<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_29_0552249</id>
	<title>Graphic Novelist Calls For Better Game Violence</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262080680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landry\_Walker">Landry Walker</a> (alternative comics creator of <a href="http://www.littlegloomy.com/">X-Ray Studios</a>) has a brief opinion piece at Elder Geek asserting that <a href="http://elder-geek.com/2009/12/landrys-rants-video-game-violence-what-do-gamers-really-want/">all he wants for Christmas is more realistic game violence</a>.  While he acknowledges the world probably isn't ready for it, he wishes that getting shot in a video game was a bit more like getting shot in real life.  From his piece: '... that's my problem with video game violence. Bullets are something we shrug off. Point blank fire with a machine gun is something that a tiny bit of flexible body armor and 20 seconds sitting on a magic invisibility inducing gargoyle can cure. Time and time again, I've heard people claim that they want to see a greater degree of realism in video games. But that's a lie. We don't want realism. We want fantasy. We want unlimited ammo and we want rapid respawns. We want to jump out of second story windows without a scratch. We want to dodge bullets and shake off mortal wounds without pause.'  What say you, reader?  Would this bring a new level of impossibility to video games or would there be a way to balance this out?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Landry Walker ( alternative comics creator of X-Ray Studios ) has a brief opinion piece at Elder Geek asserting that all he wants for Christmas is more realistic game violence .
While he acknowledges the world probably is n't ready for it , he wishes that getting shot in a video game was a bit more like getting shot in real life .
From his piece : '... that 's my problem with video game violence .
Bullets are something we shrug off .
Point blank fire with a machine gun is something that a tiny bit of flexible body armor and 20 seconds sitting on a magic invisibility inducing gargoyle can cure .
Time and time again , I 've heard people claim that they want to see a greater degree of realism in video games .
But that 's a lie .
We do n't want realism .
We want fantasy .
We want unlimited ammo and we want rapid respawns .
We want to jump out of second story windows without a scratch .
We want to dodge bullets and shake off mortal wounds without pause .
' What say you , reader ?
Would this bring a new level of impossibility to video games or would there be a way to balance this out ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Landry Walker (alternative comics creator of X-Ray Studios) has a brief opinion piece at Elder Geek asserting that all he wants for Christmas is more realistic game violence.
While he acknowledges the world probably isn't ready for it, he wishes that getting shot in a video game was a bit more like getting shot in real life.
From his piece: '... that's my problem with video game violence.
Bullets are something we shrug off.
Point blank fire with a machine gun is something that a tiny bit of flexible body armor and 20 seconds sitting on a magic invisibility inducing gargoyle can cure.
Time and time again, I've heard people claim that they want to see a greater degree of realism in video games.
But that's a lie.
We don't want realism.
We want fantasy.
We want unlimited ammo and we want rapid respawns.
We want to jump out of second story windows without a scratch.
We want to dodge bullets and shake off mortal wounds without pause.
'  What say you, reader?
Would this bring a new level of impossibility to video games or would there be a way to balance this out?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584960</id>
	<title>Re:Americas Army</title>
	<author>StuffMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1262117160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.insmod.org/" title="insmod.org" rel="nofollow">Insurgency</a> [insmod.org] is a great mod for Half-Life 2 with good realism.  I used to play it quite a bit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insurgency [ insmod.org ] is a great mod for Half-Life 2 with good realism .
I used to play it quite a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insurgency [insmod.org] is a great mod for Half-Life 2 with good realism.
I used to play it quite a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582252</id>
	<title>Re:Typical mistake...</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1262103660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Give him realistic fps with one-hit-kill bullet and he will not play it for long. You do not keep playing game you suck at, and adding some mechanics means that pretty much everyone ends up sucking.</p></div></blockquote><p>Unless, mysteriously enough, he's not some kind of teabagging munchkin and actually enjoys being challenged by something more than figuring out which button launches the nuclear rocket in his backpack.  While this would set him apart from the majority of online gamers in the world today, it's not unheard of.
</p><p>Did you know that some people actually played Contra without entering the cheat code?  And that games like Shinobi were quite popular, despite not being mind-numbingly Haloistically easy?  Ever wonder where the phrase "Nintendo Hard" came from?  It came from people playing games that they sucked at, and not giving up.
</p><p>Now get off my lawn, kid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Give him realistic fps with one-hit-kill bullet and he will not play it for long .
You do not keep playing game you suck at , and adding some mechanics means that pretty much everyone ends up sucking.Unless , mysteriously enough , he 's not some kind of teabagging munchkin and actually enjoys being challenged by something more than figuring out which button launches the nuclear rocket in his backpack .
While this would set him apart from the majority of online gamers in the world today , it 's not unheard of .
Did you know that some people actually played Contra without entering the cheat code ?
And that games like Shinobi were quite popular , despite not being mind-numbingly Haloistically easy ?
Ever wonder where the phrase " Nintendo Hard " came from ?
It came from people playing games that they sucked at , and not giving up .
Now get off my lawn , kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give him realistic fps with one-hit-kill bullet and he will not play it for long.
You do not keep playing game you suck at, and adding some mechanics means that pretty much everyone ends up sucking.Unless, mysteriously enough, he's not some kind of teabagging munchkin and actually enjoys being challenged by something more than figuring out which button launches the nuclear rocket in his backpack.
While this would set him apart from the majority of online gamers in the world today, it's not unheard of.
Did you know that some people actually played Contra without entering the cheat code?
And that games like Shinobi were quite popular, despite not being mind-numbingly Haloistically easy?
Ever wonder where the phrase "Nintendo Hard" came from?
It came from people playing games that they sucked at, and not giving up.
Now get off my lawn, kid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580954</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>theIsovist</author>
	<datestamp>1262092320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for the record, bullets in real life are not hitscan. also, hitting a moving target is quite a bit harder when you have to take into account things like wind speed and, probably, your inability to aim as well as you think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>for the record , bullets in real life are not hitscan .
also , hitting a moving target is quite a bit harder when you have to take into account things like wind speed and , probably , your inability to aim as well as you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for the record, bullets in real life are not hitscan.
also, hitting a moving target is quite a bit harder when you have to take into account things like wind speed and, probably, your inability to aim as well as you think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448</id>
	<title>Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game".</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1262085060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a few titles that try to give the combat experience in a realistic way. Theres always room for more realism, but these games are much more real than your typical shotter.</p><p>Ok, I get it. Hes out to make a point, he probably know the existence of these games. But is a moot point, only people that want that exact experience buy and play these games. Most other people want different degrees of realism.<br>From high realism to e-sport:<br>- ????<br>- ArmA<br>- Red Orchestra<br>- Battlefield 1942<br>- Modern War 2  and Batman: Arkham Asylum<br>- Counter-strike<br>- Quake 3 / Warsow<br>- ????</p><p>Point: people that want realism in games already are playing realism games.<br>Point: people that want more realism in games play "realism mods" in realism games.<br>Stament: most people seems to like some fantasy and realism mixed for most fun.<br>Stament: some people seems to like "electronic sport" games, like Quake3 or Warsow<br>Stament: people that make staments about realism, and play games like B:AA that have life regen ala "MW2" sould play different games...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a few titles that try to give the combat experience in a realistic way .
Theres always room for more realism , but these games are much more real than your typical shotter.Ok , I get it .
Hes out to make a point , he probably know the existence of these games .
But is a moot point , only people that want that exact experience buy and play these games .
Most other people want different degrees of realism.From high realism to e-sport : - ? ? ?
? - ArmA- Red Orchestra- Battlefield 1942- Modern War 2 and Batman : Arkham Asylum- Counter-strike- Quake 3 / Warsow- ? ? ?
? Point : people that want realism in games already are playing realism games.Point : people that want more realism in games play " realism mods " in realism games.Stament : most people seems to like some fantasy and realism mixed for most fun.Stament : some people seems to like " electronic sport " games , like Quake3 or WarsowStament : people that make staments about realism , and play games like B : AA that have life regen ala " MW2 " sould play different games.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a few titles that try to give the combat experience in a realistic way.
Theres always room for more realism, but these games are much more real than your typical shotter.Ok, I get it.
Hes out to make a point, he probably know the existence of these games.
But is a moot point, only people that want that exact experience buy and play these games.
Most other people want different degrees of realism.From high realism to e-sport:- ???
?- ArmA- Red Orchestra- Battlefield 1942- Modern War 2  and Batman: Arkham Asylum- Counter-strike- Quake 3 / Warsow- ???
?Point: people that want realism in games already are playing realism games.Point: people that want more realism in games play "realism mods" in realism games.Stament: most people seems to like some fantasy and realism mixed for most fun.Stament: some people seems to like "electronic sport" games, like Quake3 or WarsowStament: people that make staments about realism, and play games like B:AA that have life regen ala "MW2" sould play different games...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586596</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>Solra Bizna</author>
	<datestamp>1262081460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Reality isn't fun. If it was we wouldn't play games."</p><p>I'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who don't understand game design.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I'm a game designer/programmer who still spends a lot of time playing the original Ghost Recon with his friends. Often with respawn time set as long as 60 seconds, or respawns disabled entirely (and ALWAYS limited in quantity). This is a game where at least 70\% of all bullet wounds are instantly fatal (and the rest are no joke), and where aiming usually requires you to hold still and aim carefully.</p><p>I also play games like Worms 3D, Spaceward Ho!, Harvest Moon, Starcraft, Tetris Attack... pretty wildly varying levels of realism there.</p><p>I'll have to say that people who relegate entire other groups of people to "stupid minorities" are stupid minorities who are sure not understanding something, not least of which that other people might have different tastes than them.</p><p>-:sigma.SB</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Reality is n't fun .
If it was we would n't play games .
" I 'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who do n't understand game design .
I 'm a game designer/programmer who still spends a lot of time playing the original Ghost Recon with his friends .
Often with respawn time set as long as 60 seconds , or respawns disabled entirely ( and ALWAYS limited in quantity ) .
This is a game where at least 70 \ % of all bullet wounds are instantly fatal ( and the rest are no joke ) , and where aiming usually requires you to hold still and aim carefully.I also play games like Worms 3D , Spaceward Ho ! , Harvest Moon , Starcraft , Tetris Attack... pretty wildly varying levels of realism there.I 'll have to say that people who relegate entire other groups of people to " stupid minorities " are stupid minorities who are sure not understanding something , not least of which that other people might have different tastes than them.- : sigma.SB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Reality isn't fun.
If it was we wouldn't play games.
"I'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who don't understand game design.
I'm a game designer/programmer who still spends a lot of time playing the original Ghost Recon with his friends.
Often with respawn time set as long as 60 seconds, or respawns disabled entirely (and ALWAYS limited in quantity).
This is a game where at least 70\% of all bullet wounds are instantly fatal (and the rest are no joke), and where aiming usually requires you to hold still and aim carefully.I also play games like Worms 3D, Spaceward Ho!, Harvest Moon, Starcraft, Tetris Attack... pretty wildly varying levels of realism there.I'll have to say that people who relegate entire other groups of people to "stupid minorities" are stupid minorities who are sure not understanding something, not least of which that other people might have different tastes than them.-:sigma.SB
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583346</id>
	<title>Congratulations</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262109600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just made video games boring as hell, and removed a serious level of escapism.</p><p>I've seen popele shot, burned, hit by a car, and bleed to death.<br>I don't want that level or realism in gamers because it's emotional impact is high, and it's boring.<br>Visually and game playing boring, not boring when it happens.</p><p>Team fortress 2 is a great shooter, and making it realistic make it stupid.</p><p>If you are using it as training, then he has a point.</p><p>In fact, most shooters have setting to make them more realistic. DO you notice very few people use those setting for long?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just made video games boring as hell , and removed a serious level of escapism.I 've seen popele shot , burned , hit by a car , and bleed to death.I do n't want that level or realism in gamers because it 's emotional impact is high , and it 's boring.Visually and game playing boring , not boring when it happens.Team fortress 2 is a great shooter , and making it realistic make it stupid.If you are using it as training , then he has a point.In fact , most shooters have setting to make them more realistic .
DO you notice very few people use those setting for long ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just made video games boring as hell, and removed a serious level of escapism.I've seen popele shot, burned, hit by a car, and bleed to death.I don't want that level or realism in gamers because it's emotional impact is high, and it's boring.Visually and game playing boring, not boring when it happens.Team fortress 2 is a great shooter, and making it realistic make it stupid.If you are using it as training, then he has a point.In fact, most shooters have setting to make them more realistic.
DO you notice very few people use those setting for long?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586582</id>
	<title>Re:"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>Landshark17</author>
	<datestamp>1262081400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That was actually one of my pet peeves from the Rainbow Six series, especially Raven Sheild, which was the one I played the most. Bullets affected my character realistically. Most times I was hit, I'd die. If I was lucky, I'd have my movement and aim severely comprimised. I'm not comlpaining about that, it lended an air of realism to the game and a necessity for strong planning and loyal execution that I enjoyed very much. My problem came in when I'd shoot NPC terrorists. They seemed to die less easily than my character, and worst of all, even if I wounded them, their aim was unaffected. Numerous times I would bang on the keyboard in frustration as a guy I had just shot in the arm could level his gun and kill me just an instant after I shot him.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That was actually one of my pet peeves from the Rainbow Six series , especially Raven Sheild , which was the one I played the most .
Bullets affected my character realistically .
Most times I was hit , I 'd die .
If I was lucky , I 'd have my movement and aim severely comprimised .
I 'm not comlpaining about that , it lended an air of realism to the game and a necessity for strong planning and loyal execution that I enjoyed very much .
My problem came in when I 'd shoot NPC terrorists .
They seemed to die less easily than my character , and worst of all , even if I wounded them , their aim was unaffected .
Numerous times I would bang on the keyboard in frustration as a guy I had just shot in the arm could level his gun and kill me just an instant after I shot him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was actually one of my pet peeves from the Rainbow Six series, especially Raven Sheild, which was the one I played the most.
Bullets affected my character realistically.
Most times I was hit, I'd die.
If I was lucky, I'd have my movement and aim severely comprimised.
I'm not comlpaining about that, it lended an air of realism to the game and a necessity for strong planning and loyal execution that I enjoyed very much.
My problem came in when I'd shoot NPC terrorists.
They seemed to die less easily than my character, and worst of all, even if I wounded them, their aim was unaffected.
Numerous times I would bang on the keyboard in frustration as a guy I had just shot in the arm could level his gun and kill me just an instant after I shot him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580458</id>
	<title>Reality is not funny.</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1262085240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of the old discussions about realism in pen&amp;paper RPGs.</p><p>We got a medievalist on our group, let him prepare a short demonstration game and quickly confirmed that it was, essentially, annoying.</p><p>He wants more real violence? There's no need to create a game for that, mod L4D2 or MW2 to multiply damage by a hundred.</p><p>It's one of those arguments that end as soon as someone actually does the little effort of trying the argued point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of the old discussions about realism in pen&amp;paper RPGs.We got a medievalist on our group , let him prepare a short demonstration game and quickly confirmed that it was , essentially , annoying.He wants more real violence ?
There 's no need to create a game for that , mod L4D2 or MW2 to multiply damage by a hundred.It 's one of those arguments that end as soon as someone actually does the little effort of trying the argued point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of the old discussions about realism in pen&amp;paper RPGs.We got a medievalist on our group, let him prepare a short demonstration game and quickly confirmed that it was, essentially, annoying.He wants more real violence?
There's no need to create a game for that, mod L4D2 or MW2 to multiply damage by a hundred.It's one of those arguments that end as soon as someone actually does the little effort of trying the argued point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581654</id>
	<title>"We want fantasy."  Figured that out around 1990</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1262099700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really loved Chuck Yeager's Air Combat.  Nothing better than the scenario of taking on four or more WWII planes in a dogfight at ground-brushing altitude.  Its popularity was really short-lived before the touted realism of the Falcon series ate its lunch.  Unfortunately, with Falcon I would usually get blown out of the sky by a missile from 5-10 miles avay before I even got a visual on the enemy.  Much easier to evade missiles in Air Combat.  And much more fun for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really loved Chuck Yeager 's Air Combat .
Nothing better than the scenario of taking on four or more WWII planes in a dogfight at ground-brushing altitude .
Its popularity was really short-lived before the touted realism of the Falcon series ate its lunch .
Unfortunately , with Falcon I would usually get blown out of the sky by a missile from 5-10 miles avay before I even got a visual on the enemy .
Much easier to evade missiles in Air Combat .
And much more fun for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really loved Chuck Yeager's Air Combat.
Nothing better than the scenario of taking on four or more WWII planes in a dogfight at ground-brushing altitude.
Its popularity was really short-lived before the touted realism of the Falcon series ate its lunch.
Unfortunately, with Falcon I would usually get blown out of the sky by a missile from 5-10 miles avay before I even got a visual on the enemy.
Much easier to evade missiles in Air Combat.
And much more fun for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584730</id>
	<title>Why is it boring being a soldier in war?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1262115960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His conclusions were that ARMA was (very) far from being realistic, but that it was OK because it would have been boring and tedious to act exactly like a real soldier in a real war.</p></div><p>Never having been in a warzone, why is it boring?</p><p>I imagine you spend a lot of time digging trenches, marching from A to B, making sure your equipment works.  The few clips from real wars I've seen (probably with a biased selection by the media), say from the Iraq war, show soldiers out on a job to arrest someone.  Then there's the bomber planes doing most of the heavy duty destruction work.</p><p>Is it "only" boring because there's very little time spent in close combat?  If that is indeed the case, you could, you know, make a game that focuses on the exciting bit.</p><p>(Before the moralists get to it: yes, war is terrible, stressing to the soldiers, needlessly destructive, and so forth; I'm with you on the "Peace, maan" philosophy.  Interpret my comment in context, sanely)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His conclusions were that ARMA was ( very ) far from being realistic , but that it was OK because it would have been boring and tedious to act exactly like a real soldier in a real war.Never having been in a warzone , why is it boring ? I imagine you spend a lot of time digging trenches , marching from A to B , making sure your equipment works .
The few clips from real wars I 've seen ( probably with a biased selection by the media ) , say from the Iraq war , show soldiers out on a job to arrest someone .
Then there 's the bomber planes doing most of the heavy duty destruction work.Is it " only " boring because there 's very little time spent in close combat ?
If that is indeed the case , you could , you know , make a game that focuses on the exciting bit .
( Before the moralists get to it : yes , war is terrible , stressing to the soldiers , needlessly destructive , and so forth ; I 'm with you on the " Peace , maan " philosophy .
Interpret my comment in context , sanely )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His conclusions were that ARMA was (very) far from being realistic, but that it was OK because it would have been boring and tedious to act exactly like a real soldier in a real war.Never having been in a warzone, why is it boring?I imagine you spend a lot of time digging trenches, marching from A to B, making sure your equipment works.
The few clips from real wars I've seen (probably with a biased selection by the media), say from the Iraq war, show soldiers out on a job to arrest someone.
Then there's the bomber planes doing most of the heavy duty destruction work.Is it "only" boring because there's very little time spent in close combat?
If that is indeed the case, you could, you know, make a game that focuses on the exciting bit.
(Before the moralists get to it: yes, war is terrible, stressing to the soldiers, needlessly destructive, and so forth; I'm with you on the "Peace, maan" philosophy.
Interpret my comment in context, sanely)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581410</id>
	<title>You don't want that.</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1262097540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reality is a really crappy game.  Its rules were written by a sadistic game designer with no sense of balance, proportion, pacing, or fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality is a really crappy game .
Its rules were written by a sadistic game designer with no sense of balance , proportion , pacing , or fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reality is a really crappy game.
Its rules were written by a sadistic game designer with no sense of balance, proportion, pacing, or fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580558</id>
	<title>Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game"</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1262086800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wow, really, you haven't heard of Codemasters' master piece Operation Flashpoint?  The default setting is "get shot and you die".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wow , really , you have n't heard of Codemasters ' master piece Operation Flashpoint ?
The default setting is " get shot and you die " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wow, really, you haven't heard of Codemasters' master piece Operation Flashpoint?
The default setting is "get shot and you die".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580722</id>
	<title>Reality is boring</title>
	<author>BradMajors</author>
	<datestamp>1262089080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking as someone who has built combat simulations for the US Army:</p><p>Real combat is boring... it consists of long periods of time where basically nothing happens, mixed with very short periods of combat where a lot happens but the winner of this short period of combat is rarely in doubt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking as someone who has built combat simulations for the US Army : Real combat is boring... it consists of long periods of time where basically nothing happens , mixed with very short periods of combat where a lot happens but the winner of this short period of combat is rarely in doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking as someone who has built combat simulations for the US Army:Real combat is boring... it consists of long periods of time where basically nothing happens, mixed with very short periods of combat where a lot happens but the winner of this short period of combat is rarely in doubt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580544</id>
	<title>Typical mistake...</title>
	<author>zwei2stein</author>
	<datestamp>1262086740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adding more realism does not equal to making game better.</p><p>Especially when it is "mind jerk" where you use realism to make game harder to play - it feels and sounds awesome because person who suggests it also imagines himself pwning in that game and getting to top of things using his innate "realistic combat skills".</p><p>It is somewhat similar to, say, people wanting hardcore pvp in mmos with full loot. You only suggest something like this if you can imagine yourself always on the winning side. Because otherwise, theese mechanics suck.</p><p>In some rare idealistic cases, people want challenge to be added to game (and of course, imagine themselves besting challenge while being awesome enough to get style points). That is, however, not something you automatically get if you make game harder and leargning curve steeper that eve.</p><p>Give him realistic fps with one-hit-kill bullet and he will not play it for long. You do not keep playing game you suck at, and adding some mechanics means that pretty much everyone ends up sucking.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding more realism does not equal to making game better.Especially when it is " mind jerk " where you use realism to make game harder to play - it feels and sounds awesome because person who suggests it also imagines himself pwning in that game and getting to top of things using his innate " realistic combat skills " .It is somewhat similar to , say , people wanting hardcore pvp in mmos with full loot .
You only suggest something like this if you can imagine yourself always on the winning side .
Because otherwise , theese mechanics suck.In some rare idealistic cases , people want challenge to be added to game ( and of course , imagine themselves besting challenge while being awesome enough to get style points ) .
That is , however , not something you automatically get if you make game harder and leargning curve steeper that eve.Give him realistic fps with one-hit-kill bullet and he will not play it for long .
You do not keep playing game you suck at , and adding some mechanics means that pretty much everyone ends up sucking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding more realism does not equal to making game better.Especially when it is "mind jerk" where you use realism to make game harder to play - it feels and sounds awesome because person who suggests it also imagines himself pwning in that game and getting to top of things using his innate "realistic combat skills".It is somewhat similar to, say, people wanting hardcore pvp in mmos with full loot.
You only suggest something like this if you can imagine yourself always on the winning side.
Because otherwise, theese mechanics suck.In some rare idealistic cases, people want challenge to be added to game (and of course, imagine themselves besting challenge while being awesome enough to get style points).
That is, however, not something you automatically get if you make game harder and leargning curve steeper that eve.Give him realistic fps with one-hit-kill bullet and he will not play it for long.
You do not keep playing game you suck at, and adding some mechanics means that pretty much everyone ends up sucking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30598792</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>jbezorg</author>
	<datestamp>1259831160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Reality isn't fun.  If it was we wouldn't play games.</p></div><p>There's this thing called "sex". I highly recommend trying it. It can be awkward at the beginning, but once you find a suitable partner I'm confident you'll find that some kinds of real life play are quite fun.</p><p>There are some requirements though... You need to get your partner into "the mood", which at times is very challenging. "Protection" is also important, otherwise you might get a nasty infection or possibly spawn unwanted processes.</p></div><p>I'll never be able to look at the phrase "Fat-finger the keyboard" the same way again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality is n't fun .
If it was we would n't play games.There 's this thing called " sex " .
I highly recommend trying it .
It can be awkward at the beginning , but once you find a suitable partner I 'm confident you 'll find that some kinds of real life play are quite fun.There are some requirements though... You need to get your partner into " the mood " , which at times is very challenging .
" Protection " is also important , otherwise you might get a nasty infection or possibly spawn unwanted processes.I 'll never be able to look at the phrase " Fat-finger the keyboard " the same way again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reality isn't fun.
If it was we wouldn't play games.There's this thing called "sex".
I highly recommend trying it.
It can be awkward at the beginning, but once you find a suitable partner I'm confident you'll find that some kinds of real life play are quite fun.There are some requirements though... You need to get your partner into "the mood", which at times is very challenging.
"Protection" is also important, otherwise you might get a nasty infection or possibly spawn unwanted processes.I'll never be able to look at the phrase "Fat-finger the keyboard" the same way again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581342</id>
	<title>Rainbow Six</title>
	<author>Cinnaman</author>
	<datestamp>1262097000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Rainbow Six games (1 to 3 at least) have realistic damage where the enemy can kill you in one shot. I think this makes these games better. But for games involving hails of bullets like Medal of Honor or Call of Duty realistic damage might make these games unplayable. I think it could be worked into a lot more games though, it would just require being more careful which is an acceptable part of the learning curve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Rainbow Six games ( 1 to 3 at least ) have realistic damage where the enemy can kill you in one shot .
I think this makes these games better .
But for games involving hails of bullets like Medal of Honor or Call of Duty realistic damage might make these games unplayable .
I think it could be worked into a lot more games though , it would just require being more careful which is an acceptable part of the learning curve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Rainbow Six games (1 to 3 at least) have realistic damage where the enemy can kill you in one shot.
I think this makes these games better.
But for games involving hails of bullets like Medal of Honor or Call of Duty realistic damage might make these games unplayable.
I think it could be worked into a lot more games though, it would just require being more careful which is an acceptable part of the learning curve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582124</id>
	<title>Re:There is a game where you die realistically eas</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1262102880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could die in the old Sierra adventure games too. One of the reasons I've always preferred LucasArts. Most games aren't about realism, we have a word for those that are: simulations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could die in the old Sierra adventure games too .
One of the reasons I 've always preferred LucasArts .
Most games are n't about realism , we have a word for those that are : simulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could die in the old Sierra adventure games too.
One of the reasons I've always preferred LucasArts.
Most games aren't about realism, we have a word for those that are: simulations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580816</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>Max Romantschuk</author>
	<datestamp>1262090520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Reality isn't fun.  If it was we wouldn't play games.</p></div><p>There's this thing called "sex". I highly recommend trying it. It can be awkward at the beginning, but once you find a suitable partner I'm confident you'll find that some kinds of real life play are quite fun.</p><p>There are some requirements though... You need to get your partner into "the mood", which at times is very challenging. "Protection" is also important, otherwise you might get a nasty infection or possibly spawn unwanted processes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality is n't fun .
If it was we would n't play games.There 's this thing called " sex " .
I highly recommend trying it .
It can be awkward at the beginning , but once you find a suitable partner I 'm confident you 'll find that some kinds of real life play are quite fun.There are some requirements though... You need to get your partner into " the mood " , which at times is very challenging .
" Protection " is also important , otherwise you might get a nasty infection or possibly spawn unwanted processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reality isn't fun.
If it was we wouldn't play games.There's this thing called "sex".
I highly recommend trying it.
It can be awkward at the beginning, but once you find a suitable partner I'm confident you'll find that some kinds of real life play are quite fun.There are some requirements though... You need to get your partner into "the mood", which at times is very challenging.
"Protection" is also important, otherwise you might get a nasty infection or possibly spawn unwanted processes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580568</id>
	<title>Re:"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>NouberNou</author>
	<datestamp>1262086980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ArmaA2 + ACE Mod is pretty realistic.<br>
<br>
It also depends on how you play ArmA2 and who you play against. The campaign is not going to be the best source of realism, its meant to be a story. If you get player on player battles going and you go against a well versed group of players that know how to use the realism to their advantage then you wont stand a chance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ArmaA2 + ACE Mod is pretty realistic .
It also depends on how you play ArmA2 and who you play against .
The campaign is not going to be the best source of realism , its meant to be a story .
If you get player on player battles going and you go against a well versed group of players that know how to use the realism to their advantage then you wont stand a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ArmaA2 + ACE Mod is pretty realistic.
It also depends on how you play ArmA2 and who you play against.
The campaign is not going to be the best source of realism, its meant to be a story.
If you get player on player battles going and you go against a well versed group of players that know how to use the realism to their advantage then you wont stand a chance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580812</id>
	<title>Re:Operation Flashpoint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262090280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should check out Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising</p><p>From wikipedia: "Difficulty levels are differentiated not by changes in AI or weapon damage but by the visual information given to players. At the easiest level, standard FPS information is given to the player about weapons, ammo, squad health, compass direction along with cross hairs via a HUD. Additionally the location of enemies who have been spotted by the player's squad is indicated at the lowest level. Higher levels of difficulty remove this information until none is left on screen. Ammunition counts must be remembered as well as the health of the squad. Locations of enemies must be determined by listening to AI squad mates and using other visual cues like the direction they are firing. At high difficulties visual effects become more important, particularly at long range where smoke or dust can help to identify areas which are dangerous. At any difficulty level the player may be killed by a single shot, though according to designers, it is not always the case. The highest difficulty (hardcore) also removes the games checkpoint system entirely meaning death results in starting the entire level again."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should check out Operation Flashpoint : Dragon RisingFrom wikipedia : " Difficulty levels are differentiated not by changes in AI or weapon damage but by the visual information given to players .
At the easiest level , standard FPS information is given to the player about weapons , ammo , squad health , compass direction along with cross hairs via a HUD .
Additionally the location of enemies who have been spotted by the player 's squad is indicated at the lowest level .
Higher levels of difficulty remove this information until none is left on screen .
Ammunition counts must be remembered as well as the health of the squad .
Locations of enemies must be determined by listening to AI squad mates and using other visual cues like the direction they are firing .
At high difficulties visual effects become more important , particularly at long range where smoke or dust can help to identify areas which are dangerous .
At any difficulty level the player may be killed by a single shot , though according to designers , it is not always the case .
The highest difficulty ( hardcore ) also removes the games checkpoint system entirely meaning death results in starting the entire level again .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should check out Operation Flashpoint: Dragon RisingFrom wikipedia: "Difficulty levels are differentiated not by changes in AI or weapon damage but by the visual information given to players.
At the easiest level, standard FPS information is given to the player about weapons, ammo, squad health, compass direction along with cross hairs via a HUD.
Additionally the location of enemies who have been spotted by the player's squad is indicated at the lowest level.
Higher levels of difficulty remove this information until none is left on screen.
Ammunition counts must be remembered as well as the health of the squad.
Locations of enemies must be determined by listening to AI squad mates and using other visual cues like the direction they are firing.
At high difficulties visual effects become more important, particularly at long range where smoke or dust can help to identify areas which are dangerous.
At any difficulty level the player may be killed by a single shot, though according to designers, it is not always the case.
The highest difficulty (hardcore) also removes the games checkpoint system entirely meaning death results in starting the entire level again.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584764</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>McDozer</author>
	<datestamp>1262116140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Tribes you actually had to lead your targets....if you were good, YES you could snipe moving targets falling through the air, successfully land a headshot and bring them down.  I've done it, and it has happened to me on numerous occasions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Tribes you actually had to lead your targets....if you were good , YES you could snipe moving targets falling through the air , successfully land a headshot and bring them down .
I 've done it , and it has happened to me on numerous occasions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Tribes you actually had to lead your targets....if you were good, YES you could snipe moving targets falling through the air, successfully land a headshot and bring them down.
I've done it, and it has happened to me on numerous occasions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>Ash Vince</author>
	<datestamp>1262093820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I agree, I personally do not like realistic war-games. The Battlefield &amp; Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to me. Give me an unrealistic Unreal Tournament or Quake or Advent Rising any day.</p></div><p>Battlefield and Call of Duty are not realistic at all. They are both graphically pretty, but suffer from the same issue mentioned in the article, you shrug off bullets. In COD you do not even need a gargoyle to cure you, you just wait for the red mist to clear then go back to killing.</p><p>For true realism try Americas Army 3, the slightest bullet wound can leave you slowly bleeding to death.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I personally do not like realistic war-games .
The Battlefield &amp; Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to me .
Give me an unrealistic Unreal Tournament or Quake or Advent Rising any day.Battlefield and Call of Duty are not realistic at all .
They are both graphically pretty , but suffer from the same issue mentioned in the article , you shrug off bullets .
In COD you do not even need a gargoyle to cure you , you just wait for the red mist to clear then go back to killing.For true realism try Americas Army 3 , the slightest bullet wound can leave you slowly bleeding to death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I personally do not like realistic war-games.
The Battlefield &amp; Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to me.
Give me an unrealistic Unreal Tournament or Quake or Advent Rising any day.Battlefield and Call of Duty are not realistic at all.
They are both graphically pretty, but suffer from the same issue mentioned in the article, you shrug off bullets.
In COD you do not even need a gargoyle to cure you, you just wait for the red mist to clear then go back to killing.For true realism try Americas Army 3, the slightest bullet wound can leave you slowly bleeding to death.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580478</id>
	<title>There is a game where you die realistically easily</title>
	<author>mhwombat</author>
	<datestamp>1262085600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called nethack. The graphics aren't great, but he's said he doesn't mind that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called nethack .
The graphics are n't great , but he 's said he does n't mind that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called nethack.
The graphics aren't great, but he's said he doesn't mind that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581444</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Zak3056</author>
	<datestamp>1262097840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a pity you've never played Operation Flashpoint... no bunny hopping, getting shot HURTS (whoops, sorry, you were shot in the legs, now you cant walk and have to drag your ass around the battlefield in a belly crawl), <b>accurate</b> weapons that do realistic damage and behave in a realistic manner (bullet drop, for example), etc.</p><p>Missions were not, "everybody spawn and kill the other team," but were scripted affairs that would, for example, have you getting off a helicopter in an LZ at the start of the mission, moving three miles through the woods avoiding enemy patrols, sneaking into an airbase, and blowing up a couple of A-10s on the ground.  A player slotted into a defined role (on either team) with the remaining roles filled by AI (which usually followed pre-scripted actions... i.e. patrol routes, etc) if there weren't enough players.  Also made for great co-op play (humans vs scripted bots).</p><p>Maps were huge--and by "huge" I mean "measured in square miles."  You couldn't create your own maps, but you could plop down whatever you wanted on the existing ones ("this looks like a good place for a roadblock with a machine gun nest") using the mission editor.  You could script EVERYTHING.  Timed events, triggered events, movement patterns, whether or not something spawned at all (made playing through a mission a second time a lot of fun when patrols could take different routes, objectives might be in a different place, etc).  I remember making one mission where you had to blow up a couple of helicopters on the ground.  The pilots were sleeping in tents thirty yards or so away from the flight line.  If you got detected on your approach, a klaxon would sound, the pilots would wake up, sprint for their helicopters, power up, take off, and start searching for you.  If your own air support came within radar range of the base, the same thing would happen.</p><p>There was no respawning in the middle of the mission (unless there was a living bot on your team that you could take the place of).  There was no joining a server in the middle of a match, either.  There were some downsides--for example, the above mentioned respawn and joining limits were great for realism, but sucked ass if you were five minutes late getting to the match... or if you died early and needed to wait another two hours for the match to end so you could play again.</p><p>As far as realistic FPS games go, though, I think it takes the cake.  It came out in 2001, and I haven't seen anything better yet (I had a lot of hope for BF2, but it doesn't even come close.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a pity you 've never played Operation Flashpoint... no bunny hopping , getting shot HURTS ( whoops , sorry , you were shot in the legs , now you cant walk and have to drag your ass around the battlefield in a belly crawl ) , accurate weapons that do realistic damage and behave in a realistic manner ( bullet drop , for example ) , etc.Missions were not , " everybody spawn and kill the other team , " but were scripted affairs that would , for example , have you getting off a helicopter in an LZ at the start of the mission , moving three miles through the woods avoiding enemy patrols , sneaking into an airbase , and blowing up a couple of A-10s on the ground .
A player slotted into a defined role ( on either team ) with the remaining roles filled by AI ( which usually followed pre-scripted actions... i.e. patrol routes , etc ) if there were n't enough players .
Also made for great co-op play ( humans vs scripted bots ) .Maps were huge--and by " huge " I mean " measured in square miles .
" You could n't create your own maps , but you could plop down whatever you wanted on the existing ones ( " this looks like a good place for a roadblock with a machine gun nest " ) using the mission editor .
You could script EVERYTHING .
Timed events , triggered events , movement patterns , whether or not something spawned at all ( made playing through a mission a second time a lot of fun when patrols could take different routes , objectives might be in a different place , etc ) .
I remember making one mission where you had to blow up a couple of helicopters on the ground .
The pilots were sleeping in tents thirty yards or so away from the flight line .
If you got detected on your approach , a klaxon would sound , the pilots would wake up , sprint for their helicopters , power up , take off , and start searching for you .
If your own air support came within radar range of the base , the same thing would happen.There was no respawning in the middle of the mission ( unless there was a living bot on your team that you could take the place of ) .
There was no joining a server in the middle of a match , either .
There were some downsides--for example , the above mentioned respawn and joining limits were great for realism , but sucked ass if you were five minutes late getting to the match... or if you died early and needed to wait another two hours for the match to end so you could play again.As far as realistic FPS games go , though , I think it takes the cake .
It came out in 2001 , and I have n't seen anything better yet ( I had a lot of hope for BF2 , but it does n't even come close .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a pity you've never played Operation Flashpoint... no bunny hopping, getting shot HURTS (whoops, sorry, you were shot in the legs, now you cant walk and have to drag your ass around the battlefield in a belly crawl), accurate weapons that do realistic damage and behave in a realistic manner (bullet drop, for example), etc.Missions were not, "everybody spawn and kill the other team," but were scripted affairs that would, for example, have you getting off a helicopter in an LZ at the start of the mission, moving three miles through the woods avoiding enemy patrols, sneaking into an airbase, and blowing up a couple of A-10s on the ground.
A player slotted into a defined role (on either team) with the remaining roles filled by AI (which usually followed pre-scripted actions... i.e. patrol routes, etc) if there weren't enough players.
Also made for great co-op play (humans vs scripted bots).Maps were huge--and by "huge" I mean "measured in square miles.
"  You couldn't create your own maps, but you could plop down whatever you wanted on the existing ones ("this looks like a good place for a roadblock with a machine gun nest") using the mission editor.
You could script EVERYTHING.
Timed events, triggered events, movement patterns, whether or not something spawned at all (made playing through a mission a second time a lot of fun when patrols could take different routes, objectives might be in a different place, etc).
I remember making one mission where you had to blow up a couple of helicopters on the ground.
The pilots were sleeping in tents thirty yards or so away from the flight line.
If you got detected on your approach, a klaxon would sound, the pilots would wake up, sprint for their helicopters, power up, take off, and start searching for you.
If your own air support came within radar range of the base, the same thing would happen.There was no respawning in the middle of the mission (unless there was a living bot on your team that you could take the place of).
There was no joining a server in the middle of a match, either.
There were some downsides--for example, the above mentioned respawn and joining limits were great for realism, but sucked ass if you were five minutes late getting to the match... or if you died early and needed to wait another two hours for the match to end so you could play again.As far as realistic FPS games go, though, I think it takes the cake.
It came out in 2001, and I haven't seen anything better yet (I had a lot of hope for BF2, but it doesn't even come close.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582214</id>
	<title>Messed Up!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262103420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the entire idea of computer games is to avoid reality it seems illogical to try to make them more like reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the entire idea of computer games is to avoid reality it seems illogical to try to make them more like reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the entire idea of computer games is to avoid reality it seems illogical to try to make them more like reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581866</id>
	<title>And I want a Pony</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1262101380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Landry Walker (alternative comics creator of X-Ray Studios) has a brief opinion piece at Elder Geek asserting that all he wants for Christmas is more realistic game violence.</p></div></blockquote><p>I want people to stop being pretentious and start being more realistic in nomenclature by not calling their comic books "graphic novels".  Sounds like we both will be disappointed this year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Landry Walker ( alternative comics creator of X-Ray Studios ) has a brief opinion piece at Elder Geek asserting that all he wants for Christmas is more realistic game violence.I want people to stop being pretentious and start being more realistic in nomenclature by not calling their comic books " graphic novels " .
Sounds like we both will be disappointed this year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Landry Walker (alternative comics creator of X-Ray Studios) has a brief opinion piece at Elder Geek asserting that all he wants for Christmas is more realistic game violence.I want people to stop being pretentious and start being more realistic in nomenclature by not calling their comic books "graphic novels".
Sounds like we both will be disappointed this year.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581698</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1262099940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Flashpoint:\_Cold\_War\_Crisis" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Flashpoint:\_Cold\_War\_Crisis</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmA:\_Armed\_Assault" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmA:\_Armed\_Assault</a> [wikipedia.org]<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARMA\_2" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARMA\_2</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation \ _Flashpoint : \ _Cold \ _War \ _Crisis [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmA : \ _Armed \ _Assault [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARMA \ _2 [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Flashpoint:\_Cold\_War\_Crisis [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmA:\_Armed\_Assault [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARMA\_2 [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582076</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262102580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how you use Zombies to argue about realism in video games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how you use Zombies to argue about realism in video games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how you use Zombies to argue about realism in video games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584278</id>
	<title>Re:more better violence</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1262113980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Silence should be reserved for shell shock, and occupational hearing loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Silence should be reserved for shell shock , and occupational hearing loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Silence should be reserved for shell shock, and occupational hearing loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580980</id>
	<title>Re:GTA: 5?</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1262092620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey ksemlerK - I think you make a really great point.  Why not take it to the extreme?  You could have the guy with screaming kids, bills to pay, and even a nagging wife.  Shoot - throw in some unemployment and/or chronic diseases for the advanced level. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Although it is fun to see what it might be like to carjack a fire engine and tear around town capping tha peeps with an AK, I really have to wonder what lessons that's teaching our already impulsive youth.  Don't get me wrong, I'm a big gamer.  But some of these "life simulators" are teaching us to practice some very interesting skills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey ksemlerK - I think you make a really great point .
Why not take it to the extreme ?
You could have the guy with screaming kids , bills to pay , and even a nagging wife .
Shoot - throw in some unemployment and/or chronic diseases for the advanced level .
  Although it is fun to see what it might be like to carjack a fire engine and tear around town capping tha peeps with an AK , I really have to wonder what lessons that 's teaching our already impulsive youth .
Do n't get me wrong , I 'm a big gamer .
But some of these " life simulators " are teaching us to practice some very interesting skills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey ksemlerK - I think you make a really great point.
Why not take it to the extreme?
You could have the guy with screaming kids, bills to pay, and even a nagging wife.
Shoot - throw in some unemployment and/or chronic diseases for the advanced level.
  Although it is fun to see what it might be like to carjack a fire engine and tear around town capping tha peeps with an AK, I really have to wonder what lessons that's teaching our already impulsive youth.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big gamer.
But some of these "life simulators" are teaching us to practice some very interesting skills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580678</id>
	<title>Re:GTA: 5?</title>
	<author>Dalambertian</author>
	<datestamp>1262088480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you may be looking for Red Dead Redemption's fame and honor system. It's also called Grand Theft Stagecoach.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you may be looking for Red Dead Redemption 's fame and honor system .
It 's also called Grand Theft Stagecoach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you may be looking for Red Dead Redemption's fame and honor system.
It's also called Grand Theft Stagecoach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586736</id>
	<title>Gaming Realism</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1262082180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try L4D2 Realism Mode. I think they win.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try L4D2 Realism Mode .
I think they win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try L4D2 Realism Mode.
I think they win.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580416</id>
	<title>FP</title>
	<author>themanwiththestick</author>
	<datestamp>1262084640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FP</htmltext>
<tokenext>FP</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FP</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581184</id>
	<title>Re:"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>wererogue</author>
	<datestamp>1262095440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree - they do exist.  It's not a *new* level of impossibility - it's an old one.  I still play Hidden and Dangerous, because there aren't any new shooters that offer realistic action, and every time I think "I'm glad I've never really been in a firefight."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree - they do exist .
It 's not a * new * level of impossibility - it 's an old one .
I still play Hidden and Dangerous , because there are n't any new shooters that offer realistic action , and every time I think " I 'm glad I 've never really been in a firefight .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree - they do exist.
It's not a *new* level of impossibility - it's an old one.
I still play Hidden and Dangerous, because there aren't any new shooters that offer realistic action, and every time I think "I'm glad I've never really been in a firefight.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583726</id>
	<title>Re:Reality is not funny.</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262111340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An actual medievalist , or some guy who is in the SCA?</p><p>we ahve a medievalist in our group, and it's awesome. She knows the fasion, how families worked, land, taxation, evil thing people did that exploited social norms.</p><p>Awesome stuff for adding ' texture' to a game.<br>While not a medievalist, I have tread many period writing on combat. Training, preparation and after math accounts. I don't mention any of it in a game because it's booooring, also I don't want to be 'That guy'. Which is why I don't play a lot of setting that involve guns, because those groups always have 'that guy'. I don't care how many grains, muzzle velocity and what a gun would 'really' do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An actual medievalist , or some guy who is in the SCA ? we ahve a medievalist in our group , and it 's awesome .
She knows the fasion , how families worked , land , taxation , evil thing people did that exploited social norms.Awesome stuff for adding ' texture ' to a game.While not a medievalist , I have tread many period writing on combat .
Training , preparation and after math accounts .
I do n't mention any of it in a game because it 's booooring , also I do n't want to be 'That guy' .
Which is why I do n't play a lot of setting that involve guns , because those groups always have 'that guy' .
I do n't care how many grains , muzzle velocity and what a gun would 'really ' do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An actual medievalist , or some guy who is in the SCA?we ahve a medievalist in our group, and it's awesome.
She knows the fasion, how families worked, land, taxation, evil thing people did that exploited social norms.Awesome stuff for adding ' texture' to a game.While not a medievalist, I have tread many period writing on combat.
Training, preparation and after math accounts.
I don't mention any of it in a game because it's booooring, also I don't want to be 'That guy'.
Which is why I don't play a lot of setting that involve guns, because those groups always have 'that guy'.
I don't care how many grains, muzzle velocity and what a gun would 'really' do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586972</id>
	<title>Re:Reality is not funny.</title>
	<author>mhajicek</author>
	<datestamp>1262083440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>After a while D&amp;D combat just annoyed me.  My thought was that if I hit the guy with an arrow, sword, dagger, or whatever, either it gets through the armor and kills or maims the guy or it doesn't.  It doesn't take 5\% of his life energy or whatever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After a while D&amp;D combat just annoyed me .
My thought was that if I hit the guy with an arrow , sword , dagger , or whatever , either it gets through the armor and kills or maims the guy or it does n't .
It does n't take 5 \ % of his life energy or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After a while D&amp;D combat just annoyed me.
My thought was that if I hit the guy with an arrow, sword, dagger, or whatever, either it gets through the armor and kills or maims the guy or it doesn't.
It doesn't take 5\% of his life energy or whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581962</id>
	<title>Can't have cake and eat it too</title>
	<author>grumbel</author>
	<datestamp>1262101980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would also love to have more realistic violence in video games, but the thing to realize is that is that it just wouldn't work in current day games, as those games are from their in their very core extremely unrealistic, not just what the violence is concerned. On average you kill like what, 200-300 people in a single play through of a shooter, maybe even more in some games. Reality just doesn't work that way, unless you drop bombs from a plane you just don't get to kill that many people without getting yourself killed, a lot.</p><p>I think a sensible way to introduce realistic violence would be to tackle it in a basically non-violent game. See Mirrors Edge for example, that style of game has some huge potential in that area, as its core is not about killing people but about traversing terrain. You don't shoot people, but instead you get shot. Of course the game kind of butchers its own core mechanic by introducing level design that basically forces you to shoot at other people and its extremely terrible at presenting the shooting in a realistic manner (everybody is a clone, small girl survives more bullets then armored police man, etc.), but its a type of game where you could introduce realistic violence and get away with it. In fact it would even make the game better when you for example had a choice between shooting somebody in the leg, along with consequences, instead of just having him rackdoll himself to the ground. I would much prefer it to have the game show realistically that death of the opponent is something that should be avoided, not something that should be done on a casual basis. Another thing the game misses is in-game character interaction, you get kind of a glimpse at it here and there, but you don't really see much of it in the game, which is again kind of a bummer, as realism doesn't start with violence and death, but with having non-violent ways to interact with NPCs.</p><p>The one big issue of course remains player death. It is really hard to get away from rapid respawn. You could Sands-Of-Time your way out of it, but even that is just a cheat to avoid consequences of player death. Another issue is that such instant-kill kind of gameplay leads to lots of trial&amp;error gameplay, which doesn't seem to be all that popular with todays audiences.</p><p>Another way to do realistic violence is of course to make it all story based, like in an adventure game, where its not something the player does, but something done by other people to the player or friends of him. Heavy Rain might have some interesting stuff to show in that area, but if it really works or will be panned as a series of QTEs we have to wait and see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would also love to have more realistic violence in video games , but the thing to realize is that is that it just would n't work in current day games , as those games are from their in their very core extremely unrealistic , not just what the violence is concerned .
On average you kill like what , 200-300 people in a single play through of a shooter , maybe even more in some games .
Reality just does n't work that way , unless you drop bombs from a plane you just do n't get to kill that many people without getting yourself killed , a lot.I think a sensible way to introduce realistic violence would be to tackle it in a basically non-violent game .
See Mirrors Edge for example , that style of game has some huge potential in that area , as its core is not about killing people but about traversing terrain .
You do n't shoot people , but instead you get shot .
Of course the game kind of butchers its own core mechanic by introducing level design that basically forces you to shoot at other people and its extremely terrible at presenting the shooting in a realistic manner ( everybody is a clone , small girl survives more bullets then armored police man , etc .
) , but its a type of game where you could introduce realistic violence and get away with it .
In fact it would even make the game better when you for example had a choice between shooting somebody in the leg , along with consequences , instead of just having him rackdoll himself to the ground .
I would much prefer it to have the game show realistically that death of the opponent is something that should be avoided , not something that should be done on a casual basis .
Another thing the game misses is in-game character interaction , you get kind of a glimpse at it here and there , but you do n't really see much of it in the game , which is again kind of a bummer , as realism does n't start with violence and death , but with having non-violent ways to interact with NPCs.The one big issue of course remains player death .
It is really hard to get away from rapid respawn .
You could Sands-Of-Time your way out of it , but even that is just a cheat to avoid consequences of player death .
Another issue is that such instant-kill kind of gameplay leads to lots of trial&amp;error gameplay , which does n't seem to be all that popular with todays audiences.Another way to do realistic violence is of course to make it all story based , like in an adventure game , where its not something the player does , but something done by other people to the player or friends of him .
Heavy Rain might have some interesting stuff to show in that area , but if it really works or will be panned as a series of QTEs we have to wait and see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would also love to have more realistic violence in video games, but the thing to realize is that is that it just wouldn't work in current day games, as those games are from their in their very core extremely unrealistic, not just what the violence is concerned.
On average you kill like what, 200-300 people in a single play through of a shooter, maybe even more in some games.
Reality just doesn't work that way, unless you drop bombs from a plane you just don't get to kill that many people without getting yourself killed, a lot.I think a sensible way to introduce realistic violence would be to tackle it in a basically non-violent game.
See Mirrors Edge for example, that style of game has some huge potential in that area, as its core is not about killing people but about traversing terrain.
You don't shoot people, but instead you get shot.
Of course the game kind of butchers its own core mechanic by introducing level design that basically forces you to shoot at other people and its extremely terrible at presenting the shooting in a realistic manner (everybody is a clone, small girl survives more bullets then armored police man, etc.
), but its a type of game where you could introduce realistic violence and get away with it.
In fact it would even make the game better when you for example had a choice between shooting somebody in the leg, along with consequences, instead of just having him rackdoll himself to the ground.
I would much prefer it to have the game show realistically that death of the opponent is something that should be avoided, not something that should be done on a casual basis.
Another thing the game misses is in-game character interaction, you get kind of a glimpse at it here and there, but you don't really see much of it in the game, which is again kind of a bummer, as realism doesn't start with violence and death, but with having non-violent ways to interact with NPCs.The one big issue of course remains player death.
It is really hard to get away from rapid respawn.
You could Sands-Of-Time your way out of it, but even that is just a cheat to avoid consequences of player death.
Another issue is that such instant-kill kind of gameplay leads to lots of trial&amp;error gameplay, which doesn't seem to be all that popular with todays audiences.Another way to do realistic violence is of course to make it all story based, like in an adventure game, where its not something the player does, but something done by other people to the player or friends of him.
Heavy Rain might have some interesting stuff to show in that area, but if it really works or will be panned as a series of QTEs we have to wait and see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580572</id>
	<title>Operation Flashpoint</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1262087100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Codemasters master piece.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Flashpoint:\_Cold\_War\_Crisis" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Flashpoint:\_Cold\_War\_Crisis</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>winner of:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * PC ZONE Classic Award<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * IGN Editors Choice Award<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Simulation Headquarters Best of E3 2001<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Gamespy: Best of 2001 (PC Action)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Computer Gaming World's Editors Choice Award<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * The Adrenaline Vault: Seal of Excellence Award<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * ECTS winner<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * The Wargamer: Award of Excellence<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * Gamestar.de Award<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * PC Gamer Awards<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; * COMBATSIM.COM: Best Integrated Battlefield Simulation 2001</p><p>I can't really comment on the sequel that came out this year.. although Codemasters didn't make it, so it probably sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Codemasters master piece.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation \ _Flashpoint : \ _Cold \ _War \ _Crisis [ wikipedia.org ] winner of :         * PC ZONE Classic Award         * IGN Editors Choice Award         * Simulation Headquarters Best of E3 2001         * Gamespy : Best of 2001 ( PC Action )         * Computer Gaming World 's Editors Choice Award         * The Adrenaline Vault : Seal of Excellence Award         * ECTS winner         * The Wargamer : Award of Excellence         * Gamestar.de Award         * PC Gamer Awards         * COMBATSIM.COM : Best Integrated Battlefield Simulation 2001I ca n't really comment on the sequel that came out this year.. although Codemasters did n't make it , so it probably sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Codemasters master piece.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Flashpoint:\_Cold\_War\_Crisis [wikipedia.org]winner of:
        * PC ZONE Classic Award
        * IGN Editors Choice Award
        * Simulation Headquarters Best of E3 2001
        * Gamespy: Best of 2001 (PC Action)
        * Computer Gaming World's Editors Choice Award
        * The Adrenaline Vault: Seal of Excellence Award
        * ECTS winner
        * The Wargamer: Award of Excellence
        * Gamestar.de Award
        * PC Gamer Awards
        * COMBATSIM.COM: Best Integrated Battlefield Simulation 2001I can't really comment on the sequel that came out this year.. although Codemasters didn't make it, so it probably sucks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580596</id>
	<title>Don't like the idea</title>
	<author>RichardJenkins</author>
	<datestamp>1262087400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't like the idea of desensitising my children to realistic violence. If I wanted that I'd just let them watch the news!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like the idea of desensitising my children to realistic violence .
If I wanted that I 'd just let them watch the news !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like the idea of desensitising my children to realistic violence.
If I wanted that I'd just let them watch the news!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581032</id>
	<title>He should do it himself</title>
	<author>rebelwarlock</author>
	<datestamp>1262093160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's pretty easy to complain about something not being done right. I could complain that slashdot is doing it wrong, to which hundreds of helpful comments would tell me to make my own site with the same goal and do it properly. So why don't we tell him to do the same? If you see a problem with the industry, either fix it or stfu. No one is going to change the way they make games to please some random person on the internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty easy to complain about something not being done right .
I could complain that slashdot is doing it wrong , to which hundreds of helpful comments would tell me to make my own site with the same goal and do it properly .
So why do n't we tell him to do the same ?
If you see a problem with the industry , either fix it or stfu .
No one is going to change the way they make games to please some random person on the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty easy to complain about something not being done right.
I could complain that slashdot is doing it wrong, to which hundreds of helpful comments would tell me to make my own site with the same goal and do it properly.
So why don't we tell him to do the same?
If you see a problem with the industry, either fix it or stfu.
No one is going to change the way they make games to please some random person on the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580852</id>
	<title>Re:Operation Flashpoint</title>
	<author>janek78</author>
	<datestamp>1262090940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Codemasters did not make the first one either. They published it. It was made by BIS, who now made ARMA and ARMA2. I loved Operation Flashpoint, the suspense and fear (and eventual reward) was unlike any other game. ARMA2 seems to be more of the same, but plagued with bugs that make it too annoying to play. Shame.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Codemasters did not make the first one either .
They published it .
It was made by BIS , who now made ARMA and ARMA2 .
I loved Operation Flashpoint , the suspense and fear ( and eventual reward ) was unlike any other game .
ARMA2 seems to be more of the same , but plagued with bugs that make it too annoying to play .
Shame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Codemasters did not make the first one either.
They published it.
It was made by BIS, who now made ARMA and ARMA2.
I loved Operation Flashpoint, the suspense and fear (and eventual reward) was unlike any other game.
ARMA2 seems to be more of the same, but plagued with bugs that make it too annoying to play.
Shame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581122</id>
	<title>Recipe for disaster</title>
	<author>JunkDNA</author>
	<datestamp>1262094180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like movies, videogames are an escape. We want them to be "real" in the sense that we want to suspend disbelief (and thus the drive to create more realistic looking games). But once things look real enough, I think people tend to want the gameplay to be a bit more on the fantastic side. There's certainly room for things like Splinter Cell where you have some decent realism. Sometimes you might want Clancy-style realism. However, a lot of gamers prefer the "Jerry Bruckheimer" brand of "realism".</p><p>A personal example:<br>When I was a kid, I loved playing the original Amiga version of F-16 Falcon. It was a really fun sim and not too difficult to pick up and have a good time. It wasn't ultra-realistic, but it was just realistic enough to make you feel as though you were flying an airplane. Fast forward a few years and they released a sequel (this time for PC with 3D accelerated graphics). They had decided to make a very accurate F-16 simulator. I was so excited to try it out (being a big fkight sim fan). Finally, I would have a realistic military sim with great graphics!</p><p>It was so accurate, I found that all the fun was gone. The manual was a huge beast (a three ring binder if I remember correctly) that had all the details of how to operate the plane. I was just barely able to fly the thing. Landing? Forget it. I would crash over and over again. I've logged a lot of hours in MS Flight Simulator and other sims, so I'm sure that if I had practiced and read all the material I could have gotten better at it. That, however, sounds suspiciously like work. I realized that this was not really a game anymore. Furthermore, I realized that the truth is: I don't actually want to know how to fly a real F16. I just want to prentend I'm flying one so I can enjoy raids and dogfight. I want it to be just complex enough that I get a taste of the realism, but I don't want to have to sit there with a clipboard and go through a pre-flight checklist every time I want to take to the air.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like movies , videogames are an escape .
We want them to be " real " in the sense that we want to suspend disbelief ( and thus the drive to create more realistic looking games ) .
But once things look real enough , I think people tend to want the gameplay to be a bit more on the fantastic side .
There 's certainly room for things like Splinter Cell where you have some decent realism .
Sometimes you might want Clancy-style realism .
However , a lot of gamers prefer the " Jerry Bruckheimer " brand of " realism " .A personal example : When I was a kid , I loved playing the original Amiga version of F-16 Falcon .
It was a really fun sim and not too difficult to pick up and have a good time .
It was n't ultra-realistic , but it was just realistic enough to make you feel as though you were flying an airplane .
Fast forward a few years and they released a sequel ( this time for PC with 3D accelerated graphics ) .
They had decided to make a very accurate F-16 simulator .
I was so excited to try it out ( being a big fkight sim fan ) .
Finally , I would have a realistic military sim with great graphics ! It was so accurate , I found that all the fun was gone .
The manual was a huge beast ( a three ring binder if I remember correctly ) that had all the details of how to operate the plane .
I was just barely able to fly the thing .
Landing ? Forget it .
I would crash over and over again .
I 've logged a lot of hours in MS Flight Simulator and other sims , so I 'm sure that if I had practiced and read all the material I could have gotten better at it .
That , however , sounds suspiciously like work .
I realized that this was not really a game anymore .
Furthermore , I realized that the truth is : I do n't actually want to know how to fly a real F16 .
I just want to prentend I 'm flying one so I can enjoy raids and dogfight .
I want it to be just complex enough that I get a taste of the realism , but I do n't want to have to sit there with a clipboard and go through a pre-flight checklist every time I want to take to the air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like movies, videogames are an escape.
We want them to be "real" in the sense that we want to suspend disbelief (and thus the drive to create more realistic looking games).
But once things look real enough, I think people tend to want the gameplay to be a bit more on the fantastic side.
There's certainly room for things like Splinter Cell where you have some decent realism.
Sometimes you might want Clancy-style realism.
However, a lot of gamers prefer the "Jerry Bruckheimer" brand of "realism".A personal example:When I was a kid, I loved playing the original Amiga version of F-16 Falcon.
It was a really fun sim and not too difficult to pick up and have a good time.
It wasn't ultra-realistic, but it was just realistic enough to make you feel as though you were flying an airplane.
Fast forward a few years and they released a sequel (this time for PC with 3D accelerated graphics).
They had decided to make a very accurate F-16 simulator.
I was so excited to try it out (being a big fkight sim fan).
Finally, I would have a realistic military sim with great graphics!It was so accurate, I found that all the fun was gone.
The manual was a huge beast (a three ring binder if I remember correctly) that had all the details of how to operate the plane.
I was just barely able to fly the thing.
Landing? Forget it.
I would crash over and over again.
I've logged a lot of hours in MS Flight Simulator and other sims, so I'm sure that if I had practiced and read all the material I could have gotten better at it.
That, however, sounds suspiciously like work.
I realized that this was not really a game anymore.
Furthermore, I realized that the truth is: I don't actually want to know how to fly a real F16.
I just want to prentend I'm flying one so I can enjoy raids and dogfight.
I want it to be just complex enough that I get a taste of the realism, but I don't want to have to sit there with a clipboard and go through a pre-flight checklist every time I want to take to the air.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581056</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1262093520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; I want an accessory that is worn on your torso (as a vest) and delivers<br>&gt; a paintball-like punch when an in-game bullet strikes your avatar.<br><br>Getting punched with a paintball isn't the same thing as getting shot with armor-piercing rounds.  Meh.  We need better realism than that.<br><br>I'm working on a gaming accessory that monitors your in-game situation and, when your character gets shot, actually fires a bullet at the gamer.  It's sensitive to the seriousness of the in-game wound, so if your character catches a glancing blow across his thigh from halfway across the game world the real bullet is a low-velocity one and just grazes your thigh, but if your character takes a point-blank shot to the chest you won't be able to keep playing.  Patent pending.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I want an accessory that is worn on your torso ( as a vest ) and delivers &gt; a paintball-like punch when an in-game bullet strikes your avatar.Getting punched with a paintball is n't the same thing as getting shot with armor-piercing rounds .
Meh. We need better realism than that.I 'm working on a gaming accessory that monitors your in-game situation and , when your character gets shot , actually fires a bullet at the gamer .
It 's sensitive to the seriousness of the in-game wound , so if your character catches a glancing blow across his thigh from halfway across the game world the real bullet is a low-velocity one and just grazes your thigh , but if your character takes a point-blank shot to the chest you wo n't be able to keep playing .
Patent pending .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I want an accessory that is worn on your torso (as a vest) and delivers&gt; a paintball-like punch when an in-game bullet strikes your avatar.Getting punched with a paintball isn't the same thing as getting shot with armor-piercing rounds.
Meh.  We need better realism than that.I'm working on a gaming accessory that monitors your in-game situation and, when your character gets shot, actually fires a bullet at the gamer.
It's sensitive to the seriousness of the in-game wound, so if your character catches a glancing blow across his thigh from halfway across the game world the real bullet is a low-velocity one and just grazes your thigh, but if your character takes a point-blank shot to the chest you won't be able to keep playing.
Patent pending.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581810</id>
	<title>BTDT in the MUD days</title>
	<author>SecurityGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1262100960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to play on one back in the day that went through the cries for more realism phase, so the next rev had more realism, and the next rev well and truly sucked, and was rapidly fixed to make it actually fun again.</p><p>We don't play games because they're like real life.  We play games because they're NOT like real life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to play on one back in the day that went through the cries for more realism phase , so the next rev had more realism , and the next rev well and truly sucked , and was rapidly fixed to make it actually fun again.We do n't play games because they 're like real life .
We play games because they 're NOT like real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to play on one back in the day that went through the cries for more realism phase, so the next rev had more realism, and the next rev well and truly sucked, and was rapidly fixed to make it actually fun again.We don't play games because they're like real life.
We play games because they're NOT like real life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580692</id>
	<title>No thanks</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1262088720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any sufficiently realistic video game will heal your character via virtual health insurance forms.</p><p>Thanks, but I'll take my crowbar any day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any sufficiently realistic video game will heal your character via virtual health insurance forms.Thanks , but I 'll take my crowbar any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any sufficiently realistic video game will heal your character via virtual health insurance forms.Thanks, but I'll take my crowbar any day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583608</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262110800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If there's no cover, then a game simple degenerates into a sniper fest. "</p><p>If that happens, you're players suck.</p><p>Of course I can' t think of a single map like that. However the head shot Window for the Bow is too freaking large, and then new stuff that gave the demo man needs serious nerfing.</p><p>How does latency figure into your timing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If there 's no cover , then a game simple degenerates into a sniper fest .
" If that happens , you 're players suck.Of course I can ' t think of a single map like that .
However the head shot Window for the Bow is too freaking large , and then new stuff that gave the demo man needs serious nerfing.How does latency figure into your timing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If there's no cover, then a game simple degenerates into a sniper fest.
"If that happens, you're players suck.Of course I can' t think of a single map like that.
However the head shot Window for the Bow is too freaking large, and then new stuff that gave the demo man needs serious nerfing.How does latency figure into your timing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581142</id>
	<title>Fantasy</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1262094420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I want gamers to have showers and wear deodorant when they go game and PC shopping.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want gamers to have showers and wear deodorant when they go game and PC shopping .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want gamers to have showers and wear deodorant when they go game and PC shopping.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580962</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1262092320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I definitely agree with the article, unrealistic games are terrible. I've found myself gravitating towards games with realistic damage rates and weapon accuracies.</p><p>For example:</p><p>- Counter Strike: Used to be really good in the <i>early</i> betas, then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed. I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy's head, missed with every bullet, and then had him turn around and knife me. Over 90\% of players had never played CS when it was <i>good</i>, and have no idea just what they're missing...</p></div><p>Try Cod4 on Hardcore servers. Usually One bullet is enough for a kill.
Funny thing is CS lamers took over "professional gaming" side of things and forced community to play so called ProMod. ProMod turns Cod4 into a CS clone where you need HALF AK47 clip to kill someone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... recoil is reduced, no gun sway, and sniper rifles are 100\% accurate. Not to mention it removes all tactical perks. Its like "pro" players cant handle hard game so they made it lamer friendly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I definitely agree with the article , unrealistic games are terrible .
I 've found myself gravitating towards games with realistic damage rates and weapon accuracies.For example : - Counter Strike : Used to be really good in the early betas , then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed .
I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy 's head , missed with every bullet , and then had him turn around and knife me .
Over 90 \ % of players had never played CS when it was good , and have no idea just what they 're missing...Try Cod4 on Hardcore servers .
Usually One bullet is enough for a kill .
Funny thing is CS lamers took over " professional gaming " side of things and forced community to play so called ProMod .
ProMod turns Cod4 into a CS clone where you need HALF AK47 clip to kill someone ... recoil is reduced , no gun sway , and sniper rifles are 100 \ % accurate .
Not to mention it removes all tactical perks .
Its like " pro " players cant handle hard game so they made it lamer friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I definitely agree with the article, unrealistic games are terrible.
I've found myself gravitating towards games with realistic damage rates and weapon accuracies.For example:- Counter Strike: Used to be really good in the early betas, then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed.
I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy's head, missed with every bullet, and then had him turn around and knife me.
Over 90\% of players had never played CS when it was good, and have no idea just what they're missing...Try Cod4 on Hardcore servers.
Usually One bullet is enough for a kill.
Funny thing is CS lamers took over "professional gaming" side of things and forced community to play so called ProMod.
ProMod turns Cod4 into a CS clone where you need HALF AK47 clip to kill someone ... recoil is reduced, no gun sway, and sniper rifles are 100\% accurate.
Not to mention it removes all tactical perks.
Its like "pro" players cant handle hard game so they made it lamer friendly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581980</id>
	<title>Re:Typical mistake...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262102100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is somewhat similar to, say, people wanting hardcore pvp in mmos with full loot. You only suggest something like this if you can imagine yourself always on the winning side. Because otherwise, theese mechanics suck.</p></div><p>The players that actively participate in EVE Online's PVP would disagree.  It's not something that has to be awful unless you always win, it's just that games with loot models like World of Warcraft and the like aren't designed for it - if you have to have uncommon-to-rare drops from high-level encounters to even compete, then yeah, getting mauled can be frustrating enough to quit over.  If equipment that's decently easy to replace is worth using, then death is still something to be avoided if possible, but it's not game-cripplingly inconvenient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is somewhat similar to , say , people wanting hardcore pvp in mmos with full loot .
You only suggest something like this if you can imagine yourself always on the winning side .
Because otherwise , theese mechanics suck.The players that actively participate in EVE Online 's PVP would disagree .
It 's not something that has to be awful unless you always win , it 's just that games with loot models like World of Warcraft and the like are n't designed for it - if you have to have uncommon-to-rare drops from high-level encounters to even compete , then yeah , getting mauled can be frustrating enough to quit over .
If equipment that 's decently easy to replace is worth using , then death is still something to be avoided if possible , but it 's not game-cripplingly inconvenient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is somewhat similar to, say, people wanting hardcore pvp in mmos with full loot.
You only suggest something like this if you can imagine yourself always on the winning side.
Because otherwise, theese mechanics suck.The players that actively participate in EVE Online's PVP would disagree.
It's not something that has to be awful unless you always win, it's just that games with loot models like World of Warcraft and the like aren't designed for it - if you have to have uncommon-to-rare drops from high-level encounters to even compete, then yeah, getting mauled can be frustrating enough to quit over.
If equipment that's decently easy to replace is worth using, then death is still something to be avoided if possible, but it's not game-cripplingly inconvenient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581156</id>
	<title>Re:Americas Army</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262094840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before America's Army we had counterterrorism games. In the mod <em>Tactical Ops</em> for Unreal Tournament, an unarmored player would find himself at 12\% health after even many trivial hits. A shot with a large weapon to your arm would kill you. Realism? Not exactly, but you certainly weren't permitted to stroll merrily through a hail of fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before America 's Army we had counterterrorism games .
In the mod Tactical Ops for Unreal Tournament , an unarmored player would find himself at 12 \ % health after even many trivial hits .
A shot with a large weapon to your arm would kill you .
Realism ? Not exactly , but you certainly were n't permitted to stroll merrily through a hail of fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before America's Army we had counterterrorism games.
In the mod Tactical Ops for Unreal Tournament, an unarmored player would find himself at 12\% health after even many trivial hits.
A shot with a large weapon to your arm would kill you.
Realism? Not exactly, but you certainly weren't permitted to stroll merrily through a hail of fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580986</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>atilla filiz</author>
	<datestamp>1262092620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I applied for a patent of mu USB revolver. Each time your avatar gets hit, the gadget shots you with a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.44 bullet. Now, this is what I call immersion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I applied for a patent of mu USB revolver .
Each time your avatar gets hit , the gadget shots you with a .44 bullet .
Now , this is what I call immersion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I applied for a patent of mu USB revolver.
Each time your avatar gets hit, the gadget shots you with a .44 bullet.
Now, this is what I call immersion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580632</id>
	<title>Ghost Recon</title>
	<author>hkultala</author>
	<datestamp>1262087700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>very good game from 2001-2002.</p><p>One bullet usually kills.</p><p>Aiming is as slow as reality, no matter how good mouse hand the player has.</p><p>Realistic fog whose purpose is not to look nice, but to hinder visibility.</p><p>I consider this to be the best first person 3d game ever made.</p><p>The sequels were not so good, they were too much action, losing some of the realism, and losing the big maps.</p><p>Operation flashpoint is another example. It was also very good, maybe even mode realistic, but the playability was not as good as with ghost recon, so I rank Ghost recon as #1.</p><p>I am waiting for someone to create real sequel to Ghost Recon, instead of those Ghost Recon:Advanced warfighter toy shooters which differ nothing from those cs and other toy games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>very good game from 2001-2002.One bullet usually kills.Aiming is as slow as reality , no matter how good mouse hand the player has.Realistic fog whose purpose is not to look nice , but to hinder visibility.I consider this to be the best first person 3d game ever made.The sequels were not so good , they were too much action , losing some of the realism , and losing the big maps.Operation flashpoint is another example .
It was also very good , maybe even mode realistic , but the playability was not as good as with ghost recon , so I rank Ghost recon as # 1.I am waiting for someone to create real sequel to Ghost Recon , instead of those Ghost Recon : Advanced warfighter toy shooters which differ nothing from those cs and other toy games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very good game from 2001-2002.One bullet usually kills.Aiming is as slow as reality, no matter how good mouse hand the player has.Realistic fog whose purpose is not to look nice, but to hinder visibility.I consider this to be the best first person 3d game ever made.The sequels were not so good, they were too much action, losing some of the realism, and losing the big maps.Operation flashpoint is another example.
It was also very good, maybe even mode realistic, but the playability was not as good as with ghost recon, so I rank Ghost recon as #1.I am waiting for someone to create real sequel to Ghost Recon, instead of those Ghost Recon:Advanced warfighter toy shooters which differ nothing from those cs and other toy games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581276</id>
	<title>Re:Americas Army</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262096460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Americas Army is shit all realistic. The netcode doesn't work for a realistic shooter (it's great in the Unreal Tournament series though). Ravenshield uses the same code and has the same problem.<br>Shots are delayed (instead of damage delayed, like CS), so people just walk around in circles while emptying clip after clip, hoping that the opponent is there when a shot hits.<br>Or use frag grenades. Both games have 10-30 frag grenades going off in every round, before the actual combat starts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americas Army is shit all realistic .
The netcode does n't work for a realistic shooter ( it 's great in the Unreal Tournament series though ) .
Ravenshield uses the same code and has the same problem.Shots are delayed ( instead of damage delayed , like CS ) , so people just walk around in circles while emptying clip after clip , hoping that the opponent is there when a shot hits.Or use frag grenades .
Both games have 10-30 frag grenades going off in every round , before the actual combat starts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americas Army is shit all realistic.
The netcode doesn't work for a realistic shooter (it's great in the Unreal Tournament series though).
Ravenshield uses the same code and has the same problem.Shots are delayed (instead of damage delayed, like CS), so people just walk around in circles while emptying clip after clip, hoping that the opponent is there when a shot hits.Or use frag grenades.
Both games have 10-30 frag grenades going off in every round, before the actual combat starts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580454</id>
	<title>Reality is either boring or deadly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262085240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I'm going to play a game, I want fun and excitement without any real threat of getting killed or suffering pain.<br>Without those things, games will never be 'real'.<br>I'm not troubled by that in the slightest.</p><p>By the way, Hollywood (a generic way of referring to almost all TV and Movies) doesn't portray reality, even when they claim to.<br>Oh, and professional wrestling is fake also...<br>
&nbsp; (Slashdotters know that, but you'd be amazed how many people don't have a clue...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm going to play a game , I want fun and excitement without any real threat of getting killed or suffering pain.Without those things , games will never be 'real'.I 'm not troubled by that in the slightest.By the way , Hollywood ( a generic way of referring to almost all TV and Movies ) does n't portray reality , even when they claim to.Oh , and professional wrestling is fake also.. .   ( Slashdotters know that , but you 'd be amazed how many people do n't have a clue... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm going to play a game, I want fun and excitement without any real threat of getting killed or suffering pain.Without those things, games will never be 'real'.I'm not troubled by that in the slightest.By the way, Hollywood (a generic way of referring to almost all TV and Movies) doesn't portray reality, even when they claim to.Oh, and professional wrestling is fake also...
  (Slashdotters know that, but you'd be amazed how many people don't have a clue...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581592</id>
	<title>Project Reality</title>
	<author>ACS Solver</author>
	<datestamp>1262099220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to mention this game, hasn't been mentioned so far in the thread. <a href="http://www.realitymod.com/" title="realitymod.com">Project Reality</a> [realitymod.com] is a team-based, teamwork-oriented, fairly realistic game. It absolutely craps on AA. I used to play AA for my "realism" fix, haven't even thought about AA since trying PR. Yes, PR has re-spawns, but it's more realistic. Also, it's a game where teamwork is actually present. People typically use VOIP and coordination within a single squad is usually good. On the better servers, the entire team will often work together in a coordinated fashion.<br> <br>

PR is actually a mod for Battlefield 2, so it's free if you own BF2. If not, I guess you can easily grab a copy of BF2 for under 10 USD these days.<br> <br>

A word of warning: PR is rather hardcore and fairly demanding, in terms of patience, willingness to work together and willingness to learn - there are numerous aspects of the game you won't immediately grok. But if you're looking for teamwork, tactics and realism, look PR up, it may well be what you want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to mention this game , has n't been mentioned so far in the thread .
Project Reality [ realitymod.com ] is a team-based , teamwork-oriented , fairly realistic game .
It absolutely craps on AA .
I used to play AA for my " realism " fix , have n't even thought about AA since trying PR .
Yes , PR has re-spawns , but it 's more realistic .
Also , it 's a game where teamwork is actually present .
People typically use VOIP and coordination within a single squad is usually good .
On the better servers , the entire team will often work together in a coordinated fashion .
PR is actually a mod for Battlefield 2 , so it 's free if you own BF2 .
If not , I guess you can easily grab a copy of BF2 for under 10 USD these days .
A word of warning : PR is rather hardcore and fairly demanding , in terms of patience , willingness to work together and willingness to learn - there are numerous aspects of the game you wo n't immediately grok .
But if you 're looking for teamwork , tactics and realism , look PR up , it may well be what you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to mention this game, hasn't been mentioned so far in the thread.
Project Reality [realitymod.com] is a team-based, teamwork-oriented, fairly realistic game.
It absolutely craps on AA.
I used to play AA for my "realism" fix, haven't even thought about AA since trying PR.
Yes, PR has re-spawns, but it's more realistic.
Also, it's a game where teamwork is actually present.
People typically use VOIP and coordination within a single squad is usually good.
On the better servers, the entire team will often work together in a coordinated fashion.
PR is actually a mod for Battlefield 2, so it's free if you own BF2.
If not, I guess you can easily grab a copy of BF2 for under 10 USD these days.
A word of warning: PR is rather hardcore and fairly demanding, in terms of patience, willingness to work together and willingness to learn - there are numerous aspects of the game you won't immediately grok.
But if you're looking for teamwork, tactics and realism, look PR up, it may well be what you want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580554</id>
	<title>The last game I've played</title>
	<author>2Bits</author>
	<datestamp>1262086800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time I played a computer game was in 95, and after that, I lost passion for games. That was called, fairly enough, Virtual World. It's a game where you sit in a cage modeled like a car, and you drove it in the mining tunnel on Mars. Obviously, the car is not really moving, but it had enough hydraulic system to simulate certain action to give some realism, like a flight simulator. It was expensive to play, $15 per 15 minutes. It's a multi-player game in which you tried to shoot each other while racing. If you got shot, you heard a bang on your back, and the car shook so hard it gave you dizziness. If you sit with your back on the seat back, it could hurt pretty bad.</p><p>I spent a lot money playing that game, and after, I had no passions for other non-realistic games anymore. I always say to my other gamer friends that the game they play are for pimps<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time I played a computer game was in 95 , and after that , I lost passion for games .
That was called , fairly enough , Virtual World .
It 's a game where you sit in a cage modeled like a car , and you drove it in the mining tunnel on Mars .
Obviously , the car is not really moving , but it had enough hydraulic system to simulate certain action to give some realism , like a flight simulator .
It was expensive to play , $ 15 per 15 minutes .
It 's a multi-player game in which you tried to shoot each other while racing .
If you got shot , you heard a bang on your back , and the car shook so hard it gave you dizziness .
If you sit with your back on the seat back , it could hurt pretty bad.I spent a lot money playing that game , and after , I had no passions for other non-realistic games anymore .
I always say to my other gamer friends that the game they play are for pimps : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time I played a computer game was in 95, and after that, I lost passion for games.
That was called, fairly enough, Virtual World.
It's a game where you sit in a cage modeled like a car, and you drove it in the mining tunnel on Mars.
Obviously, the car is not really moving, but it had enough hydraulic system to simulate certain action to give some realism, like a flight simulator.
It was expensive to play, $15 per 15 minutes.
It's a multi-player game in which you tried to shoot each other while racing.
If you got shot, you heard a bang on your back, and the car shook so hard it gave you dizziness.
If you sit with your back on the seat back, it could hurt pretty bad.I spent a lot money playing that game, and after, I had no passions for other non-realistic games anymore.
I always say to my other gamer friends that the game they play are for pimps :)
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581628</id>
	<title>bang your dead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262099580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bang your dead end of game Oh dear you only just started shame close the thing down restart and try again this time pay attention and you might just escape getting wasted on the spot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bang your dead end of game Oh dear you only just started shame close the thing down restart and try again this time pay attention and you might just escape getting wasted on the spot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bang your dead end of game Oh dear you only just started shame close the thing down restart and try again this time pay attention and you might just escape getting wasted on the spot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581018</id>
	<title>Thief</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262092920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't ever get hurt because no ennemy AI even knew I was here. No need for healing potion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't ever get hurt because no ennemy AI even knew I was here .
No need for healing potion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't ever get hurt because no ennemy AI even knew I was here.
No need for healing potion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581430</id>
	<title>Re:Incan Basketball Rules</title>
	<author>Revolver4ever</author>
	<datestamp>1262097780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's more likely that the winning team was sacrificed. Human sacrifice was a way to appease the gods with the best of our own world - thus many in the Aztec culture viewed it as an honor to be sacrificed. So the winners (most fit warriors) were likely to be offered to the gods.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more likely that the winning team was sacrificed .
Human sacrifice was a way to appease the gods with the best of our own world - thus many in the Aztec culture viewed it as an honor to be sacrificed .
So the winners ( most fit warriors ) were likely to be offered to the gods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more likely that the winning team was sacrificed.
Human sacrifice was a way to appease the gods with the best of our own world - thus many in the Aztec culture viewed it as an honor to be sacrificed.
So the winners (most fit warriors) were likely to be offered to the gods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585482</id>
	<title>Escapism</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1262119560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What Do Gamers Really Want?</p></div><p>Yes, what does that monolithic mass of identically thinking game players want?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We want fantasy.</p></div><p>Wow. Figured that out all on your own, eh, Landry?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been shot at a couple of times. I don't mean I was sitting at the TV waving a controller around so a little pixel person could dodge cyborg powered armor piercing poison tipped bullets. Nope. These were just bullets from a simple and boring hand gun.</p></div><p>Does he mean he was actually shot at in real life? Could this be some sort of mental issue where he wants to recreate the effect that had on him?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I want a game that recreates that insane rush of endorphins and adrenaline or whatever it is after hearing a simple bullet crack past your ear.</p></div><p>Seriously weird. I once had a speeding, red light running car miss me (as a pedestrian) by inches, but I feel no desire to play Frogger a lot.</p><p>As a gamer I want a fun game. The path the developer takes to get there is irrelevant.</p><p>Realism is fine if done well, but ultimately nonessential. Would it help to have Mario asphyxiate in the screaming void of space while traveling between levels in Super Mario Galaxy? Well, actually, that *would* be pretty funny.</p><p>Anyway, there's more to gaming than bullets. There's entire games with a single bullet in them. Getting shot dead in Flower would be unnecessarily jarring.</p><p>Cracked covered game realism with a Photoshop contest: <a href="http://www.cracked.com/photoshop\_85\_if-video-games-were-realistic\_p27" title="cracked.com">http://www.cracked.com/photoshop\_85\_if-video-games-were-realistic\_p27</a> [cracked.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What Do Gamers Really Want ? Yes , what does that monolithic mass of identically thinking game players want ? We want fantasy.Wow .
Figured that out all on your own , eh , Landry ? I 've been shot at a couple of times .
I do n't mean I was sitting at the TV waving a controller around so a little pixel person could dodge cyborg powered armor piercing poison tipped bullets .
Nope. These were just bullets from a simple and boring hand gun.Does he mean he was actually shot at in real life ?
Could this be some sort of mental issue where he wants to recreate the effect that had on him ? I want a game that recreates that insane rush of endorphins and adrenaline or whatever it is after hearing a simple bullet crack past your ear.Seriously weird .
I once had a speeding , red light running car miss me ( as a pedestrian ) by inches , but I feel no desire to play Frogger a lot.As a gamer I want a fun game .
The path the developer takes to get there is irrelevant.Realism is fine if done well , but ultimately nonessential .
Would it help to have Mario asphyxiate in the screaming void of space while traveling between levels in Super Mario Galaxy ?
Well , actually , that * would * be pretty funny.Anyway , there 's more to gaming than bullets .
There 's entire games with a single bullet in them .
Getting shot dead in Flower would be unnecessarily jarring.Cracked covered game realism with a Photoshop contest : http : //www.cracked.com/photoshop \ _85 \ _if-video-games-were-realistic \ _p27 [ cracked.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What Do Gamers Really Want?Yes, what does that monolithic mass of identically thinking game players want?We want fantasy.Wow.
Figured that out all on your own, eh, Landry?I've been shot at a couple of times.
I don't mean I was sitting at the TV waving a controller around so a little pixel person could dodge cyborg powered armor piercing poison tipped bullets.
Nope. These were just bullets from a simple and boring hand gun.Does he mean he was actually shot at in real life?
Could this be some sort of mental issue where he wants to recreate the effect that had on him?I want a game that recreates that insane rush of endorphins and adrenaline or whatever it is after hearing a simple bullet crack past your ear.Seriously weird.
I once had a speeding, red light running car miss me (as a pedestrian) by inches, but I feel no desire to play Frogger a lot.As a gamer I want a fun game.
The path the developer takes to get there is irrelevant.Realism is fine if done well, but ultimately nonessential.
Would it help to have Mario asphyxiate in the screaming void of space while traveling between levels in Super Mario Galaxy?
Well, actually, that *would* be pretty funny.Anyway, there's more to gaming than bullets.
There's entire games with a single bullet in them.
Getting shot dead in Flower would be unnecessarily jarring.Cracked covered game realism with a Photoshop contest: http://www.cracked.com/photoshop\_85\_if-video-games-were-realistic\_p27 [cracked.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581004</id>
	<title>Never played a modern game</title>
	<author>FrozenFOXX</author>
	<datestamp>1262092800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apparently this person's never played Call of Duty multiplayer in hardcore mode.  Is it realistic?  No, but it's a lot closer to what the person apparently wants.  You get hit by a single bullet in the foot halfway across the map and you're DOWN.  Guess how much fun it is.  Nevermind the fact that the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.50 cal Sniper Rifle can't do the same thing, but that's another discussion.<br> <br>

But then apparently this person's never played the original Ninja Gaiden either.  Fantasy setting, yeah, but that game beat you HORRIBLY if you screwed up even a little bit.  Getting hit by demon spawn was a lot like...well, getting hit by demon spawn.  It sucked, there was no health regeneration (minus a single, very very slow regenerative item later).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently this person 's never played Call of Duty multiplayer in hardcore mode .
Is it realistic ?
No , but it 's a lot closer to what the person apparently wants .
You get hit by a single bullet in the foot halfway across the map and you 're DOWN .
Guess how much fun it is .
Nevermind the fact that the .50 cal Sniper Rifle ca n't do the same thing , but that 's another discussion .
But then apparently this person 's never played the original Ninja Gaiden either .
Fantasy setting , yeah , but that game beat you HORRIBLY if you screwed up even a little bit .
Getting hit by demon spawn was a lot like...well , getting hit by demon spawn .
It sucked , there was no health regeneration ( minus a single , very very slow regenerative item later ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently this person's never played Call of Duty multiplayer in hardcore mode.
Is it realistic?
No, but it's a lot closer to what the person apparently wants.
You get hit by a single bullet in the foot halfway across the map and you're DOWN.
Guess how much fun it is.
Nevermind the fact that the .50 cal Sniper Rifle can't do the same thing, but that's another discussion.
But then apparently this person's never played the original Ninja Gaiden either.
Fantasy setting, yeah, but that game beat you HORRIBLY if you screwed up even a little bit.
Getting hit by demon spawn was a lot like...well, getting hit by demon spawn.
It sucked, there was no health regeneration (minus a single, very very slow regenerative item later).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582764</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Immerial</author>
	<datestamp>1262106540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Um... I never get this. Why do people keep complaining about <b>Unreal</b> Tournament being unrealistic?! It's. In. The. F-ing. Title.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... I never get this .
Why do people keep complaining about Unreal Tournament being unrealistic ? !
It 's. In .
The. F-ing .
Title .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... I never get this.
Why do people keep complaining about Unreal Tournament being unrealistic?!
It's. In.
The. F-ing.
Title.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582382</id>
	<title>Re:GTA: 5?</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1262104440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Felony stop if you get above 2 stars, and banned for a day of "real world" time, because you're in jail. If you kill a man and get caught, you lose the game. </i>
<br>
<br>
Ahh, nothing like raining death and destruction on a city in a military-grade tank, then getting a fine and a few hours in jail when they finally catch you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Felony stop if you get above 2 stars , and banned for a day of " real world " time , because you 're in jail .
If you kill a man and get caught , you lose the game .
Ahh , nothing like raining death and destruction on a city in a military-grade tank , then getting a fine and a few hours in jail when they finally catch you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Felony stop if you get above 2 stars, and banned for a day of "real world" time, because you're in jail.
If you kill a man and get caught, you lose the game.
Ahh, nothing like raining death and destruction on a city in a military-grade tank, then getting a fine and a few hours in jail when they finally catch you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581760</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1262100540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; For true realism try Americas Army 3, the slightest bullet wound can leave you slowly bleeding to death.<br><br>Do you also get air-dropped off at the wrong spot, and have to walk for hours to the actual battle zone, only to then get killed by your own side's trigger happy pilots?</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; For true realism try Americas Army 3 , the slightest bullet wound can leave you slowly bleeding to death.Do you also get air-dropped off at the wrong spot , and have to walk for hours to the actual battle zone , only to then get killed by your own side 's trigger happy pilots ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; For true realism try Americas Army 3, the slightest bullet wound can leave you slowly bleeding to death.Do you also get air-dropped off at the wrong spot, and have to walk for hours to the actual battle zone, only to then get killed by your own side's trigger happy pilots?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I definitely agree with the article, unrealistic games are terrible. I've found myself gravitating towards games with realistic damage rates and weapon accuracies.</p><p>For example:</p><p>- Counter Strike: Used to be really good in the <i>early</i> betas, then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed. I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy's head, missed with every bullet, and then had him turn around and knife me. Over 90\% of players had never played CS when it was <i>good</i>, and have no idea just what they're missing...<br>- Day of Defeat: started off awesome, then slowly went downhill, but never to the same extent as CS. Players who thought they were 'l33t' at CS got massacred when they joined DoD games.<br>- Team Fortress / TF2: feels like you're using nerfbats at first, but there's lots of instant-deaths, more then you'd expect, which makes up for it. (snipers, spies, crits, etc...)<br>- Left 4 Dead 1 &amp; 2: I love the way that one bullet from most guns will kill a dozen zombies in a row. Not only that, but Valve made the guns in #2 <i>better</i>, not worse! Someone at Valve is clearly learning!</p><p>Contrast these games with the likes of Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, or the like. In those games, three or four direct hits with a rocket weapon is not enough. It's like using nerfbats. What's worse, Tribes basically had no <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitscan" title="wikipedia.org">hitscan</a> [wikipedia.org] weapons, so at range, you couldn't even hit anything moving, and even if you did get a lucky shot in, it would do no significant damage.</p><p>I've found that the games with accurate, lethal weapons result in very different game play. People jump around like rabbits less, stick to cover more, crouch, avoid open spaces, etc... Basically, they play just like you see soldiers or SWAT behave in real life. It's also gives me a much bigger adrenaline rush. Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror, ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension. Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I definitely agree with the article , unrealistic games are terrible .
I 've found myself gravitating towards games with realistic damage rates and weapon accuracies.For example : - Counter Strike : Used to be really good in the early betas , then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed .
I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy 's head , missed with every bullet , and then had him turn around and knife me .
Over 90 \ % of players had never played CS when it was good , and have no idea just what they 're missing...- Day of Defeat : started off awesome , then slowly went downhill , but never to the same extent as CS .
Players who thought they were 'l33t ' at CS got massacred when they joined DoD games.- Team Fortress / TF2 : feels like you 're using nerfbats at first , but there 's lots of instant-deaths , more then you 'd expect , which makes up for it .
( snipers , spies , crits , etc... ) - Left 4 Dead 1 &amp; 2 : I love the way that one bullet from most guns will kill a dozen zombies in a row .
Not only that , but Valve made the guns in # 2 better , not worse !
Someone at Valve is clearly learning ! Contrast these games with the likes of Quake , Unreal Tournament , Tribes , or the like .
In those games , three or four direct hits with a rocket weapon is not enough .
It 's like using nerfbats .
What 's worse , Tribes basically had no hitscan [ wikipedia.org ] weapons , so at range , you could n't even hit anything moving , and even if you did get a lucky shot in , it would do no significant damage.I 've found that the games with accurate , lethal weapons result in very different game play .
People jump around like rabbits less , stick to cover more , crouch , avoid open spaces , etc... Basically , they play just like you see soldiers or SWAT behave in real life .
It 's also gives me a much bigger adrenaline rush .
Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror , ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension .
Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I definitely agree with the article, unrealistic games are terrible.
I've found myself gravitating towards games with realistic damage rates and weapon accuracies.For example:- Counter Strike: Used to be really good in the early betas, then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed.
I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy's head, missed with every bullet, and then had him turn around and knife me.
Over 90\% of players had never played CS when it was good, and have no idea just what they're missing...- Day of Defeat: started off awesome, then slowly went downhill, but never to the same extent as CS.
Players who thought they were 'l33t' at CS got massacred when they joined DoD games.- Team Fortress / TF2: feels like you're using nerfbats at first, but there's lots of instant-deaths, more then you'd expect, which makes up for it.
(snipers, spies, crits, etc...)- Left 4 Dead 1 &amp; 2: I love the way that one bullet from most guns will kill a dozen zombies in a row.
Not only that, but Valve made the guns in #2 better, not worse!
Someone at Valve is clearly learning!Contrast these games with the likes of Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, or the like.
In those games, three or four direct hits with a rocket weapon is not enough.
It's like using nerfbats.
What's worse, Tribes basically had no hitscan [wikipedia.org] weapons, so at range, you couldn't even hit anything moving, and even if you did get a lucky shot in, it would do no significant damage.I've found that the games with accurate, lethal weapons result in very different game play.
People jump around like rabbits less, stick to cover more, crouch, avoid open spaces, etc... Basically, they play just like you see soldiers or SWAT behave in real life.
It's also gives me a much bigger adrenaline rush.
Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror, ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension.
Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581372</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1262097240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For true realism try Americas Army 3</p></div></blockquote><p>If you want realism, there's a recruiting office down at the local mall that has a total immersion game that will rock your world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For true realism try Americas Army 3If you want realism , there 's a recruiting office down at the local mall that has a total immersion game that will rock your world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For true realism try Americas Army 3If you want realism, there's a recruiting office down at the local mall that has a total immersion game that will rock your world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581082</id>
	<title>Ghost Recon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262093760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hasn't anyone else played this? My friends and I used to play <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost\_Recon" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Ghost Recon</a> [wikipedia.org] all the time in high school and there would be matches where we wouldn't fire a shot until 10 minutes into the game. If you got hit you were DEAD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has n't anyone else played this ?
My friends and I used to play Ghost Recon [ wikipedia.org ] all the time in high school and there would be matches where we would n't fire a shot until 10 minutes into the game .
If you got hit you were DEAD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hasn't anyone else played this?
My friends and I used to play Ghost Recon [wikipedia.org] all the time in high school and there would be matches where we wouldn't fire a shot until 10 minutes into the game.
If you got hit you were DEAD.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584458</id>
	<title>Yep, we do want fantasy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's more fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580664</id>
	<title>Obviously..</title>
	<author>Dalambertian</author>
	<datestamp>1262088300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't make most FPSs realistic for the simple reason that they are created for you to die frequently, in order to keep things "exciting". If you want to make a realistic game seem fun, don't use super soldiers as the starting point. For historical reasons, most of those games only allow shooting as the single way to interact with the environment, which is obviously not the case in real life, not even in war. Take Heavy Rain, for instance: story-driven, but player-guided; death is possible, but the game is carefully designed to keep the consequences of your actions interesting. If that's not real enough, you might have to wait awhile before some genius game designer can take a realistic story like the job of a police chief or astronaut and make it interesting. Since most of the big realist developers are stuck on the FPS formula, I'd say it's the indy scene that will have to push the envelope.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't make most FPSs realistic for the simple reason that they are created for you to die frequently , in order to keep things " exciting " .
If you want to make a realistic game seem fun , do n't use super soldiers as the starting point .
For historical reasons , most of those games only allow shooting as the single way to interact with the environment , which is obviously not the case in real life , not even in war .
Take Heavy Rain , for instance : story-driven , but player-guided ; death is possible , but the game is carefully designed to keep the consequences of your actions interesting .
If that 's not real enough , you might have to wait awhile before some genius game designer can take a realistic story like the job of a police chief or astronaut and make it interesting .
Since most of the big realist developers are stuck on the FPS formula , I 'd say it 's the indy scene that will have to push the envelope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't make most FPSs realistic for the simple reason that they are created for you to die frequently, in order to keep things "exciting".
If you want to make a realistic game seem fun, don't use super soldiers as the starting point.
For historical reasons, most of those games only allow shooting as the single way to interact with the environment, which is obviously not the case in real life, not even in war.
Take Heavy Rain, for instance: story-driven, but player-guided; death is possible, but the game is carefully designed to keep the consequences of your actions interesting.
If that's not real enough, you might have to wait awhile before some genius game designer can take a realistic story like the job of a police chief or astronaut and make it interesting.
Since most of the big realist developers are stuck on the FPS formula, I'd say it's the indy scene that will have to push the envelope.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581316</id>
	<title>Combat Mechanics are an Abstraction</title>
	<author>rpillala</author>
	<datestamp>1262096880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Combat and damage mechanics in any of these games are an abstraction.  In Team Fortress 2, different classes have varying amounts of hit points.  What this really measures is how likely that character class (all things being equal) is to survive for x minutes compared to a different class.  So, a medic is less likely to survive for 5 minutes than, say, a soldier, if we only consider the hit points number.  Incoming damage answers the question "how likely was that shot to kill me" and the answer is represented by a reduction of your hit points.  At any given time during the game, your likelihood of being killed can be assigned a number, and that's what you see in your hit point display.  This translates pretty well to other games that use a numerical hit point mechanic.</p><p>So, it's not so much that a bit of body armor can render Batman nigh invulnerable.  It's that, since this is batman, being in an area with small arms fire directed at him is less likely to kill him than it is you or me, and hiding for a period of time makes the likelihood of being killed taper off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Combat and damage mechanics in any of these games are an abstraction .
In Team Fortress 2 , different classes have varying amounts of hit points .
What this really measures is how likely that character class ( all things being equal ) is to survive for x minutes compared to a different class .
So , a medic is less likely to survive for 5 minutes than , say , a soldier , if we only consider the hit points number .
Incoming damage answers the question " how likely was that shot to kill me " and the answer is represented by a reduction of your hit points .
At any given time during the game , your likelihood of being killed can be assigned a number , and that 's what you see in your hit point display .
This translates pretty well to other games that use a numerical hit point mechanic.So , it 's not so much that a bit of body armor can render Batman nigh invulnerable .
It 's that , since this is batman , being in an area with small arms fire directed at him is less likely to kill him than it is you or me , and hiding for a period of time makes the likelihood of being killed taper off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Combat and damage mechanics in any of these games are an abstraction.
In Team Fortress 2, different classes have varying amounts of hit points.
What this really measures is how likely that character class (all things being equal) is to survive for x minutes compared to a different class.
So, a medic is less likely to survive for 5 minutes than, say, a soldier, if we only consider the hit points number.
Incoming damage answers the question "how likely was that shot to kill me" and the answer is represented by a reduction of your hit points.
At any given time during the game, your likelihood of being killed can be assigned a number, and that's what you see in your hit point display.
This translates pretty well to other games that use a numerical hit point mechanic.So, it's not so much that a bit of body armor can render Batman nigh invulnerable.
It's that, since this is batman, being in an area with small arms fire directed at him is less likely to kill him than it is you or me, and hiding for a period of time makes the likelihood of being killed taper off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582164</id>
	<title>Re:FP</title>
	<author>morari</author>
	<datestamp>1262103120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's already too much realism in these games. I miss the glory days of Quake3 and it's huge modding community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's already too much realism in these games .
I miss the glory days of Quake3 and it 's huge modding community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's already too much realism in these games.
I miss the glory days of Quake3 and it's huge modding community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30590358</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>BoogieChile</author>
	<datestamp>1262105520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it was just me (but I'm pretty sure I can't be the only truly unique little snowflake in a world of 6.5 billion of them), but one thing I took away from Call of Duty 1 &amp; 2 and  Medal of Honour was that you did get killed. A lot. And at some point, I think it might have been at Normandy, where it took me nearIy two days to find a safe route off the beach, I found myself imagining each one of those lives I went through on that bloody beach was another man down in the real thing. The feeling was well and truly hammered home during the last push of the Russian counter-offensive into Stalingrad, with whole boatloads going up left and right of us as we crossed the Volga.<br>
<br>
It appeared to me like there were only a handful of safe routes up the beach and of all those millions of soldiers, all the unique little snowflakes that were a Private Alexei Ivanovich Voronin who didn't find them, and the one left at the end of the game who did.<br>
<br>
The good thing is, it's a game. It's play. Like movies and books and art and music and imagination and dreams, done right, they can convey something that you could (or hope will) never learn about through actual experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it was just me ( but I 'm pretty sure I ca n't be the only truly unique little snowflake in a world of 6.5 billion of them ) , but one thing I took away from Call of Duty 1 &amp; 2 and Medal of Honour was that you did get killed .
A lot .
And at some point , I think it might have been at Normandy , where it took me nearIy two days to find a safe route off the beach , I found myself imagining each one of those lives I went through on that bloody beach was another man down in the real thing .
The feeling was well and truly hammered home during the last push of the Russian counter-offensive into Stalingrad , with whole boatloads going up left and right of us as we crossed the Volga .
It appeared to me like there were only a handful of safe routes up the beach and of all those millions of soldiers , all the unique little snowflakes that were a Private Alexei Ivanovich Voronin who did n't find them , and the one left at the end of the game who did .
The good thing is , it 's a game .
It 's play .
Like movies and books and art and music and imagination and dreams , done right , they can convey something that you could ( or hope will ) never learn about through actual experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it was just me (but I'm pretty sure I can't be the only truly unique little snowflake in a world of 6.5 billion of them), but one thing I took away from Call of Duty 1 &amp; 2 and  Medal of Honour was that you did get killed.
A lot.
And at some point, I think it might have been at Normandy, where it took me nearIy two days to find a safe route off the beach, I found myself imagining each one of those lives I went through on that bloody beach was another man down in the real thing.
The feeling was well and truly hammered home during the last push of the Russian counter-offensive into Stalingrad, with whole boatloads going up left and right of us as we crossed the Volga.
It appeared to me like there were only a handful of safe routes up the beach and of all those millions of soldiers, all the unique little snowflakes that were a Private Alexei Ivanovich Voronin who didn't find them, and the one left at the end of the game who did.
The good thing is, it's a game.
It's play.
Like movies and books and art and music and imagination and dreams, done right, they can convey something that you could (or hope will) never learn about through actual experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581488</id>
	<title>Re:Incan Basketball Rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262098260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you actually confuse the Aztecs with the Inca?<br>Do you think Saudi Arabia is filled with Chinese people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you actually confuse the Aztecs with the Inca ? Do you think Saudi Arabia is filled with Chinese people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you actually confuse the Aztecs with the Inca?Do you think Saudi Arabia is filled with Chinese people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582118</id>
	<title>Deus Ex: Invisible War...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262102880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... had a "realistic" setting that included everyone, including you, dying quite easily. It was nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... had a " realistic " setting that included everyone , including you , dying quite easily .
It was nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... had a "realistic" setting that included everyone, including you, dying quite easily.
It was nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580968</id>
	<title>Eh Arma2 is the sequel to OF</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1262092500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well sort of anyway, but Arma2 is the same kind of game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well sort of anyway , but Arma2 is the same kind of game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well sort of anyway, but Arma2 is the same kind of game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580956</id>
	<title>Re:Typical mistake...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262092320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Adding realism would detract from the appeal of the game.</p><p>Jeremy Clarkson set himself the challenge on Top Gear to go around the Nurburgring in under 10 minutes. He finally managed 9:59. A professional racing driver managed 9:12 in her first go.</p><p>Games are palyed because they are an abstraction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding realism would detract from the appeal of the game.Jeremy Clarkson set himself the challenge on Top Gear to go around the Nurburgring in under 10 minutes .
He finally managed 9 : 59 .
A professional racing driver managed 9 : 12 in her first go.Games are palyed because they are an abstraction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding realism would detract from the appeal of the game.Jeremy Clarkson set himself the challenge on Top Gear to go around the Nurburgring in under 10 minutes.
He finally managed 9:59.
A professional racing driver managed 9:12 in her first go.Games are palyed because they are an abstraction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581986</id>
	<title>Re:real life would be boring</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262102160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Noobs only being able to play on servers with other noobs would solve that problem. I hate ANY game when I'm a noob because the non-noobs just clean house on you.</p><p>The opposite is quite true as well. Once I get good at a game, it is painful to have to wade through all the online newbies. Online racing has a ranking scheme to help combat this recurring problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Noobs only being able to play on servers with other noobs would solve that problem .
I hate ANY game when I 'm a noob because the non-noobs just clean house on you.The opposite is quite true as well .
Once I get good at a game , it is painful to have to wade through all the online newbies .
Online racing has a ranking scheme to help combat this recurring problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Noobs only being able to play on servers with other noobs would solve that problem.
I hate ANY game when I'm a noob because the non-noobs just clean house on you.The opposite is quite true as well.
Once I get good at a game, it is painful to have to wade through all the online newbies.
Online racing has a ranking scheme to help combat this recurring problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581574</id>
	<title>Re:Incan Basketball Rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262099040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your comment about the Aztecs is BS. We don't know how the game was played and to assume the losers were killed is idiotic.</p></div><p>Repeat after me: <em>"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_sacrifice\_in\_Aztec\_culture#Estimates\_of\_the\_scope\_of\_the\_sacrifices" title="wikipedia.org">Fuck the Aztecs</a> [wikipedia.org]."</em> (With apologies to Neal Stephenson)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment about the Aztecs is BS .
We do n't know how the game was played and to assume the losers were killed is idiotic.Repeat after me : " Fuck the Aztecs [ wikipedia.org ] .
" ( With apologies to Neal Stephenson )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment about the Aztecs is BS.
We don't know how the game was played and to assume the losers were killed is idiotic.Repeat after me: "Fuck the Aztecs [wikipedia.org].
" (With apologies to Neal Stephenson)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581926</id>
	<title>I agree!</title>
	<author>Jim Hall</author>
	<datestamp>1262101740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've found that the games with accurate, lethal weapons result in very different game play. People jump around like rabbits less, stick to cover more, crouch, avoid open spaces, etc... Basically, they play just like you see soldiers or SWAT behave in real life. It's also gives me a much bigger adrenaline rush. Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror, ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension. Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours.</p></div><p>I completely agree! A certain degree of realism does help to minimize the stupid bunny-hopping behavior. Actually, I'd like to see a team shooter that was more accurate with how weapons could be fired "on the run". Ever try to shoot a target with a <em>real</em> weapon <em>while moving</em>? If you're more than a few feet from the target, you're not going to hit it. Yet all the team shooters out there let you "shoot from the hip" at a bad guy across an empty street, while you're running, and you can still kill him. That's not realistic.</p><p>I'd prefer that "shooting from the hip" be ineffective [at range] if you're moving, and barely effective if you're standing still.</p><p>The only way to effectively hit a target in real life is to <em>stop, and aim</em>. You can still do a good job if you move around <em>when aiming</em> but of course you can't move very fast.</p><p>Players would respond very differently to games that did this. "Rambo" behavior wouldn't get you very far, so I think you'd end up with players sticking to cover more, avoiding open spaces, etc. Just like the OP said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've found that the games with accurate , lethal weapons result in very different game play .
People jump around like rabbits less , stick to cover more , crouch , avoid open spaces , etc... Basically , they play just like you see soldiers or SWAT behave in real life .
It 's also gives me a much bigger adrenaline rush .
Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror , ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension .
Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours.I completely agree !
A certain degree of realism does help to minimize the stupid bunny-hopping behavior .
Actually , I 'd like to see a team shooter that was more accurate with how weapons could be fired " on the run " .
Ever try to shoot a target with a real weapon while moving ?
If you 're more than a few feet from the target , you 're not going to hit it .
Yet all the team shooters out there let you " shoot from the hip " at a bad guy across an empty street , while you 're running , and you can still kill him .
That 's not realistic.I 'd prefer that " shooting from the hip " be ineffective [ at range ] if you 're moving , and barely effective if you 're standing still.The only way to effectively hit a target in real life is to stop , and aim .
You can still do a good job if you move around when aiming but of course you ca n't move very fast.Players would respond very differently to games that did this .
" Rambo " behavior would n't get you very far , so I think you 'd end up with players sticking to cover more , avoiding open spaces , etc .
Just like the OP said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've found that the games with accurate, lethal weapons result in very different game play.
People jump around like rabbits less, stick to cover more, crouch, avoid open spaces, etc... Basically, they play just like you see soldiers or SWAT behave in real life.
It's also gives me a much bigger adrenaline rush.
Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror, ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension.
Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours.I completely agree!
A certain degree of realism does help to minimize the stupid bunny-hopping behavior.
Actually, I'd like to see a team shooter that was more accurate with how weapons could be fired "on the run".
Ever try to shoot a target with a real weapon while moving?
If you're more than a few feet from the target, you're not going to hit it.
Yet all the team shooters out there let you "shoot from the hip" at a bad guy across an empty street, while you're running, and you can still kill him.
That's not realistic.I'd prefer that "shooting from the hip" be ineffective [at range] if you're moving, and barely effective if you're standing still.The only way to effectively hit a target in real life is to stop, and aim.
You can still do a good job if you move around when aiming but of course you can't move very fast.Players would respond very differently to games that did this.
"Rambo" behavior wouldn't get you very far, so I think you'd end up with players sticking to cover more, avoiding open spaces, etc.
Just like the OP said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582020</id>
	<title>Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game"</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262102280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed one thing, and it is the point this article is making:</p><p>People who want more realism are saying the most realistic games out there aren't realistic enough for them.</p><p>That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed one thing , and it is the point this article is making : People who want more realism are saying the most realistic games out there are n't realistic enough for them.That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed one thing, and it is the point this article is making:People who want more realism are saying the most realistic games out there aren't realistic enough for them.That is all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585134</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1262118000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you want realism, there's a recruiting office down at the local mall that has a total immersion game that will rock your world."</p><p>People don't do repeat combat tours just for the money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you want realism , there 's a recruiting office down at the local mall that has a total immersion game that will rock your world .
" People do n't do repeat combat tours just for the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you want realism, there's a recruiting office down at the local mall that has a total immersion game that will rock your world.
"People don't do repeat combat tours just for the money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584652</id>
	<title>IDKFA</title>
	<author>jafac</author>
	<datestamp>1262115660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'nuff said.  eh?</p><p>If I wanted realism, I'd sign up for the corps and go get my ass shot off in over in the sandbox.  Cool, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'nuff said .
eh ? If I wanted realism , I 'd sign up for the corps and go get my ass shot off in over in the sandbox .
Cool , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'nuff said.
eh?If I wanted realism, I'd sign up for the corps and go get my ass shot off in over in the sandbox.
Cool, huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581936</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>Tyler Durden</author>
	<datestamp>1262101800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that sex is probably the greatest joy that life has to offer.  The things one has to go through to get it - what with the constant uncertainty, pressure, competition, stress, heart-break and rejection - is some of the greatest hell life has to offer as well.  Unless you happen to be a woman or a confident guy, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that sex is probably the greatest joy that life has to offer .
The things one has to go through to get it - what with the constant uncertainty , pressure , competition , stress , heart-break and rejection - is some of the greatest hell life has to offer as well .
Unless you happen to be a woman or a confident guy , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that sex is probably the greatest joy that life has to offer.
The things one has to go through to get it - what with the constant uncertainty, pressure, competition, stress, heart-break and rejection - is some of the greatest hell life has to offer as well.
Unless you happen to be a woman or a confident guy, that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580546</id>
	<title>more better violence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been wanting more realistic violence since forever. I don't want great big clouds of blood shooting out from someone unless it's called for. I don't want NPC's to fly back when you shoot them. I don't want NPC's to insta-die unless you hit them in the head or central nervous system. But more realistic violence doesn't necessarily imply more realism for the player. The player character can be genetically modified, enhanced by nanotech or whatever handwavy technology you want to use.
<br> <br>Say you shoot someone in the general torso area, you obviously miss the spine since he doesn't ragdoll and you take cover as he returns fire. When you pop out of cover the target is nowhere to be seen. When you find him he's on the ground aspirating blood and generally bleeding out. Or when you finish a firefight there is not silence but lots of poor fuckers screaming from their pain as they bleed out. If nothing else that might make you want to take the more stealthy route or make sure you aim better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been wanting more realistic violence since forever .
I do n't want great big clouds of blood shooting out from someone unless it 's called for .
I do n't want NPC 's to fly back when you shoot them .
I do n't want NPC 's to insta-die unless you hit them in the head or central nervous system .
But more realistic violence does n't necessarily imply more realism for the player .
The player character can be genetically modified , enhanced by nanotech or whatever handwavy technology you want to use .
Say you shoot someone in the general torso area , you obviously miss the spine since he does n't ragdoll and you take cover as he returns fire .
When you pop out of cover the target is nowhere to be seen .
When you find him he 's on the ground aspirating blood and generally bleeding out .
Or when you finish a firefight there is not silence but lots of poor fuckers screaming from their pain as they bleed out .
If nothing else that might make you want to take the more stealthy route or make sure you aim better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been wanting more realistic violence since forever.
I don't want great big clouds of blood shooting out from someone unless it's called for.
I don't want NPC's to fly back when you shoot them.
I don't want NPC's to insta-die unless you hit them in the head or central nervous system.
But more realistic violence doesn't necessarily imply more realism for the player.
The player character can be genetically modified, enhanced by nanotech or whatever handwavy technology you want to use.
Say you shoot someone in the general torso area, you obviously miss the spine since he doesn't ragdoll and you take cover as he returns fire.
When you pop out of cover the target is nowhere to be seen.
When you find him he's on the ground aspirating blood and generally bleeding out.
Or when you finish a firefight there is not silence but lots of poor fuckers screaming from their pain as they bleed out.
If nothing else that might make you want to take the more stealthy route or make sure you aim better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581436</id>
	<title>With better control will come better realism</title>
	<author>grrowl</author>
	<datestamp>1262097780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>More realism in consequences will only come with greater realism in controls. Once you're truly "in the game" can you deal with "in the game" realism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More realism in consequences will only come with greater realism in controls .
Once you 're truly " in the game " can you deal with " in the game " realism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More realism in consequences will only come with greater realism in controls.
Once you're truly "in the game" can you deal with "in the game" realism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583524</id>
	<title>Soldier of Fortune</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262110440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The original Soldier of Fortune had the most realistic damage effects of any game that I've ever played.  It still allowed you to withstand more damage than you would in real life and had fast respawn times, but the type of detail it had in weapon effects was shocking.  That was back on the Quake 2 engine.  I would love to play something like Modern Warfare 2 with the type of weapon effects they had in Soldier of Fortune.  Location specific damage with realistic entry and exit wounds.  Heavy weapons could dismember limbs.  Internal anatomy was clearly visible in wounds.  A head shot would blow out the back of the skull.  Modern games make do with a little blood spray even in Mature games and I think that does as much to desensitize you to violence as anything.  Games like Rainbow Six or America's Army can give you a realistic level of lethality in games in 1080p.  Show people what really happens when a bullet hits a body and you don't need more pixels to have a whole new class of realism in games.  In terms of visuals, I still consider Soldier of Fortune the most realistic game I have ever played.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The original Soldier of Fortune had the most realistic damage effects of any game that I 've ever played .
It still allowed you to withstand more damage than you would in real life and had fast respawn times , but the type of detail it had in weapon effects was shocking .
That was back on the Quake 2 engine .
I would love to play something like Modern Warfare 2 with the type of weapon effects they had in Soldier of Fortune .
Location specific damage with realistic entry and exit wounds .
Heavy weapons could dismember limbs .
Internal anatomy was clearly visible in wounds .
A head shot would blow out the back of the skull .
Modern games make do with a little blood spray even in Mature games and I think that does as much to desensitize you to violence as anything .
Games like Rainbow Six or America 's Army can give you a realistic level of lethality in games in 1080p .
Show people what really happens when a bullet hits a body and you do n't need more pixels to have a whole new class of realism in games .
In terms of visuals , I still consider Soldier of Fortune the most realistic game I have ever played .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original Soldier of Fortune had the most realistic damage effects of any game that I've ever played.
It still allowed you to withstand more damage than you would in real life and had fast respawn times, but the type of detail it had in weapon effects was shocking.
That was back on the Quake 2 engine.
I would love to play something like Modern Warfare 2 with the type of weapon effects they had in Soldier of Fortune.
Location specific damage with realistic entry and exit wounds.
Heavy weapons could dismember limbs.
Internal anatomy was clearly visible in wounds.
A head shot would blow out the back of the skull.
Modern games make do with a little blood spray even in Mature games and I think that does as much to desensitize you to violence as anything.
Games like Rainbow Six or America's Army can give you a realistic level of lethality in games in 1080p.
Show people what really happens when a bullet hits a body and you don't need more pixels to have a whole new class of realism in games.
In terms of visuals, I still consider Soldier of Fortune the most realistic game I have ever played.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585986</id>
	<title>Re:Reality is not funny.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262078400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; He wants more real violence? There's no need to create a game for that, mod L4D2 or MW2 to multiply damage by a hundred.</p><p>Only if you think getting hit by anything means you should explode in a shower of blood and gore.</p><p>Death is only a tiny part of "more real" violence. Most current games lack in the accurate injury modeling department: you're either at full capacity or dead, with no in between states, no matter what the numbers say. There's not much attention paid to non-lethal wounds. Like weakness and gradually decreasing stats from bleeding. Getting the shakes when the adrenaline rush after a firefight ends. Trouble moving after getting hit in the legs. Trouble lifting and aiming after getting hit in the arms. Being dizzy after getting grazed in the head. Blood or sweat in the eyes. Blood pooling in your boots, blood making the ground slippery when fresh and tacky as it dries.</p><p>Some games have dabbled in some of these, and I admit I haven't played every shooter out there (or even a quarter of them), but it's generally been sporadically implemented. Shooters are still, at their core, a more arcade-like gameplay experience that developers don't want to slow down. And there is some wisdom to that approach; just tacking this stuff onto an arcade-paced shooter isn't going to work, it's just going to make the game needlessly harder and confusing. A game with "more real" violence would have to be designed with its more accurate health modeling from the start, and new gameplay, level design, and enemy AI to go along with it. IMO, it'd be a slower game on average, more stealth, fewer-but-smarter enemies... punctuated with moments of utter terror. (The last bit pretty much being what actual soldiers say about actual war).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; He wants more real violence ?
There 's no need to create a game for that , mod L4D2 or MW2 to multiply damage by a hundred.Only if you think getting hit by anything means you should explode in a shower of blood and gore.Death is only a tiny part of " more real " violence .
Most current games lack in the accurate injury modeling department : you 're either at full capacity or dead , with no in between states , no matter what the numbers say .
There 's not much attention paid to non-lethal wounds .
Like weakness and gradually decreasing stats from bleeding .
Getting the shakes when the adrenaline rush after a firefight ends .
Trouble moving after getting hit in the legs .
Trouble lifting and aiming after getting hit in the arms .
Being dizzy after getting grazed in the head .
Blood or sweat in the eyes .
Blood pooling in your boots , blood making the ground slippery when fresh and tacky as it dries.Some games have dabbled in some of these , and I admit I have n't played every shooter out there ( or even a quarter of them ) , but it 's generally been sporadically implemented .
Shooters are still , at their core , a more arcade-like gameplay experience that developers do n't want to slow down .
And there is some wisdom to that approach ; just tacking this stuff onto an arcade-paced shooter is n't going to work , it 's just going to make the game needlessly harder and confusing .
A game with " more real " violence would have to be designed with its more accurate health modeling from the start , and new gameplay , level design , and enemy AI to go along with it .
IMO , it 'd be a slower game on average , more stealth , fewer-but-smarter enemies... punctuated with moments of utter terror .
( The last bit pretty much being what actual soldiers say about actual war ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; He wants more real violence?
There's no need to create a game for that, mod L4D2 or MW2 to multiply damage by a hundred.Only if you think getting hit by anything means you should explode in a shower of blood and gore.Death is only a tiny part of "more real" violence.
Most current games lack in the accurate injury modeling department: you're either at full capacity or dead, with no in between states, no matter what the numbers say.
There's not much attention paid to non-lethal wounds.
Like weakness and gradually decreasing stats from bleeding.
Getting the shakes when the adrenaline rush after a firefight ends.
Trouble moving after getting hit in the legs.
Trouble lifting and aiming after getting hit in the arms.
Being dizzy after getting grazed in the head.
Blood or sweat in the eyes.
Blood pooling in your boots, blood making the ground slippery when fresh and tacky as it dries.Some games have dabbled in some of these, and I admit I haven't played every shooter out there (or even a quarter of them), but it's generally been sporadically implemented.
Shooters are still, at their core, a more arcade-like gameplay experience that developers don't want to slow down.
And there is some wisdom to that approach; just tacking this stuff onto an arcade-paced shooter isn't going to work, it's just going to make the game needlessly harder and confusing.
A game with "more real" violence would have to be designed with its more accurate health modeling from the start, and new gameplay, level design, and enemy AI to go along with it.
IMO, it'd be a slower game on average, more stealth, fewer-but-smarter enemies... punctuated with moments of utter terror.
(The last bit pretty much being what actual soldiers say about actual war).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582192</id>
	<title>Re:"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1262103360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They do. They've tried this kind of realism before. Original Rainbow 6 and Original Ghost Recon come to mind. R6 was specifically designed, 1 or 2 shots kill, no respawns till the end of the match. Making it a highly tactical shooter.</p><p>Ghost Recon had the best of both worlds, where you could choose either a tactical mode or an arcade mode. Tactical mode slowly got phased out because it always boiled down into 2 people, usually snipers, prone, and craaaaawling around the edges of the map, circling each other. I remember one time waiting 30 minutes for a match to end (not watching it all though).</p><p>Basic point is - the style of realism they are describing isn't what people want. When people want realism, they mean they want the run speed, jumps, and other small elements to be as realistic as possible. Because realistic Death doesn't make a game much fun when the objective is simply to kill each other and it's highly likely that 90\% of the players will die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do .
They 've tried this kind of realism before .
Original Rainbow 6 and Original Ghost Recon come to mind .
R6 was specifically designed , 1 or 2 shots kill , no respawns till the end of the match .
Making it a highly tactical shooter.Ghost Recon had the best of both worlds , where you could choose either a tactical mode or an arcade mode .
Tactical mode slowly got phased out because it always boiled down into 2 people , usually snipers , prone , and craaaaawling around the edges of the map , circling each other .
I remember one time waiting 30 minutes for a match to end ( not watching it all though ) .Basic point is - the style of realism they are describing is n't what people want .
When people want realism , they mean they want the run speed , jumps , and other small elements to be as realistic as possible .
Because realistic Death does n't make a game much fun when the objective is simply to kill each other and it 's highly likely that 90 \ % of the players will die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They do.
They've tried this kind of realism before.
Original Rainbow 6 and Original Ghost Recon come to mind.
R6 was specifically designed, 1 or 2 shots kill, no respawns till the end of the match.
Making it a highly tactical shooter.Ghost Recon had the best of both worlds, where you could choose either a tactical mode or an arcade mode.
Tactical mode slowly got phased out because it always boiled down into 2 people, usually snipers, prone, and craaaaawling around the edges of the map, circling each other.
I remember one time waiting 30 minutes for a match to end (not watching it all though).Basic point is - the style of realism they are describing isn't what people want.
When people want realism, they mean they want the run speed, jumps, and other small elements to be as realistic as possible.
Because realistic Death doesn't make a game much fun when the objective is simply to kill each other and it's highly likely that 90\% of the players will die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585644</id>
	<title>simple solution: permadeath</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262120220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everyone loves permadeath. That's why all the current blockbuster games have it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone loves permadeath .
That 's why all the current blockbuster games have it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone loves permadeath.
That's why all the current blockbuster games have it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580440</id>
	<title>real life would be boring</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262084940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A n00b gets shot at the beginning of the game. That means he would be out for the remainder of the game. Would you play a game where the playtime is about 1 minute for every 30 or so? I know I wouldn't.</p><p>And also it would be boring as hell. Very rarely do you have situations where you are shooting all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A n00b gets shot at the beginning of the game .
That means he would be out for the remainder of the game .
Would you play a game where the playtime is about 1 minute for every 30 or so ?
I know I would n't.And also it would be boring as hell .
Very rarely do you have situations where you are shooting all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A n00b gets shot at the beginning of the game.
That means he would be out for the remainder of the game.
Would you play a game where the playtime is about 1 minute for every 30 or so?
I know I wouldn't.And also it would be boring as hell.
Very rarely do you have situations where you are shooting all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30597082</id>
	<title>Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game"</title>
	<author>NouberNou</author>
	<datestamp>1259867760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thats Bohemia Interactives masterpiece, which is now ArmA. Codemasters just owns the name. Unless you are talking about OFP2 Dragon Rising... which just plain sucks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thats Bohemia Interactives masterpiece , which is now ArmA .
Codemasters just owns the name .
Unless you are talking about OFP2 Dragon Rising... which just plain sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thats Bohemia Interactives masterpiece, which is now ArmA.
Codemasters just owns the name.
Unless you are talking about OFP2 Dragon Rising... which just plain sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582078</id>
	<title>Re:"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1262102640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist. It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases (only one I can think of that is fun and isn't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike).</i> <br>
<br>
Combat is boredom punctuated with moments of pure terror.<br>
<br>
(Also a key reason why nobody likes to play defense in a team-oriented FPS game. It's a lot of waiting around during a 15-20 minute match for a target to enter the area that you're defending.  Yet two dedicated defenders can hold off multiple attackers for long enough to get reinforcements in place.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist .
It 's just that realistic mechanics , from a player perspective , are extremely boring , except for in a few limited cases ( only one I can think of that is fun and is n't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike ) .
Combat is boredom punctuated with moments of pure terror .
( Also a key reason why nobody likes to play defense in a team-oriented FPS game .
It 's a lot of waiting around during a 15-20 minute match for a target to enter the area that you 're defending .
Yet two dedicated defenders can hold off multiple attackers for long enough to get reinforcements in place .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist.
It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases (only one I can think of that is fun and isn't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike).
Combat is boredom punctuated with moments of pure terror.
(Also a key reason why nobody likes to play defense in a team-oriented FPS game.
It's a lot of waiting around during a 15-20 minute match for a target to enter the area that you're defending.
Yet two dedicated defenders can hold off multiple attackers for long enough to get reinforcements in place.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580982</id>
	<title>Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game"</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1262092620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love OF. But the same people has moved to ArmA.</p><p>Anyway, theres much more room for realism.  People don't die just because are shot, or get unconscient. I would model a real game with a type of adrenalin simulation, so If you get a wound in combat, in a non letal area, you are crippled (aim, vision, speed.. ) but you can still combat, but If you stop and relax, the crippling become severe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.A more real game could use some biometrics sensors on your body, so if you are scared, the character is scared too (and react with different phisical limits ).</p><p>FPS are also built on some horrible assumptions: perfect 90 from the ground,  the mouse (or pad) perfectly control the angle of the camera (head), and limited vision angle ( 94 ish in PC, 70 ish in consoles ).  You can make a game more real breaking these FPS rules, but may result in a unplayable game.  If you make so explosions/melehit can change the camera angle, the game could result in "vomit inducing", maybe cause pain, headpain for some people.</p><p>OF did something interesting, making so you can see your own body in the game, and sit near a teammate, so you feel real in the world. There are much more to do. *cue to that youtube video of quake in real world*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love OF .
But the same people has moved to ArmA.Anyway , theres much more room for realism .
People do n't die just because are shot , or get unconscient .
I would model a real game with a type of adrenalin simulation , so If you get a wound in combat , in a non letal area , you are crippled ( aim , vision , speed.. ) but you can still combat , but If you stop and relax , the crippling become severe .A more real game could use some biometrics sensors on your body , so if you are scared , the character is scared too ( and react with different phisical limits ) .FPS are also built on some horrible assumptions : perfect 90 from the ground , the mouse ( or pad ) perfectly control the angle of the camera ( head ) , and limited vision angle ( 94 ish in PC , 70 ish in consoles ) .
You can make a game more real breaking these FPS rules , but may result in a unplayable game .
If you make so explosions/melehit can change the camera angle , the game could result in " vomit inducing " , maybe cause pain , headpain for some people.OF did something interesting , making so you can see your own body in the game , and sit near a teammate , so you feel real in the world .
There are much more to do .
* cue to that youtube video of quake in real world *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love OF.
But the same people has moved to ArmA.Anyway, theres much more room for realism.
People don't die just because are shot, or get unconscient.
I would model a real game with a type of adrenalin simulation, so If you get a wound in combat, in a non letal area, you are crippled (aim, vision, speed.. ) but you can still combat, but If you stop and relax, the crippling become severe .A more real game could use some biometrics sensors on your body, so if you are scared, the character is scared too (and react with different phisical limits ).FPS are also built on some horrible assumptions: perfect 90 from the ground,  the mouse (or pad) perfectly control the angle of the camera (head), and limited vision angle ( 94 ish in PC, 70 ish in consoles ).
You can make a game more real breaking these FPS rules, but may result in a unplayable game.
If you make so explosions/melehit can change the camera angle, the game could result in "vomit inducing", maybe cause pain, headpain for some people.OF did something interesting, making so you can see your own body in the game, and sit near a teammate, so you feel real in the world.
There are much more to do.
*cue to that youtube video of quake in real world*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580558</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>vrmlguy</author>
	<datestamp>1262085120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want an accessory that is worn on your torso (as a vest) and delivers a paintball-like punch when an in-game bullet strikes your avatar.  That would teach stealth tactics better than anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want an accessory that is worn on your torso ( as a vest ) and delivers a paintball-like punch when an in-game bullet strikes your avatar .
That would teach stealth tactics better than anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want an accessory that is worn on your torso (as a vest) and delivers a paintball-like punch when an in-game bullet strikes your avatar.
That would teach stealth tactics better than anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586738</id>
	<title>Realism</title>
	<author>Databass</author>
	<datestamp>1262082180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of people I know play games to take a BREAK from realism! Most games aren't meant so simulate reality, they're meant to tap into a world that is a mix of dreams and math.</p><p>Games as math- in chess, the logic of one piece "attacking" another is mainly that the board position change. When my knight "takes" a queen, I don't need a realistic depiction of him raping her to death and then beheading her. I just need to know that 4C now contains -1 queens and +1 knights. It's the same in first person shooters or World of Warcraft. In Warsong, I don't care if you fight the flag carrier "realistically" with swords or with awesome beams of color shooting from your hands. I just want to know how much damage it all added up to and if they dropped the flag or not.</p><p>Being able to fly in my dreams isn't realistic. But I'm glad it's not. I can jump down flights of stairs in my dreams, I don't want my brain to realistically simulate my shin bones splintering when I do it. I just want the fun. And I want that same dream-fun in my games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of people I know play games to take a BREAK from realism !
Most games are n't meant so simulate reality , they 're meant to tap into a world that is a mix of dreams and math.Games as math- in chess , the logic of one piece " attacking " another is mainly that the board position change .
When my knight " takes " a queen , I do n't need a realistic depiction of him raping her to death and then beheading her .
I just need to know that 4C now contains -1 queens and + 1 knights .
It 's the same in first person shooters or World of Warcraft .
In Warsong , I do n't care if you fight the flag carrier " realistically " with swords or with awesome beams of color shooting from your hands .
I just want to know how much damage it all added up to and if they dropped the flag or not.Being able to fly in my dreams is n't realistic .
But I 'm glad it 's not .
I can jump down flights of stairs in my dreams , I do n't want my brain to realistically simulate my shin bones splintering when I do it .
I just want the fun .
And I want that same dream-fun in my games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of people I know play games to take a BREAK from realism!
Most games aren't meant so simulate reality, they're meant to tap into a world that is a mix of dreams and math.Games as math- in chess, the logic of one piece "attacking" another is mainly that the board position change.
When my knight "takes" a queen, I don't need a realistic depiction of him raping her to death and then beheading her.
I just need to know that 4C now contains -1 queens and +1 knights.
It's the same in first person shooters or World of Warcraft.
In Warsong, I don't care if you fight the flag carrier "realistically" with swords or with awesome beams of color shooting from your hands.
I just want to know how much damage it all added up to and if they dropped the flag or not.Being able to fly in my dreams isn't realistic.
But I'm glad it's not.
I can jump down flights of stairs in my dreams, I don't want my brain to realistically simulate my shin bones splintering when I do it.
I just want the fun.
And I want that same dream-fun in my games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582674</id>
	<title>You really want brutal realism?</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1262106000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Play dwarf fortress. Have fun having your throat ripped out by the first wolf pack you encounter and drowning in your own blood. No respawns, no resurrections, you just die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Play dwarf fortress .
Have fun having your throat ripped out by the first wolf pack you encounter and drowning in your own blood .
No respawns , no resurrections , you just die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Play dwarf fortress.
Have fun having your throat ripped out by the first wolf pack you encounter and drowning in your own blood.
No respawns, no resurrections, you just die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581556</id>
	<title>Re:"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1262098920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist. It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases (only one I can think of that is fun and isn't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike).</p></div><p>The early Rainbow Sixes were fairly realistic. Same with Operation Flashpoint. You could not take many hits, dead was dead, you had to be careful and use your iron sights to shoot. John Wayne tactics would get you killed. No running into a room and firing from the hip to clear out all targets. Often times you could die without seeing who got you. Also major props for Viet Cong, a very realistic nam shooter.</p><p>The thing is, Rambo run'n'guns and tactical shooters are two entirely different animals. The style of play can appeal to divergent demographics or even the same demo at different times. There were some very tense sneaking missions in Flashpoint. Same with Viet Cong. Now if you wanted to "cheat" you could just save the game and then go running through the unknown area and mark where the shooters are before you die, then reload, sneak up on their positions and take them out. But if you didn't do that, it became a whole new frightening experience, especially if you had the discipline to not save every three seconds. Knowing you'd be set back five or ten minutes of play when you got shot added to the tension and immersion factor. While I hate it when games take the decision of when and where to save away from the player, I know why the designers do it.</p><p>The thing that does bug me in the realistic games is where I'm hitting a target in the chest with rifle fire and it takes four or five shots for him to drop. I'm not expecting one-shot-one-kills but I am expecting the target to drop when he gets tagged. Even the bestest body armor in the world doesn't keep a bullet from hurting like hell. There's massive bruising, the potential for cracked ribs, etc. A square hit against body armor is not something that gets shrugged off. But as I understand it, smaller caliber rounds like from lighter handguns can inflict lethal wounds on someone and leave them still standing. The revolvers used in the Philippine occupation could inflict lethal wounds on a native coming at you with a machete but he wouldn't drop from blood loss until after your head was lopped off. The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.45 was designed with the idea of knocking the target on his ass and keeping him there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist .
It 's just that realistic mechanics , from a player perspective , are extremely boring , except for in a few limited cases ( only one I can think of that is fun and is n't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike ) .The early Rainbow Sixes were fairly realistic .
Same with Operation Flashpoint .
You could not take many hits , dead was dead , you had to be careful and use your iron sights to shoot .
John Wayne tactics would get you killed .
No running into a room and firing from the hip to clear out all targets .
Often times you could die without seeing who got you .
Also major props for Viet Cong , a very realistic nam shooter.The thing is , Rambo run'n'guns and tactical shooters are two entirely different animals .
The style of play can appeal to divergent demographics or even the same demo at different times .
There were some very tense sneaking missions in Flashpoint .
Same with Viet Cong .
Now if you wanted to " cheat " you could just save the game and then go running through the unknown area and mark where the shooters are before you die , then reload , sneak up on their positions and take them out .
But if you did n't do that , it became a whole new frightening experience , especially if you had the discipline to not save every three seconds .
Knowing you 'd be set back five or ten minutes of play when you got shot added to the tension and immersion factor .
While I hate it when games take the decision of when and where to save away from the player , I know why the designers do it.The thing that does bug me in the realistic games is where I 'm hitting a target in the chest with rifle fire and it takes four or five shots for him to drop .
I 'm not expecting one-shot-one-kills but I am expecting the target to drop when he gets tagged .
Even the bestest body armor in the world does n't keep a bullet from hurting like hell .
There 's massive bruising , the potential for cracked ribs , etc .
A square hit against body armor is not something that gets shrugged off .
But as I understand it , smaller caliber rounds like from lighter handguns can inflict lethal wounds on someone and leave them still standing .
The revolvers used in the Philippine occupation could inflict lethal wounds on a native coming at you with a machete but he would n't drop from blood loss until after your head was lopped off .
The .45 was designed with the idea of knocking the target on his ass and keeping him there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist.
It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases (only one I can think of that is fun and isn't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike).The early Rainbow Sixes were fairly realistic.
Same with Operation Flashpoint.
You could not take many hits, dead was dead, you had to be careful and use your iron sights to shoot.
John Wayne tactics would get you killed.
No running into a room and firing from the hip to clear out all targets.
Often times you could die without seeing who got you.
Also major props for Viet Cong, a very realistic nam shooter.The thing is, Rambo run'n'guns and tactical shooters are two entirely different animals.
The style of play can appeal to divergent demographics or even the same demo at different times.
There were some very tense sneaking missions in Flashpoint.
Same with Viet Cong.
Now if you wanted to "cheat" you could just save the game and then go running through the unknown area and mark where the shooters are before you die, then reload, sneak up on their positions and take them out.
But if you didn't do that, it became a whole new frightening experience, especially if you had the discipline to not save every three seconds.
Knowing you'd be set back five or ten minutes of play when you got shot added to the tension and immersion factor.
While I hate it when games take the decision of when and where to save away from the player, I know why the designers do it.The thing that does bug me in the realistic games is where I'm hitting a target in the chest with rifle fire and it takes four or five shots for him to drop.
I'm not expecting one-shot-one-kills but I am expecting the target to drop when he gets tagged.
Even the bestest body armor in the world doesn't keep a bullet from hurting like hell.
There's massive bruising, the potential for cracked ribs, etc.
A square hit against body armor is not something that gets shrugged off.
But as I understand it, smaller caliber rounds like from lighter handguns can inflict lethal wounds on someone and leave them still standing.
The revolvers used in the Philippine occupation could inflict lethal wounds on a native coming at you with a machete but he wouldn't drop from blood loss until after your head was lopped off.
The .45 was designed with the idea of knocking the target on his ass and keeping him there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582602</id>
	<title>With Realistic Games...</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1262105640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With realistic games, "the only winning move is not to play."</p><p>Give me my unrealistic games any day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With realistic games , " the only winning move is not to play .
" Give me my unrealistic games any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With realistic games, "the only winning move is not to play.
"Give me my unrealistic games any day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582086</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1262102640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll take my God of War and Bayonetta before "more realsitic" graphics.</p></div><p>I dunno, compared to games 10 or 20 years ago, those two titles look comparatively realistic as you define it (better art/animation). I mean.. it's definitely more realistic then WarCraft (the original one) or even the original street fighters or MKs or whatever.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who don't understand game design.</p></div><p>I think what you're trying to say is 'Games should be fun'.</p><p>Some people enjoy crunchy rule/game systems. The fun in those is generally not the button mashing of a console game, but rather mastering the system and out-thinking your opponent more then just out clicking him/her.</p><p>Based on your statement, you're calling everyone stupid who ever played games like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy\_(board\_game)" title="wikipedia.org">Supremacy(tm)</a> [wikipedia.org] (with the expansions), or the likes of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced\_Squad\_Leader" title="wikipedia.org">Advanced Squad Leader</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>Different people measure/gauge Fun in different ways.</p><p>I guess the difference is I do realize not everyone wants 'realism' (in the many ways it's defined or measured), nor am I going to make other people play games that are only realistic. Hell I enjoy a wide gabmit of games, from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red\_Orchestra:\_Ostfront\_41-45" title="wikipedia.org">Red Ochestra</a> [wikipedia.org] on the 'realistic FPS' side to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil\_Genius\_(video\_game)" title="wikipedia.org">Evil Genius</a> [wikipedia.org] on the slap-stick RTS side, to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crayon\_Physics" title="wikipedia.org">Crayon Physics</a> [wikipedia.org] on the casual side; and alot in between.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take my God of War and Bayonetta before " more realsitic " graphics.I dunno , compared to games 10 or 20 years ago , those two titles look comparatively realistic as you define it ( better art/animation ) .
I mean.. it 's definitely more realistic then WarCraft ( the original one ) or even the original street fighters or MKs or whatever.I 'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who do n't understand game design.I think what you 're trying to say is 'Games should be fun'.Some people enjoy crunchy rule/game systems .
The fun in those is generally not the button mashing of a console game , but rather mastering the system and out-thinking your opponent more then just out clicking him/her.Based on your statement , you 're calling everyone stupid who ever played games like Supremacy ( tm ) [ wikipedia.org ] ( with the expansions ) , or the likes of Advanced Squad Leader [ wikipedia.org ] .Different people measure/gauge Fun in different ways.I guess the difference is I do realize not everyone wants 'realism ' ( in the many ways it 's defined or measured ) , nor am I going to make other people play games that are only realistic .
Hell I enjoy a wide gabmit of games , from Red Ochestra [ wikipedia.org ] on the 'realistic FPS ' side to Evil Genius [ wikipedia.org ] on the slap-stick RTS side , to Crayon Physics [ wikipedia.org ] on the casual side ; and alot in between .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take my God of War and Bayonetta before "more realsitic" graphics.I dunno, compared to games 10 or 20 years ago, those two titles look comparatively realistic as you define it (better art/animation).
I mean.. it's definitely more realistic then WarCraft (the original one) or even the original street fighters or MKs or whatever.I'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who don't understand game design.I think what you're trying to say is 'Games should be fun'.Some people enjoy crunchy rule/game systems.
The fun in those is generally not the button mashing of a console game, but rather mastering the system and out-thinking your opponent more then just out clicking him/her.Based on your statement, you're calling everyone stupid who ever played games like Supremacy(tm) [wikipedia.org] (with the expansions), or the likes of Advanced Squad Leader [wikipedia.org].Different people measure/gauge Fun in different ways.I guess the difference is I do realize not everyone wants 'realism' (in the many ways it's defined or measured), nor am I going to make other people play games that are only realistic.
Hell I enjoy a wide gabmit of games, from Red Ochestra [wikipedia.org] on the 'realistic FPS' side to Evil Genius [wikipedia.org] on the slap-stick RTS side, to Crayon Physics [wikipedia.org] on the casual side; and alot in between.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580844</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1262090820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From someone who actually writes one of these games you're complaining about...</p><p>In quake1, a direct rocket shot deals 120 damage, or splashes for 80-90. If you have no armor on, that's an instant kill with a direct hit. If you have red (200/100) armor, yeah, it'll take 3-4 hits, but you have to recall the firing rate on a RL is around one per second, which is a lot faster than in real life as well. I've played those CoD style games with realistic rocket launchers, and it's just not very fun being able to get instant killed by someone who has no skill and no need to aim who just fires a panzerfaust in your general direction.</p><p>In designing CustomTF, I've gone back and forth on hitscan weapons. In a certain sense, they're too good. It's simply too easy to headshot someone with a sniper rifle in TF from a half mile away. If there's no cover, then a game simple degenerates into a sniper fest. Which is boring. So I've tweaked sniper damage a half-dozen times, and basically set it at a point where you can one-shot anyone with less than red armor and full health, and two shots will kill anyone. You can buy (expensive) upgrades to your sniper rifle to be able to one-shot 200/100s, but this might leave you weak yourself on speed or armor, which is kinda the point. Defensively, people can pick up kevlar armor to halve damage from snipers, which helps break up sniper domination of games, but again, it's somewhat expensive.</p><p>IRL, bullets don't travel at the speed of light, which is part of the problem - from a half mile away, a bullet takes a bit less than a second to reach the target. So I put in a non-hitscan sniper rifle with just a very very fast projectile (~1000 m/s velocity) which costs half as much, but deals the same damage. So people with skill can be rewarded with having more cash for other purchases in the game, and people that get hit by them from a distance don't feel like they've been cheaply killed. Both options are available in the game.</p><p>Counterstrike, as you said, is incredibly annoying due to the inaccuracy of the bullets. It's like the bullets fly out sideways from the barrel. You can hold a gun to a guy's head and miss with an entire clip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From someone who actually writes one of these games you 're complaining about...In quake1 , a direct rocket shot deals 120 damage , or splashes for 80-90 .
If you have no armor on , that 's an instant kill with a direct hit .
If you have red ( 200/100 ) armor , yeah , it 'll take 3-4 hits , but you have to recall the firing rate on a RL is around one per second , which is a lot faster than in real life as well .
I 've played those CoD style games with realistic rocket launchers , and it 's just not very fun being able to get instant killed by someone who has no skill and no need to aim who just fires a panzerfaust in your general direction.In designing CustomTF , I 've gone back and forth on hitscan weapons .
In a certain sense , they 're too good .
It 's simply too easy to headshot someone with a sniper rifle in TF from a half mile away .
If there 's no cover , then a game simple degenerates into a sniper fest .
Which is boring .
So I 've tweaked sniper damage a half-dozen times , and basically set it at a point where you can one-shot anyone with less than red armor and full health , and two shots will kill anyone .
You can buy ( expensive ) upgrades to your sniper rifle to be able to one-shot 200/100s , but this might leave you weak yourself on speed or armor , which is kinda the point .
Defensively , people can pick up kevlar armor to halve damage from snipers , which helps break up sniper domination of games , but again , it 's somewhat expensive.IRL , bullets do n't travel at the speed of light , which is part of the problem - from a half mile away , a bullet takes a bit less than a second to reach the target .
So I put in a non-hitscan sniper rifle with just a very very fast projectile ( ~ 1000 m/s velocity ) which costs half as much , but deals the same damage .
So people with skill can be rewarded with having more cash for other purchases in the game , and people that get hit by them from a distance do n't feel like they 've been cheaply killed .
Both options are available in the game.Counterstrike , as you said , is incredibly annoying due to the inaccuracy of the bullets .
It 's like the bullets fly out sideways from the barrel .
You can hold a gun to a guy 's head and miss with an entire clip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From someone who actually writes one of these games you're complaining about...In quake1, a direct rocket shot deals 120 damage, or splashes for 80-90.
If you have no armor on, that's an instant kill with a direct hit.
If you have red (200/100) armor, yeah, it'll take 3-4 hits, but you have to recall the firing rate on a RL is around one per second, which is a lot faster than in real life as well.
I've played those CoD style games with realistic rocket launchers, and it's just not very fun being able to get instant killed by someone who has no skill and no need to aim who just fires a panzerfaust in your general direction.In designing CustomTF, I've gone back and forth on hitscan weapons.
In a certain sense, they're too good.
It's simply too easy to headshot someone with a sniper rifle in TF from a half mile away.
If there's no cover, then a game simple degenerates into a sniper fest.
Which is boring.
So I've tweaked sniper damage a half-dozen times, and basically set it at a point where you can one-shot anyone with less than red armor and full health, and two shots will kill anyone.
You can buy (expensive) upgrades to your sniper rifle to be able to one-shot 200/100s, but this might leave you weak yourself on speed or armor, which is kinda the point.
Defensively, people can pick up kevlar armor to halve damage from snipers, which helps break up sniper domination of games, but again, it's somewhat expensive.IRL, bullets don't travel at the speed of light, which is part of the problem - from a half mile away, a bullet takes a bit less than a second to reach the target.
So I put in a non-hitscan sniper rifle with just a very very fast projectile (~1000 m/s velocity) which costs half as much, but deals the same damage.
So people with skill can be rewarded with having more cash for other purchases in the game, and people that get hit by them from a distance don't feel like they've been cheaply killed.
Both options are available in the game.Counterstrike, as you said, is incredibly annoying due to the inaccuracy of the bullets.
It's like the bullets fly out sideways from the barrel.
You can hold a gun to a guy's head and miss with an entire clip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580560</id>
	<title>Slight undermined</title>
	<author>EEDAm</author>
	<datestamp>1262086860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
FTFA - a footnote; "*I have no doubt that there are many games available that come closer to achieving a realistic setting than what I describe. I don't care. I'm making sweeping generalizations here. It's what I do." .  So the whole-big-thing-point of TFA is arguing that there should be games which are more realistic, then the author acknowledges that actually well gosh you know, there are, but their existence is not relevant because he's only interested in sweeping generalisations.

Errr....yep....ok....with you....right....I'm sure there is a finely honed point here somewhere...yep....</htmltext>
<tokenext>FTFA - a footnote ; " * I have no doubt that there are many games available that come closer to achieving a realistic setting than what I describe .
I do n't care .
I 'm making sweeping generalizations here .
It 's what I do .
" .
So the whole-big-thing-point of TFA is arguing that there should be games which are more realistic , then the author acknowledges that actually well gosh you know , there are , but their existence is not relevant because he 's only interested in sweeping generalisations .
Errr....yep....ok....with you....right....I 'm sure there is a finely honed point here somewhere...yep... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
FTFA - a footnote; "*I have no doubt that there are many games available that come closer to achieving a realistic setting than what I describe.
I don't care.
I'm making sweeping generalizations here.
It's what I do.
" .
So the whole-big-thing-point of TFA is arguing that there should be games which are more realistic, then the author acknowledges that actually well gosh you know, there are, but their existence is not relevant because he's only interested in sweeping generalisations.
Errr....yep....ok....with you....right....I'm sure there is a finely honed point here somewhere...yep....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262090700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, I personally do not like realistic war-games. The Battlefield &amp; Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to me.  Give me an unrealistic Unreal Tournament or Quake or Advent Rising any day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I personally do not like realistic war-games .
The Battlefield &amp; Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to me .
Give me an unrealistic Unreal Tournament or Quake or Advent Rising any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I personally do not like realistic war-games.
The Battlefield &amp; Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to me.
Give me an unrealistic Unreal Tournament or Quake or Advent Rising any day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581382</id>
	<title>Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game"</title>
	<author>zulater</author>
	<datestamp>1262097360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Original Tom Clancy games were realistic.  Rainbow 6, Ghost Recon etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Original Tom Clancy games were realistic .
Rainbow 6 , Ghost Recon etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Original Tom Clancy games were realistic.
Rainbow 6, Ghost Recon etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30592796</id>
	<title>Call of Duty: United Offensive</title>
	<author>Chili-71</author>
	<datestamp>1259852940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have all the latest Call of Duty games and by far, UO is the best. You want realism? UO has it. Yes, the graphics are a bit old and not nearly as good as the later games, but the game play is great. When you get shot, you can't lie down and take a little nap while your body heals. If you are lucky enough you can pick up some health packs.  Some of the AWE MODs cause you to "bleed out" if you don't find a health pack. Fatal shots are, well, FATAL! If you get shot in the head, you friggin' die.
<br> <br>
The latest games have really crappy sound too. A M1911 sounds like a cap gun.  In UO the same weapon sounds like the real weapon. That's because when the game was created actual weapons were recorded for the sounds. A rapid fire MP44 sound like the real thing (given you have the sound system to support it). This may not be important to some gamers because they are probably listening to tunes while they play and don't give a damn about the in-game sound. Personally i like to be able to hear someone sneaking up behind me (5.1 surround sound).
<br> <br>
I would love to see a re-make of the graphics only for UO.  That would be a dynamite game (pun intended).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have all the latest Call of Duty games and by far , UO is the best .
You want realism ?
UO has it .
Yes , the graphics are a bit old and not nearly as good as the later games , but the game play is great .
When you get shot , you ca n't lie down and take a little nap while your body heals .
If you are lucky enough you can pick up some health packs .
Some of the AWE MODs cause you to " bleed out " if you do n't find a health pack .
Fatal shots are , well , FATAL !
If you get shot in the head , you friggin ' die .
The latest games have really crappy sound too .
A M1911 sounds like a cap gun .
In UO the same weapon sounds like the real weapon .
That 's because when the game was created actual weapons were recorded for the sounds .
A rapid fire MP44 sound like the real thing ( given you have the sound system to support it ) .
This may not be important to some gamers because they are probably listening to tunes while they play and do n't give a damn about the in-game sound .
Personally i like to be able to hear someone sneaking up behind me ( 5.1 surround sound ) .
I would love to see a re-make of the graphics only for UO .
That would be a dynamite game ( pun intended ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have all the latest Call of Duty games and by far, UO is the best.
You want realism?
UO has it.
Yes, the graphics are a bit old and not nearly as good as the later games, but the game play is great.
When you get shot, you can't lie down and take a little nap while your body heals.
If you are lucky enough you can pick up some health packs.
Some of the AWE MODs cause you to "bleed out" if you don't find a health pack.
Fatal shots are, well, FATAL!
If you get shot in the head, you friggin' die.
The latest games have really crappy sound too.
A M1911 sounds like a cap gun.
In UO the same weapon sounds like the real weapon.
That's because when the game was created actual weapons were recorded for the sounds.
A rapid fire MP44 sound like the real thing (given you have the sound system to support it).
This may not be important to some gamers because they are probably listening to tunes while they play and don't give a damn about the in-game sound.
Personally i like to be able to hear someone sneaking up behind me (5.1 surround sound).
I would love to see a re-make of the graphics only for UO.
That would be a dynamite game (pun intended).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581092</id>
	<title>Postal</title>
	<author>braindrainbahrain</author>
	<datestamp>1262093880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember the game <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal\_(video\_game)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Postal </a> [wikipedia.org]having realistic violence.  When you shot someone, they didn't just die, they lingered crying for help or water.  Sometimes they would crawl out of the way leaving a blood trail and then die behind an obstacle.</p><p>IIRC, there was a lot of criticism of the game, partly because of the realistic depiction of violence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the game Postal [ wikipedia.org ] having realistic violence .
When you shot someone , they did n't just die , they lingered crying for help or water .
Sometimes they would crawl out of the way leaving a blood trail and then die behind an obstacle.IIRC , there was a lot of criticism of the game , partly because of the realistic depiction of violence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the game Postal  [wikipedia.org]having realistic violence.
When you shot someone, they didn't just die, they lingered crying for help or water.
Sometimes they would crawl out of the way leaving a blood trail and then die behind an obstacle.IIRC, there was a lot of criticism of the game, partly because of the realistic depiction of violence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580776</id>
	<title>Realism? Will probably never come...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262089980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a big fan of (pseudo-) "realistic" FPS like OFP, ArmA, OFP2, and Arma2. Many people claim they want realism, but for most gamers these simulations are too boring or too hard. Personally, I'm missing real realism as opposed to the fake realism of ArmA 2. I might be mistaken but as far as I know in a real war wounded soldiers sometimes scream like crazy without stopping, and I've also read accounts of WW2 where soldiers were walking around with their guts (literally) in their hands. For real realism my "special forces" team mates should occasionally go nuts (if they aren't already). There should also be trigger-happy soldiers that mess up missions, accidentally shoot pregnant women and kids at checkpoints, etc. Very rarely, a civilian could be raped by your fellow teammates and it would be up to you whether you want to participate or inform your CO. In both cases, you'd have to face the consequences. And, of course, don't forget friendly fire and jobs like cleaning the latrines.</p><p>If you think I'm being sarcastic, you misunderstand me. I <b>really</b> want this kind of realism in my FPS. But I guess this will never happen, because people would fear that depicting real violence might disturb the emotional balance of some American kids and lead to a lawsuit against the game company. For a start, I'd already be fine if they'd come up with a good story instead of the usual black and white "good vs. evil" bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a big fan of ( pseudo- ) " realistic " FPS like OFP , ArmA , OFP2 , and Arma2 .
Many people claim they want realism , but for most gamers these simulations are too boring or too hard .
Personally , I 'm missing real realism as opposed to the fake realism of ArmA 2 .
I might be mistaken but as far as I know in a real war wounded soldiers sometimes scream like crazy without stopping , and I 've also read accounts of WW2 where soldiers were walking around with their guts ( literally ) in their hands .
For real realism my " special forces " team mates should occasionally go nuts ( if they are n't already ) .
There should also be trigger-happy soldiers that mess up missions , accidentally shoot pregnant women and kids at checkpoints , etc .
Very rarely , a civilian could be raped by your fellow teammates and it would be up to you whether you want to participate or inform your CO. In both cases , you 'd have to face the consequences .
And , of course , do n't forget friendly fire and jobs like cleaning the latrines.If you think I 'm being sarcastic , you misunderstand me .
I really want this kind of realism in my FPS .
But I guess this will never happen , because people would fear that depicting real violence might disturb the emotional balance of some American kids and lead to a lawsuit against the game company .
For a start , I 'd already be fine if they 'd come up with a good story instead of the usual black and white " good vs. evil " bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a big fan of (pseudo-) "realistic" FPS like OFP, ArmA, OFP2, and Arma2.
Many people claim they want realism, but for most gamers these simulations are too boring or too hard.
Personally, I'm missing real realism as opposed to the fake realism of ArmA 2.
I might be mistaken but as far as I know in a real war wounded soldiers sometimes scream like crazy without stopping, and I've also read accounts of WW2 where soldiers were walking around with their guts (literally) in their hands.
For real realism my "special forces" team mates should occasionally go nuts (if they aren't already).
There should also be trigger-happy soldiers that mess up missions, accidentally shoot pregnant women and kids at checkpoints, etc.
Very rarely, a civilian could be raped by your fellow teammates and it would be up to you whether you want to participate or inform your CO. In both cases, you'd have to face the consequences.
And, of course, don't forget friendly fire and jobs like cleaning the latrines.If you think I'm being sarcastic, you misunderstand me.
I really want this kind of realism in my FPS.
But I guess this will never happen, because people would fear that depicting real violence might disturb the emotional balance of some American kids and lead to a lawsuit against the game company.
For a start, I'd already be fine if they'd come up with a good story instead of the usual black and white "good vs. evil" bullshit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581326</id>
	<title>Re:Realism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262096940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck and i just signed up too</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck and i just signed up too</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck and i just signed up too</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581872</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1262101380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Counterstrike, as you said, is incredibly annoying due to the inaccuracy of the bullets. It's like the bullets fly out sideways from the barrel. You can hold a gun to a guy's head and miss with an entire clip.</p></div><p>
I'm not sure if they've fixed it now (I've not played CS for almost a decade), but this used to only be true of projectiles after the first one.  If you had the desert eagle, the first shot while crouching was 100\% accurate.  If you had a high resolution, large, monitor (most people had 800x600 14" things back then), then you could aim for someone's head and get a one-shot kill from the pistol from the other side of the map.  The second shot would go somewhere vaguely near them, but if you hit the head with the first one then they were dead and you could wait for the next person.  </p><p>
This was one of the big problems with CounterStrike; a good computer made a huge difference to a player's ability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Counterstrike , as you said , is incredibly annoying due to the inaccuracy of the bullets .
It 's like the bullets fly out sideways from the barrel .
You can hold a gun to a guy 's head and miss with an entire clip .
I 'm not sure if they 've fixed it now ( I 've not played CS for almost a decade ) , but this used to only be true of projectiles after the first one .
If you had the desert eagle , the first shot while crouching was 100 \ % accurate .
If you had a high resolution , large , monitor ( most people had 800x600 14 " things back then ) , then you could aim for someone 's head and get a one-shot kill from the pistol from the other side of the map .
The second shot would go somewhere vaguely near them , but if you hit the head with the first one then they were dead and you could wait for the next person .
This was one of the big problems with CounterStrike ; a good computer made a huge difference to a player 's ability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Counterstrike, as you said, is incredibly annoying due to the inaccuracy of the bullets.
It's like the bullets fly out sideways from the barrel.
You can hold a gun to a guy's head and miss with an entire clip.
I'm not sure if they've fixed it now (I've not played CS for almost a decade), but this used to only be true of projectiles after the first one.
If you had the desert eagle, the first shot while crouching was 100\% accurate.
If you had a high resolution, large, monitor (most people had 800x600 14" things back then), then you could aim for someone's head and get a one-shot kill from the pistol from the other side of the map.
The second shot would go somewhere vaguely near them, but if you hit the head with the first one then they were dead and you could wait for the next person.
This was one of the big problems with CounterStrike; a good computer made a huge difference to a player's ability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580584</id>
	<title>UrT: An FPS with Improved Realism</title>
	<author>Cbs228</author>
	<datestamp>1262087280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.urbanterror.net/news.php" title="urbanterror.net" rel="nofollow">Urban Terror</a> [urbanterror.net] is a good example of a game that makes an effort to have "realistic" weapon damage effects. In the game&mdash;a free, open-source FPS&mdash;players square off using modern weapons and equipment. When you spray machine gun fire at your opponents, your accuracy degrades. When you get hit, you start bleeding, and you must bandage your wounds quickly before you bleed out. If you are shot in the leg, your movement speed decreases, and you also take damage to your legs if you fall from heights greater than one story. If you are shot in the arm, your accuracy decreases. Reloading your weapons takes time, and in the middle of combat it is usually more expedient to draw your trusty sidearm, rather than reload.</p><p>Unlike most FPSs, where players engage in running gunfights that can last for tens of seconds, the typical Urban Terror engagement is very short; players frequently die before they realize they are under attack. This turns the game into an unending quest for the perfect ambush&mdash;attacking with surprise, from behind, almost always ensures victory. Many players tend to be snipers or campers, since the gameplay mechanics make very difficult to "run and gun" effectively. With that being said, it is still possible to power-slide down a hallway, turn, and take out two alert enemies with well-placed bursts&mdash;it's just very, very difficult.</p><p>Nonetheless, UrT distinguishes itself for its reliance on teamwork. There are almost no plain Deathmatch servers, since UrT Deathmatches simply aren't interesting. Instead, it is all about the team-based gameplay: team-DM, CTF, and bombing run missions. A lone man is easy prey, but squad of two or three players can take and hold an enemy base for some time, provided they know what they're doing. In UrT, working with others is the key to victory, and your ability to score frags can increase exponentially if your team-mates are nearby. If you like teamwork, and don't mind the occasional insta-gib, then you should consider checking out UrT. The game is based on ioquake3 and will run on almost any Windows/Linux/Mac system that's less than ten years old.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Urban Terror [ urbanterror.net ] is a good example of a game that makes an effort to have " realistic " weapon damage effects .
In the game    a free , open-source FPS    players square off using modern weapons and equipment .
When you spray machine gun fire at your opponents , your accuracy degrades .
When you get hit , you start bleeding , and you must bandage your wounds quickly before you bleed out .
If you are shot in the leg , your movement speed decreases , and you also take damage to your legs if you fall from heights greater than one story .
If you are shot in the arm , your accuracy decreases .
Reloading your weapons takes time , and in the middle of combat it is usually more expedient to draw your trusty sidearm , rather than reload.Unlike most FPSs , where players engage in running gunfights that can last for tens of seconds , the typical Urban Terror engagement is very short ; players frequently die before they realize they are under attack .
This turns the game into an unending quest for the perfect ambush    attacking with surprise , from behind , almost always ensures victory .
Many players tend to be snipers or campers , since the gameplay mechanics make very difficult to " run and gun " effectively .
With that being said , it is still possible to power-slide down a hallway , turn , and take out two alert enemies with well-placed bursts    it 's just very , very difficult.Nonetheless , UrT distinguishes itself for its reliance on teamwork .
There are almost no plain Deathmatch servers , since UrT Deathmatches simply are n't interesting .
Instead , it is all about the team-based gameplay : team-DM , CTF , and bombing run missions .
A lone man is easy prey , but squad of two or three players can take and hold an enemy base for some time , provided they know what they 're doing .
In UrT , working with others is the key to victory , and your ability to score frags can increase exponentially if your team-mates are nearby .
If you like teamwork , and do n't mind the occasional insta-gib , then you should consider checking out UrT .
The game is based on ioquake3 and will run on almost any Windows/Linux/Mac system that 's less than ten years old .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Urban Terror [urbanterror.net] is a good example of a game that makes an effort to have "realistic" weapon damage effects.
In the game—a free, open-source FPS—players square off using modern weapons and equipment.
When you spray machine gun fire at your opponents, your accuracy degrades.
When you get hit, you start bleeding, and you must bandage your wounds quickly before you bleed out.
If you are shot in the leg, your movement speed decreases, and you also take damage to your legs if you fall from heights greater than one story.
If you are shot in the arm, your accuracy decreases.
Reloading your weapons takes time, and in the middle of combat it is usually more expedient to draw your trusty sidearm, rather than reload.Unlike most FPSs, where players engage in running gunfights that can last for tens of seconds, the typical Urban Terror engagement is very short; players frequently die before they realize they are under attack.
This turns the game into an unending quest for the perfect ambush—attacking with surprise, from behind, almost always ensures victory.
Many players tend to be snipers or campers, since the gameplay mechanics make very difficult to "run and gun" effectively.
With that being said, it is still possible to power-slide down a hallway, turn, and take out two alert enemies with well-placed bursts—it's just very, very difficult.Nonetheless, UrT distinguishes itself for its reliance on teamwork.
There are almost no plain Deathmatch servers, since UrT Deathmatches simply aren't interesting.
Instead, it is all about the team-based gameplay: team-DM, CTF, and bombing run missions.
A lone man is easy prey, but squad of two or three players can take and hold an enemy base for some time, provided they know what they're doing.
In UrT, working with others is the key to victory, and your ability to score frags can increase exponentially if your team-mates are nearby.
If you like teamwork, and don't mind the occasional insta-gib, then you should consider checking out UrT.
The game is based on ioquake3 and will run on almost any Windows/Linux/Mac system that's less than ten years old.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581518</id>
	<title>Re:Realism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262098620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>War is not fun. War does not make a good game. </i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; What you describe is an occupation and counter-insurgency duty, not a war. In fact, if you look at war in an abstract manner as in Chapter 1 of Carl von Clausewitz's book "On War", war is VERY similar to a game with clear objectives for both parts: the attacker and the defender.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; However the current situations which you describe and which seem to fit in with Iraq and Afghanistan stopped being wars a long time ago. Again from Clausewitz, BECAUSE the political objectives are unclear, the military is limited in its action. BECAUSE the military is limited, they are failing in their goal to force the population to submit. Therefore the population is allowed time to defer action until a time most favorable to them. What you describe is not a war - it's a military disaster.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Now if the political will existed to exterminate the opposition, and the military were given the job to start rounding people up and shooting them, the insurgency would be broken in short order as citizens betray their belligerent countrymen out of fear of being killed. However this amount of political will doesn't exist - we seem to have the delusion that we can fight "humane" warfare. The first rule of warfare is that it is an act of violence to subdue an opponent. If you're holding back on the violence, well, you're not going to win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>War is not fun .
War does not make a good game .
      What you describe is an occupation and counter-insurgency duty , not a war .
In fact , if you look at war in an abstract manner as in Chapter 1 of Carl von Clausewitz 's book " On War " , war is VERY similar to a game with clear objectives for both parts : the attacker and the defender .
      However the current situations which you describe and which seem to fit in with Iraq and Afghanistan stopped being wars a long time ago .
Again from Clausewitz , BECAUSE the political objectives are unclear , the military is limited in its action .
BECAUSE the military is limited , they are failing in their goal to force the population to submit .
Therefore the population is allowed time to defer action until a time most favorable to them .
What you describe is not a war - it 's a military disaster .
      Now if the political will existed to exterminate the opposition , and the military were given the job to start rounding people up and shooting them , the insurgency would be broken in short order as citizens betray their belligerent countrymen out of fear of being killed .
However this amount of political will does n't exist - we seem to have the delusion that we can fight " humane " warfare .
The first rule of warfare is that it is an act of violence to subdue an opponent .
If you 're holding back on the violence , well , you 're not going to win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>War is not fun.
War does not make a good game.
      What you describe is an occupation and counter-insurgency duty, not a war.
In fact, if you look at war in an abstract manner as in Chapter 1 of Carl von Clausewitz's book "On War", war is VERY similar to a game with clear objectives for both parts: the attacker and the defender.
      However the current situations which you describe and which seem to fit in with Iraq and Afghanistan stopped being wars a long time ago.
Again from Clausewitz, BECAUSE the political objectives are unclear, the military is limited in its action.
BECAUSE the military is limited, they are failing in their goal to force the population to submit.
Therefore the population is allowed time to defer action until a time most favorable to them.
What you describe is not a war - it's a military disaster.
      Now if the political will existed to exterminate the opposition, and the military were given the job to start rounding people up and shooting them, the insurgency would be broken in short order as citizens betray their belligerent countrymen out of fear of being killed.
However this amount of political will doesn't exist - we seem to have the delusion that we can fight "humane" warfare.
The first rule of warfare is that it is an act of violence to subdue an opponent.
If you're holding back on the violence, well, you're not going to win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581124</id>
	<title>What people are missing...</title>
	<author>Targon</author>
	<datestamp>1262094180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A major part of the problem is that since real violence can, and in most cases will lead to death, it really is something to be avoided.    This is one thing that most games fail at, and that is making it unpleasant to be in the middle of a lot of gunfire and such.   This is where game design comes in, making the game, not about running around shooting people, but about trying to stay out of the line of fire while trying to accomplish your objectives.</p><p>If you have played the original Thief, it really pushed that idea, where you don't WANT to be seen or caught.    Games where there is violence, but as more of a "this is the environment you live in, and it is a challenge staying alive while trying to live your life" type of thing WOULD be popular as long as there is a good story behind it.    Games where you have to talk your way out of fights, because a real fight would get you killed would make a lot of sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A major part of the problem is that since real violence can , and in most cases will lead to death , it really is something to be avoided .
This is one thing that most games fail at , and that is making it unpleasant to be in the middle of a lot of gunfire and such .
This is where game design comes in , making the game , not about running around shooting people , but about trying to stay out of the line of fire while trying to accomplish your objectives.If you have played the original Thief , it really pushed that idea , where you do n't WANT to be seen or caught .
Games where there is violence , but as more of a " this is the environment you live in , and it is a challenge staying alive while trying to live your life " type of thing WOULD be popular as long as there is a good story behind it .
Games where you have to talk your way out of fights , because a real fight would get you killed would make a lot of sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A major part of the problem is that since real violence can, and in most cases will lead to death, it really is something to be avoided.
This is one thing that most games fail at, and that is making it unpleasant to be in the middle of a lot of gunfire and such.
This is where game design comes in, making the game, not about running around shooting people, but about trying to stay out of the line of fire while trying to accomplish your objectives.If you have played the original Thief, it really pushed that idea, where you don't WANT to be seen or caught.
Games where there is violence, but as more of a "this is the environment you live in, and it is a challenge staying alive while trying to live your life" type of thing WOULD be popular as long as there is a good story behind it.
Games where you have to talk your way out of fights, because a real fight would get you killed would make a lot of sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580684</id>
	<title>Realism</title>
	<author>pehrs</author>
	<datestamp>1262088540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have yet to see any computer-game outside some adventure game that even loosely reflects what violence is like. And the war-games are probably the worst of the bunch. If a military simulator resembled what a soldier has to do in a real war it would play like this.</p><p>1: Get up, brush teeth, polish equipment.<br>2: Drive 10 km on a congested road looking out for bombs.<br>4: Walk to the observation post<br>5: Spend 8 hours looking out over a field with peasants, trying to figure out if any of them is a resistance fighter.<br>6: Walk back to the truck<br>7: Catch your buddy when the sniper shoots him in the hip<br>8: Spend 3 hours trying to keep pressure on the wound and wait for medivac<br>9: Listen to your buddy beg for his life while he is medivaced<br>10: Fire blindly at a few bushes where the sniper might still be<br>11: Get tinitus when they bomb the bushes and the nearby houses<br>12: Spend 4 hours sorting out the remains of the families in the houses, trying to figure out if any of them was the sniper<br>13: Go to truck again, looking out for snipers this time.<br>14: Drive home, looking out for road bombs.<br>15: Wash blood from cloths, eat dinner, go to bed.<br>16: Repeat...</p><p>War is not fun. War does not make a good game. Any "realistic" game still removes 99.95\% of what it means to be in a war-zone. You don't get bored, watching a field for hours. You don't police bodies. You don't dig through bloody cloths looking for clues if the guy you just shoot was a resistance fighter or a civilian. You don't have to stop everything and arrange a medivac if anybody in your group is hit. You don't have to write letters home to the family, explaining what happened. You rarely have any rules of engagement. It's clear who is an enemy and who is not...</p><p>I wonder when we will see a game where the punishment for sticking your head out at the wrong time is 60 years in a wheelchair with no control over your body... If you are lucky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have yet to see any computer-game outside some adventure game that even loosely reflects what violence is like .
And the war-games are probably the worst of the bunch .
If a military simulator resembled what a soldier has to do in a real war it would play like this.1 : Get up , brush teeth , polish equipment.2 : Drive 10 km on a congested road looking out for bombs.4 : Walk to the observation post5 : Spend 8 hours looking out over a field with peasants , trying to figure out if any of them is a resistance fighter.6 : Walk back to the truck7 : Catch your buddy when the sniper shoots him in the hip8 : Spend 3 hours trying to keep pressure on the wound and wait for medivac9 : Listen to your buddy beg for his life while he is medivaced10 : Fire blindly at a few bushes where the sniper might still be11 : Get tinitus when they bomb the bushes and the nearby houses12 : Spend 4 hours sorting out the remains of the families in the houses , trying to figure out if any of them was the sniper13 : Go to truck again , looking out for snipers this time.14 : Drive home , looking out for road bombs.15 : Wash blood from cloths , eat dinner , go to bed.16 : Repeat...War is not fun .
War does not make a good game .
Any " realistic " game still removes 99.95 \ % of what it means to be in a war-zone .
You do n't get bored , watching a field for hours .
You do n't police bodies .
You do n't dig through bloody cloths looking for clues if the guy you just shoot was a resistance fighter or a civilian .
You do n't have to stop everything and arrange a medivac if anybody in your group is hit .
You do n't have to write letters home to the family , explaining what happened .
You rarely have any rules of engagement .
It 's clear who is an enemy and who is not...I wonder when we will see a game where the punishment for sticking your head out at the wrong time is 60 years in a wheelchair with no control over your body... If you are lucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have yet to see any computer-game outside some adventure game that even loosely reflects what violence is like.
And the war-games are probably the worst of the bunch.
If a military simulator resembled what a soldier has to do in a real war it would play like this.1: Get up, brush teeth, polish equipment.2: Drive 10 km on a congested road looking out for bombs.4: Walk to the observation post5: Spend 8 hours looking out over a field with peasants, trying to figure out if any of them is a resistance fighter.6: Walk back to the truck7: Catch your buddy when the sniper shoots him in the hip8: Spend 3 hours trying to keep pressure on the wound and wait for medivac9: Listen to your buddy beg for his life while he is medivaced10: Fire blindly at a few bushes where the sniper might still be11: Get tinitus when they bomb the bushes and the nearby houses12: Spend 4 hours sorting out the remains of the families in the houses, trying to figure out if any of them was the sniper13: Go to truck again, looking out for snipers this time.14: Drive home, looking out for road bombs.15: Wash blood from cloths, eat dinner, go to bed.16: Repeat...War is not fun.
War does not make a good game.
Any "realistic" game still removes 99.95\% of what it means to be in a war-zone.
You don't get bored, watching a field for hours.
You don't police bodies.
You don't dig through bloody cloths looking for clues if the guy you just shoot was a resistance fighter or a civilian.
You don't have to stop everything and arrange a medivac if anybody in your group is hit.
You don't have to write letters home to the family, explaining what happened.
You rarely have any rules of engagement.
It's clear who is an enemy and who is not...I wonder when we will see a game where the punishment for sticking your head out at the wrong time is 60 years in a wheelchair with no control over your body... If you are lucky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582500</id>
	<title>Nothing about STALKER?</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1262105040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously this person's never played it.  Never before have I seen a FPS where it's impossible to hit someone if your rifle is on anything other than single-shot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously this person 's never played it .
Never before have I seen a FPS where it 's impossible to hit someone if your rifle is on anything other than single-shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously this person's never played it.
Never before have I seen a FPS where it's impossible to hit someone if your rifle is on anything other than single-shot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581044</id>
	<title>Re:Right</title>
	<author>kirill.s</author>
	<datestamp>1262093340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a video about the upcomming sequel to <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra\_realistic\_modern\_warfare" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">Modern Warfare</a> [theonion.com] and it claims to be ultra-realistic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a video about the upcomming sequel to Modern Warfare [ theonion.com ] and it claims to be ultra-realistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a video about the upcomming sequel to Modern Warfare [theonion.com] and it claims to be ultra-realistic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581234</id>
	<title>War Games</title>
	<author>Ralish</author>
	<datestamp>1262095980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I essentially agree with the article's contention but would expand on it with particular emphasis on the "War Games" genre; especially FPSs. Not only do they need more realistic violence, but also, more realistic plot lines. I'm tired of war games that are generally free of moral ambiguity with clear sides of good vs. evil. They completely fail to accurately depict the subject matter, namely the horrid realities of war, not to mention they tend to be boring.</p><p>War is by its very nature a horrible thing, and while one side might be preferable to the other, the harsh reality is both sides almost always commit atrocities, do things that are wrong or downright evil, and certainly the men on the ground do as well even if contrary to orders. That's not necessarily a "direct" criticism of those men, but merely the reality that war has a habit of bringing out the worst in people, that no other situation would. I'd love to see a war game that not only has more realistic violence, but has a correspondingly realistic plot line. I rarely see civilians in my war games, I rarely get orders that are perhaps less than moral, I rarely see my fellow soldiers do things that are less than reasonable. Yes, I'm asking for the opportunity to play a war FPS that lets me kill or even massacre civillians, that brutally depicts the horrific violence and injuries. I'm not asking this because I'd really enjoy it, but because much of what we have now is really just war reduced to an arcade shooter, and I find it somewhat distasteful, as it is in some respects demeaning to the target it is simulating.</p><p>I think it would be fascinating for example, to have a WWII FPS where YOU get to play a Nazi. Think about that for a minute. Not all Nazi's were evil, many were just loyal soldiers of Germany doing what they thought was right, even if right is the result of brainwashing and propaganda from the German war machine. You'd be killing Allied soldiers; that might make you uncomfortable. But the fact that you can kill thousands of Nazi's who had families of their own and may not individually have been bad people in every war game up till now says something as well. Hell, you could have the protagonist find out about what was going on Holocaust-wise and defect. At least we'd have a somewhat original and more interesting plot line. What about the Dresden bombings? Why haven't I seen those?</p><p>Please don't misconstrue my thoughts as me just wanting the opportunity to commit virtual atrocities from my armchair. I'm just tired of these simplistic, boring, and unrealistic depictions of war in video games, that strip from them much of what defines war in the minds of veterans and through them the public. For the record, Soldier of Fortune probably has the most realistic violence in a war game I've seen, and I (of course) heard about the Modern Warfare 2 terrorist scene, but I have trouble taking the latter seriously in a game with regenerating health and usually fairly cookie-cutter plot lines. Really, it sounded like more of an attention grab than as part of any sincere effort to depict the realities of war in a video game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I essentially agree with the article 's contention but would expand on it with particular emphasis on the " War Games " genre ; especially FPSs .
Not only do they need more realistic violence , but also , more realistic plot lines .
I 'm tired of war games that are generally free of moral ambiguity with clear sides of good vs. evil. They completely fail to accurately depict the subject matter , namely the horrid realities of war , not to mention they tend to be boring.War is by its very nature a horrible thing , and while one side might be preferable to the other , the harsh reality is both sides almost always commit atrocities , do things that are wrong or downright evil , and certainly the men on the ground do as well even if contrary to orders .
That 's not necessarily a " direct " criticism of those men , but merely the reality that war has a habit of bringing out the worst in people , that no other situation would .
I 'd love to see a war game that not only has more realistic violence , but has a correspondingly realistic plot line .
I rarely see civilians in my war games , I rarely get orders that are perhaps less than moral , I rarely see my fellow soldiers do things that are less than reasonable .
Yes , I 'm asking for the opportunity to play a war FPS that lets me kill or even massacre civillians , that brutally depicts the horrific violence and injuries .
I 'm not asking this because I 'd really enjoy it , but because much of what we have now is really just war reduced to an arcade shooter , and I find it somewhat distasteful , as it is in some respects demeaning to the target it is simulating.I think it would be fascinating for example , to have a WWII FPS where YOU get to play a Nazi .
Think about that for a minute .
Not all Nazi 's were evil , many were just loyal soldiers of Germany doing what they thought was right , even if right is the result of brainwashing and propaganda from the German war machine .
You 'd be killing Allied soldiers ; that might make you uncomfortable .
But the fact that you can kill thousands of Nazi 's who had families of their own and may not individually have been bad people in every war game up till now says something as well .
Hell , you could have the protagonist find out about what was going on Holocaust-wise and defect .
At least we 'd have a somewhat original and more interesting plot line .
What about the Dresden bombings ?
Why have n't I seen those ? Please do n't misconstrue my thoughts as me just wanting the opportunity to commit virtual atrocities from my armchair .
I 'm just tired of these simplistic , boring , and unrealistic depictions of war in video games , that strip from them much of what defines war in the minds of veterans and through them the public .
For the record , Soldier of Fortune probably has the most realistic violence in a war game I 've seen , and I ( of course ) heard about the Modern Warfare 2 terrorist scene , but I have trouble taking the latter seriously in a game with regenerating health and usually fairly cookie-cutter plot lines .
Really , it sounded like more of an attention grab than as part of any sincere effort to depict the realities of war in a video game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I essentially agree with the article's contention but would expand on it with particular emphasis on the "War Games" genre; especially FPSs.
Not only do they need more realistic violence, but also, more realistic plot lines.
I'm tired of war games that are generally free of moral ambiguity with clear sides of good vs. evil. They completely fail to accurately depict the subject matter, namely the horrid realities of war, not to mention they tend to be boring.War is by its very nature a horrible thing, and while one side might be preferable to the other, the harsh reality is both sides almost always commit atrocities, do things that are wrong or downright evil, and certainly the men on the ground do as well even if contrary to orders.
That's not necessarily a "direct" criticism of those men, but merely the reality that war has a habit of bringing out the worst in people, that no other situation would.
I'd love to see a war game that not only has more realistic violence, but has a correspondingly realistic plot line.
I rarely see civilians in my war games, I rarely get orders that are perhaps less than moral, I rarely see my fellow soldiers do things that are less than reasonable.
Yes, I'm asking for the opportunity to play a war FPS that lets me kill or even massacre civillians, that brutally depicts the horrific violence and injuries.
I'm not asking this because I'd really enjoy it, but because much of what we have now is really just war reduced to an arcade shooter, and I find it somewhat distasteful, as it is in some respects demeaning to the target it is simulating.I think it would be fascinating for example, to have a WWII FPS where YOU get to play a Nazi.
Think about that for a minute.
Not all Nazi's were evil, many were just loyal soldiers of Germany doing what they thought was right, even if right is the result of brainwashing and propaganda from the German war machine.
You'd be killing Allied soldiers; that might make you uncomfortable.
But the fact that you can kill thousands of Nazi's who had families of their own and may not individually have been bad people in every war game up till now says something as well.
Hell, you could have the protagonist find out about what was going on Holocaust-wise and defect.
At least we'd have a somewhat original and more interesting plot line.
What about the Dresden bombings?
Why haven't I seen those?Please don't misconstrue my thoughts as me just wanting the opportunity to commit virtual atrocities from my armchair.
I'm just tired of these simplistic, boring, and unrealistic depictions of war in video games, that strip from them much of what defines war in the minds of veterans and through them the public.
For the record, Soldier of Fortune probably has the most realistic violence in a war game I've seen, and I (of course) heard about the Modern Warfare 2 terrorist scene, but I have trouble taking the latter seriously in a game with regenerating health and usually fairly cookie-cutter plot lines.
Really, it sounded like more of an attention grab than as part of any sincere effort to depict the realities of war in a video game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582240</id>
	<title>Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game"</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1262103660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most unrealistic online FPS game I can think of right now is Team Fortress 2.</p><p>But damn is it fun!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most unrealistic online FPS game I can think of right now is Team Fortress 2.But damn is it fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most unrealistic online FPS game I can think of right now is Team Fortress 2.But damn is it fun!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580490</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>Sparton</author>
	<datestamp>1262085780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://tngames.com/products" title="tngames.com">They exist.</a> [tngames.com]</p><p>That said, they're not wide spread because, like most gaming peripherals, they're not a standard and don't actually add to your ability to succeed.</p><p>That and I guess that most people that play games aren't into the whole "learn through pain of failure" thing (or at least literally).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They exist .
[ tngames.com ] That said , they 're not wide spread because , like most gaming peripherals , they 're not a standard and do n't actually add to your ability to succeed.That and I guess that most people that play games are n't into the whole " learn through pain of failure " thing ( or at least literally ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They exist.
[tngames.com]That said, they're not wide spread because, like most gaming peripherals, they're not a standard and don't actually add to your ability to succeed.That and I guess that most people that play games aren't into the whole "learn through pain of failure" thing (or at least literally).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582114</id>
	<title>False dilemma</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1262102820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes I enjoy watching an imaginative fantasy movie. Sometimes I enjoy watching a light-hearted comedy. Sometimes I enjoy watching a serious documentary. Sometimes I enjoy watching a thought-provoking indie movie. And apparently, some people enjoy watching NASA TV. There's a wide range of choices in movies. Why not allow for a wide range of style and quantity of violence in games and for the personal preferences of other people without labeling them as good or bad or right or wrong?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I enjoy watching an imaginative fantasy movie .
Sometimes I enjoy watching a light-hearted comedy .
Sometimes I enjoy watching a serious documentary .
Sometimes I enjoy watching a thought-provoking indie movie .
And apparently , some people enjoy watching NASA TV .
There 's a wide range of choices in movies .
Why not allow for a wide range of style and quantity of violence in games and for the personal preferences of other people without labeling them as good or bad or right or wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I enjoy watching an imaginative fantasy movie.
Sometimes I enjoy watching a light-hearted comedy.
Sometimes I enjoy watching a serious documentary.
Sometimes I enjoy watching a thought-provoking indie movie.
And apparently, some people enjoy watching NASA TV.
There's a wide range of choices in movies.
Why not allow for a wide range of style and quantity of violence in games and for the personal preferences of other people without labeling them as good or bad or right or wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581258</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262096160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think a realistic shooter would necessarily be boring. The problem is immersion, not game design. We've become pretty good at visual simulation, but we're still controlling the game with a mouse and a keyboard (or worse, with a game pad). A realistic shooter would also need a much improved input concept. Designers of virtual reality controllers have made some progress in this area, but movement is still largely handled indirectly, by pointing and linear movement controllers. Some things you can do with current controllers are impossible in real life, like turning around almost instantly. On the other hand, in reality your field of view is not nearly as limited as it is on screen. Jumping from second story windows is another immersion issue: Without realistic (not just effect-like) perception of depth, the player can't intuitively recognize dangerous heights, so it would be immensely frustrating to be punished for misjudgments in this area. Realism can only go as far as the player has realistic controls and feedback to deal with realistic challenges. Before we can have realistic shooters, we need almost holodeck-like human-computer-interfaces, but if we had those, who would claim that a holodeck would be boring without unrealistic game rules?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think a realistic shooter would necessarily be boring .
The problem is immersion , not game design .
We 've become pretty good at visual simulation , but we 're still controlling the game with a mouse and a keyboard ( or worse , with a game pad ) .
A realistic shooter would also need a much improved input concept .
Designers of virtual reality controllers have made some progress in this area , but movement is still largely handled indirectly , by pointing and linear movement controllers .
Some things you can do with current controllers are impossible in real life , like turning around almost instantly .
On the other hand , in reality your field of view is not nearly as limited as it is on screen .
Jumping from second story windows is another immersion issue : Without realistic ( not just effect-like ) perception of depth , the player ca n't intuitively recognize dangerous heights , so it would be immensely frustrating to be punished for misjudgments in this area .
Realism can only go as far as the player has realistic controls and feedback to deal with realistic challenges .
Before we can have realistic shooters , we need almost holodeck-like human-computer-interfaces , but if we had those , who would claim that a holodeck would be boring without unrealistic game rules ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think a realistic shooter would necessarily be boring.
The problem is immersion, not game design.
We've become pretty good at visual simulation, but we're still controlling the game with a mouse and a keyboard (or worse, with a game pad).
A realistic shooter would also need a much improved input concept.
Designers of virtual reality controllers have made some progress in this area, but movement is still largely handled indirectly, by pointing and linear movement controllers.
Some things you can do with current controllers are impossible in real life, like turning around almost instantly.
On the other hand, in reality your field of view is not nearly as limited as it is on screen.
Jumping from second story windows is another immersion issue: Without realistic (not just effect-like) perception of depth, the player can't intuitively recognize dangerous heights, so it would be immensely frustrating to be punished for misjudgments in this area.
Realism can only go as far as the player has realistic controls and feedback to deal with realistic challenges.
Before we can have realistic shooters, we need almost holodeck-like human-computer-interfaces, but if we had those, who would claim that a holodeck would be boring without unrealistic game rules?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581130</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262094240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? you see swat and soldiers jump around like rabbits?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
you see swat and soldiers jump around like rabbits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
you see swat and soldiers jump around like rabbits?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580988</id>
	<title>There have been others too</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1262092680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One that comes to mind that I used to play is Action Quake 2. It was a bit more forgiving than America's Army, but not much. A shot to the head from any weapon and you were done for the round. This was years ago. As the "Quake 2" part indicates, it was a mode for the Quake 2 engine.</p><p>So games like this exist, and have existed for some time. However they are in the minority. Why? Well two reasons:</p><p>1) Only some people find this kind of thing fun. Some people want realism like that. More people don't. As such the majority of games won't feature it. More or less the more people that like something, the more games that are going to feature it. If something has a limited appeal you'll probably see it, just not a whole lot of it.</p><p>2) It can really get in the way of a lot of game types and stories. There are a good many kinds of games, a good many stories that just won't work if things are realistic to that degree. As such it will often get jettisoned as a possibility because it would mess with the overall game design. Even if the designers think people would enjoy it, if it would require a massive redesign of the game it'll get the boot.</p><p>I personally get tired of realism whiners when it comes to games. For the most part, it seems that there ARE realistic games out there of all sorts of kinds. However what it usually turns out is that the realism whiners don't, in fact, want the realism they ask for. If they did, they'd buy the games. They want it, but also want the games to be easy and fun for them. They claim they want it, but they don't in fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One that comes to mind that I used to play is Action Quake 2 .
It was a bit more forgiving than America 's Army , but not much .
A shot to the head from any weapon and you were done for the round .
This was years ago .
As the " Quake 2 " part indicates , it was a mode for the Quake 2 engine.So games like this exist , and have existed for some time .
However they are in the minority .
Why ? Well two reasons : 1 ) Only some people find this kind of thing fun .
Some people want realism like that .
More people do n't .
As such the majority of games wo n't feature it .
More or less the more people that like something , the more games that are going to feature it .
If something has a limited appeal you 'll probably see it , just not a whole lot of it.2 ) It can really get in the way of a lot of game types and stories .
There are a good many kinds of games , a good many stories that just wo n't work if things are realistic to that degree .
As such it will often get jettisoned as a possibility because it would mess with the overall game design .
Even if the designers think people would enjoy it , if it would require a massive redesign of the game it 'll get the boot.I personally get tired of realism whiners when it comes to games .
For the most part , it seems that there ARE realistic games out there of all sorts of kinds .
However what it usually turns out is that the realism whiners do n't , in fact , want the realism they ask for .
If they did , they 'd buy the games .
They want it , but also want the games to be easy and fun for them .
They claim they want it , but they do n't in fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One that comes to mind that I used to play is Action Quake 2.
It was a bit more forgiving than America's Army, but not much.
A shot to the head from any weapon and you were done for the round.
This was years ago.
As the "Quake 2" part indicates, it was a mode for the Quake 2 engine.So games like this exist, and have existed for some time.
However they are in the minority.
Why? Well two reasons:1) Only some people find this kind of thing fun.
Some people want realism like that.
More people don't.
As such the majority of games won't feature it.
More or less the more people that like something, the more games that are going to feature it.
If something has a limited appeal you'll probably see it, just not a whole lot of it.2) It can really get in the way of a lot of game types and stories.
There are a good many kinds of games, a good many stories that just won't work if things are realistic to that degree.
As such it will often get jettisoned as a possibility because it would mess with the overall game design.
Even if the designers think people would enjoy it, if it would require a massive redesign of the game it'll get the boot.I personally get tired of realism whiners when it comes to games.
For the most part, it seems that there ARE realistic games out there of all sorts of kinds.
However what it usually turns out is that the realism whiners don't, in fact, want the realism they ask for.
If they did, they'd buy the games.
They want it, but also want the games to be easy and fun for them.
They claim they want it, but they don't in fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581368</id>
	<title>Re:Realism</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262097180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wonder when we will see a game where the punishment for sticking your head out at the wrong time is 60 years in a wheelchair with no control over your body... If you are lucky.</p></div><p>It's called <em>Full Spectrum Warrior</em>, where you give orders to two four-man squads, and the loss of any squad member terminates the mission. Oh sure, you get to do it over again, but if you want more realism, it's easy to get. Turn off the console every time you lose a squad member, and boot the game all over again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder when we will see a game where the punishment for sticking your head out at the wrong time is 60 years in a wheelchair with no control over your body... If you are lucky.It 's called Full Spectrum Warrior , where you give orders to two four-man squads , and the loss of any squad member terminates the mission .
Oh sure , you get to do it over again , but if you want more realism , it 's easy to get .
Turn off the console every time you lose a squad member , and boot the game all over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder when we will see a game where the punishment for sticking your head out at the wrong time is 60 years in a wheelchair with no control over your body... If you are lucky.It's called Full Spectrum Warrior, where you give orders to two four-man squads, and the loss of any squad member terminates the mission.
Oh sure, you get to do it over again, but if you want more realism, it's easy to get.
Turn off the console every time you lose a squad member, and boot the game all over again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581432</id>
	<title>Feh.</title>
	<author>Pojut</author>
	<datestamp>1262097780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever play Rainbow Six Vegas 1 or 2 at Realistic difficulty?  Try it, then cry as it makes you its bitch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever play Rainbow Six Vegas 1 or 2 at Realistic difficulty ?
Try it , then cry as it makes you its bitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever play Rainbow Six Vegas 1 or 2 at Realistic difficulty?
Try it, then cry as it makes you its bitch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580758</id>
	<title>The reality of getting shot sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262089680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually getting shot is not fun.  The reason it's fun in games is because its NOT real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually getting shot is not fun .
The reason it 's fun in games is because its NOT real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually getting shot is not fun.
The reason it's fun in games is because its NOT real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584788</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1262116260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was going to comment about America's Army too, but you beat me to the punch.<br>
IMO AA 2 was far better than its sequal. They really botched everything and shoved it down the tubes. It used to be really fun but now its just a buggy, laggy mess. I would gladly buy an updated commercial game based on what AA was 4 years ago and flush what they have now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to comment about America 's Army too , but you beat me to the punch .
IMO AA 2 was far better than its sequal .
They really botched everything and shoved it down the tubes .
It used to be really fun but now its just a buggy , laggy mess .
I would gladly buy an updated commercial game based on what AA was 4 years ago and flush what they have now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to comment about America's Army too, but you beat me to the punch.
IMO AA 2 was far better than its sequal.
They really botched everything and shoved it down the tubes.
It used to be really fun but now its just a buggy, laggy mess.
I would gladly buy an updated commercial game based on what AA was 4 years ago and flush what they have now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580566</id>
	<title>Already done</title>
	<author>nkh</author>
	<datestamp>1262086980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There already are 2 very realistic games that should have been mentioned: <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/hot\_new\_video\_game\_consists" title="theonion.com">Close Range</a> [theonion.com] and <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra\_realistic\_modern\_warfare" title="theonion.com">Modern Warfare 3</a> [theonion.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>There already are 2 very realistic games that should have been mentioned : Close Range [ theonion.com ] and Modern Warfare 3 [ theonion.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There already are 2 very realistic games that should have been mentioned: Close Range [theonion.com] and Modern Warfare 3 [theonion.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583544</id>
	<title>I don't know if realistic violence matters, but</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262110560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think realistic consequences and results are.</p><p>A players real behavior in games should be tweaked by the results of his/her actions.  Ok, so this isn't a simple thing to explain, but I don't believe that it's so complicated that it can't be accomplished in logic.  I like video game violence, and it seems to be a healthy way to express frustration and experience behavior without real consequences, however, the way some violent games encourage a lack of behavioral awareness is pretty appalling.</p><p>So, say there's a game where I can be good or bad, and shoot people in a mall for example (this may or may not already exist).. The idea of not having any realistic(ish) consequences there seems a bit off. So, I propose we make the violence more realistic, and make the consequences more realistic.. it seems like a sort of bad idea to have one without the other in terms of realism.  But anyway, you could still go jumping out a two story window and be more or less in good health, because yes, this is what makes it fun -- the hyper-exaggerated/superhuman things that a player can do is what makes it more appealing than real life.</p><p>It's just the overall result of behavior that I think should be looked at.  Eg. you get caught, the game gets harder and harder to the point of you always dying, you're avatar is sent to prison and you have to start anew. etc.  These can be fun experiments with a very wide range of results..</p><p>For example, killing nazi's is pretty decent, but raping civilians isn't, so what happens when you do something like that?  does your central command treat you the same, do you get to command people, or are you dropped to being a grunt and monitored etc?  I think these are the things that can enhance the feel of reality, while communicating natural as well as enforced consequences.</p><p>Anyway, I haven't spent a huge amount of time thinking about this, but IMHO it should be moving in this direction -- even if not always being technically realistic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think realistic consequences and results are.A players real behavior in games should be tweaked by the results of his/her actions .
Ok , so this is n't a simple thing to explain , but I do n't believe that it 's so complicated that it ca n't be accomplished in logic .
I like video game violence , and it seems to be a healthy way to express frustration and experience behavior without real consequences , however , the way some violent games encourage a lack of behavioral awareness is pretty appalling.So , say there 's a game where I can be good or bad , and shoot people in a mall for example ( this may or may not already exist ) .. The idea of not having any realistic ( ish ) consequences there seems a bit off .
So , I propose we make the violence more realistic , and make the consequences more realistic.. it seems like a sort of bad idea to have one without the other in terms of realism .
But anyway , you could still go jumping out a two story window and be more or less in good health , because yes , this is what makes it fun -- the hyper-exaggerated/superhuman things that a player can do is what makes it more appealing than real life.It 's just the overall result of behavior that I think should be looked at .
Eg. you get caught , the game gets harder and harder to the point of you always dying , you 're avatar is sent to prison and you have to start anew .
etc. These can be fun experiments with a very wide range of results..For example , killing nazi 's is pretty decent , but raping civilians is n't , so what happens when you do something like that ?
does your central command treat you the same , do you get to command people , or are you dropped to being a grunt and monitored etc ?
I think these are the things that can enhance the feel of reality , while communicating natural as well as enforced consequences.Anyway , I have n't spent a huge amount of time thinking about this , but IMHO it should be moving in this direction -- even if not always being technically realistic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think realistic consequences and results are.A players real behavior in games should be tweaked by the results of his/her actions.
Ok, so this isn't a simple thing to explain, but I don't believe that it's so complicated that it can't be accomplished in logic.
I like video game violence, and it seems to be a healthy way to express frustration and experience behavior without real consequences, however, the way some violent games encourage a lack of behavioral awareness is pretty appalling.So, say there's a game where I can be good or bad, and shoot people in a mall for example (this may or may not already exist).. The idea of not having any realistic(ish) consequences there seems a bit off.
So, I propose we make the violence more realistic, and make the consequences more realistic.. it seems like a sort of bad idea to have one without the other in terms of realism.
But anyway, you could still go jumping out a two story window and be more or less in good health, because yes, this is what makes it fun -- the hyper-exaggerated/superhuman things that a player can do is what makes it more appealing than real life.It's just the overall result of behavior that I think should be looked at.
Eg. you get caught, the game gets harder and harder to the point of you always dying, you're avatar is sent to prison and you have to start anew.
etc.  These can be fun experiments with a very wide range of results..For example, killing nazi's is pretty decent, but raping civilians isn't, so what happens when you do something like that?
does your central command treat you the same, do you get to command people, or are you dropped to being a grunt and monitored etc?
I think these are the things that can enhance the feel of reality, while communicating natural as well as enforced consequences.Anyway, I haven't spent a huge amount of time thinking about this, but IMHO it should be moving in this direction -- even if not always being technically realistic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580892</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>Jarik\_Tentsu</author>
	<datestamp>1262091480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But more reality isn't necessarily a bad thing.</p><p>For instance, I prefer playing realistic racing simulators to more arcade style ones like NFS. Of course, full reality would be having to live with the damages to a car, or physical damage to yourself in a car crash. Obviously, we don't want realism to go that far...but to a point, realism can add to games. Even if it makes it more challenging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But more reality is n't necessarily a bad thing.For instance , I prefer playing realistic racing simulators to more arcade style ones like NFS .
Of course , full reality would be having to live with the damages to a car , or physical damage to yourself in a car crash .
Obviously , we do n't want realism to go that far...but to a point , realism can add to games .
Even if it makes it more challenging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But more reality isn't necessarily a bad thing.For instance, I prefer playing realistic racing simulators to more arcade style ones like NFS.
Of course, full reality would be having to live with the damages to a car, or physical damage to yourself in a car crash.
Obviously, we don't want realism to go that far...but to a point, realism can add to games.
Even if it makes it more challenging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580476</id>
	<title>Americas Army</title>
	<author>LaLLi</author>
	<datestamp>1262085540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Americas Army has always focused on realism.
You can't run too fast, you can't jump too high or continously.
If you fall too far you'll break a leg and bleed to death.

And yes you usually die after the first hit from AK47.
It's possible to have a medic bind your wounds, but you won't
get to 100\% health..you stay slow and weak.

I used to play it a lot and loved it. Too bad they stopped making linux ports.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Americas Army has always focused on realism .
You ca n't run too fast , you ca n't jump too high or continously .
If you fall too far you 'll break a leg and bleed to death .
And yes you usually die after the first hit from AK47 .
It 's possible to have a medic bind your wounds , but you wo n't get to 100 \ % health..you stay slow and weak .
I used to play it a lot and loved it .
Too bad they stopped making linux ports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americas Army has always focused on realism.
You can't run too fast, you can't jump too high or continously.
If you fall too far you'll break a leg and bleed to death.
And yes you usually die after the first hit from AK47.
It's possible to have a medic bind your wounds, but you won't
get to 100\% health..you stay slow and weak.
I used to play it a lot and loved it.
Too bad they stopped making linux ports.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585640</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1262120220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like realistic graphics and physics. It makes common sense work better in the game. For example - let's say that I found a locked house, but I absolutely must get inside (maybe my mission requires it). A game would usually make me look for the key(s), find them, then unlock the house and get inside, while in real life, I would also be looking for a brick or a stone.</p><p>Realistic combat is also a matter of preference. Some people like that they can kill the enemies with one bullet (and not necessarily a headshot), others like the "empty whole magazine at point blank range to actually kill him" version. But there are a lot of aspects of reality that almost nobody would want: need to go to bathroom in-game; need to sleep or eat; fatigue from fighting for 15h of game time and so on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like realistic graphics and physics .
It makes common sense work better in the game .
For example - let 's say that I found a locked house , but I absolutely must get inside ( maybe my mission requires it ) .
A game would usually make me look for the key ( s ) , find them , then unlock the house and get inside , while in real life , I would also be looking for a brick or a stone.Realistic combat is also a matter of preference .
Some people like that they can kill the enemies with one bullet ( and not necessarily a headshot ) , others like the " empty whole magazine at point blank range to actually kill him " version .
But there are a lot of aspects of reality that almost nobody would want : need to go to bathroom in-game ; need to sleep or eat ; fatigue from fighting for 15h of game time and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like realistic graphics and physics.
It makes common sense work better in the game.
For example - let's say that I found a locked house, but I absolutely must get inside (maybe my mission requires it).
A game would usually make me look for the key(s), find them, then unlock the house and get inside, while in real life, I would also be looking for a brick or a stone.Realistic combat is also a matter of preference.
Some people like that they can kill the enemies with one bullet (and not necessarily a headshot), others like the "empty whole magazine at point blank range to actually kill him" version.
But there are a lot of aspects of reality that almost nobody would want: need to go to bathroom in-game; need to sleep or eat; fatigue from fighting for 15h of game time and so on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581786</id>
	<title>Realism not for most people</title>
	<author>stewbacca</author>
	<datestamp>1262100780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I find realism to be one of the most important aspects of a game (especially racing and sports games), more people enjoy stupid stuff like unlimited ammo and hitting 400 home runs in a game. I've always longed for FPS that rewarded the careful player (i.e. you get shot, you probably die, and stay dead for long enough time to make it worth your time trying not to die). I blame Quake and the early frag fests where you only got points for a frag, but never lost points for getting fragged.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I find realism to be one of the most important aspects of a game ( especially racing and sports games ) , more people enjoy stupid stuff like unlimited ammo and hitting 400 home runs in a game .
I 've always longed for FPS that rewarded the careful player ( i.e .
you get shot , you probably die , and stay dead for long enough time to make it worth your time trying not to die ) .
I blame Quake and the early frag fests where you only got points for a frag , but never lost points for getting fragged .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I find realism to be one of the most important aspects of a game (especially racing and sports games), more people enjoy stupid stuff like unlimited ammo and hitting 400 home runs in a game.
I've always longed for FPS that rewarded the careful player (i.e.
you get shot, you probably die, and stay dead for long enough time to make it worth your time trying not to die).
I blame Quake and the early frag fests where you only got points for a frag, but never lost points for getting fragged.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580992</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262092680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"What's worse, Tribes basically had no hitscan [wikipedia.org] weapons, so at range, you couldn't even hit anything moving, and even if you did get a lucky shot in, it would do no significant damage."<br>If Tribes had no "hitscan weapons", you wouldn't hit anything at all. It even says so in the material you link to.<br>You're confusing a basic FPS function with netcode features.</p><p>"Contrast these games with the likes of Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, or the like. In those games, three or four direct hits with a rocket weapon is not enough."<br>In all of the above mentioned arena games, 1 rocket is enough.</p><p>"Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours."<br>They jump to move faster. Moving faster enables a player to out manouvre an opponent, not just avoiding being hit.<br>Boring for you, but not for the rest of the world. There's unlimited content because you play against other people. Same reason chess is still played.</p><p>"- Counter Strike: Used to be really good in the early betas, then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed. I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy's head, missed with every bullet, and then had him turn around and knife me. Over 90\% of players had never played CS when it was good, and have no idea just what they're missing..."<br>I have over 10k hours into CS. I cannot recognize your problem, even when i started playing it. HL has excellent netcode, lag doesn't effect if you hit or not (it does effect the timing of your recoil delays though). If you're emptying a whole clip at once, maybe that's why you missed. Didn't you say you wanted realism?<br>I kinda like CS at that point. No ofc it isn't realistic, but if you attack someone from behind, they're dead.</p><p>"Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror, ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension."<br>This happens in every game. Like a 9-9 standoff in Clan arena (That's quake 3/live) where you're the last one left against the other team, and the whole match is on your sholders.</p><p>This isn't meant to argue with Bertok, but rather to help the people that modded his troll up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What 's worse , Tribes basically had no hitscan [ wikipedia.org ] weapons , so at range , you could n't even hit anything moving , and even if you did get a lucky shot in , it would do no significant damage .
" If Tribes had no " hitscan weapons " , you would n't hit anything at all .
It even says so in the material you link to.You 're confusing a basic FPS function with netcode features .
" Contrast these games with the likes of Quake , Unreal Tournament , Tribes , or the like .
In those games , three or four direct hits with a rocket weapon is not enough .
" In all of the above mentioned arena games , 1 rocket is enough .
" Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours .
" They jump to move faster .
Moving faster enables a player to out manouvre an opponent , not just avoiding being hit.Boring for you , but not for the rest of the world .
There 's unlimited content because you play against other people .
Same reason chess is still played .
" - Counter Strike : Used to be really good in the early betas , then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed .
I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy 's head , missed with every bullet , and then had him turn around and knife me .
Over 90 \ % of players had never played CS when it was good , and have no idea just what they 're missing... " I have over 10k hours into CS .
I can not recognize your problem , even when i started playing it .
HL has excellent netcode , lag does n't effect if you hit or not ( it does effect the timing of your recoil delays though ) .
If you 're emptying a whole clip at once , maybe that 's why you missed .
Did n't you say you wanted realism ? I kinda like CS at that point .
No ofc it is n't realistic , but if you attack someone from behind , they 're dead .
" Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror , ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension .
" This happens in every game .
Like a 9-9 standoff in Clan arena ( That 's quake 3/live ) where you 're the last one left against the other team , and the whole match is on your sholders.This is n't meant to argue with Bertok , but rather to help the people that modded his troll up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What's worse, Tribes basically had no hitscan [wikipedia.org] weapons, so at range, you couldn't even hit anything moving, and even if you did get a lucky shot in, it would do no significant damage.
"If Tribes had no "hitscan weapons", you wouldn't hit anything at all.
It even says so in the material you link to.You're confusing a basic FPS function with netcode features.
"Contrast these games with the likes of Quake, Unreal Tournament, Tribes, or the like.
In those games, three or four direct hits with a rocket weapon is not enough.
"In all of the above mentioned arena games, 1 rocket is enough.
"Jumping around like idiots in glowing neon green armor is just boring after a few hours.
"They jump to move faster.
Moving faster enables a player to out manouvre an opponent, not just avoiding being hit.Boring for you, but not for the rest of the world.
There's unlimited content because you play against other people.
Same reason chess is still played.
"- Counter Strike: Used to be really good in the early betas, then went to hell once the whiners in the forums resulted in every weapon being nerfed.
I stopped playing it after I emptied a clip at point blank into a guy's head, missed with every bullet, and then had him turn around and knife me.
Over 90\% of players had never played CS when it was good, and have no idea just what they're missing..."I have over 10k hours into CS.
I cannot recognize your problem, even when i started playing it.
HL has excellent netcode, lag doesn't effect if you hit or not (it does effect the timing of your recoil delays though).
If you're emptying a whole clip at once, maybe that's why you missed.
Didn't you say you wanted realism?I kinda like CS at that point.
No ofc it isn't realistic, but if you attack someone from behind, they're dead.
"Periods of quiet stalking interspersed with real terror, ending with either sudden death or a panicked getaway make for great tension.
"This happens in every game.
Like a 9-9 standoff in Clan arena (That's quake 3/live) where you're the last one left against the other team, and the whole match is on your sholders.This isn't meant to argue with Bertok, but rather to help the people that modded his troll up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30587754</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262086260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>For true realism try Americas Army 3</p></div></blockquote><p>If you want realism, there's a recruiting office down at the local mall that has a total immersion game that will rock your world.</p></div><p>I've heard about that. The admins are incompetent hateful bastards, the matchmaking system insists on connecting you to fight battles on the other side of the planet, the mission parameters are unclear and the objectives are vague or arbitrary, and the penalties for ragequits are barely believable. Give me TF2 any-day of the week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For true realism try Americas Army 3If you want realism , there 's a recruiting office down at the local mall that has a total immersion game that will rock your world.I 've heard about that .
The admins are incompetent hateful bastards , the matchmaking system insists on connecting you to fight battles on the other side of the planet , the mission parameters are unclear and the objectives are vague or arbitrary , and the penalties for ragequits are barely believable .
Give me TF2 any-day of the week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For true realism try Americas Army 3If you want realism, there's a recruiting office down at the local mall that has a total immersion game that will rock your world.I've heard about that.
The admins are incompetent hateful bastards, the matchmaking system insists on connecting you to fight battles on the other side of the planet, the mission parameters are unclear and the objectives are vague or arbitrary, and the penalties for ragequits are barely believable.
Give me TF2 any-day of the week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580460</id>
	<title>GTA: 5?</title>
	<author>ksemlerK</author>
	<datestamp>1262085300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the next GTA release, I suggest not only realistic physics, but realistic body injury, healing processes, and legal consequences.  Including getting stopped for speeding or eratic driving, or hit and runs.  Felony stop if you get above 2 stars, and banned for a day of "real world" time, because you're in jail.  If you kill a man and get caught, you lose the game.

Doesn't sound like a game I would be interested in.  "alternate reality" v. "Real world reproduction" borders a very fine line concerning game enjoyment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the next GTA release , I suggest not only realistic physics , but realistic body injury , healing processes , and legal consequences .
Including getting stopped for speeding or eratic driving , or hit and runs .
Felony stop if you get above 2 stars , and banned for a day of " real world " time , because you 're in jail .
If you kill a man and get caught , you lose the game .
Does n't sound like a game I would be interested in .
" alternate reality " v. " Real world reproduction " borders a very fine line concerning game enjoyment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the next GTA release, I suggest not only realistic physics, but realistic body injury, healing processes, and legal consequences.
Including getting stopped for speeding or eratic driving, or hit and runs.
Felony stop if you get above 2 stars, and banned for a day of "real world" time, because you're in jail.
If you kill a man and get caught, you lose the game.
Doesn't sound like a game I would be interested in.
"alternate reality" v. "Real world reproduction" borders a very fine line concerning game enjoyment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934</id>
	<title>Incan Basketball Rules</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1262092020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When the ancient Aztecs played basketball, the rules were simple - the first team that made a shot through the basket got to live.  The other team was...well...beheaded.  Now, if you want to make video games that are realistic, why not go all the way?  Have some sort of controller that provides an electric shock or poison if you really die.  That will make you think twice about going into that room full of zombies. <br>
&nbsp; <br>The bottom line is that video games are for fun and "practice".  You go to a new level of realism and it just gets boring.  I love flight simulators, but the ones that are completely realistic are the most boring. Who wants to spend 4 hours in combat air patrol with a 1 in 1000 chance of actually getting to splash a bogie?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When the ancient Aztecs played basketball , the rules were simple - the first team that made a shot through the basket got to live .
The other team was...well...beheaded .
Now , if you want to make video games that are realistic , why not go all the way ?
Have some sort of controller that provides an electric shock or poison if you really die .
That will make you think twice about going into that room full of zombies .
  The bottom line is that video games are for fun and " practice " .
You go to a new level of realism and it just gets boring .
I love flight simulators , but the ones that are completely realistic are the most boring .
Who wants to spend 4 hours in combat air patrol with a 1 in 1000 chance of actually getting to splash a bogie ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the ancient Aztecs played basketball, the rules were simple - the first team that made a shot through the basket got to live.
The other team was...well...beheaded.
Now, if you want to make video games that are realistic, why not go all the way?
Have some sort of controller that provides an electric shock or poison if you really die.
That will make you think twice about going into that room full of zombies.
  The bottom line is that video games are for fun and "practice".
You go to a new level of realism and it just gets boring.
I love flight simulators, but the ones that are completely realistic are the most boring.
Who wants to spend 4 hours in combat air patrol with a 1 in 1000 chance of actually getting to splash a bogie?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582852</id>
	<title>reality</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262107140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I always thought it would be pretty hilarious and cool to create, as a piece of art, a standard looking FPS shooter where you're some kind of supercop or the usual fare, and right on your first mission, within about 8 seconds of daredevilry you get shot in the spine.  You wake up in the hospital surrounded by staff.  Like any good joke, the key is to take it as far as you can until the player first laughs, then gets sick of it, then laughs again at the ludicrousness of it.  There would be an elaborate AI nursing staff waiting on you 24/7, rehab classes where you slowly work on getting your feet to move again, painful surgeries, altered reality due to the constant stream of drugs, dreams, nightmares, sleep terrors, day terrors, flashbacks, the crazy guy in the bed next to you, the trauma unit coming through with the occasional screaming patient with a missing leg...but really keep it at the pace of reality where in a 24 hour day you might spend 6 hours awake and drugged, 16 hours sleeping, 1 hour struggling to eat your meal and use the toilet, and an hour in rehab.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I always thought it would be pretty hilarious and cool to create , as a piece of art , a standard looking FPS shooter where you 're some kind of supercop or the usual fare , and right on your first mission , within about 8 seconds of daredevilry you get shot in the spine .
You wake up in the hospital surrounded by staff .
Like any good joke , the key is to take it as far as you can until the player first laughs , then gets sick of it , then laughs again at the ludicrousness of it .
There would be an elaborate AI nursing staff waiting on you 24/7 , rehab classes where you slowly work on getting your feet to move again , painful surgeries , altered reality due to the constant stream of drugs , dreams , nightmares , sleep terrors , day terrors , flashbacks , the crazy guy in the bed next to you , the trauma unit coming through with the occasional screaming patient with a missing leg...but really keep it at the pace of reality where in a 24 hour day you might spend 6 hours awake and drugged , 16 hours sleeping , 1 hour struggling to eat your meal and use the toilet , and an hour in rehab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always thought it would be pretty hilarious and cool to create, as a piece of art, a standard looking FPS shooter where you're some kind of supercop or the usual fare, and right on your first mission, within about 8 seconds of daredevilry you get shot in the spine.
You wake up in the hospital surrounded by staff.
Like any good joke, the key is to take it as far as you can until the player first laughs, then gets sick of it, then laughs again at the ludicrousness of it.
There would be an elaborate AI nursing staff waiting on you 24/7, rehab classes where you slowly work on getting your feet to move again, painful surgeries, altered reality due to the constant stream of drugs, dreams, nightmares, sleep terrors, day terrors, flashbacks, the crazy guy in the bed next to you, the trauma unit coming through with the occasional screaming patient with a missing leg...but really keep it at the pace of reality where in a 24 hour day you might spend 6 hours awake and drugged, 16 hours sleeping, 1 hour struggling to eat your meal and use the toilet, and an hour in rehab.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586826</id>
	<title>Re:Reality is not funny.</title>
	<author>HeckRuler</author>
	<datestamp>1262082600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forsooth! A beholder is upon us! I shall smite it with my high powered rail gun weaponry! <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...What do you mean I don't have one? it's right here on my character sheet. <br>
Rules, shmulze it's a fantasy game right? So it's my fantasy to have a rail gun. <br>
Listen, if fatso here can kill things with a word while wearing a bathrobe I don't see why I can't point and click things into oblivion.<br>
Of course it doesn't make sense, neither does wearing a bathrobe to a gunfight!<br>
<br>
Ah. So what you're telling me is that this game allows us to break from reality with a narrowly defined set of rules that remains internally consistent while generating scenarios that wouldn't be available to us in real life. <br>
Well that makes sense. One sec, lemme roll up a human fighter. 3D6 in a row, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forsooth !
A beholder is upon us !
I shall smite it with my high powered rail gun weaponry !
...What do you mean I do n't have one ?
it 's right here on my character sheet .
Rules , shmulze it 's a fantasy game right ?
So it 's my fantasy to have a rail gun .
Listen , if fatso here can kill things with a word while wearing a bathrobe I do n't see why I ca n't point and click things into oblivion .
Of course it does n't make sense , neither does wearing a bathrobe to a gunfight !
Ah. So what you 're telling me is that this game allows us to break from reality with a narrowly defined set of rules that remains internally consistent while generating scenarios that would n't be available to us in real life .
Well that makes sense .
One sec , lem me roll up a human fighter .
3D6 in a row , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forsooth!
A beholder is upon us!
I shall smite it with my high powered rail gun weaponry!
...What do you mean I don't have one?
it's right here on my character sheet.
Rules, shmulze it's a fantasy game right?
So it's my fantasy to have a rail gun.
Listen, if fatso here can kill things with a word while wearing a bathrobe I don't see why I can't point and click things into oblivion.
Of course it doesn't make sense, neither does wearing a bathrobe to a gunfight!
Ah. So what you're telling me is that this game allows us to break from reality with a narrowly defined set of rules that remains internally consistent while generating scenarios that wouldn't be available to us in real life.
Well that makes sense.
One sec, lemme roll up a human fighter.
3D6 in a row, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581610</id>
	<title>maybe in a game where</title>
	<author>Youngbull</author>
	<datestamp>1262099400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>gun battles aren't the only thing happening....</htmltext>
<tokenext>gun battles are n't the only thing happening... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>gun battles aren't the only thing happening....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585834</id>
	<title>Realism vs Arcade : You are all hilarious</title>
	<author>Bragador</author>
	<datestamp>1262077860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the comments and find it hilarious that the debate goes nowhere.</p><p>Here's the thing: Some people like simulations while others don't.</p><p>So please do make war simulations and please make arcade games.</p><p>End of story.</p><p>If flight simulators can exist in the same world as star fox, why should anybody care?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the comments and find it hilarious that the debate goes nowhere.Here 's the thing : Some people like simulations while others do n't.So please do make war simulations and please make arcade games.End of story.If flight simulators can exist in the same world as star fox , why should anybody care ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the comments and find it hilarious that the debate goes nowhere.Here's the thing: Some people like simulations while others don't.So please do make war simulations and please make arcade games.End of story.If flight simulators can exist in the same world as star fox, why should anybody care?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30587116</id>
	<title>Nope.</title>
	<author>stonecypher</author>
	<datestamp>1262084100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a long history of games that try to be realistic with one-hit kills and body disabling; Bushido Blade in particular tried to make an enormous selling point of it, but I can name dozens of these games off of the top of my head.</p><p>None of them are popular.  It's not that they're too difficult; there are many far more difficult games out there with enormous cult followings (R-Type, the 2d Prince of Persia games, Puzzle Fighter 2T and Solomon's Key come to mind).</p><p>It's that when you get hit once and go down, it feels cheap; like cheating.</p><p>They don't do well in the market because we're so used to video game laws that more realistic laws leave your player feeling ripped off.</p><p>The only game I'm aware of that ever got popular with a bunch of one-hit kills is Dragon's Lair, and I maintain that that's more about the ridiculously high production values for the day; nobody plays that game today, or even five years after it was contemporary, and there's a reason for that.</p><p>And don't kid yourself into thinking it's about hardware; laser disc hardware is still in production, and people fly over the moon to get 49-way laser joysticks for their Sinistar consoles.</p><p>It's because this "oh my god have to be real" thing doesn't lead to fun games.  Stopping and starting over at the slightest mistake doesn't make good entertainment.</p><p>Incidentally, real humans can usually take several bullets which aren't headshorts or heartshots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a long history of games that try to be realistic with one-hit kills and body disabling ; Bushido Blade in particular tried to make an enormous selling point of it , but I can name dozens of these games off of the top of my head.None of them are popular .
It 's not that they 're too difficult ; there are many far more difficult games out there with enormous cult followings ( R-Type , the 2d Prince of Persia games , Puzzle Fighter 2T and Solomon 's Key come to mind ) .It 's that when you get hit once and go down , it feels cheap ; like cheating.They do n't do well in the market because we 're so used to video game laws that more realistic laws leave your player feeling ripped off.The only game I 'm aware of that ever got popular with a bunch of one-hit kills is Dragon 's Lair , and I maintain that that 's more about the ridiculously high production values for the day ; nobody plays that game today , or even five years after it was contemporary , and there 's a reason for that.And do n't kid yourself into thinking it 's about hardware ; laser disc hardware is still in production , and people fly over the moon to get 49-way laser joysticks for their Sinistar consoles.It 's because this " oh my god have to be real " thing does n't lead to fun games .
Stopping and starting over at the slightest mistake does n't make good entertainment.Incidentally , real humans can usually take several bullets which are n't headshorts or heartshots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a long history of games that try to be realistic with one-hit kills and body disabling; Bushido Blade in particular tried to make an enormous selling point of it, but I can name dozens of these games off of the top of my head.None of them are popular.
It's not that they're too difficult; there are many far more difficult games out there with enormous cult followings (R-Type, the 2d Prince of Persia games, Puzzle Fighter 2T and Solomon's Key come to mind).It's that when you get hit once and go down, it feels cheap; like cheating.They don't do well in the market because we're so used to video game laws that more realistic laws leave your player feeling ripped off.The only game I'm aware of that ever got popular with a bunch of one-hit kills is Dragon's Lair, and I maintain that that's more about the ridiculously high production values for the day; nobody plays that game today, or even five years after it was contemporary, and there's a reason for that.And don't kid yourself into thinking it's about hardware; laser disc hardware is still in production, and people fly over the moon to get 49-way laser joysticks for their Sinistar consoles.It's because this "oh my god have to be real" thing doesn't lead to fun games.
Stopping and starting over at the slightest mistake doesn't make good entertainment.Incidentally, real humans can usually take several bullets which aren't headshorts or heartshots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585432</id>
	<title>Re:"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>Bragador</author>
	<datestamp>1262119320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could you help me find the name of the article? I never found your source...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you help me find the name of the article ?
I never found your source.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you help me find the name of the article?
I never found your source...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583574</id>
	<title>Goldeneye on the N64</title>
	<author>Lawriew</author>
	<datestamp>1262110620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Set it to one shot kills and get some mates around and prepare to swear your tits off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Set it to one shot kills and get some mates around and prepare to swear your tits off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set it to one shot kills and get some mates around and prepare to swear your tits off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438</id>
	<title>"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262084820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist. It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases (only one I can think of that is fun and isn't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike).</p><p>With the whole rise of casual gamer shenanigans going on, making games realistically punishing isn't lucrative in the slightest. Even the most successful hardcore/brutally evil game that has come out recently, Demon's Souls, has a lot of unrealistic elements in it (such as excessive hit points, predictable AI, magic, etc).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist .
It 's just that realistic mechanics , from a player perspective , are extremely boring , except for in a few limited cases ( only one I can think of that is fun and is n't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike ) .With the whole rise of casual gamer shenanigans going on , making games realistically punishing is n't lucrative in the slightest .
Even the most successful hardcore/brutally evil game that has come out recently , Demon 's Souls , has a lot of unrealistic elements in it ( such as excessive hit points , predictable AI , magic , etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist.
It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases (only one I can think of that is fun and isn't at least a bit fantastic or sci-fi is Counter Strike).With the whole rise of casual gamer shenanigans going on, making games realistically punishing isn't lucrative in the slightest.
Even the most successful hardcore/brutally evil game that has come out recently, Demon's Souls, has a lot of unrealistic elements in it (such as excessive hit points, predictable AI, magic, etc).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30600242</id>
	<title>There really isn't enough realism...</title>
	<author>weiquin</author>
	<datestamp>1259839020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate how when I get shot by an RPG, my computer doesn't explode and pierce my body with hot shrapnel.  It's so fake!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate how when I get shot by an RPG , my computer does n't explode and pierce my body with hot shrapnel .
It 's so fake !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate how when I get shot by an RPG, my computer doesn't explode and pierce my body with hot shrapnel.
It's so fake!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580570</id>
	<title>There are a few</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262087100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The earlier Rainbow 6 games, including my fav - Rogue Spear.</p><p>You can't even jump in those games and climbing a little ledge seems to take ages. Getting shot is frequently lethal (even if they hit you in the foot or arm) or results in incredibly slow movement until someone finishes you off. Also, no respawning until the end of the round.</p><p>I loved those games! You'd feel a lot of stress immediately before the map loaded and then keep a bit of stress throughout the match. It was exciting and fun.</p><p>Nowadays it's the military sims mentioned above that keep flying the flag. (I also enjoy "silly" FPS games such as Team Fortress 2 and Mirror's Edge and haven't played a good realistic FPS in a long while.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The earlier Rainbow 6 games , including my fav - Rogue Spear.You ca n't even jump in those games and climbing a little ledge seems to take ages .
Getting shot is frequently lethal ( even if they hit you in the foot or arm ) or results in incredibly slow movement until someone finishes you off .
Also , no respawning until the end of the round.I loved those games !
You 'd feel a lot of stress immediately before the map loaded and then keep a bit of stress throughout the match .
It was exciting and fun.Nowadays it 's the military sims mentioned above that keep flying the flag .
( I also enjoy " silly " FPS games such as Team Fortress 2 and Mirror 's Edge and have n't played a good realistic FPS in a long while .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The earlier Rainbow 6 games, including my fav - Rogue Spear.You can't even jump in those games and climbing a little ledge seems to take ages.
Getting shot is frequently lethal (even if they hit you in the foot or arm) or results in incredibly slow movement until someone finishes you off.
Also, no respawning until the end of the round.I loved those games!
You'd feel a lot of stress immediately before the map loaded and then keep a bit of stress throughout the match.
It was exciting and fun.Nowadays it's the military sims mentioned above that keep flying the flag.
(I also enjoy "silly" FPS games such as Team Fortress 2 and Mirror's Edge and haven't played a good realistic FPS in a long while.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580786</id>
	<title>We don't want realism?</title>
	<author>Gaygirlie</author>
	<datestamp>1262090040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"We want fantasy. We want unlimited ammo and we want rapid respawns. We want to jump out of second story windows without a scratch. We want to dodge bullets and shake off mortal wounds without pause.'"

Disagreed strongly. He may want such, you may want such, THEY may want such...but I don't. If I wanted that I'd be playing with God mode on or I'd go for My Little Pony Online.

I want challenge. I want realism. I want to have to use some skill and smarts to get the job done, not just mindlessly run around shooting anything that moves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We want fantasy .
We want unlimited ammo and we want rapid respawns .
We want to jump out of second story windows without a scratch .
We want to dodge bullets and shake off mortal wounds without pause .
' " Disagreed strongly .
He may want such , you may want such , THEY may want such...but I do n't .
If I wanted that I 'd be playing with God mode on or I 'd go for My Little Pony Online .
I want challenge .
I want realism .
I want to have to use some skill and smarts to get the job done , not just mindlessly run around shooting anything that moves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We want fantasy.
We want unlimited ammo and we want rapid respawns.
We want to jump out of second story windows without a scratch.
We want to dodge bullets and shake off mortal wounds without pause.
'"

Disagreed strongly.
He may want such, you may want such, THEY may want such...but I don't.
If I wanted that I'd be playing with God mode on or I'd go for My Little Pony Online.
I want challenge.
I want realism.
I want to have to use some skill and smarts to get the job done, not just mindlessly run around shooting anything that moves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580480</id>
	<title>Re:"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>arachnoprobe</author>
	<datestamp>1262085660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want realistic shooters, try Tom Clancy's  Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon series. Weapon effects and impacts are realistic as it comes, graphics could be more state-of-the-art.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want realistic shooters , try Tom Clancy 's Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon series .
Weapon effects and impacts are realistic as it comes , graphics could be more state-of-the-art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want realistic shooters, try Tom Clancy's  Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon series.
Weapon effects and impacts are realistic as it comes, graphics could be more state-of-the-art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580702</id>
	<title>Re:"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>somersault</author>
	<datestamp>1262088840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Operation Flashpoint was another good one. I'd say it's still number one on my games "experiences" list to this day..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Operation Flashpoint was another good one .
I 'd say it 's still number one on my games " experiences " list to this day. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Operation Flashpoint was another good one.
I'd say it's still number one on my games "experiences" list to this day..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580772</id>
	<title>Balance between fun and realistic</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1262089920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Games can provide realistic damage, but they need to provide -something- that makes the effects less permanent than in real life.<br>Games of the old provided "multiple lives". You could try again, repeating some of the work. But that's cheap, you live or you die but you won't be anywhere halfway.</p><p>Later games provided savegame, you pick a point in time where you can go back no matter how badly it goes. Very cheap again, there is no challenge if you can repeat each step as many times as needed.</p><p>There are these games where you have levels of energy and armor, thing is playing at 10\% health is no different than playing at 100\%, as long as you don't get hit.</p><p>Counter-strike and alikes got it nearly right, a kill is really crippling, making you practically lose the game - while the game itself is quite short.</p><p>What is really lacking is crippling damage. In CS, you could still run at full speed at 2\% health.</p><p>S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has this concept of bleeding, you need to stop and bandage yourself to stop bleeding or your health will drain. Unfortunately, medikits are so common, fast-acting and easy to use, that bleeding becomes moot.</p><p>And meanwhile, I remember the game of Gunship 2000 with extreme fondness, as I would return from missions in a heavily damaged helicopter. Autopilot out of commission, the rotor damaged, so it keeps turning, one of motors destroyed so that I need to run the other at overheating level just to keep from falling, electronics damaged, so that I have to depend on analog displays, and "wounded" like that I had to crawl back to base, fending off enemies that tried to take down the easy prey. These were some of the most memorable moments in my gaming past. Of course it was the machine damaged, not the person, but...</p><p>I think FPS games could greatly benefit from a realistic damage model. Something where pain is paralyzing, where blood obscures your vision, explosions stun you - not for 3 seconds, but for half a minute maybe. Shock from pain makes you stop and fall, wounded limbs fail to perform. Instead of running smoothly sideways with aiming cross precisely in the center of the screen, have the aiming cross oscillating in the corner of the screen as you try to hold a carabine with one hand, and your leg is wounded.<br>You can use medikits, but first, using them is an operation of at least a minute or two, then it doesn't magically heal you, it just stops bleeding (which makes things worse), reduces pain to allow better control, allows limited use of limbs that were totally out of use.</p><p>Imagine the epicness of a "capture the flag" game as the flag carrier gets severely wounded. Think of a defender of the base who got his both legs shot off, and fights to the last drop of blood, unable to move. Imagine a counter-strike terrorist activating the bomb with his last living breath. A moment of "You go without me", as a team needs to leave a wounded player at a difficult jump point, and he makes his last stand against oncoming horde of enemies.</p><p>Of course limping through the game for 16 hours, until the plot grants you mercy of a hospital is no fun. The games with realistic damage model would need to adapt the gameplay style. First, short and sweet sections to allow for -some kind- of respawn. Also, both incentive to keep playing while even heavily wounded, and not forcing a player to wait uselessly for some kind of help/respawn for hours. Some kind of reward for sticking to the same character, even wounded, but with ability to heal (or replace the character with a healthy one, say reinforcements arrive, wounded are sent back to hospital).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games can provide realistic damage , but they need to provide -something- that makes the effects less permanent than in real life.Games of the old provided " multiple lives " .
You could try again , repeating some of the work .
But that 's cheap , you live or you die but you wo n't be anywhere halfway.Later games provided savegame , you pick a point in time where you can go back no matter how badly it goes .
Very cheap again , there is no challenge if you can repeat each step as many times as needed.There are these games where you have levels of energy and armor , thing is playing at 10 \ % health is no different than playing at 100 \ % , as long as you do n't get hit.Counter-strike and alikes got it nearly right , a kill is really crippling , making you practically lose the game - while the game itself is quite short.What is really lacking is crippling damage .
In CS , you could still run at full speed at 2 \ % health.S.T.A.L.K.E.R .
has this concept of bleeding , you need to stop and bandage yourself to stop bleeding or your health will drain .
Unfortunately , medikits are so common , fast-acting and easy to use , that bleeding becomes moot.And meanwhile , I remember the game of Gunship 2000 with extreme fondness , as I would return from missions in a heavily damaged helicopter .
Autopilot out of commission , the rotor damaged , so it keeps turning , one of motors destroyed so that I need to run the other at overheating level just to keep from falling , electronics damaged , so that I have to depend on analog displays , and " wounded " like that I had to crawl back to base , fending off enemies that tried to take down the easy prey .
These were some of the most memorable moments in my gaming past .
Of course it was the machine damaged , not the person , but...I think FPS games could greatly benefit from a realistic damage model .
Something where pain is paralyzing , where blood obscures your vision , explosions stun you - not for 3 seconds , but for half a minute maybe .
Shock from pain makes you stop and fall , wounded limbs fail to perform .
Instead of running smoothly sideways with aiming cross precisely in the center of the screen , have the aiming cross oscillating in the corner of the screen as you try to hold a carabine with one hand , and your leg is wounded.You can use medikits , but first , using them is an operation of at least a minute or two , then it does n't magically heal you , it just stops bleeding ( which makes things worse ) , reduces pain to allow better control , allows limited use of limbs that were totally out of use.Imagine the epicness of a " capture the flag " game as the flag carrier gets severely wounded .
Think of a defender of the base who got his both legs shot off , and fights to the last drop of blood , unable to move .
Imagine a counter-strike terrorist activating the bomb with his last living breath .
A moment of " You go without me " , as a team needs to leave a wounded player at a difficult jump point , and he makes his last stand against oncoming horde of enemies.Of course limping through the game for 16 hours , until the plot grants you mercy of a hospital is no fun .
The games with realistic damage model would need to adapt the gameplay style .
First , short and sweet sections to allow for -some kind- of respawn .
Also , both incentive to keep playing while even heavily wounded , and not forcing a player to wait uselessly for some kind of help/respawn for hours .
Some kind of reward for sticking to the same character , even wounded , but with ability to heal ( or replace the character with a healthy one , say reinforcements arrive , wounded are sent back to hospital ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games can provide realistic damage, but they need to provide -something- that makes the effects less permanent than in real life.Games of the old provided "multiple lives".
You could try again, repeating some of the work.
But that's cheap, you live or you die but you won't be anywhere halfway.Later games provided savegame, you pick a point in time where you can go back no matter how badly it goes.
Very cheap again, there is no challenge if you can repeat each step as many times as needed.There are these games where you have levels of energy and armor, thing is playing at 10\% health is no different than playing at 100\%, as long as you don't get hit.Counter-strike and alikes got it nearly right, a kill is really crippling, making you practically lose the game - while the game itself is quite short.What is really lacking is crippling damage.
In CS, you could still run at full speed at 2\% health.S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
has this concept of bleeding, you need to stop and bandage yourself to stop bleeding or your health will drain.
Unfortunately, medikits are so common, fast-acting and easy to use, that bleeding becomes moot.And meanwhile, I remember the game of Gunship 2000 with extreme fondness, as I would return from missions in a heavily damaged helicopter.
Autopilot out of commission, the rotor damaged, so it keeps turning, one of motors destroyed so that I need to run the other at overheating level just to keep from falling, electronics damaged, so that I have to depend on analog displays, and "wounded" like that I had to crawl back to base, fending off enemies that tried to take down the easy prey.
These were some of the most memorable moments in my gaming past.
Of course it was the machine damaged, not the person, but...I think FPS games could greatly benefit from a realistic damage model.
Something where pain is paralyzing, where blood obscures your vision, explosions stun you - not for 3 seconds, but for half a minute maybe.
Shock from pain makes you stop and fall, wounded limbs fail to perform.
Instead of running smoothly sideways with aiming cross precisely in the center of the screen, have the aiming cross oscillating in the corner of the screen as you try to hold a carabine with one hand, and your leg is wounded.You can use medikits, but first, using them is an operation of at least a minute or two, then it doesn't magically heal you, it just stops bleeding (which makes things worse), reduces pain to allow better control, allows limited use of limbs that were totally out of use.Imagine the epicness of a "capture the flag" game as the flag carrier gets severely wounded.
Think of a defender of the base who got his both legs shot off, and fights to the last drop of blood, unable to move.
Imagine a counter-strike terrorist activating the bomb with his last living breath.
A moment of "You go without me", as a team needs to leave a wounded player at a difficult jump point, and he makes his last stand against oncoming horde of enemies.Of course limping through the game for 16 hours, until the plot grants you mercy of a hospital is no fun.
The games with realistic damage model would need to adapt the gameplay style.
First, short and sweet sections to allow for -some kind- of respawn.
Also, both incentive to keep playing while even heavily wounded, and not forcing a player to wait uselessly for some kind of help/respawn for hours.
Some kind of reward for sticking to the same character, even wounded, but with ability to heal (or replace the character with a healthy one, say reinforcements arrive, wounded are sent back to hospital).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582410</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262104560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so much stealth as camping</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so much stealth as camping</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so much stealth as camping</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580594</id>
	<title>Re:FP</title>
	<author>growingtedium</author>
	<datestamp>1262087400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oddly enough - I read FP as "first person", which as opposed to FPS, is basically what we're left with once bullets become deadly.  An astute comment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough - I read FP as " first person " , which as opposed to FPS , is basically what we 're left with once bullets become deadly .
An astute comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough - I read FP as "first person", which as opposed to FPS, is basically what we're left with once bullets become deadly.
An astute comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581438</id>
	<title>Re:real life would be boring</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262097840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would you play a game where the playtime is about 1 minute for every 30 or so? I know I wouldn't.</p></div><p>Most terr/counter-terr games are like this, except rounds are more like 7-15 minutes long. When I used to play such games frequently, I had a whole other computer with a strategy game on it next to my main system. When I started out playing, I spent a lot of time watching. Towards the end of the game's popularity, I finished almost every round (with kills.) Kind of like real life, where they train you to kill people 'cause we don't generally have much practice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you play a game where the playtime is about 1 minute for every 30 or so ?
I know I would n't.Most terr/counter-terr games are like this , except rounds are more like 7-15 minutes long .
When I used to play such games frequently , I had a whole other computer with a strategy game on it next to my main system .
When I started out playing , I spent a lot of time watching .
Towards the end of the game 's popularity , I finished almost every round ( with kills .
) Kind of like real life , where they train you to kill people 'cause we do n't generally have much practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you play a game where the playtime is about 1 minute for every 30 or so?
I know I wouldn't.Most terr/counter-terr games are like this, except rounds are more like 7-15 minutes long.
When I used to play such games frequently, I had a whole other computer with a strategy game on it next to my main system.
When I started out playing, I spent a lot of time watching.
Towards the end of the game's popularity, I finished almost every round (with kills.
) Kind of like real life, where they train you to kill people 'cause we don't generally have much practice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581346</id>
	<title>Re:Incan Basketball Rules</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1262097000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't remember the game's name, but I remember an air combat game that went too far on the realism. It wasn't in terms of "Do a patrol where you do nothing." No, there was always something to be done. The problem was that you, as the pilot, did precious little most of the time. Your mission might have you bomb a couple targets. Well ok, your plane had the whole mission route in its computer. You'd have it fly on auto pilot to the destination, it'd give you a countdown until you should signal for bomb release. When that hit zero you'd do so and it would drop the bombs when the time was right. You'd then fly home.</p><p>Ok well this is, in fact, how it works. Our planes are highly automated. Gone are the days of close up gun-based dogfights or carefully lining up a bomb with crosshairs. Now air combat is often engaged beyond visual range with data fed to you from an AWACS, and bombing is done on auto pilot. Even squeezing a trigger doesn't actually do anything, it just tells the plane it is clear to release weapons, the computers decide when the release will actually happen.</p><p>As such it is pretty boring for a game. The player really has very little they need to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't remember the game 's name , but I remember an air combat game that went too far on the realism .
It was n't in terms of " Do a patrol where you do nothing .
" No , there was always something to be done .
The problem was that you , as the pilot , did precious little most of the time .
Your mission might have you bomb a couple targets .
Well ok , your plane had the whole mission route in its computer .
You 'd have it fly on auto pilot to the destination , it 'd give you a countdown until you should signal for bomb release .
When that hit zero you 'd do so and it would drop the bombs when the time was right .
You 'd then fly home.Ok well this is , in fact , how it works .
Our planes are highly automated .
Gone are the days of close up gun-based dogfights or carefully lining up a bomb with crosshairs .
Now air combat is often engaged beyond visual range with data fed to you from an AWACS , and bombing is done on auto pilot .
Even squeezing a trigger does n't actually do anything , it just tells the plane it is clear to release weapons , the computers decide when the release will actually happen.As such it is pretty boring for a game .
The player really has very little they need to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't remember the game's name, but I remember an air combat game that went too far on the realism.
It wasn't in terms of "Do a patrol where you do nothing.
" No, there was always something to be done.
The problem was that you, as the pilot, did precious little most of the time.
Your mission might have you bomb a couple targets.
Well ok, your plane had the whole mission route in its computer.
You'd have it fly on auto pilot to the destination, it'd give you a countdown until you should signal for bomb release.
When that hit zero you'd do so and it would drop the bombs when the time was right.
You'd then fly home.Ok well this is, in fact, how it works.
Our planes are highly automated.
Gone are the days of close up gun-based dogfights or carefully lining up a bomb with crosshairs.
Now air combat is often engaged beyond visual range with data fed to you from an AWACS, and bombing is done on auto pilot.
Even squeezing a trigger doesn't actually do anything, it just tells the plane it is clear to release weapons, the computers decide when the release will actually happen.As such it is pretty boring for a game.
The player really has very little they need to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582128</id>
	<title>Im in.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1262102880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the overblown unrealism really gets tiring after a period of time. the 'heal' thing especially, in all kinds of games. they dont even replace it with fatigue or something. its 'healing'. your 'health points' go down, you die. then you magically restore it, somehow. takes away the realism. at least make it fatigue or something, something we can accept.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the overblown unrealism really gets tiring after a period of time .
the 'heal ' thing especially , in all kinds of games .
they dont even replace it with fatigue or something .
its 'healing' .
your 'health points ' go down , you die .
then you magically restore it , somehow .
takes away the realism .
at least make it fatigue or something , something we can accept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the overblown unrealism really gets tiring after a period of time.
the 'heal' thing especially, in all kinds of games.
they dont even replace it with fatigue or something.
its 'healing'.
your 'health points' go down, you die.
then you magically restore it, somehow.
takes away the realism.
at least make it fatigue or something, something we can accept.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581424</id>
	<title>Re:Incan Basketball Rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262097720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>why not go all the way?</p></div> </blockquote><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Considering that the NBA is full of niggers, this would actually be a good idea.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>why not go all the way ?
      Considering that the NBA is full of niggers , this would actually be a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not go all the way?
      Considering that the NBA is full of niggers, this would actually be a good idea.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581332</id>
	<title>Re:Incan Basketball Rules</title>
	<author>Alarindris</author>
	<datestamp>1262096940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your comment about the Aztecs is BS.  We don't know how the game was played and to assume the losers were killed is idiotic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your comment about the Aztecs is BS .
We do n't know how the game was played and to assume the losers were killed is idiotic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your comment about the Aztecs is BS.
We don't know how the game was played and to assume the losers were killed is idiotic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581538</id>
	<title>Mild disagreement, here</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1262098800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see your point but there are other ways to look at the situation.</p><p>I'm terrible at pretty much all computer games of any sort.  However, I like some shooters.  I can turn on God Mode in Serious Sam and then the game completely transforms.  There's a certain challenge to seeing how quickly I can kill everything and complete a level.  That's not a FPS any more.  It becomes a puzzle game.  Apparently, I like puzzle games.</p><p>But a realistic shooter is, to my mind, a non-starter.  I've got too many real guns and I enjoy shooting them far too much to spend any time with a computerized simulation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see your point but there are other ways to look at the situation.I 'm terrible at pretty much all computer games of any sort .
However , I like some shooters .
I can turn on God Mode in Serious Sam and then the game completely transforms .
There 's a certain challenge to seeing how quickly I can kill everything and complete a level .
That 's not a FPS any more .
It becomes a puzzle game .
Apparently , I like puzzle games.But a realistic shooter is , to my mind , a non-starter .
I 've got too many real guns and I enjoy shooting them far too much to spend any time with a computerized simulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see your point but there are other ways to look at the situation.I'm terrible at pretty much all computer games of any sort.
However, I like some shooters.
I can turn on God Mode in Serious Sam and then the game completely transforms.
There's a certain challenge to seeing how quickly I can kill everything and complete a level.
That's not a FPS any more.
It becomes a puzzle game.
Apparently, I like puzzle games.But a realistic shooter is, to my mind, a non-starter.
I've got too many real guns and I enjoy shooting them far too much to spend any time with a computerized simulation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582056</id>
	<title>Re:Typical mistake...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262102520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Adding more realism does not equal to making game better.</p></div><p>It does in racing simulators.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Adding more realism does not equal to making game better.It does in racing simulators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Adding more realism does not equal to making game better.It does in racing simulators.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580544</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583288</id>
	<title>Re:Buy Arma2 or any other "militar simulator game"</title>
	<author>Lord\_Jeremy</author>
	<datestamp>1262109360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's funny you mention realism mods. I remember I used to play Star Wars Battlefront (the first one) on my PC all the time. It was actually rather dull until I found a mod that made all shots one hit kills. It also implemented realistic accuracy, so shots went wild if you fired while moving. It actually added some strategy to the game, and finally gave you a reason to go prone or crouch.
<br>
<br>
Personally, I think there's a place for both realistic and fantasy shooters. My two favorite games right now are probably Insurgency and Team Fortress 2, completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
<br>
<br>
On one hand, Insurgency can give you a nice rush of feeling in the ballpark of "OMG all my mates around me just got mowed down and now I'm crouched behind this oil drum oh god I'm gonna die" while allowed limited respawns to forgive minor mistakes and counter map imbalances. For instance, there's one map (sinjar) where as the marines are rushing up the hill in the beginning of the game, the insurgents sometimes launch RPGs or throw grenades down the hill. A bit of bad luck and you get blown up less than 30 seconds after your first spawn. If it was &#252;ber realism, your fun would be over. The map is designed so that if you don't charge up the hill immediately, the enemy will dig in and you'll likely have a grueling 20 minutes of standstill. I'd say that in this instance, the designer wanted some way to ensure not all the marines made it up to the cap point, so he allowed for evil-ness with explosives. My point is, such a tactic would be unplayable in a realism game. In real life, the Marines would probably call in some danger close arty for good effect on target. While I applaud games of the Apocalypse Now type, trying to convey a strong message, I also enjoy things that are fun.
<br>
<br>
Now if you want to talk about fun, then Team Fortress 2 should definitely come up in the conversation. I swear that game is almost as awesome as sex. It's full of these really fun moments that I can only describe as virtual highs. Things like rounding a corner, and releasing an arrow from your bow to nail the minigun-touting fat guy between the eyes. Or how about sneaking up behind half the enemy team with a paper mask on your face and then stabbing those six guys in the back. And then you can close the game and watch the hilarious machinima videos released by the game developers that describe the cartoonish personalities of the in-game characters. Watching a round of TF2 can be like watching a coyote-roadrunner cartoon. Full of silly moments and fails and hilarity. I'd say that this game has more silliness than Viva Pi&#241;ata and more depth than Modern Warfare 2. I mean I've played the game pretty much since it came out and I still haven't heard all of the in-game dialog.
<br>
<br>
In conclusion, realism can get your blood pumping, but pure cartoon fantasy can make you smile. They're both fun in their own way. Personally I think I prefer the fantasy aspect, but I make room for realism too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny you mention realism mods .
I remember I used to play Star Wars Battlefront ( the first one ) on my PC all the time .
It was actually rather dull until I found a mod that made all shots one hit kills .
It also implemented realistic accuracy , so shots went wild if you fired while moving .
It actually added some strategy to the game , and finally gave you a reason to go prone or crouch .
Personally , I think there 's a place for both realistic and fantasy shooters .
My two favorite games right now are probably Insurgency and Team Fortress 2 , completely opposite ends of the spectrum .
On one hand , Insurgency can give you a nice rush of feeling in the ballpark of " OMG all my mates around me just got mowed down and now I 'm crouched behind this oil drum oh god I 'm gon na die " while allowed limited respawns to forgive minor mistakes and counter map imbalances .
For instance , there 's one map ( sinjar ) where as the marines are rushing up the hill in the beginning of the game , the insurgents sometimes launch RPGs or throw grenades down the hill .
A bit of bad luck and you get blown up less than 30 seconds after your first spawn .
If it was   ber realism , your fun would be over .
The map is designed so that if you do n't charge up the hill immediately , the enemy will dig in and you 'll likely have a grueling 20 minutes of standstill .
I 'd say that in this instance , the designer wanted some way to ensure not all the marines made it up to the cap point , so he allowed for evil-ness with explosives .
My point is , such a tactic would be unplayable in a realism game .
In real life , the Marines would probably call in some danger close arty for good effect on target .
While I applaud games of the Apocalypse Now type , trying to convey a strong message , I also enjoy things that are fun .
Now if you want to talk about fun , then Team Fortress 2 should definitely come up in the conversation .
I swear that game is almost as awesome as sex .
It 's full of these really fun moments that I can only describe as virtual highs .
Things like rounding a corner , and releasing an arrow from your bow to nail the minigun-touting fat guy between the eyes .
Or how about sneaking up behind half the enemy team with a paper mask on your face and then stabbing those six guys in the back .
And then you can close the game and watch the hilarious machinima videos released by the game developers that describe the cartoonish personalities of the in-game characters .
Watching a round of TF2 can be like watching a coyote-roadrunner cartoon .
Full of silly moments and fails and hilarity .
I 'd say that this game has more silliness than Viva Pi   ata and more depth than Modern Warfare 2 .
I mean I 've played the game pretty much since it came out and I still have n't heard all of the in-game dialog .
In conclusion , realism can get your blood pumping , but pure cartoon fantasy can make you smile .
They 're both fun in their own way .
Personally I think I prefer the fantasy aspect , but I make room for realism too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny you mention realism mods.
I remember I used to play Star Wars Battlefront (the first one) on my PC all the time.
It was actually rather dull until I found a mod that made all shots one hit kills.
It also implemented realistic accuracy, so shots went wild if you fired while moving.
It actually added some strategy to the game, and finally gave you a reason to go prone or crouch.
Personally, I think there's a place for both realistic and fantasy shooters.
My two favorite games right now are probably Insurgency and Team Fortress 2, completely opposite ends of the spectrum.
On one hand, Insurgency can give you a nice rush of feeling in the ballpark of "OMG all my mates around me just got mowed down and now I'm crouched behind this oil drum oh god I'm gonna die" while allowed limited respawns to forgive minor mistakes and counter map imbalances.
For instance, there's one map (sinjar) where as the marines are rushing up the hill in the beginning of the game, the insurgents sometimes launch RPGs or throw grenades down the hill.
A bit of bad luck and you get blown up less than 30 seconds after your first spawn.
If it was über realism, your fun would be over.
The map is designed so that if you don't charge up the hill immediately, the enemy will dig in and you'll likely have a grueling 20 minutes of standstill.
I'd say that in this instance, the designer wanted some way to ensure not all the marines made it up to the cap point, so he allowed for evil-ness with explosives.
My point is, such a tactic would be unplayable in a realism game.
In real life, the Marines would probably call in some danger close arty for good effect on target.
While I applaud games of the Apocalypse Now type, trying to convey a strong message, I also enjoy things that are fun.
Now if you want to talk about fun, then Team Fortress 2 should definitely come up in the conversation.
I swear that game is almost as awesome as sex.
It's full of these really fun moments that I can only describe as virtual highs.
Things like rounding a corner, and releasing an arrow from your bow to nail the minigun-touting fat guy between the eyes.
Or how about sneaking up behind half the enemy team with a paper mask on your face and then stabbing those six guys in the back.
And then you can close the game and watch the hilarious machinima videos released by the game developers that describe the cartoonish personalities of the in-game characters.
Watching a round of TF2 can be like watching a coyote-roadrunner cartoon.
Full of silly moments and fails and hilarity.
I'd say that this game has more silliness than Viva Piñata and more depth than Modern Warfare 2.
I mean I've played the game pretty much since it came out and I still haven't heard all of the in-game dialog.
In conclusion, realism can get your blood pumping, but pure cartoon fantasy can make you smile.
They're both fun in their own way.
Personally I think I prefer the fantasy aspect, but I make room for realism too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580906</id>
	<title>Re:real life would be boring</title>
	<author>Jamu</author>
	<datestamp>1262091660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just look at how unpopular Counter-Strike was...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at how unpopular Counter-Strike was.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at how unpopular Counter-Strike was...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581778</id>
	<title>I want a combination</title>
	<author>Jim Hall</author>
	<datestamp>1262100720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I want a combination - a certain amount of realism, but enough fantasy that it's still fun to pick up and play.</p><p>For example, I still play Battlefield 1943 on PS3. It's a lot of fun to jump into a game and do some team-based shooting. But I think the game might be more fun if it supported different classes: medics to heal (rather than auto-heal), engineers to build/repair<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as well as the [existing] standard rifleman, anti-tank infantry, and sniper. Right now, the game merges "engineering" with the infantry class, which doesn't seem right. With separate classes to do these specific things (and especially with a medic class) I think people would do a better job of playing as a <b>team</b>.</p><p>I'd also like for these classes to be something you have to "earn", like a career ladder. I'm not talking about a "choose this-or-that" type of ladder. But I think it would be better for all players to start as "rifleman" only. When you advance a few levels (maybe to "sergeant") maybe you gain the "medic" skill, so now you can choose that when you respawn. Advance a bit more, and you gain "engineering", then "anti-tank", and eventually "sniper".</p><p>Basically, this adds a certain amount of realism in the game (not everyone can be a sniper, etc) without getting too bogged down by total realism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I want a combination - a certain amount of realism , but enough fantasy that it 's still fun to pick up and play.For example , I still play Battlefield 1943 on PS3 .
It 's a lot of fun to jump into a game and do some team-based shooting .
But I think the game might be more fun if it supported different classes : medics to heal ( rather than auto-heal ) , engineers to build/repair ... as well as the [ existing ] standard rifleman , anti-tank infantry , and sniper .
Right now , the game merges " engineering " with the infantry class , which does n't seem right .
With separate classes to do these specific things ( and especially with a medic class ) I think people would do a better job of playing as a team.I 'd also like for these classes to be something you have to " earn " , like a career ladder .
I 'm not talking about a " choose this-or-that " type of ladder .
But I think it would be better for all players to start as " rifleman " only .
When you advance a few levels ( maybe to " sergeant " ) maybe you gain the " medic " skill , so now you can choose that when you respawn .
Advance a bit more , and you gain " engineering " , then " anti-tank " , and eventually " sniper " .Basically , this adds a certain amount of realism in the game ( not everyone can be a sniper , etc ) without getting too bogged down by total realism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I want a combination - a certain amount of realism, but enough fantasy that it's still fun to pick up and play.For example, I still play Battlefield 1943 on PS3.
It's a lot of fun to jump into a game and do some team-based shooting.
But I think the game might be more fun if it supported different classes: medics to heal (rather than auto-heal), engineers to build/repair ... as well as the [existing] standard rifleman, anti-tank infantry, and sniper.
Right now, the game merges "engineering" with the infantry class, which doesn't seem right.
With separate classes to do these specific things (and especially with a medic class) I think people would do a better job of playing as a team.I'd also like for these classes to be something you have to "earn", like a career ladder.
I'm not talking about a "choose this-or-that" type of ladder.
But I think it would be better for all players to start as "rifleman" only.
When you advance a few levels (maybe to "sergeant") maybe you gain the "medic" skill, so now you can choose that when you respawn.
Advance a bit more, and you gain "engineering", then "anti-tank", and eventually "sniper".Basically, this adds a certain amount of realism in the game (not everyone can be a sniper, etc) without getting too bogged down by total realism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581168</id>
	<title>We already tried ultrareal</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1262095140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On Eminiar and Vendikar, they wanted more realism, and they got it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On Eminiar and Vendikar , they wanted more realism , and they got it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On Eminiar and Vendikar, they wanted more realism, and they got it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586244</id>
	<title>Action Quake - Predecessor to Urban Terror</title>
	<author>JakFrost</author>
	<datestamp>1262079780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a not very popular mad for Quake 2 called <a href="http://action.telefragged.com/" title="telefragged.com" rel="nofollow">Action Quake 2</a> [telefragged.com] that sucked me in back in the early days when mods started to gain popularity as alternatives to the plain vanilla game.  The <a href="http://www.urbanterror.net/news.php" title="urbanterror.net" rel="nofollow">Urban Terror</a> [urbanterror.net]mod is basically an improved copy for Quake 3 with different weapons.</p><p>The idea is the same though, realistic weapon mechanics, including long reload times, very powerful bullet hits resulting in a lot of damage, hits require bandaging to avoid bleeding out and dying, bandaging requires you to stand still for many seconds unable to protect yourself or run away.  Grenades are absolutely deadly with very large blast radiuses making them very powerful but they require time to prime and throw that can result in you getting shot and killed before you throw your grenade off.  There are many, many one-shot kills due to snipers, well placed automatic gun fire at your head, grenade blasts clearing hallways on the front-line of the fight between bases.</p><p>The Capture The Flag type games turn into a grenade spam, sniper alley, and death-rush type of scenarios if both teams have competent players who can hold and defend a mid-point front-line bottleneck such as a hallway or two.  Most maps have multiple routes to the enemy's base resulting in 2 or 3 front-line bottleneck hallways, with shotgunners camping waiting for people to run through, noobs grenade spamming the hallway, and snipers sitting far back picking off any folks showing their heads.</p><p>The more interesting game is the Last Man Standing with teams where each team goes against the other and there are no respawns but usually in those games the team with better squad work and team work will take out the uncoordinated noobs running around looking for a fight.  Ambush scenarios are very common with multiple people camping a well known walk-by spot to catch a few folks from the other team off-guard.  Camping is usually the default tactic so you end up walking along walls and checking all corners before walking through them.</p><p>These two mods kept my interest a lot longer than the run-and-gun type games since there was more skill required to survive and larger penalties for failure when you did get shot.  Marksmanship became important since even a lowly shotgun or sub-machinegun was a great weapon and you didn't require ultra power rocket launchers or plasma guns.  Pistol battles and knife attacks were also quite common since the reload time penalty was so high that it was faster to draw your sidearm and try to finish off a wounded guy in a firefight than it was to reload your primary gun.  You could hear this happening all over the levels with trrrat, trraat, trraat machinegun fire then a pause, with pop, pop, pop pistol fire.</p><p>Very interesting and engaging mods.  A lot of good memories and times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a not very popular mad for Quake 2 called Action Quake 2 [ telefragged.com ] that sucked me in back in the early days when mods started to gain popularity as alternatives to the plain vanilla game .
The Urban Terror [ urbanterror.net ] mod is basically an improved copy for Quake 3 with different weapons.The idea is the same though , realistic weapon mechanics , including long reload times , very powerful bullet hits resulting in a lot of damage , hits require bandaging to avoid bleeding out and dying , bandaging requires you to stand still for many seconds unable to protect yourself or run away .
Grenades are absolutely deadly with very large blast radiuses making them very powerful but they require time to prime and throw that can result in you getting shot and killed before you throw your grenade off .
There are many , many one-shot kills due to snipers , well placed automatic gun fire at your head , grenade blasts clearing hallways on the front-line of the fight between bases.The Capture The Flag type games turn into a grenade spam , sniper alley , and death-rush type of scenarios if both teams have competent players who can hold and defend a mid-point front-line bottleneck such as a hallway or two .
Most maps have multiple routes to the enemy 's base resulting in 2 or 3 front-line bottleneck hallways , with shotgunners camping waiting for people to run through , noobs grenade spamming the hallway , and snipers sitting far back picking off any folks showing their heads.The more interesting game is the Last Man Standing with teams where each team goes against the other and there are no respawns but usually in those games the team with better squad work and team work will take out the uncoordinated noobs running around looking for a fight .
Ambush scenarios are very common with multiple people camping a well known walk-by spot to catch a few folks from the other team off-guard .
Camping is usually the default tactic so you end up walking along walls and checking all corners before walking through them.These two mods kept my interest a lot longer than the run-and-gun type games since there was more skill required to survive and larger penalties for failure when you did get shot .
Marksmanship became important since even a lowly shotgun or sub-machinegun was a great weapon and you did n't require ultra power rocket launchers or plasma guns .
Pistol battles and knife attacks were also quite common since the reload time penalty was so high that it was faster to draw your sidearm and try to finish off a wounded guy in a firefight than it was to reload your primary gun .
You could hear this happening all over the levels with trrrat , trraat , trraat machinegun fire then a pause , with pop , pop , pop pistol fire.Very interesting and engaging mods .
A lot of good memories and times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a not very popular mad for Quake 2 called Action Quake 2 [telefragged.com] that sucked me in back in the early days when mods started to gain popularity as alternatives to the plain vanilla game.
The Urban Terror [urbanterror.net]mod is basically an improved copy for Quake 3 with different weapons.The idea is the same though, realistic weapon mechanics, including long reload times, very powerful bullet hits resulting in a lot of damage, hits require bandaging to avoid bleeding out and dying, bandaging requires you to stand still for many seconds unable to protect yourself or run away.
Grenades are absolutely deadly with very large blast radiuses making them very powerful but they require time to prime and throw that can result in you getting shot and killed before you throw your grenade off.
There are many, many one-shot kills due to snipers, well placed automatic gun fire at your head, grenade blasts clearing hallways on the front-line of the fight between bases.The Capture The Flag type games turn into a grenade spam, sniper alley, and death-rush type of scenarios if both teams have competent players who can hold and defend a mid-point front-line bottleneck such as a hallway or two.
Most maps have multiple routes to the enemy's base resulting in 2 or 3 front-line bottleneck hallways, with shotgunners camping waiting for people to run through, noobs grenade spamming the hallway, and snipers sitting far back picking off any folks showing their heads.The more interesting game is the Last Man Standing with teams where each team goes against the other and there are no respawns but usually in those games the team with better squad work and team work will take out the uncoordinated noobs running around looking for a fight.
Ambush scenarios are very common with multiple people camping a well known walk-by spot to catch a few folks from the other team off-guard.
Camping is usually the default tactic so you end up walking along walls and checking all corners before walking through them.These two mods kept my interest a lot longer than the run-and-gun type games since there was more skill required to survive and larger penalties for failure when you did get shot.
Marksmanship became important since even a lowly shotgun or sub-machinegun was a great weapon and you didn't require ultra power rocket launchers or plasma guns.
Pistol battles and knife attacks were also quite common since the reload time penalty was so high that it was faster to draw your sidearm and try to finish off a wounded guy in a firefight than it was to reload your primary gun.
You could hear this happening all over the levels with trrrat, trraat, trraat machinegun fire then a pause, with pop, pop, pop pistol fire.Very interesting and engaging mods.
A lot of good memories and times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581274</id>
	<title>IL2 is very realistic</title>
	<author>jernejk</author>
	<datestamp>1262096460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know, it's not a FPS (it's a WW2 flight sim), but really, very accurate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , it 's not a FPS ( it 's a WW2 flight sim ) , but really , very accurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, it's not a FPS (it's a WW2 flight sim), but really, very accurate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581842</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Nocturna81</author>
	<datestamp>1262101200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The no hitscan is what I loved in Tribes 2, it meant every weapon behaved differently.

Also, I'd expect that, when wearing futuristic powered armour (again Tribes) that I'd be able to take a bit more damage then would be normal. The game reflected this btw, I could one shot people with light armour (depending where I'd hit them) but against the heavies I'd sometimes just walk away (which was possible them being so godawfully slow).

Also, if you got hit in the game by a moving vehicle chances where high you'd be dead. Being a rambo in Tribes never worked, it was a sure ticket to quick fiery death. The team with the best strategy usually won.

True, it's not very realistic all in all. But you're playing in a future war so who knows what constitutes as "deadly force" by then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The no hitscan is what I loved in Tribes 2 , it meant every weapon behaved differently .
Also , I 'd expect that , when wearing futuristic powered armour ( again Tribes ) that I 'd be able to take a bit more damage then would be normal .
The game reflected this btw , I could one shot people with light armour ( depending where I 'd hit them ) but against the heavies I 'd sometimes just walk away ( which was possible them being so godawfully slow ) .
Also , if you got hit in the game by a moving vehicle chances where high you 'd be dead .
Being a rambo in Tribes never worked , it was a sure ticket to quick fiery death .
The team with the best strategy usually won .
True , it 's not very realistic all in all .
But you 're playing in a future war so who knows what constitutes as " deadly force " by then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The no hitscan is what I loved in Tribes 2, it meant every weapon behaved differently.
Also, I'd expect that, when wearing futuristic powered armour (again Tribes) that I'd be able to take a bit more damage then would be normal.
The game reflected this btw, I could one shot people with light armour (depending where I'd hit them) but against the heavies I'd sometimes just walk away (which was possible them being so godawfully slow).
Also, if you got hit in the game by a moving vehicle chances where high you'd be dead.
Being a rambo in Tribes never worked, it was a sure ticket to quick fiery death.
The team with the best strategy usually won.
True, it's not very realistic all in all.
But you're playing in a future war so who knows what constitutes as "deadly force" by then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582396</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>VGPowerlord</author>
	<datestamp>1262104500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In designing CustomTF, I've gone back and forth on hitscan weapons. In a certain sense, they're too good. It's simply too easy to headshot someone with a sniper rifle in TF from a half mile away. If there's no cover, then a game simple degenerates into a sniper fest. Which is boring. So I've tweaked sniper damage a half-dozen times, and basically set it at a point where you can one-shot anyone with less than red armor and full health, and two shots will kill anyone. You can buy (expensive) upgrades to your sniper rifle to be able to one-shot 200/100s, but this might leave you weak yourself on speed or armor, which is kinda the point. Defensively, people can pick up kevlar armor to halve damage from snipers, which helps break up sniper domination of games, but again, it's somewhat expensive.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't know about CustomTF, but I know Valve changed the mechanics for Sniper for TF2.</p><p>Keeping in mind that TF2 did away with armor, a headshot can kill the lower health classes in one hit.  However, unless you wait for the sniper rifle's charge meter to get to full, even a headshot's not going to kill an overhealed* Heavy.  Oh, and even a body shot will kill the lower health classes if your charge meter is full.</p><p>Granted, it takes something like 5 seconds (zoomed in) to charge the sniper rifle.  And of course, your field of view is limited when you're zoomed in; zooming out makes the charge meter reset back to 0.</p><p>i.e. you make a really easy target for spies and other snipers when zoomed in, and for soldiers/demomen to a lesser extent.  Particularly with the Soldier's newer, faster rocket launcher (called the Direct Hit).</p><p>*Overhealing may be new to TF2 as well.  Basically, a medic can heal a target to 150\% health, which would be 450 on a Heavy (300 + 150).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In designing CustomTF , I 've gone back and forth on hitscan weapons .
In a certain sense , they 're too good .
It 's simply too easy to headshot someone with a sniper rifle in TF from a half mile away .
If there 's no cover , then a game simple degenerates into a sniper fest .
Which is boring .
So I 've tweaked sniper damage a half-dozen times , and basically set it at a point where you can one-shot anyone with less than red armor and full health , and two shots will kill anyone .
You can buy ( expensive ) upgrades to your sniper rifle to be able to one-shot 200/100s , but this might leave you weak yourself on speed or armor , which is kinda the point .
Defensively , people can pick up kevlar armor to halve damage from snipers , which helps break up sniper domination of games , but again , it 's somewhat expensive.I do n't know about CustomTF , but I know Valve changed the mechanics for Sniper for TF2.Keeping in mind that TF2 did away with armor , a headshot can kill the lower health classes in one hit .
However , unless you wait for the sniper rifle 's charge meter to get to full , even a headshot 's not going to kill an overhealed * Heavy .
Oh , and even a body shot will kill the lower health classes if your charge meter is full.Granted , it takes something like 5 seconds ( zoomed in ) to charge the sniper rifle .
And of course , your field of view is limited when you 're zoomed in ; zooming out makes the charge meter reset back to 0.i.e .
you make a really easy target for spies and other snipers when zoomed in , and for soldiers/demomen to a lesser extent .
Particularly with the Soldier 's newer , faster rocket launcher ( called the Direct Hit ) .
* Overhealing may be new to TF2 as well .
Basically , a medic can heal a target to 150 \ % health , which would be 450 on a Heavy ( 300 + 150 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In designing CustomTF, I've gone back and forth on hitscan weapons.
In a certain sense, they're too good.
It's simply too easy to headshot someone with a sniper rifle in TF from a half mile away.
If there's no cover, then a game simple degenerates into a sniper fest.
Which is boring.
So I've tweaked sniper damage a half-dozen times, and basically set it at a point where you can one-shot anyone with less than red armor and full health, and two shots will kill anyone.
You can buy (expensive) upgrades to your sniper rifle to be able to one-shot 200/100s, but this might leave you weak yourself on speed or armor, which is kinda the point.
Defensively, people can pick up kevlar armor to halve damage from snipers, which helps break up sniper domination of games, but again, it's somewhat expensive.I don't know about CustomTF, but I know Valve changed the mechanics for Sniper for TF2.Keeping in mind that TF2 did away with armor, a headshot can kill the lower health classes in one hit.
However, unless you wait for the sniper rifle's charge meter to get to full, even a headshot's not going to kill an overhealed* Heavy.
Oh, and even a body shot will kill the lower health classes if your charge meter is full.Granted, it takes something like 5 seconds (zoomed in) to charge the sniper rifle.
And of course, your field of view is limited when you're zoomed in; zooming out makes the charge meter reset back to 0.i.e.
you make a really easy target for spies and other snipers when zoomed in, and for soldiers/demomen to a lesser extent.
Particularly with the Soldier's newer, faster rocket launcher (called the Direct Hit).
*Overhealing may be new to TF2 as well.
Basically, a medic can heal a target to 150\% health, which would be 450 on a Heavy (300 + 150).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580552</id>
	<title>Right</title>
	<author>GF678</author>
	<datestamp>1262086800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So why are games like Operation Flashpoint, ArmA, the Rainbow Six series and so on available? They're there because people DO want realism, they want one-shot kills where stupid rambo behavior action will get you killed. Sure they're not for everyone, but for people who want a challenge, they exist.</p><p>This novelist asks for something that already exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So why are games like Operation Flashpoint , ArmA , the Rainbow Six series and so on available ?
They 're there because people DO want realism , they want one-shot kills where stupid rambo behavior action will get you killed .
Sure they 're not for everyone , but for people who want a challenge , they exist.This novelist asks for something that already exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why are games like Operation Flashpoint, ArmA, the Rainbow Six series and so on available?
They're there because people DO want realism, they want one-shot kills where stupid rambo behavior action will get you killed.
Sure they're not for everyone, but for people who want a challenge, they exist.This novelist asks for something that already exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581942</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1262101800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;The Battlefield &amp; Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to me</p><p>Err, these games are practically high fantasy. Being shot by a whole clip of ammo and running away is on par with casting fireball with an elf mage.  Perhaps you are refering to the Project Reality mod for BF2?</p><p><a href="http://www.realitymod.com/features.html" title="realitymod.com">http://www.realitymod.com/features.html</a> [realitymod.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The Battlefield &amp; Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to meErr , these games are practically high fantasy .
Being shot by a whole clip of ammo and running away is on par with casting fireball with an elf mage .
Perhaps you are refering to the Project Reality mod for BF2 ? http : //www.realitymod.com/features.html [ realitymod.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;The Battlefield &amp; Call of Duty games hold exactly 0 interest to meErr, these games are practically high fantasy.
Being shot by a whole clip of ammo and running away is on par with casting fireball with an elf mage.
Perhaps you are refering to the Project Reality mod for BF2?http://www.realitymod.com/features.html [realitymod.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585494</id>
	<title>Re:real life would be boring</title>
	<author>Bragador</author>
	<datestamp>1262119620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The dead players could become other things, like a local rebel farmer, or manage the airport or something.</p><p>I love war simulators, but these are definitely not for those who want a quick adrenalin fix. War sims like ARMA II are like chess and arcade games are like a game of capture the flag. Completely different kinds of fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The dead players could become other things , like a local rebel farmer , or manage the airport or something.I love war simulators , but these are definitely not for those who want a quick adrenalin fix .
War sims like ARMA II are like chess and arcade games are like a game of capture the flag .
Completely different kinds of fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The dead players could become other things, like a local rebel farmer, or manage the airport or something.I love war simulators, but these are definitely not for those who want a quick adrenalin fix.
War sims like ARMA II are like chess and arcade games are like a game of capture the flag.
Completely different kinds of fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30613726</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1230820560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be cooooooooool!!<br>I think more realistic violence in games would be a good thing and even if it meant minor sel inflicted pain would add a new layer into playing.<br>Can always make it optional.</p><p><a href="http://www.gpstudios.com/playgame.php?gameid=29" title="gpstudios.com" rel="nofollow">Bunny Invasion</a> [gpstudios.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be cooooooooool !
! I think more realistic violence in games would be a good thing and even if it meant minor sel inflicted pain would add a new layer into playing.Can always make it optional.Bunny Invasion [ gpstudios.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be cooooooooool!
!I think more realistic violence in games would be a good thing and even if it meant minor sel inflicted pain would add a new layer into playing.Can always make it optional.Bunny Invasion [gpstudios.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1262090760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Reality isn't fun. If it was we wouldn't play games."</p><p>I'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who don't understand game design.  I also think the person in the article is taking random internet comments about "wanting more realism" in games way too seriously, I think most people want good art and immersion and they call that art and animation "realism".  i.e. when a character animates badly we associate it with a "lack of realism" rather then a lack of good art direction, since I'd venture to say MOST video game characters animate in very unrealistic ways anyway (in terms of physics) but "LOOK REAL" in that they seem natural.</p><p>We only want to borrow the best parts from the real world.  More realistic violence/damage models would be insanely boring, in fact the more photo realistic games get the less I am enthralled by them.  The great thing about games is that the developers can take artistic license and don't have audience expectations of "being realistic".  Games should not try to copy the movie industry so heavily, I'm can't be the only one worried about games that are getting too close to hollywood in terms of trying to make characters photorealistic (mass effect I'm looking at you) and more hollywoody.</p><p>Dont get me wrong I liked mass effect, it's just they don't need to keep upping the realism there's a point you cross where everything becomes the same and boring.  I like it when artist can do different styles for games.  I liked the art style in Need for speed nitro for instance, and thought it was great and it was a shame the core of the game itself wasn't better.</p><p>I'll take my God of War and Bayonetta before "more realsitic" graphics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Reality is n't fun .
If it was we would n't play games .
" I 'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who do n't understand game design .
I also think the person in the article is taking random internet comments about " wanting more realism " in games way too seriously , I think most people want good art and immersion and they call that art and animation " realism " .
i.e. when a character animates badly we associate it with a " lack of realism " rather then a lack of good art direction , since I 'd venture to say MOST video game characters animate in very unrealistic ways anyway ( in terms of physics ) but " LOOK REAL " in that they seem natural.We only want to borrow the best parts from the real world .
More realistic violence/damage models would be insanely boring , in fact the more photo realistic games get the less I am enthralled by them .
The great thing about games is that the developers can take artistic license and do n't have audience expectations of " being realistic " .
Games should not try to copy the movie industry so heavily , I 'm ca n't be the only one worried about games that are getting too close to hollywood in terms of trying to make characters photorealistic ( mass effect I 'm looking at you ) and more hollywoody.Dont get me wrong I liked mass effect , it 's just they do n't need to keep upping the realism there 's a point you cross where everything becomes the same and boring .
I like it when artist can do different styles for games .
I liked the art style in Need for speed nitro for instance , and thought it was great and it was a shame the core of the game itself was n't better.I 'll take my God of War and Bayonetta before " more realsitic " graphics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Reality isn't fun.
If it was we wouldn't play games.
"I'll second this and say that those people who want realistic games are a stupid minority who don't understand game design.
I also think the person in the article is taking random internet comments about "wanting more realism" in games way too seriously, I think most people want good art and immersion and they call that art and animation "realism".
i.e. when a character animates badly we associate it with a "lack of realism" rather then a lack of good art direction, since I'd venture to say MOST video game characters animate in very unrealistic ways anyway (in terms of physics) but "LOOK REAL" in that they seem natural.We only want to borrow the best parts from the real world.
More realistic violence/damage models would be insanely boring, in fact the more photo realistic games get the less I am enthralled by them.
The great thing about games is that the developers can take artistic license and don't have audience expectations of "being realistic".
Games should not try to copy the movie industry so heavily, I'm can't be the only one worried about games that are getting too close to hollywood in terms of trying to make characters photorealistic (mass effect I'm looking at you) and more hollywoody.Dont get me wrong I liked mass effect, it's just they don't need to keep upping the realism there's a point you cross where everything becomes the same and boring.
I like it when artist can do different styles for games.
I liked the art style in Need for speed nitro for instance, and thought it was great and it was a shame the core of the game itself wasn't better.I'll take my God of War and Bayonetta before "more realsitic" graphics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581370</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262097180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how the hell did that get modded interesting?</p><p>TF2 is not realistic by any means....  Ubercharges? Sandwiches that restore full health? Medics that restore health/overcharge health?</p><p>wow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how the hell did that get modded interesting ? TF2 is not realistic by any means.... Ubercharges ? Sandwiches that restore full health ?
Medics that restore health/overcharge health ? wow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how the hell did that get modded interesting?TF2 is not realistic by any means....  Ubercharges? Sandwiches that restore full health?
Medics that restore health/overcharge health?wow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581026</id>
	<title>Re:He is correct.</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1262092980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Am I the only one who liked the cartooney graphics in Commander Keen?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one who liked the cartooney graphics in Commander Keen ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one who liked the cartooney graphics in Commander Keen?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584456</id>
	<title>too fast</title>
	<author>fmoliveira</author>
	<datestamp>1262114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find annoying that characters move and aim too fast in all shooters I ever saw. No human can't run like that, worse than that, in most games they don't ever get tired of running like that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find annoying that characters move and aim too fast in all shooters I ever saw .
No human ca n't run like that , worse than that , in most games they do n't ever get tired of running like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find annoying that characters move and aim too fast in all shooters I ever saw.
No human can't run like that, worse than that, in most games they don't ever get tired of running like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581328</id>
	<title>re sex</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262096940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>reminds me of that quote "if anyone shared your fantasies they wouldn't be fantasies"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>reminds me of that quote " if anyone shared your fantasies they would n't be fantasies "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reminds me of that quote "if anyone shared your fantasies they wouldn't be fantasies"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580764</id>
	<title>This game exists</title>
	<author>nEoN nOoDlE</author>
	<datestamp>1262089800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's made in flash.</p><p><a href="http://www.kongregate.com/games/raitendo/you-only-live-once?referrer=Lewisham&amp;sfa=permalink" title="kongregate.com">You Only Live Once</a> [kongregate.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's made in flash.You Only Live Once [ kongregate.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's made in flash.You Only Live Once [kongregate.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580502</id>
	<title>Re:"Realistic", eh?</title>
	<author>loutr</author>
	<datestamp>1262085960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist. It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases </p></div><p> <a href="http://www.canardpc.com/" title="canardpc.com">Canard PC</a> [canardpc.com] (French PC gaming magazine) recently published an article written by a professional soldier about ARMA II, which is regarded as one of the most realistic shooters available. His conclusions were that ARMA was (very) far from being realistic, but that it was OK because it would have been boring and tedious to act exactly like a real soldier in a real war. So no, I don't think realistic shooters exist, and for good reasons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist .
It 's just that realistic mechanics , from a player perspective , are extremely boring , except for in a few limited cases Canard PC [ canardpc.com ] ( French PC gaming magazine ) recently published an article written by a professional soldier about ARMA II , which is regarded as one of the most realistic shooters available .
His conclusions were that ARMA was ( very ) far from being realistic , but that it was OK because it would have been boring and tedious to act exactly like a real soldier in a real war .
So no , I do n't think realistic shooters exist , and for good reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly certain actually realistic shooters exist.
It's just that realistic mechanics, from a player perspective, are extremely boring, except for in a few limited cases  Canard PC [canardpc.com] (French PC gaming magazine) recently published an article written by a professional soldier about ARMA II, which is regarded as one of the most realistic shooters available.
His conclusions were that ARMA was (very) far from being realistic, but that it was OK because it would have been boring and tedious to act exactly like a real soldier in a real war.
So no, I don't think realistic shooters exist, and for good reasons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582176</id>
	<title>Alas Fiction vs Non-Fiction</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1262103240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This boils down to fiction vs. non-fiction games (if we dare try to wrap our minds around that).</p><p>Games are inheritly fiction. What Mr. Walker is purposing is far more significant then the sentence seems to imply. We are talking about the establishment of NON-FICTION video games.</p><p>Now just think about that for a minute. As far as I can tell there has never been a NON-FICTION video game.</p><p>Football is a non-fiction game as would just about any sport. But the reason is you are REALLY PLAYING IT as a game (versus say spectating.)</p><p>To make video games "realistic" is an oxymoron. It can never approach realistic because it is intangible. Better graphic and better simulation doesn't converge at realistic but rather at better fiction.</p><p>A non-fiction video game would have no "4th wall" to contend with. The closest concept to that would be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Hack in the sense that the characters and the game world would have to be aware of it's own nature. When a character dies their data is deleted, no rez so we can say that Diablo made in-roads to the idea of non-fiction gaming in the sense of Perma-death (which they were by no means the first to offer this) but to demand "realism" in a video game is to imply a non-fiction element to video games which, conceptually, has never been done (can it be done even?)</p><p>There was a movie not so long ago that showed the best example of non-fiction gaming in which a player took control of a real person, perhaps that is the only example of Non-fiction gaming.</p><p>Today's MRL Nugget:</p><p>Ashur Mai Koloko Wai = Piet Lemon for "We Walk In Another's Deam"</p><p>Ashur = The Whole, All of Us, We<br>Mai = To Pass, To Move, To Walk<br>Koloko = Not Ours, Others, Not Mine<br>Wai = Deam, Thought, Imagination, Inner World of the Mind</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This boils down to fiction vs. non-fiction games ( if we dare try to wrap our minds around that ) .Games are inheritly fiction .
What Mr. Walker is purposing is far more significant then the sentence seems to imply .
We are talking about the establishment of NON-FICTION video games.Now just think about that for a minute .
As far as I can tell there has never been a NON-FICTION video game.Football is a non-fiction game as would just about any sport .
But the reason is you are REALLY PLAYING IT as a game ( versus say spectating .
) To make video games " realistic " is an oxymoron .
It can never approach realistic because it is intangible .
Better graphic and better simulation does n't converge at realistic but rather at better fiction.A non-fiction video game would have no " 4th wall " to contend with .
The closest concept to that would be .Hack in the sense that the characters and the game world would have to be aware of it 's own nature .
When a character dies their data is deleted , no rez so we can say that Diablo made in-roads to the idea of non-fiction gaming in the sense of Perma-death ( which they were by no means the first to offer this ) but to demand " realism " in a video game is to imply a non-fiction element to video games which , conceptually , has never been done ( can it be done even ?
) There was a movie not so long ago that showed the best example of non-fiction gaming in which a player took control of a real person , perhaps that is the only example of Non-fiction gaming.Today 's MRL Nugget : Ashur Mai Koloko Wai = Piet Lemon for " We Walk In Another 's Deam " Ashur = The Whole , All of Us , WeMai = To Pass , To Move , To WalkKoloko = Not Ours , Others , Not MineWai = Deam , Thought , Imagination , Inner World of the Mind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This boils down to fiction vs. non-fiction games (if we dare try to wrap our minds around that).Games are inheritly fiction.
What Mr. Walker is purposing is far more significant then the sentence seems to imply.
We are talking about the establishment of NON-FICTION video games.Now just think about that for a minute.
As far as I can tell there has never been a NON-FICTION video game.Football is a non-fiction game as would just about any sport.
But the reason is you are REALLY PLAYING IT as a game (versus say spectating.
)To make video games "realistic" is an oxymoron.
It can never approach realistic because it is intangible.
Better graphic and better simulation doesn't converge at realistic but rather at better fiction.A non-fiction video game would have no "4th wall" to contend with.
The closest concept to that would be .Hack in the sense that the characters and the game world would have to be aware of it's own nature.
When a character dies their data is deleted, no rez so we can say that Diablo made in-roads to the idea of non-fiction gaming in the sense of Perma-death (which they were by no means the first to offer this) but to demand "realism" in a video game is to imply a non-fiction element to video games which, conceptually, has never been done (can it be done even?
)There was a movie not so long ago that showed the best example of non-fiction gaming in which a player took control of a real person, perhaps that is the only example of Non-fiction gaming.Today's MRL Nugget:Ashur Mai Koloko Wai = Piet Lemon for "We Walk In Another's Deam"Ashur = The Whole, All of Us, WeMai = To Pass, To Move, To WalkKoloko = Not Ours, Others, Not MineWai = Deam, Thought, Imagination, Inner World of the Mind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583178</id>
	<title>Re:Finally!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262108640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may be a very old series, but Police Quest SWAT was perhaps one of the most realistic shooters I've seen.  For one, you rarely pulled the trigger.  The gun was the last resort.  On long shots, you had to deal with wind, etc.</p><p>It's been many years since I played them, but the series seems to fulfill everything required for the "realistic" game people are talking about.  But, the fact that it was incredibly easy to fail a mission and very hard to succeed meant that you required a lot of in-game training before you could do even the simplest mission successfully - an aspect of realism that deters most people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be a very old series , but Police Quest SWAT was perhaps one of the most realistic shooters I 've seen .
For one , you rarely pulled the trigger .
The gun was the last resort .
On long shots , you had to deal with wind , etc.It 's been many years since I played them , but the series seems to fulfill everything required for the " realistic " game people are talking about .
But , the fact that it was incredibly easy to fail a mission and very hard to succeed meant that you required a lot of in-game training before you could do even the simplest mission successfully - an aspect of realism that deters most people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be a very old series, but Police Quest SWAT was perhaps one of the most realistic shooters I've seen.
For one, you rarely pulled the trigger.
The gun was the last resort.
On long shots, you had to deal with wind, etc.It's been many years since I played them, but the series seems to fulfill everything required for the "realistic" game people are talking about.
But, the fact that it was incredibly easy to fail a mission and very hard to succeed meant that you required a lot of in-game training before you could do even the simplest mission successfully - an aspect of realism that deters most people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424</id>
	<title>He is correct.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262084700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reality isn't fun.  If it was we wouldn't play games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reality is n't fun .
If it was we would n't play games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reality isn't fun.
If it was we wouldn't play games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584620</id>
	<title>How about wind?</title>
	<author>Legrow</author>
	<datestamp>1262115540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Probably highest on my wishlist for more realism in FPS games is pretty simple: add wind.  While I do delight in sniping the heck out of an opposing team, the thing that gets me is that sniping is so trivially easy in these games due to the fact that no external factors really exist.  If you're strafing with machine guns, you obviously lose precision, but in most of these games you just crouch or get prone and have 100\% accuracy.  If you add wind, I really feel like that might be enough to turn it into a more skilled game, since you COULD die instantly from anywhere, but a sniper can also give away his position without killing you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably highest on my wishlist for more realism in FPS games is pretty simple : add wind .
While I do delight in sniping the heck out of an opposing team , the thing that gets me is that sniping is so trivially easy in these games due to the fact that no external factors really exist .
If you 're strafing with machine guns , you obviously lose precision , but in most of these games you just crouch or get prone and have 100 \ % accuracy .
If you add wind , I really feel like that might be enough to turn it into a more skilled game , since you COULD die instantly from anywhere , but a sniper can also give away his position without killing you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably highest on my wishlist for more realism in FPS games is pretty simple: add wind.
While I do delight in sniping the heck out of an opposing team, the thing that gets me is that sniping is so trivially easy in these games due to the fact that no external factors really exist.
If you're strafing with machine guns, you obviously lose precision, but in most of these games you just crouch or get prone and have 100\% accuracy.
If you add wind, I really feel like that might be enough to turn it into a more skilled game, since you COULD die instantly from anywhere, but a sniper can also give away his position without killing you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581488
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30597082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30613726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30587754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30598792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582764
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582240
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30590358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_29_0552249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30613726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30597082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582240
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580776
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583608
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581410
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30590358
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581760
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581372
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30587754
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585134
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584788
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30598792
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580892
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581980
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582124
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30583346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30586582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30584730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30585432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30582192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30580772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_29_0552249.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_29_0552249.30581810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
