. There was no adaptive difficulty on Mario, Zelda, or Metroid. If you wanted to advance in the game (or even beat it), your only choice was to practice, explore, learn from your mistakes, and hopefully get better. A game that automatically makes itself easier when you do poorer isn't a game, it's just a time-waster. In the same class as the click-on-the-pretty-pictures web games and every board game that boils down to sheer chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Call me old-fashioned but I 've always believed that one of the pre-requisites of calling something a " game " is that it should challenge you .
Give you something to learn and get better at .
There was no adaptive difficulty on Mario , Zelda , or Metroid .
If you wanted to advance in the game ( or even beat it ) , your only choice was to practice , explore , learn from your mistakes , and hopefully get better .
A game that automatically makes itself easier when you do poorer is n't a game , it 's just a time-waster .
In the same class as the click-on-the-pretty-pictures web games and every board game that boils down to sheer chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Call me old-fashioned but I've always believed that one of the pre-requisites of calling something a "game" is that it should challenge you.
Give you something to learn and get better at.
There was no adaptive difficulty on Mario, Zelda, or Metroid.
If you wanted to advance in the game (or even beat it), your only choice was to practice, explore, learn from your mistakes, and hopefully get better.
A game that automatically makes itself easier when you do poorer isn't a game, it's just a time-waster.
In the same class as the click-on-the-pretty-pictures web games and every board game that boils down to sheer chance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732871</id>
	<title>Game adaptation = hindrance?</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1255453320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Adaptive games (like Oblivion) definitely increase replayability.</p></div></blockquote><p>NPC adaption may be a little helpful to, or even a hindrance to, replayability.  Regardless though, I think the much more adaptable game comes from allowing the PLAYER to adapt.  I wouldn't mind a game with an ancient dragon on the first level, IF the game was varied enough that you could win without brute power that a level 200 character has.  For example, if you had could go around a village, talking to everyone, asking them about the dragon, about their wants and desires, their eaten family members, and somehow build an army, even when that was not the most obvious way to defeat the thing, that would be great.  Or, you might convince them all to contribute to a fund, which lets you walk thirty leagues, pay a grandmaster to train you, come back, and fulfill a contract to guard the city for the next five years.  Then, you could get on with the next quest, in whatever way you can think of.</p><p>THAT would be nice adaptability.  But having the problem change because the problem is easy for you is essentially cheating on the part of the game designers.  I'd rather just zip through an easy 1st level to one that was DESIGNED to be hard, if I was that good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adaptive games ( like Oblivion ) definitely increase replayability.NPC adaption may be a little helpful to , or even a hindrance to , replayability .
Regardless though , I think the much more adaptable game comes from allowing the PLAYER to adapt .
I would n't mind a game with an ancient dragon on the first level , IF the game was varied enough that you could win without brute power that a level 200 character has .
For example , if you had could go around a village , talking to everyone , asking them about the dragon , about their wants and desires , their eaten family members , and somehow build an army , even when that was not the most obvious way to defeat the thing , that would be great .
Or , you might convince them all to contribute to a fund , which lets you walk thirty leagues , pay a grandmaster to train you , come back , and fulfill a contract to guard the city for the next five years .
Then , you could get on with the next quest , in whatever way you can think of.THAT would be nice adaptability .
But having the problem change because the problem is easy for you is essentially cheating on the part of the game designers .
I 'd rather just zip through an easy 1st level to one that was DESIGNED to be hard , if I was that good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adaptive games (like Oblivion) definitely increase replayability.NPC adaption may be a little helpful to, or even a hindrance to, replayability.
Regardless though, I think the much more adaptable game comes from allowing the PLAYER to adapt.
I wouldn't mind a game with an ancient dragon on the first level, IF the game was varied enough that you could win without brute power that a level 200 character has.
For example, if you had could go around a village, talking to everyone, asking them about the dragon, about their wants and desires, their eaten family members, and somehow build an army, even when that was not the most obvious way to defeat the thing, that would be great.
Or, you might convince them all to contribute to a fund, which lets you walk thirty leagues, pay a grandmaster to train you, come back, and fulfill a contract to guard the city for the next five years.
Then, you could get on with the next quest, in whatever way you can think of.THAT would be nice adaptability.
But having the problem change because the problem is easy for you is essentially cheating on the part of the game designers.
I'd rather just zip through an easy 1st level to one that was DESIGNED to be hard, if I was that good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732519</id>
	<title>If done right</title>
	<author>zeromentat</author>
	<datestamp>1255451760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This can be a good thing if done right, Madden football has been playing with it for years.  Example if you have a tendency to come back to the same plays over and over again, the computer starts playing defenses that will stop that play, it's just like AI for some games.  It makes for a better feel for the game as opposed to your hopelessly behind enemy popping up with superweapons.  You can make a game adapt for better play without resorting to "cheating"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This can be a good thing if done right , Madden football has been playing with it for years .
Example if you have a tendency to come back to the same plays over and over again , the computer starts playing defenses that will stop that play , it 's just like AI for some games .
It makes for a better feel for the game as opposed to your hopelessly behind enemy popping up with superweapons .
You can make a game adapt for better play without resorting to " cheating "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This can be a good thing if done right, Madden football has been playing with it for years.
Example if you have a tendency to come back to the same plays over and over again, the computer starts playing defenses that will stop that play, it's just like AI for some games.
It makes for a better feel for the game as opposed to your hopelessly behind enemy popping up with superweapons.
You can make a game adapt for better play without resorting to "cheating"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735979</id>
	<title>Raiden Fighters Jet</title>
	<author>Apocryphos</author>
	<datestamp>1255467240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A game to help you discover what your mind and eyes could process per second.

It has difficulty selection and level branching based on performance, which allows it to try to keep the challenge at a level that is still fun for the player.

Of course, being an arcade game, no matter what branch you take there are plenty of traps to eat your quarters.

This was also released as Raiden Fighter Aces for 360.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A game to help you discover what your mind and eyes could process per second .
It has difficulty selection and level branching based on performance , which allows it to try to keep the challenge at a level that is still fun for the player .
Of course , being an arcade game , no matter what branch you take there are plenty of traps to eat your quarters .
This was also released as Raiden Fighter Aces for 360 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A game to help you discover what your mind and eyes could process per second.
It has difficulty selection and level branching based on performance, which allows it to try to keep the challenge at a level that is still fun for the player.
Of course, being an arcade game, no matter what branch you take there are plenty of traps to eat your quarters.
This was also released as Raiden Fighter Aces for 360.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734311</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>MoriaOrc</author>
	<datestamp>1255459680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Guild Wars: beating a map, gaining several levels, and then getting a quest later that takes you through the same map. All the monsters are now the equivalent of chuck norris and it takes you two more days to get through the same stupid map.</p></div></blockquote><p>
FYI, Guild Wars has static maps (well, nearly-static, the classes of the mobs get shuffled a little each time).  Although there are two difficulty modes for each map (normal/hard), the player has control over which mode they play in.<br> <br>What you said sounds more like Oblivion, which repopulates areas you've already cleared after a few in-game days and levels NPCs to match the player.  Especially painful if you haven't been min-maxing and your character has leveled through out-of-combat skills, since all the speech-craft in the world won't take down a level 20 Daedra.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guild Wars : beating a map , gaining several levels , and then getting a quest later that takes you through the same map .
All the monsters are now the equivalent of chuck norris and it takes you two more days to get through the same stupid map .
FYI , Guild Wars has static maps ( well , nearly-static , the classes of the mobs get shuffled a little each time ) .
Although there are two difficulty modes for each map ( normal/hard ) , the player has control over which mode they play in .
What you said sounds more like Oblivion , which repopulates areas you 've already cleared after a few in-game days and levels NPCs to match the player .
Especially painful if you have n't been min-maxing and your character has leveled through out-of-combat skills , since all the speech-craft in the world wo n't take down a level 20 Daedra .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guild Wars: beating a map, gaining several levels, and then getting a quest later that takes you through the same map.
All the monsters are now the equivalent of chuck norris and it takes you two more days to get through the same stupid map.
FYI, Guild Wars has static maps (well, nearly-static, the classes of the mobs get shuffled a little each time).
Although there are two difficulty modes for each map (normal/hard), the player has control over which mode they play in.
What you said sounds more like Oblivion, which repopulates areas you've already cleared after a few in-game days and levels NPCs to match the player.
Especially painful if you haven't been min-maxing and your character has leveled through out-of-combat skills, since all the speech-craft in the world won't take down a level 20 Daedra.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735737</id>
	<title>Rewarding Mediocrity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255466220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised so many of these posts seem to support nerfing er.. adjusting the game to the level of the player.  It was annoying in Oblivion and a very unnecessary.  It seems that everyone is always worried about the player who doesn't know how to play the game, isn't "good" at playing the game, or simply doesn't have time to get good at playing the game.   Why, why, why, is this particular group so important to developers and designers?  I've seen several games ruined by this pursuit to make sure "everyone is having fun".  Those who are good should be the example that motivates those who are not, to strive for that higher level of play.</p><p>SWG went through this effort with something they called the NGE.  The idea for the NGE was to "simplify" the game so that it appealed to ALL.  It was a fantastic failure and will go down in history as the single worst implosion of a game by attempting to appeal to "everyone".</p><p>Interesting side-note to the SWG saga.  After the servers were rendered howling wastelands containing only those who had no other game to run to, they began a 2 year plan to reintroduce the complexity that the game once had.  Their subscription numbers are not back to where they were pre-NGE but they've done a really good job and are sustaining population after 6 years.  It's a different game than it once was but most argue that it's a much better game.  They've even recently introduced Player Created Questing which is something I don't think exists anywhere else in any other MMO.  Since the game is a sandbox type game, the possibilities are endless for player created content.  The message here is, complexity is good, challenge is good and in the end, there are good players and not so good players.  Putting a system in place to punish the good players and make things easier for bad players is flawed at the very root of its concept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised so many of these posts seem to support nerfing er.. adjusting the game to the level of the player .
It was annoying in Oblivion and a very unnecessary .
It seems that everyone is always worried about the player who does n't know how to play the game , is n't " good " at playing the game , or simply does n't have time to get good at playing the game .
Why , why , why , is this particular group so important to developers and designers ?
I 've seen several games ruined by this pursuit to make sure " everyone is having fun " .
Those who are good should be the example that motivates those who are not , to strive for that higher level of play.SWG went through this effort with something they called the NGE .
The idea for the NGE was to " simplify " the game so that it appealed to ALL .
It was a fantastic failure and will go down in history as the single worst implosion of a game by attempting to appeal to " everyone " .Interesting side-note to the SWG saga .
After the servers were rendered howling wastelands containing only those who had no other game to run to , they began a 2 year plan to reintroduce the complexity that the game once had .
Their subscription numbers are not back to where they were pre-NGE but they 've done a really good job and are sustaining population after 6 years .
It 's a different game than it once was but most argue that it 's a much better game .
They 've even recently introduced Player Created Questing which is something I do n't think exists anywhere else in any other MMO .
Since the game is a sandbox type game , the possibilities are endless for player created content .
The message here is , complexity is good , challenge is good and in the end , there are good players and not so good players .
Putting a system in place to punish the good players and make things easier for bad players is flawed at the very root of its concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised so many of these posts seem to support nerfing er.. adjusting the game to the level of the player.
It was annoying in Oblivion and a very unnecessary.
It seems that everyone is always worried about the player who doesn't know how to play the game, isn't "good" at playing the game, or simply doesn't have time to get good at playing the game.
Why, why, why, is this particular group so important to developers and designers?
I've seen several games ruined by this pursuit to make sure "everyone is having fun".
Those who are good should be the example that motivates those who are not, to strive for that higher level of play.SWG went through this effort with something they called the NGE.
The idea for the NGE was to "simplify" the game so that it appealed to ALL.
It was a fantastic failure and will go down in history as the single worst implosion of a game by attempting to appeal to "everyone".Interesting side-note to the SWG saga.
After the servers were rendered howling wastelands containing only those who had no other game to run to, they began a 2 year plan to reintroduce the complexity that the game once had.
Their subscription numbers are not back to where they were pre-NGE but they've done a really good job and are sustaining population after 6 years.
It's a different game than it once was but most argue that it's a much better game.
They've even recently introduced Player Created Questing which is something I don't think exists anywhere else in any other MMO.
Since the game is a sandbox type game, the possibilities are endless for player created content.
The message here is, complexity is good, challenge is good and in the end, there are good players and not so good players.
Putting a system in place to punish the good players and make things easier for bad players is flawed at the very root of its concept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732059</id>
	<title>first post niglets!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255449540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Little baby niglet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Little baby niglet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Little baby niglet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732529</id>
	<title>Old and Slow</title>
	<author>rhodiumalkyl</author>
	<datestamp>1255451820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm looking forward to retiring in the next few years and playing all the games that have come out in the last 20 years. I stopped about 20 years ago when my son got to be 12.  I would guess lots of us boomers will want to do the same. Setting up games in geezer mode may be the only way to make single player games work for us. Unfortunately we do not get slow and forgetful and shaky because it seems cool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm looking forward to retiring in the next few years and playing all the games that have come out in the last 20 years .
I stopped about 20 years ago when my son got to be 12 .
I would guess lots of us boomers will want to do the same .
Setting up games in geezer mode may be the only way to make single player games work for us .
Unfortunately we do not get slow and forgetful and shaky because it seems cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm looking forward to retiring in the next few years and playing all the games that have come out in the last 20 years.
I stopped about 20 years ago when my son got to be 12.
I would guess lots of us boomers will want to do the same.
Setting up games in geezer mode may be the only way to make single player games work for us.
Unfortunately we do not get slow and forgetful and shaky because it seems cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732823</id>
	<title>What about cowardly players?</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1255453080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like me who play Halo and Half Life like complete wuss and do nothing but continual "attack one enemy and retreat" over and over again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like me who play Halo and Half Life like complete wuss and do nothing but continual " attack one enemy and retreat " over and over again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like me who play Halo and Half Life like complete wuss and do nothing but continual "attack one enemy and retreat" over and over again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734391</id>
	<title>I'd say</title>
	<author>OpenSourced</author>
	<datestamp>1255460040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a big difference between man-vs-machine and multiplayer games. In multiplayer games, there is certainly the need of a certain handicap to make the game fun to everybody. In man-vs-machine, I'd say that yes, the game can get more difficult, but also that the rewards must increase. So if the enemies get stronger, you have to at least have the option (if you are skilled enough) of getting better weapons or whatever. Also if the measure of the game is the score, for example, then the score should reflect that you have walked a more difficult route.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a big difference between man-vs-machine and multiplayer games .
In multiplayer games , there is certainly the need of a certain handicap to make the game fun to everybody .
In man-vs-machine , I 'd say that yes , the game can get more difficult , but also that the rewards must increase .
So if the enemies get stronger , you have to at least have the option ( if you are skilled enough ) of getting better weapons or whatever .
Also if the measure of the game is the score , for example , then the score should reflect that you have walked a more difficult route .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a big difference between man-vs-machine and multiplayer games.
In multiplayer games, there is certainly the need of a certain handicap to make the game fun to everybody.
In man-vs-machine, I'd say that yes, the game can get more difficult, but also that the rewards must increase.
So if the enemies get stronger, you have to at least have the option (if you are skilled enough) of getting better weapons or whatever.
Also if the measure of the game is the score, for example, then the score should reflect that you have walked a more difficult route.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733355</id>
	<title>Difficulty Settings?</title>
	<author>Odin\_Tiger</author>
	<datestamp>1255455600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the hell is so wrong with just putting a menu with difficulty options in, like every FPS since forever has done?<br> <br>* Can I play, Daddy?<br>* Don't hurt me<br>* Bring 'em on<br>* I am Death Incarnate!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is so wrong with just putting a menu with difficulty options in , like every FPS since forever has done ?
* Can I play , Daddy ?
* Do n't hurt me * Bring 'em on * I am Death Incarnate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is so wrong with just putting a menu with difficulty options in, like every FPS since forever has done?
* Can I play, Daddy?
* Don't hurt me* Bring 'em on* I am Death Incarnate!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732995</id>
	<title>Re:Lack of perceivable progress. . .</title>
	<author>knarfling</author>
	<datestamp>1255453920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wizardry 8 did this well. You could start with fresh characters or imported characters from Wizardry VII. I started with fresh characters and the monsters in the first area were pretty hard. I started a new game with imported characters thinking that I would have a big advantage. Nope. Although my characters were more experienced and able to fight better, the monsters were also stronger. After making my way past the first area, I moved to an even harder area. Realizing I had forgotten something, I went back to the first area. Sure enough, the monsters that showed up were even more powerful. Later in the game, after I had moved my characters up several levels, I had an occasion to go back to the first level. Although the monsters were even harder than before, they were no match for my characters and I breezed through with no problem.<br> <br>
The game was divided into areas and each area had different types of monsters. Each monster type had different levels as well. The neat thing was that there was an upper and lower limit to each monster's levels. For example, the first area had different slime creatures from a wimpy green slime to a very tough emerald slime. Slimes were not seen in other areas and an emerald slime could never do the same kind of damage that a giant wolf that was found in another area could do. Each area was tough, and if you went into an area before you were ready, you could be killed quite easily. Even if you were ready,  you could be killed if you weren't careful. Rare was the time you could enter an area and say, "Wow. That was easy."<br> <br>
I really liked that game, and the way it pushed you in each area. Grinding was almost counter-productive, since the experience gained for each type of monster was dependant upon its difficulty. Grinding away in one area only made the next area that much more difficult. I could sit and grind in one area for hours, or I could move the the next area and play for 10 minutes and get the same experience. Unlike other games, it was a great balance between playability and difficulty. Other people I talked to had similar experiences even though we had different playing styles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wizardry 8 did this well .
You could start with fresh characters or imported characters from Wizardry VII .
I started with fresh characters and the monsters in the first area were pretty hard .
I started a new game with imported characters thinking that I would have a big advantage .
Nope. Although my characters were more experienced and able to fight better , the monsters were also stronger .
After making my way past the first area , I moved to an even harder area .
Realizing I had forgotten something , I went back to the first area .
Sure enough , the monsters that showed up were even more powerful .
Later in the game , after I had moved my characters up several levels , I had an occasion to go back to the first level .
Although the monsters were even harder than before , they were no match for my characters and I breezed through with no problem .
The game was divided into areas and each area had different types of monsters .
Each monster type had different levels as well .
The neat thing was that there was an upper and lower limit to each monster 's levels .
For example , the first area had different slime creatures from a wimpy green slime to a very tough emerald slime .
Slimes were not seen in other areas and an emerald slime could never do the same kind of damage that a giant wolf that was found in another area could do .
Each area was tough , and if you went into an area before you were ready , you could be killed quite easily .
Even if you were ready , you could be killed if you were n't careful .
Rare was the time you could enter an area and say , " Wow .
That was easy .
" I really liked that game , and the way it pushed you in each area .
Grinding was almost counter-productive , since the experience gained for each type of monster was dependant upon its difficulty .
Grinding away in one area only made the next area that much more difficult .
I could sit and grind in one area for hours , or I could move the the next area and play for 10 minutes and get the same experience .
Unlike other games , it was a great balance between playability and difficulty .
Other people I talked to had similar experiences even though we had different playing styles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wizardry 8 did this well.
You could start with fresh characters or imported characters from Wizardry VII.
I started with fresh characters and the monsters in the first area were pretty hard.
I started a new game with imported characters thinking that I would have a big advantage.
Nope. Although my characters were more experienced and able to fight better, the monsters were also stronger.
After making my way past the first area, I moved to an even harder area.
Realizing I had forgotten something, I went back to the first area.
Sure enough, the monsters that showed up were even more powerful.
Later in the game, after I had moved my characters up several levels, I had an occasion to go back to the first level.
Although the monsters were even harder than before, they were no match for my characters and I breezed through with no problem.
The game was divided into areas and each area had different types of monsters.
Each monster type had different levels as well.
The neat thing was that there was an upper and lower limit to each monster's levels.
For example, the first area had different slime creatures from a wimpy green slime to a very tough emerald slime.
Slimes were not seen in other areas and an emerald slime could never do the same kind of damage that a giant wolf that was found in another area could do.
Each area was tough, and if you went into an area before you were ready, you could be killed quite easily.
Even if you were ready,  you could be killed if you weren't careful.
Rare was the time you could enter an area and say, "Wow.
That was easy.
" 
I really liked that game, and the way it pushed you in each area.
Grinding was almost counter-productive, since the experience gained for each type of monster was dependant upon its difficulty.
Grinding away in one area only made the next area that much more difficult.
I could sit and grind in one area for hours, or I could move the the next area and play for 10 minutes and get the same experience.
Unlike other games, it was a great balance between playability and difficulty.
Other people I talked to had similar experiences even though we had different playing styles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733379</id>
	<title>I play games to relax.</title>
	<author>GarryFre</author>
	<datestamp>1255455720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having to struggle against myself does NOT sound relaxing to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having to struggle against myself does NOT sound relaxing to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having to struggle against myself does NOT sound relaxing to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732249</id>
	<title>Re:Configurable</title>
	<author>Gorath99</author>
	<datestamp>1255450440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer just simple "Easy", "Normal", "Hard", "Very Hard" settings. Ideally with "Normal" being a little easy, so I get to feel good about myself when I choose "Hard"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-). (Only half joking here. The psychology really does matter.)</p><p>The problem with letting the computer decide what the challenge level is, is that it doesn't have a clue about my preferences. It only knows how well I'm doing, not whether or not I enjoy being challenged. This is not enough information to determine if I'm having fun or not. Doubly so if the system is flawed. For instance, Oblivion takes only your level into account, not your skill, or even your character's skills. This means that if you level up by, for instance, trading, you are constantly hounded by all kinds of nasty critters that you have no hope of defeating with your puny combat stats. Obviously, that's no fun at all.</p><p>Also, in some games it's really inappropriate to change the world for no apparent reason, other than that the player is doing well or poorly. Morrowind (sans expansions) was a remarkable consistent world, and that helped to make it incredibly engrossing. In Oblivion, where you were effectively never getting ahead, and where eventually even the highway robbers were equiped with a king's random in magic items in order to challenge you, I never felt close to having the same level of immersion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer just simple " Easy " , " Normal " , " Hard " , " Very Hard " settings .
Ideally with " Normal " being a little easy , so I get to feel good about myself when I choose " Hard " : - ) .
( Only half joking here .
The psychology really does matter .
) The problem with letting the computer decide what the challenge level is , is that it does n't have a clue about my preferences .
It only knows how well I 'm doing , not whether or not I enjoy being challenged .
This is not enough information to determine if I 'm having fun or not .
Doubly so if the system is flawed .
For instance , Oblivion takes only your level into account , not your skill , or even your character 's skills .
This means that if you level up by , for instance , trading , you are constantly hounded by all kinds of nasty critters that you have no hope of defeating with your puny combat stats .
Obviously , that 's no fun at all.Also , in some games it 's really inappropriate to change the world for no apparent reason , other than that the player is doing well or poorly .
Morrowind ( sans expansions ) was a remarkable consistent world , and that helped to make it incredibly engrossing .
In Oblivion , where you were effectively never getting ahead , and where eventually even the highway robbers were equiped with a king 's random in magic items in order to challenge you , I never felt close to having the same level of immersion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer just simple "Easy", "Normal", "Hard", "Very Hard" settings.
Ideally with "Normal" being a little easy, so I get to feel good about myself when I choose "Hard" :-).
(Only half joking here.
The psychology really does matter.
)The problem with letting the computer decide what the challenge level is, is that it doesn't have a clue about my preferences.
It only knows how well I'm doing, not whether or not I enjoy being challenged.
This is not enough information to determine if I'm having fun or not.
Doubly so if the system is flawed.
For instance, Oblivion takes only your level into account, not your skill, or even your character's skills.
This means that if you level up by, for instance, trading, you are constantly hounded by all kinds of nasty critters that you have no hope of defeating with your puny combat stats.
Obviously, that's no fun at all.Also, in some games it's really inappropriate to change the world for no apparent reason, other than that the player is doing well or poorly.
Morrowind (sans expansions) was a remarkable consistent world, and that helped to make it incredibly engrossing.
In Oblivion, where you were effectively never getting ahead, and where eventually even the highway robbers were equiped with a king's random in magic items in order to challenge you, I never felt close to having the same level of immersion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732697</id>
	<title>Adaptive Game Pricing</title>
	<author>flerndip</author>
	<datestamp>1255452600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about games that adapt to your skill level in obtaining the cash to purchase them.  Many of us seem to be getting a bit rusty in that department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about games that adapt to your skill level in obtaining the cash to purchase them .
Many of us seem to be getting a bit rusty in that department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about games that adapt to your skill level in obtaining the cash to purchase them.
Many of us seem to be getting a bit rusty in that department.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733653
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29742535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29745255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734001
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731965
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29748921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_13_078247_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29742535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29745255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732209
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734001
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732185
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734311
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29748921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29734553
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732249
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737839
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29735669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29737849
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733653
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29736743
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29732629
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29733183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29738543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_13_078247.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_13_078247.29731823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
