<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_04_077232</id>
	<title>Game Difficulty As a Virtue</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1265310960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Wii and various mobile gaming platforms have done wonders for the trend toward casual or "easy" games. But the success of a few recent titles, despite their difficulty, has caused some to <a href="http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2010/02/analysis\_is\_hard\_the\_new\_good.php">wonder whether the pendulum has swung too far</a>; whether a little frustration can be seen as a good thing. Quoting:
<i>"The evidence is subtle but compelling. For one example, look to major consumer website GameSpot's Game of the Year for 2009: Atlus' PS3 RPG <em>Demon's Souls</em>, which received widespread critical acclaim &ndash; none of which failed to include a mention of the game's steep challenge. GameSpot called it 'ruthlessly, unforgivingly difficult.' <em>Demon's Souls</em> was a sleeper hit, an anomaly in the era of accessibility. One would think the deck was stacked against a game that demanded such vicious persistence, such precise attention &ndash; and yet a surge of praise from critics and developers alike praised the game for reintroducing the experience of meaningful challenge, of a game that demanded something from its players rather than looked for ways to hand them things. It wasn't just <em>Demon's Souls</em> that recently flipped the proverbial bird to the 'gaming for everyone' trend. In many ways, the independent development scene can be viewed on the macro level as a harbinger of trends to come, and over the past year and into 2010, many indies have decided to be brutal to their players."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Wii and various mobile gaming platforms have done wonders for the trend toward casual or " easy " games .
But the success of a few recent titles , despite their difficulty , has caused some to wonder whether the pendulum has swung too far ; whether a little frustration can be seen as a good thing .
Quoting : " The evidence is subtle but compelling .
For one example , look to major consumer website GameSpot 's Game of the Year for 2009 : Atlus ' PS3 RPG Demon 's Souls , which received widespread critical acclaim    none of which failed to include a mention of the game 's steep challenge .
GameSpot called it 'ruthlessly , unforgivingly difficult .
' Demon 's Souls was a sleeper hit , an anomaly in the era of accessibility .
One would think the deck was stacked against a game that demanded such vicious persistence , such precise attention    and yet a surge of praise from critics and developers alike praised the game for reintroducing the experience of meaningful challenge , of a game that demanded something from its players rather than looked for ways to hand them things .
It was n't just Demon 's Souls that recently flipped the proverbial bird to the 'gaming for everyone ' trend .
In many ways , the independent development scene can be viewed on the macro level as a harbinger of trends to come , and over the past year and into 2010 , many indies have decided to be brutal to their players .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Wii and various mobile gaming platforms have done wonders for the trend toward casual or "easy" games.
But the success of a few recent titles, despite their difficulty, has caused some to wonder whether the pendulum has swung too far; whether a little frustration can be seen as a good thing.
Quoting:
"The evidence is subtle but compelling.
For one example, look to major consumer website GameSpot's Game of the Year for 2009: Atlus' PS3 RPG Demon's Souls, which received widespread critical acclaim – none of which failed to include a mention of the game's steep challenge.
GameSpot called it 'ruthlessly, unforgivingly difficult.
' Demon's Souls was a sleeper hit, an anomaly in the era of accessibility.
One would think the deck was stacked against a game that demanded such vicious persistence, such precise attention – and yet a surge of praise from critics and developers alike praised the game for reintroducing the experience of meaningful challenge, of a game that demanded something from its players rather than looked for ways to hand them things.
It wasn't just Demon's Souls that recently flipped the proverbial bird to the 'gaming for everyone' trend.
In many ways, the independent development scene can be viewed on the macro level as a harbinger of trends to come, and over the past year and into 2010, many indies have decided to be brutal to their players.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021382</id>
	<title>Re:Case in point: Dragon Age Origins</title>
	<author>Dr. Hellno</author>
	<datestamp>1265294100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm playing that these days on the PS3 and I agree, the difficulty spikes are ridiculous and kind of make me hate the game sometimes. What really bugs me is that I know I'd probably love it on the PC, even though the big battles are reportedly substantially more "difficult" there. To my mind there's difficult (every battle is a tactical challenge. Weigh your options, choose your targets and your moves carefully. Fail sometimes.) and then there's difficult (every battle is a nightmare clusterfuck. Target selection is incoherent and unresponsive. AI pathfinding is a joke. Die all the time because your dog is humping Alistair's leg while he closely investigates a rock in a corner somewhere) It's the difference between fighting a challenge, and fighting the interface, and what a difference it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm playing that these days on the PS3 and I agree , the difficulty spikes are ridiculous and kind of make me hate the game sometimes .
What really bugs me is that I know I 'd probably love it on the PC , even though the big battles are reportedly substantially more " difficult " there .
To my mind there 's difficult ( every battle is a tactical challenge .
Weigh your options , choose your targets and your moves carefully .
Fail sometimes .
) and then there 's difficult ( every battle is a nightmare clusterfuck .
Target selection is incoherent and unresponsive .
AI pathfinding is a joke .
Die all the time because your dog is humping Alistair 's leg while he closely investigates a rock in a corner somewhere ) It 's the difference between fighting a challenge , and fighting the interface , and what a difference it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm playing that these days on the PS3 and I agree, the difficulty spikes are ridiculous and kind of make me hate the game sometimes.
What really bugs me is that I know I'd probably love it on the PC, even though the big battles are reportedly substantially more "difficult" there.
To my mind there's difficult (every battle is a tactical challenge.
Weigh your options, choose your targets and your moves carefully.
Fail sometimes.
) and then there's difficult (every battle is a nightmare clusterfuck.
Target selection is incoherent and unresponsive.
AI pathfinding is a joke.
Die all the time because your dog is humping Alistair's leg while he closely investigates a rock in a corner somewhere) It's the difference between fighting a challenge, and fighting the interface, and what a difference it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020732</id>
	<title>Re:Demon's Souls is a bad example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265287620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who's currently playing and enjoying said cult game, I have to disagree here. Main point being the autosave feature. This is one of the things that really makes the game, since every single choice you make will have an irreversible consequence. In Demon's Souls, if you kill that NPC, he really is dead, there's no rewind button. This makes every choice you face a hard one. This isn't a design flaw, it's part of the game mechanic and, for lack of a better word, feel of the game. Constant saving and gaming using multiple save slots is something western players have gotten so used to, they've forgotten there's an alternative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who 's currently playing and enjoying said cult game , I have to disagree here .
Main point being the autosave feature .
This is one of the things that really makes the game , since every single choice you make will have an irreversible consequence .
In Demon 's Souls , if you kill that NPC , he really is dead , there 's no rewind button .
This makes every choice you face a hard one .
This is n't a design flaw , it 's part of the game mechanic and , for lack of a better word , feel of the game .
Constant saving and gaming using multiple save slots is something western players have gotten so used to , they 've forgotten there 's an alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who's currently playing and enjoying said cult game, I have to disagree here.
Main point being the autosave feature.
This is one of the things that really makes the game, since every single choice you make will have an irreversible consequence.
In Demon's Souls, if you kill that NPC, he really is dead, there's no rewind button.
This makes every choice you face a hard one.
This isn't a design flaw, it's part of the game mechanic and, for lack of a better word, feel of the game.
Constant saving and gaming using multiple save slots is something western players have gotten so used to, they've forgotten there's an alternative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023502</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1265304660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not that I think the guy knows everything, but if you think the Wii doesn't have many games that cater to the casual crowd, you are on crack.  Everyone bought them for the casual games that their grand parents could play.<br> <br>As far as what you are talking about, that really isn't the challenge of the game.  Achievements create artificial challenge.  The first Mario didn't have achievements yet it was quite challenging.  Does this Mario make you start all the way from the beginning if you die too many times?  No?  Achievements are just e-peen things for OCD people who have to do everything.  ANY game can have an achievement that makes it challenging...that doesn't make it a challenging game.  Do you understand the difference?<br> <br>Yes, different game difficulties help to cater to different players...duh.  But if you think for a second that games on the Wii are more difficult than games on the 8-bit Nintendo...well, turn in your nerd card and don't let the door hit you on the way out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I think the guy knows everything , but if you think the Wii does n't have many games that cater to the casual crowd , you are on crack .
Everyone bought them for the casual games that their grand parents could play .
As far as what you are talking about , that really is n't the challenge of the game .
Achievements create artificial challenge .
The first Mario did n't have achievements yet it was quite challenging .
Does this Mario make you start all the way from the beginning if you die too many times ?
No ? Achievements are just e-peen things for OCD people who have to do everything .
ANY game can have an achievement that makes it challenging...that does n't make it a challenging game .
Do you understand the difference ?
Yes , different game difficulties help to cater to different players...duh .
But if you think for a second that games on the Wii are more difficult than games on the 8-bit Nintendo...well , turn in your nerd card and do n't let the door hit you on the way out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I think the guy knows everything, but if you think the Wii doesn't have many games that cater to the casual crowd, you are on crack.
Everyone bought them for the casual games that their grand parents could play.
As far as what you are talking about, that really isn't the challenge of the game.
Achievements create artificial challenge.
The first Mario didn't have achievements yet it was quite challenging.
Does this Mario make you start all the way from the beginning if you die too many times?
No?  Achievements are just e-peen things for OCD people who have to do everything.
ANY game can have an achievement that makes it challenging...that doesn't make it a challenging game.
Do you understand the difference?
Yes, different game difficulties help to cater to different players...duh.
But if you think for a second that games on the Wii are more difficult than games on the 8-bit Nintendo...well, turn in your nerd card and don't let the door hit you on the way out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31027892</id>
	<title>Civ 2</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1265282580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's likely similar to later Civ games, but if you want to see <i>real</i> CPU player cheating, turn Civ 2 onto a hard difficulty, then enable the cheat to see all the map from the start, then watch the CPU player turns. 2 settlers coming out of a level 1 town on the first or second turn is enough to make you cry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's likely similar to later Civ games , but if you want to see real CPU player cheating , turn Civ 2 onto a hard difficulty , then enable the cheat to see all the map from the start , then watch the CPU player turns .
2 settlers coming out of a level 1 town on the first or second turn is enough to make you cry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's likely similar to later Civ games, but if you want to see real CPU player cheating, turn Civ 2 onto a hard difficulty, then enable the cheat to see all the map from the start, then watch the CPU player turns.
2 settlers coming out of a level 1 town on the first or second turn is enough to make you cry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021112</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1265291880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not the ONLY road to success. But it's part of the secret blend of herbs and spices.</p><p>It's not about cranking the difficulty up until it becomes impossible. Impossible enough <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQHJDt0icnI" title="youtube.com">even a bot can't succeed anymore</a> [youtube.com]. That's not enjoyable.</p></div><p>What do you mean: "even a bot can't succeed anymore"? There are plenty of games where even the smartest AI can't compete with a human: strategy games. And those are games that have always been about challenge. Has Civ ever been fun at the easiest level, waltzing over stone-age AI civilizations? The fun has always been to crush them at Emperor level. The harder it is, the more satisfying the victory.</p><p>Of course victory still needs to be possible. Playing a game that can't be won soon loses its appeal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the ONLY road to success .
But it 's part of the secret blend of herbs and spices.It 's not about cranking the difficulty up until it becomes impossible .
Impossible enough even a bot ca n't succeed anymore [ youtube.com ] .
That 's not enjoyable.What do you mean : " even a bot ca n't succeed anymore " ?
There are plenty of games where even the smartest AI ca n't compete with a human : strategy games .
And those are games that have always been about challenge .
Has Civ ever been fun at the easiest level , waltzing over stone-age AI civilizations ?
The fun has always been to crush them at Emperor level .
The harder it is , the more satisfying the victory.Of course victory still needs to be possible .
Playing a game that ca n't be won soon loses its appeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the ONLY road to success.
But it's part of the secret blend of herbs and spices.It's not about cranking the difficulty up until it becomes impossible.
Impossible enough even a bot can't succeed anymore [youtube.com].
That's not enjoyable.What do you mean: "even a bot can't succeed anymore"?
There are plenty of games where even the smartest AI can't compete with a human: strategy games.
And those are games that have always been about challenge.
Has Civ ever been fun at the easiest level, waltzing over stone-age AI civilizations?
The fun has always been to crush them at Emperor level.
The harder it is, the more satisfying the victory.Of course victory still needs to be possible.
Playing a game that can't be won soon loses its appeal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31036274</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265393880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought New Super Mario Wii was pretty easy, really, once you get used to the speed.  Just some of the Star Coins are borderline impossible to find without the video hints.</p><p>Mario Galaxy, though, kicked my butt.  Once I finish World 9, I'll have to go back to that one for more spankings.  And Kart, as you said, can be very challenging if you want it to be.  That's what I like about the Wii games.  Since I'm not a jerk, I can play against older relatives on the 50cc and against my friends on 100cc or 150cc, depending on how badly I'd like to fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought New Super Mario Wii was pretty easy , really , once you get used to the speed .
Just some of the Star Coins are borderline impossible to find without the video hints.Mario Galaxy , though , kicked my butt .
Once I finish World 9 , I 'll have to go back to that one for more spankings .
And Kart , as you said , can be very challenging if you want it to be .
That 's what I like about the Wii games .
Since I 'm not a jerk , I can play against older relatives on the 50cc and against my friends on 100cc or 150cc , depending on how badly I 'd like to fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought New Super Mario Wii was pretty easy, really, once you get used to the speed.
Just some of the Star Coins are borderline impossible to find without the video hints.Mario Galaxy, though, kicked my butt.
Once I finish World 9, I'll have to go back to that one for more spankings.
And Kart, as you said, can be very challenging if you want it to be.
That's what I like about the Wii games.
Since I'm not a jerk, I can play against older relatives on the 50cc and against my friends on 100cc or 150cc, depending on how badly I'd like to fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</id>
	<title>I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1265315040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer. They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula. BAM! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.</p><p>The secret, which isn't a secret at all, is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming. Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft isn't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again. It's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting. It is the thrill of being able to beat a game but with enough challenge that victory isn't guaranteed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer .
They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula .
BAM ! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.The secret , which is n't a secret at all , is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming .
Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft is n't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again .
It 's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting .
It is the thrill of being able to beat a game but with enough challenge that victory is n't guaranteed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer.
They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula.
BAM! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.The secret, which isn't a secret at all, is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming.
Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft isn't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again.
It's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting.
It is the thrill of being able to beat a game but with enough challenge that victory isn't guaranteed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025466</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1265314020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's common to see 50:1 point ratios on TF2 servers between players, which is just insane, if you stop and think about it.</p></div><p>Actually, if you think about it, it's quite reasonable.  I've had 150:1 ratios compared to others, because I had played 3 full rounds of Payload (150+ points) and the guy with 1 only joined 2-3 minutes ago, is on defense, and has only had the chance to get a single kill because of circumstances beyond his control.  I've never seen two TF2 players who played for the same ammount of time yet had a 50x difference in points.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I like to think of this analogy: imagine how stupid it would be if the world championship game of, say, football, had one team member replaced by a fucktard who just does "whatever he feels like", because, you know, "it's just a game", and there would be absolutely <i>nothing</i> the other players could do about it. Does that sound like a good game to you?</p></div><p>This analogy has nothing to do with public servers.  Sure, you expect not to get 10-yo noobs in a competitive match and that's where you should be playing in that case.  Otherwise, it's more like that jean commercial where Bret Favre plays pickup football with some random guys, it's not the venue for him to bitch at a guy for dropping a pass or whatever.  Why should we place limits on skill for a pickup game?  It sounds more like your fault for not playing competitive or private matches, rather than others fault for not being good.

</p><p>That said, it looks like you want ranked matchmaking for normal play, rather than player-run custom servers.  That's fine with me, but you'll have to pry TF2's custom dedicated servers from my cold dead hands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's common to see 50 : 1 point ratios on TF2 servers between players , which is just insane , if you stop and think about it.Actually , if you think about it , it 's quite reasonable .
I 've had 150 : 1 ratios compared to others , because I had played 3 full rounds of Payload ( 150 + points ) and the guy with 1 only joined 2-3 minutes ago , is on defense , and has only had the chance to get a single kill because of circumstances beyond his control .
I 've never seen two TF2 players who played for the same ammount of time yet had a 50x difference in points.I like to think of this analogy : imagine how stupid it would be if the world championship game of , say , football , had one team member replaced by a fucktard who just does " whatever he feels like " , because , you know , " it 's just a game " , and there would be absolutely nothing the other players could do about it .
Does that sound like a good game to you ? This analogy has nothing to do with public servers .
Sure , you expect not to get 10-yo noobs in a competitive match and that 's where you should be playing in that case .
Otherwise , it 's more like that jean commercial where Bret Favre plays pickup football with some random guys , it 's not the venue for him to bitch at a guy for dropping a pass or whatever .
Why should we place limits on skill for a pickup game ?
It sounds more like your fault for not playing competitive or private matches , rather than others fault for not being good .
That said , it looks like you want ranked matchmaking for normal play , rather than player-run custom servers .
That 's fine with me , but you 'll have to pry TF2 's custom dedicated servers from my cold dead hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's common to see 50:1 point ratios on TF2 servers between players, which is just insane, if you stop and think about it.Actually, if you think about it, it's quite reasonable.
I've had 150:1 ratios compared to others, because I had played 3 full rounds of Payload (150+ points) and the guy with 1 only joined 2-3 minutes ago, is on defense, and has only had the chance to get a single kill because of circumstances beyond his control.
I've never seen two TF2 players who played for the same ammount of time yet had a 50x difference in points.I like to think of this analogy: imagine how stupid it would be if the world championship game of, say, football, had one team member replaced by a fucktard who just does "whatever he feels like", because, you know, "it's just a game", and there would be absolutely nothing the other players could do about it.
Does that sound like a good game to you?This analogy has nothing to do with public servers.
Sure, you expect not to get 10-yo noobs in a competitive match and that's where you should be playing in that case.
Otherwise, it's more like that jean commercial where Bret Favre plays pickup football with some random guys, it's not the venue for him to bitch at a guy for dropping a pass or whatever.
Why should we place limits on skill for a pickup game?
It sounds more like your fault for not playing competitive or private matches, rather than others fault for not being good.
That said, it looks like you want ranked matchmaking for normal play, rather than player-run custom servers.
That's fine with me, but you'll have to pry TF2's custom dedicated servers from my cold dead hands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019708</id>
	<title>Complicated = Interesting = Popular. Usually</title>
	<author>Asadullah Ahmad</author>
	<datestamp>1265316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my personal experience, anything which is complicated and difficult to comprehend in the beginning, is most thrilling and exciting. </p><p>But on the other hand, a large proportion of people will love simple and <i>dumb</i> stuff. And its such a shame that millions of years of evolution has still not decreased percentage of the latter bunch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my personal experience , anything which is complicated and difficult to comprehend in the beginning , is most thrilling and exciting .
But on the other hand , a large proportion of people will love simple and dumb stuff .
And its such a shame that millions of years of evolution has still not decreased percentage of the latter bunch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my personal experience, anything which is complicated and difficult to comprehend in the beginning, is most thrilling and exciting.
But on the other hand, a large proportion of people will love simple and dumb stuff.
And its such a shame that millions of years of evolution has still not decreased percentage of the latter bunch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020928</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265290080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would any game be enjoyable if it had an "I win" button?</p></div><p>Blackjack at the casino?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would any game be enjoyable if it had an " I win " button ? Blackjack at the casino ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would any game be enjoyable if it had an "I win" button?Blackjack at the casino?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020156</id>
	<title>In World of Warcraft</title>
	<author>Exitar</author>
	<datestamp>1265279580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>latest expansion, Wrath of the Lich King, the endgame has been made substantially easier than before.<br>But has been added the possibility for players to unlock "hard modes" that present in many cases a much greater difficulty.</p><p>You know what?<br>People complain that the game is too easy (even if they never tried the hard modes).<br>Or that hard modes are too hard.<br>Or that hard modes are too easy because top world players (not them, someone else!) were able to beat hard modes in few days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>latest expansion , Wrath of the Lich King , the endgame has been made substantially easier than before.But has been added the possibility for players to unlock " hard modes " that present in many cases a much greater difficulty.You know what ? People complain that the game is too easy ( even if they never tried the hard modes ) .Or that hard modes are too hard.Or that hard modes are too easy because top world players ( not them , someone else !
) were able to beat hard modes in few days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>latest expansion, Wrath of the Lich King, the endgame has been made substantially easier than before.But has been added the possibility for players to unlock "hard modes" that present in many cases a much greater difficulty.You know what?People complain that the game is too easy (even if they never tried the hard modes).Or that hard modes are too hard.Or that hard modes are too easy because top world players (not them, someone else!
) were able to beat hard modes in few days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020460</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265283780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer. They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula. BAM! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.</p><p>The secret, which isn't a secret at all, is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming. Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft isn't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again. It's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting. It is the thrill of being able to beat a game but with enough challenge that victory isn't guaranteed.</p></div><p>gameplay is everything. The UFO/XCOM Enemy unknown  is a good example of how you can have a really great &amp; addictive game with a high difficulty level (even in Novice the game was tough for the average player)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer .
They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula .
BAM ! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.The secret , which is n't a secret at all , is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming .
Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft is n't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again .
It 's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting .
It is the thrill of being able to beat a game but with enough challenge that victory is n't guaranteed.gameplay is everything .
The UFO/XCOM Enemy unknown is a good example of how you can have a really great &amp; addictive game with a high difficulty level ( even in Novice the game was tough for the average player )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer.
They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula.
BAM! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.The secret, which isn't a secret at all, is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming.
Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft isn't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again.
It's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting.
It is the thrill of being able to beat a game but with enough challenge that victory isn't guaranteed.gameplay is everything.
The UFO/XCOM Enemy unknown  is a good example of how you can have a really great &amp; addictive game with a high difficulty level (even in Novice the game was tough for the average player)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025016</id>
	<title>I have another name for this concept</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1265311740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In contrast to "AI" which is "Artificial Intelligence" I call the thing you're talking about "RC" which stands for "Real Cheating"</htmltext>
<tokenext>In contrast to " AI " which is " Artificial Intelligence " I call the thing you 're talking about " RC " which stands for " Real Cheating "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In contrast to "AI" which is "Artificial Intelligence" I call the thing you're talking about "RC" which stands for "Real Cheating"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019710</id>
	<title>Difficulty(&amp;sometimes bugs!)gives a game chara</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Developers have to strike a balance between what makes you go "f- this game" and "YES!  I CAN'T BELIEVE I FINALLY DID IT!".</p><p>Another problem they face is the fickleness of the community.  For example, the Ninja Gaiden games on the NES would <i>not</i> fly in today's gaming community, except among a small, masochistic market segment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers have to strike a balance between what makes you go " f- this game " and " YES !
I CA N'T BELIEVE I FINALLY DID IT !
" .Another problem they face is the fickleness of the community .
For example , the Ninja Gaiden games on the NES would not fly in today 's gaming community , except among a small , masochistic market segment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers have to strike a balance between what makes you go "f- this game" and "YES!
I CAN'T BELIEVE I FINALLY DID IT!
".Another problem they face is the fickleness of the community.
For example, the Ninja Gaiden games on the NES would not fly in today's gaming community, except among a small, masochistic market segment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019792</id>
	<title>Re:needs to be entertainment.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>um.. for some of us, fun = challenge..I know, I know, but as you can tell, I grew up in the 80s.  we 80s children like our games to be hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um.. for some of us , fun = challenge..I know , I know , but as you can tell , I grew up in the 80s .
we 80s children like our games to be hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um.. for some of us, fun = challenge..I know, I know, but as you can tell, I grew up in the 80s.
we 80s children like our games to be hard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020536</id>
	<title>I play easy and hard games</title>
	<author>lena\_10326</author>
	<datestamp>1265284920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is with worrying about some "pendulum". Sometimes I have time; sometimes I don't. (Given hard means it requires more time.) I just like games. It's not an either or proposition.</p><p>There is nothing to worry about here. The casual game market was just an expansion to reach a previously ignored segment of players: the very old, the very young, and the very busy. Your hard games aren't going away any time soon and neither will your easy games. Stop fretting over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I understand what the big deal is with worrying about some " pendulum " .
Sometimes I have time ; sometimes I do n't .
( Given hard means it requires more time .
) I just like games .
It 's not an either or proposition.There is nothing to worry about here .
The casual game market was just an expansion to reach a previously ignored segment of players : the very old , the very young , and the very busy .
Your hard games are n't going away any time soon and neither will your easy games .
Stop fretting over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I understand what the big deal is with worrying about some "pendulum".
Sometimes I have time; sometimes I don't.
(Given hard means it requires more time.
) I just like games.
It's not an either or proposition.There is nothing to worry about here.
The casual game market was just an expansion to reach a previously ignored segment of players: the very old, the very young, and the very busy.
Your hard games aren't going away any time soon and neither will your easy games.
Stop fretting over it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019686</id>
	<title>King's Bounty</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1265316120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar to HOMM, but more of an RPG/adventure. It has difficulty levels ranging from easy to impossible - but many unfamiliar with the genre will find "Normal" to be challenging.</p><p>I went with easy and challenged myself to lose as few units as possible. A very enjoyable game.</p><p>Right now I'm playing through Torchlight on the hardest difficulty. Good thing there's no death penalty if you respawn in town.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) I kill enemies in about 4 hits, but they do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar to HOMM , but more of an RPG/adventure .
It has difficulty levels ranging from easy to impossible - but many unfamiliar with the genre will find " Normal " to be challenging.I went with easy and challenged myself to lose as few units as possible .
A very enjoyable game.Right now I 'm playing through Torchlight on the hardest difficulty .
Good thing there 's no death penalty if you respawn in town .
; ) I kill enemies in about 4 hits , but they do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar to HOMM, but more of an RPG/adventure.
It has difficulty levels ranging from easy to impossible - but many unfamiliar with the genre will find "Normal" to be challenging.I went with easy and challenged myself to lose as few units as possible.
A very enjoyable game.Right now I'm playing through Torchlight on the hardest difficulty.
Good thing there's no death penalty if you respawn in town.
;) I kill enemies in about 4 hits, but they do the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023440</id>
	<title>Un-Mod Troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265304360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not know why this post and all sub-posts are marked as trolls but they make valid points. While, I personally didn't think the Lost levels was as insanely difficult as some people think it is, it is hardly a reason to mark the parent and all children posts as troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not know why this post and all sub-posts are marked as trolls but they make valid points .
While , I personally did n't think the Lost levels was as insanely difficult as some people think it is , it is hardly a reason to mark the parent and all children posts as troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not know why this post and all sub-posts are marked as trolls but they make valid points.
While, I personally didn't think the Lost levels was as insanely difficult as some people think it is, it is hardly a reason to mark the parent and all children posts as troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020016</id>
	<title>NETHACK!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265277360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry. That's all I wanted to say.</p><p>No, wait, one more thing.</p><p>The new version of the amazing Dwarf fortress is about to be released.</p><p>Now you can keep talking about those other inferior games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry .
That 's all I wanted to say.No , wait , one more thing.The new version of the amazing Dwarf fortress is about to be released.Now you can keep talking about those other inferior games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry.
That's all I wanted to say.No, wait, one more thing.The new version of the amazing Dwarf fortress is about to be released.Now you can keep talking about those other inferior games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021428</id>
	<title>New games need to get rid of auto health regen</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1265294460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New games need to get rid of auto health regeneration or at least make it a power up / upgrade that uses power.</p><p>I don't that deus ex 3 will have it deus ex 1 had a good system it was a upgrade that used up power. IF you don't want people to back track a lot add more med kits / have no limit on how many you can carry at one time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New games need to get rid of auto health regeneration or at least make it a power up / upgrade that uses power.I do n't that deus ex 3 will have it deus ex 1 had a good system it was a upgrade that used up power .
IF you do n't want people to back track a lot add more med kits / have no limit on how many you can carry at one time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New games need to get rid of auto health regeneration or at least make it a power up / upgrade that uses power.I don't that deus ex 3 will have it deus ex 1 had a good system it was a upgrade that used up power.
IF you don't want people to back track a lot add more med kits / have no limit on how many you can carry at one time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021936</id>
	<title>Re:Fake Difficulty</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265297220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or they can 'cheat'. Like bots in a shooter that know where you are at all times.</p></div><p>That's not necessarily cheating. I once watched a Flash animation about scrubs who accuse skilled first-person shooter players of cheating. If you hear step-step-step, and you know it's not a teammate, run around and shoot. If you hear clank-clank-clank in a vent, and you know it's not a teammate, toss a grenade.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(Nearly all games do it the crap way)</p></div><p>Because the crap way is cheaper to pull off and doesn't sell measurably fewer copies than the hard way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they can 'cheat' .
Like bots in a shooter that know where you are at all times.That 's not necessarily cheating .
I once watched a Flash animation about scrubs who accuse skilled first-person shooter players of cheating .
If you hear step-step-step , and you know it 's not a teammate , run around and shoot .
If you hear clank-clank-clank in a vent , and you know it 's not a teammate , toss a grenade .
( Nearly all games do it the crap way ) Because the crap way is cheaper to pull off and does n't sell measurably fewer copies than the hard way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or they can 'cheat'.
Like bots in a shooter that know where you are at all times.That's not necessarily cheating.
I once watched a Flash animation about scrubs who accuse skilled first-person shooter players of cheating.
If you hear step-step-step, and you know it's not a teammate, run around and shoot.
If you hear clank-clank-clank in a vent, and you know it's not a teammate, toss a grenade.
(Nearly all games do it the crap way)Because the crap way is cheaper to pull off and doesn't sell measurably fewer copies than the hard way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019788</id>
	<title>Men In Black Playstation... The Horror...</title>
	<author>creimer</author>
	<datestamp>1265274180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was a lead tester at Accolade/Infogrames/Atari (same company, two different owners, multiple identity crises), I was responsible for <i>Men In Black</i> (Playstation).  Sony had a submission requirement where they wanted a videotaped play through.  Normally, it took me eight hours to get through the whole game.  The developers made a change for one level just before the final level that made finishing the game impossible.  I told them to change it, they told me to screw off.</p><p>I spent <i>eight hours</i> playing that damn level before I could advance to the final level and sent Sony <i>two</i> videotapes with 16 hours of video.  My request to duplicate the last videotape and send it to the developers was denied.  No one cares about the pains that a video game tester must suffer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a lead tester at Accolade/Infogrames/Atari ( same company , two different owners , multiple identity crises ) , I was responsible for Men In Black ( Playstation ) .
Sony had a submission requirement where they wanted a videotaped play through .
Normally , it took me eight hours to get through the whole game .
The developers made a change for one level just before the final level that made finishing the game impossible .
I told them to change it , they told me to screw off.I spent eight hours playing that damn level before I could advance to the final level and sent Sony two videotapes with 16 hours of video .
My request to duplicate the last videotape and send it to the developers was denied .
No one cares about the pains that a video game tester must suffer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a lead tester at Accolade/Infogrames/Atari (same company, two different owners, multiple identity crises), I was responsible for Men In Black (Playstation).
Sony had a submission requirement where they wanted a videotaped play through.
Normally, it took me eight hours to get through the whole game.
The developers made a change for one level just before the final level that made finishing the game impossible.
I told them to change it, they told me to screw off.I spent eight hours playing that damn level before I could advance to the final level and sent Sony two videotapes with 16 hours of video.
My request to duplicate the last videotape and send it to the developers was denied.
No one cares about the pains that a video game tester must suffer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021702</id>
	<title>Re:Middle ground</title>
	<author>CuriHP</author>
	<datestamp>1265296020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally I liked the Lost Levels a lot.  But only in the setting of All Stars where you got a couple extra lives and could save.  That made for a good challenge and balance.  If I had the original 3 lives and start over version, it probably would have gotten smashed to bits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I liked the Lost Levels a lot .
But only in the setting of All Stars where you got a couple extra lives and could save .
That made for a good challenge and balance .
If I had the original 3 lives and start over version , it probably would have gotten smashed to bits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I liked the Lost Levels a lot.
But only in the setting of All Stars where you got a couple extra lives and could save.
That made for a good challenge and balance.
If I had the original 3 lives and start over version, it probably would have gotten smashed to bits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019660</id>
	<title>I too enjoy a challenge in a game.</title>
	<author>Pallazzio</author>
	<datestamp>1265315760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I haven't played Demon's Souls (hell I haven't even heard of it), but I've been noticing lately that every time I get a new game that I'm excited about playing, it's over in about two days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't played Demon 's Souls ( hell I have n't even heard of it ) , but I 've been noticing lately that every time I get a new game that I 'm excited about playing , it 's over in about two days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't played Demon's Souls (hell I haven't even heard of it), but I've been noticing lately that every time I get a new game that I'm excited about playing, it's over in about two days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020786</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265288460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes I've played it. It isn't hard.<br>As a single player game. It is easy.<br>Its the first time I sat down and beat a mario game in a couple of days of casual playing.<br>What is hard is when you add 3 people... some of whom may not know what they're doing. Suddenly it is difficult because people are interfering with jumps, etc<br>Without doing any life tricks I finished the game with dozens of lives without trouble.</p><p>I really don't get how this is supposed to be some kind of benchmark for difficult mario games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I 've played it .
It is n't hard.As a single player game .
It is easy.Its the first time I sat down and beat a mario game in a couple of days of casual playing.What is hard is when you add 3 people... some of whom may not know what they 're doing .
Suddenly it is difficult because people are interfering with jumps , etcWithout doing any life tricks I finished the game with dozens of lives without trouble.I really do n't get how this is supposed to be some kind of benchmark for difficult mario games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I've played it.
It isn't hard.As a single player game.
It is easy.Its the first time I sat down and beat a mario game in a couple of days of casual playing.What is hard is when you add 3 people... some of whom may not know what they're doing.
Suddenly it is difficult because people are interfering with jumps, etcWithout doing any life tricks I finished the game with dozens of lives without trouble.I really don't get how this is supposed to be some kind of benchmark for difficult mario games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020762</id>
	<title>IWBTG anyone?</title>
	<author>happygrue</author>
	<datestamp>1265288040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This story reminds me of a hilariously hard little gem of a game:  <a href="http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/" title="pyoko.org" rel="nofollow">I Wanna Be The Guy.</a> [pyoko.org]

It's the kind of game that makes me laugh out loud when I realize yet ANOTHER way I can die on a particular level.  Try it out a bit, and have a good laugh if you haven't already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This story reminds me of a hilariously hard little gem of a game : I Wan na Be The Guy .
[ pyoko.org ] It 's the kind of game that makes me laugh out loud when I realize yet ANOTHER way I can die on a particular level .
Try it out a bit , and have a good laugh if you have n't already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story reminds me of a hilariously hard little gem of a game:  I Wanna Be The Guy.
[pyoko.org]

It's the kind of game that makes me laugh out loud when I realize yet ANOTHER way I can die on a particular level.
Try it out a bit, and have a good laugh if you haven't already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020234</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>LKM</author>
	<datestamp>1265280900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, the unlocked rainbow levels are insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , the unlocked rainbow levels are insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, the unlocked rainbow levels are insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021706</id>
	<title>Players' skill levels differ</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265296020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Likewise, it's frustrating if a game is so friggin' hard that it simply is not fun anymore either.</p> </div><p>But players' skill levels differ. One person's challenge is another person's so hard it's not fun. This is true of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwlBTzvnF98" title="youtube.com">DDR</a> [youtube.com] and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwC544Z37qo#t=5m0s" title="youtube.com">Tetris</a> [youtube.com] and even <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8UTz4gdXtg" title="youtube.com">platformers</a> [youtube.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Likewise , it 's frustrating if a game is so friggin ' hard that it simply is not fun anymore either .
But players ' skill levels differ .
One person 's challenge is another person 's so hard it 's not fun .
This is true of DDR [ youtube.com ] and Tetris [ youtube.com ] and even platformers [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likewise, it's frustrating if a game is so friggin' hard that it simply is not fun anymore either.
But players' skill levels differ.
One person's challenge is another person's so hard it's not fun.
This is true of DDR [youtube.com] and Tetris [youtube.com] and even platformers [youtube.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31029638</id>
	<title>Races that you have to finish to continue...</title>
	<author>mattack2</author>
	<datestamp>1265292540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I realize that games have certain goals that must be finished to continue onto the next puzzle or section or whatever.</p><p>One of the problems is that some games have different kinds of goals in the same came, and the various kinds of goals can have hugely varying difficulty to different players.</p><p>In both Ratchet &amp; Clank and Sly Cooper, I'm stuck at stupid cartoony races.  They're not even good races (e.g. obviously car racing games or even Grand Theft Auto type games with a racing element).  Both of them put races in as impediments to continuing.  Even though the games in general are 'kiddie' games, the races are pretty darn hard (hard enough that I've given up on them at least for a while), and having things that are THAT much of a pain make games overall less fun.  Compare that to something like God of War, which at least in the main game (not the challenges), I got stuck in many places, but trying it enough times, I can succeed.  Plus the game itself generally rises in difficulty as you go along.</p><p>Psychonauts is another game that's mostly easy but I haven't tried finishing Meat Circus for a few years now.   The Escapist's review of Psychonauts is very funny too (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2-Psychonauts).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize that games have certain goals that must be finished to continue onto the next puzzle or section or whatever.One of the problems is that some games have different kinds of goals in the same came , and the various kinds of goals can have hugely varying difficulty to different players.In both Ratchet &amp; Clank and Sly Cooper , I 'm stuck at stupid cartoony races .
They 're not even good races ( e.g .
obviously car racing games or even Grand Theft Auto type games with a racing element ) .
Both of them put races in as impediments to continuing .
Even though the games in general are 'kiddie ' games , the races are pretty darn hard ( hard enough that I 've given up on them at least for a while ) , and having things that are THAT much of a pain make games overall less fun .
Compare that to something like God of War , which at least in the main game ( not the challenges ) , I got stuck in many places , but trying it enough times , I can succeed .
Plus the game itself generally rises in difficulty as you go along.Psychonauts is another game that 's mostly easy but I have n't tried finishing Meat Circus for a few years now .
The Escapist 's review of Psychonauts is very funny too ( http : //www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2-Psychonauts ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize that games have certain goals that must be finished to continue onto the next puzzle or section or whatever.One of the problems is that some games have different kinds of goals in the same came, and the various kinds of goals can have hugely varying difficulty to different players.In both Ratchet &amp; Clank and Sly Cooper, I'm stuck at stupid cartoony races.
They're not even good races (e.g.
obviously car racing games or even Grand Theft Auto type games with a racing element).
Both of them put races in as impediments to continuing.
Even though the games in general are 'kiddie' games, the races are pretty darn hard (hard enough that I've given up on them at least for a while), and having things that are THAT much of a pain make games overall less fun.
Compare that to something like God of War, which at least in the main game (not the challenges), I got stuck in many places, but trying it enough times, I can succeed.
Plus the game itself generally rises in difficulty as you go along.Psychonauts is another game that's mostly easy but I haven't tried finishing Meat Circus for a few years now.
The Escapist's review of Psychonauts is very funny too (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2-Psychonauts).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025926</id>
	<title>Winning examples: Supermetroid, Castlevania</title>
	<author>Spy der Mann</author>
	<datestamp>1265316840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what difficult levels are for: Feeling that you could achieve what many couldn't.</p><p>One of my personal favorites, is "Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow". You have the normal mode, and the hard mode. But my favorite part is battling with Julius. There are numerous youtube videos of fighting with Julius in restricted circumstances: i.e. no armor/weapons, all abilities disabled, no healing potions, etc. Of course, the Boss Rush mode is a must.</p><p>Supermetroid also manages to do this, in the form of Speed Runs. The reward pics of Samus add a lot of replayability, like, defeat the game with less than 10\% items, or with 100\% items under a time limit, and so on.</p><p>Winning the game may be easy or difficult, but the ability to play the game under restrictions, AND obtaining a unique reward for it (even if it's just a praise in youtube calling you "awesome"), is invaluable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what difficult levels are for : Feeling that you could achieve what many could n't.One of my personal favorites , is " Castlevania : Aria of Sorrow " .
You have the normal mode , and the hard mode .
But my favorite part is battling with Julius .
There are numerous youtube videos of fighting with Julius in restricted circumstances : i.e .
no armor/weapons , all abilities disabled , no healing potions , etc .
Of course , the Boss Rush mode is a must.Supermetroid also manages to do this , in the form of Speed Runs .
The reward pics of Samus add a lot of replayability , like , defeat the game with less than 10 \ % items , or with 100 \ % items under a time limit , and so on.Winning the game may be easy or difficult , but the ability to play the game under restrictions , AND obtaining a unique reward for it ( even if it 's just a praise in youtube calling you " awesome " ) , is invaluable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what difficult levels are for: Feeling that you could achieve what many couldn't.One of my personal favorites, is "Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow".
You have the normal mode, and the hard mode.
But my favorite part is battling with Julius.
There are numerous youtube videos of fighting with Julius in restricted circumstances: i.e.
no armor/weapons, all abilities disabled, no healing potions, etc.
Of course, the Boss Rush mode is a must.Supermetroid also manages to do this, in the form of Speed Runs.
The reward pics of Samus add a lot of replayability, like, defeat the game with less than 10\% items, or with 100\% items under a time limit, and so on.Winning the game may be easy or difficult, but the ability to play the game under restrictions, AND obtaining a unique reward for it (even if it's just a praise in youtube calling you "awesome"), is invaluable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694</id>
	<title>Fake Difficulty</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1265316180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Difficulty is different than fake difficulty. I actually hated the xbox360 because all the games were fucking easy. Or they had fake difficulty. And fake difficulty fucking sucks.<br> <br>What I mean is when they use things like... Computers get psychic powers. Or they can 'cheat'. Like bots in a shooter that know where you are at all times. Or bots that have guns that deal double damage. It is a bit hard to define... but generally speaking, any time the game becomes more about w/e coded in cheats the computer gets than about the goals set out in the game then fake difficulty has been taken too far.<br> <br>AI can game break in the opposite direction as well. For example... max handicap disadvantage in smash bros melee vs a computer. You are no longer having a match. You are playing a game of fucking with the ai so it falls in a pit (yoshi sucks at this). In many cases, especially games that shoot for some degree of realism this sucks balls. In shooter, base infiltration games higher difficulty should not be merely adjusting their hp level. It should be tightening up their AI, their aim, their placements, hell number of troops and their weaponry. Otherwise the game plays like crap. (Nearly all games do it the crap way)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Difficulty is different than fake difficulty .
I actually hated the xbox360 because all the games were fucking easy .
Or they had fake difficulty .
And fake difficulty fucking sucks .
What I mean is when they use things like... Computers get psychic powers .
Or they can 'cheat' .
Like bots in a shooter that know where you are at all times .
Or bots that have guns that deal double damage .
It is a bit hard to define... but generally speaking , any time the game becomes more about w/e coded in cheats the computer gets than about the goals set out in the game then fake difficulty has been taken too far .
AI can game break in the opposite direction as well .
For example... max handicap disadvantage in smash bros melee vs a computer .
You are no longer having a match .
You are playing a game of fucking with the ai so it falls in a pit ( yoshi sucks at this ) .
In many cases , especially games that shoot for some degree of realism this sucks balls .
In shooter , base infiltration games higher difficulty should not be merely adjusting their hp level .
It should be tightening up their AI , their aim , their placements , hell number of troops and their weaponry .
Otherwise the game plays like crap .
( Nearly all games do it the crap way )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Difficulty is different than fake difficulty.
I actually hated the xbox360 because all the games were fucking easy.
Or they had fake difficulty.
And fake difficulty fucking sucks.
What I mean is when they use things like... Computers get psychic powers.
Or they can 'cheat'.
Like bots in a shooter that know where you are at all times.
Or bots that have guns that deal double damage.
It is a bit hard to define... but generally speaking, any time the game becomes more about w/e coded in cheats the computer gets than about the goals set out in the game then fake difficulty has been taken too far.
AI can game break in the opposite direction as well.
For example... max handicap disadvantage in smash bros melee vs a computer.
You are no longer having a match.
You are playing a game of fucking with the ai so it falls in a pit (yoshi sucks at this).
In many cases, especially games that shoot for some degree of realism this sucks balls.
In shooter, base infiltration games higher difficulty should not be merely adjusting their hp level.
It should be tightening up their AI, their aim, their placements, hell number of troops and their weaponry.
Otherwise the game plays like crap.
(Nearly all games do it the crap way)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021772</id>
	<title>Why the challenge is important</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265296380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>making something insanely hard "just because" does not make something fun</p><p>1 always have some way to move the game forward (have a couple answers to "what do i do next??" at hand at all times) note going to some distant area of the level ripping a random object off the wall and then using it on some random decoration does not count unless the player could have grabbed it the previous time they saw said object</p><p>2 killing any opponent should be discoverable (use "houses of magic" or a rock &gt; paper &gt; scissors system or have clues) note use random object on the opponent (or surrounding items) 9 times in a 4-6-7 pattern then use charging superweapon to hit an area thats the size of a microsd card and repeat 8 times before you can have a DEM effect enable you to actually hurt the opponent is never a good idea</p><p>3 tools and upgrades should be findable (always have 2 of everything even if you have to have some DEM move a part of The Ultimate Super Weapon between sites to do this) note having the only place to get a critical tool or weapon a remote/off track area of a level/zone that is a massive shoot your way through "bug out of here" setup<br>is another "never happen" type thing</p><p>4 ammo/health/powerpacks have a reasonable amount findable but don't have enough to allow for "spray and pray"<br>note having a noticeable cache include a plot device would be very legit and if you take a player to "max ammo" you are allowed to have them need to use said ammo</p><p>5 is the game possible without using The Hint Guide?? if not then include the needed hints somehow<br>(journal pages "sidekick" characters sign posts whatever)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>making something insanely hard " just because " does not make something fun1 always have some way to move the game forward ( have a couple answers to " what do i do next ? ?
" at hand at all times ) note going to some distant area of the level ripping a random object off the wall and then using it on some random decoration does not count unless the player could have grabbed it the previous time they saw said object2 killing any opponent should be discoverable ( use " houses of magic " or a rock &gt; paper &gt; scissors system or have clues ) note use random object on the opponent ( or surrounding items ) 9 times in a 4-6-7 pattern then use charging superweapon to hit an area thats the size of a microsd card and repeat 8 times before you can have a DEM effect enable you to actually hurt the opponent is never a good idea3 tools and upgrades should be findable ( always have 2 of everything even if you have to have some DEM move a part of The Ultimate Super Weapon between sites to do this ) note having the only place to get a critical tool or weapon a remote/off track area of a level/zone that is a massive shoot your way through " bug out of here " setupis another " never happen " type thing4 ammo/health/powerpacks have a reasonable amount findable but do n't have enough to allow for " spray and pray " note having a noticeable cache include a plot device would be very legit and if you take a player to " max ammo " you are allowed to have them need to use said ammo5 is the game possible without using The Hint Guide ? ?
if not then include the needed hints somehow ( journal pages " sidekick " characters sign posts whatever )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>making something insanely hard "just because" does not make something fun1 always have some way to move the game forward (have a couple answers to "what do i do next??
" at hand at all times) note going to some distant area of the level ripping a random object off the wall and then using it on some random decoration does not count unless the player could have grabbed it the previous time they saw said object2 killing any opponent should be discoverable (use "houses of magic" or a rock &gt; paper &gt; scissors system or have clues) note use random object on the opponent (or surrounding items) 9 times in a 4-6-7 pattern then use charging superweapon to hit an area thats the size of a microsd card and repeat 8 times before you can have a DEM effect enable you to actually hurt the opponent is never a good idea3 tools and upgrades should be findable (always have 2 of everything even if you have to have some DEM move a part of The Ultimate Super Weapon between sites to do this) note having the only place to get a critical tool or weapon a remote/off track area of a level/zone that is a massive shoot your way through "bug out of here" setupis another "never happen" type thing4 ammo/health/powerpacks have a reasonable amount findable but don't have enough to allow for "spray and pray"note having a noticeable cache include a plot device would be very legit and if you take a player to "max ammo" you are allowed to have them need to use said ammo5 is the game possible without using The Hint Guide??
if not then include the needed hints somehow(journal pages "sidekick" characters sign posts whatever)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019852</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1265275260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that; the submission seems to ignore the wonders that flashagmes, Peggle, Solitaire, etc. have done for the trend toward casual or "easy" games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that ; the submission seems to ignore the wonders that flashagmes , Peggle , Solitaire , etc .
have done for the trend toward casual or " easy " games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that; the submission seems to ignore the wonders that flashagmes, Peggle, Solitaire, etc.
have done for the trend toward casual or "easy" games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31022040</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265297700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you played the new Super Mario game?</p></div><p>No. I'm waiting for time.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Care to name some other Mario games that are harder?</p></div><p>1. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP5QlIuax-I" title="youtube.com">Super Mario Bros. 2 (J)</a> [youtube.com] 2. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZxu0Xzz79E" title="youtube.com">Kaizo Mario World</a> [youtube.com] 3. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in6RZzdGki8" title="youtube.com">Super Mario Forever</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you played the new Super Mario game ? No .
I 'm waiting for time.Care to name some other Mario games that are harder ? 1 .
Super Mario Bros. 2 ( J ) [ youtube.com ] 2 .
Kaizo Mario World [ youtube.com ] 3 .
Super Mario Forever [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you played the new Super Mario game?No.
I'm waiting for time.Care to name some other Mario games that are harder?1.
Super Mario Bros. 2 (J) [youtube.com] 2.
Kaizo Mario World [youtube.com] 3.
Super Mario Forever [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020382</id>
	<title>The Perfect Quote on the topic...</title>
	<author>Rollgunner</author>
	<datestamp>1265282700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the movie Avalon... this is delivered to the protagonist by one of the shady Game Masters who control the virtual reality game : <br> <br>

Which is the greater challenge ? <br>

Which is the better game? <br>

Which would you choose, given the choice? <br> <br>

The sort of game that you think you can win, but cannot, <br>

or, alternatively, one that seems to be impossible, but isn&rsquo;t? <br> <br>

Maintaining a precise, delicate balance somewhere in between, throughout every level of the game &ndash; That&rsquo;s what keeps it going. <br> <br>

And it is all up to us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the movie Avalon... this is delivered to the protagonist by one of the shady Game Masters who control the virtual reality game : Which is the greater challenge ?
Which is the better game ?
Which would you choose , given the choice ?
The sort of game that you think you can win , but can not , or , alternatively , one that seems to be impossible , but isn    t ?
Maintaining a precise , delicate balance somewhere in between , throughout every level of the game    That    s what keeps it going .
And it is all up to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the movie Avalon... this is delivered to the protagonist by one of the shady Game Masters who control the virtual reality game :  

Which is the greater challenge ?
Which is the better game?
Which would you choose, given the choice?
The sort of game that you think you can win, but cannot, 

or, alternatively, one that seems to be impossible, but isn’t?
Maintaining a precise, delicate balance somewhere in between, throughout every level of the game – That’s what keeps it going.
And it is all up to us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020260</id>
	<title>Casual != Easy</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1265281380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many casual games are an endless highscore hunt that has you struggling until you die, I wouldn't call that easy. Casual gamers develop extreme proficiency at their games like Tetris or Bejeweled. It's the hardcore games that are easy, they are more designed around the spectacle and story now and that's stuff that you can't make the player replay so having him die often and replay scenes over and over again is seen as a bad thing. I don't know about you but to me a game where even a minimally skilled person can make progress past the next checkpoint and thus beat the game slowly but surely without any practicing is an easy game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many casual games are an endless highscore hunt that has you struggling until you die , I would n't call that easy .
Casual gamers develop extreme proficiency at their games like Tetris or Bejeweled .
It 's the hardcore games that are easy , they are more designed around the spectacle and story now and that 's stuff that you ca n't make the player replay so having him die often and replay scenes over and over again is seen as a bad thing .
I do n't know about you but to me a game where even a minimally skilled person can make progress past the next checkpoint and thus beat the game slowly but surely without any practicing is an easy game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many casual games are an endless highscore hunt that has you struggling until you die, I wouldn't call that easy.
Casual gamers develop extreme proficiency at their games like Tetris or Bejeweled.
It's the hardcore games that are easy, they are more designed around the spectacle and story now and that's stuff that you can't make the player replay so having him die often and replay scenes over and over again is seen as a bad thing.
I don't know about you but to me a game where even a minimally skilled person can make progress past the next checkpoint and thus beat the game slowly but surely without any practicing is an easy game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31069324</id>
	<title>Re:Having fun</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265657940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>football is more fun than baseball or tennis.</p></div><p>how can you even say that man</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>football is more fun than baseball or tennis.how can you even say that man</tokentext>
<sentencetext>football is more fun than baseball or tennis.how can you even say that man
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019684</id>
	<title>Maybe the definition of "game" is too narrow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265316120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much as comics do not tell a story in the same way a movie or book does, gaming is also storytelling in a relatively new medium.</p><p>Nothing dictates that there is one true way to tell a story. Some games are a walk in a beautiful park while picking up and eating sweets on the way, while others are a gymnastic hurdle to perfect or a triathlon to endure. It is all up to the story, the preference of the gamer - much like books span the breadth and width of infinite capabilities.</p><p>Thus I find it disingenuous to try to bundle "games" as a coherent subject and comment on their evolution. You may as well lament the book market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much as comics do not tell a story in the same way a movie or book does , gaming is also storytelling in a relatively new medium.Nothing dictates that there is one true way to tell a story .
Some games are a walk in a beautiful park while picking up and eating sweets on the way , while others are a gymnastic hurdle to perfect or a triathlon to endure .
It is all up to the story , the preference of the gamer - much like books span the breadth and width of infinite capabilities.Thus I find it disingenuous to try to bundle " games " as a coherent subject and comment on their evolution .
You may as well lament the book market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much as comics do not tell a story in the same way a movie or book does, gaming is also storytelling in a relatively new medium.Nothing dictates that there is one true way to tell a story.
Some games are a walk in a beautiful park while picking up and eating sweets on the way, while others are a gymnastic hurdle to perfect or a triathlon to endure.
It is all up to the story, the preference of the gamer - much like books span the breadth and width of infinite capabilities.Thus I find it disingenuous to try to bundle "games" as a coherent subject and comment on their evolution.
You may as well lament the book market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024188</id>
	<title>A virtue for what?</title>
	<author>Soiden</author>
	<datestamp>1265307960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, a game can be very difficult and be considered GOTY.<br>But what about a game that's easy but sold millions and surely gave mone profit to its company than Demon's Souls? And I'm speaking about New Super Mario Bros. This game is not easy as most 'casual' games, but a gamer can finish it with 99 lives without much effort. And still, it sold a lot, it recieved very good critics, and more importantly, it's fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , a game can be very difficult and be considered GOTY.But what about a game that 's easy but sold millions and surely gave mone profit to its company than Demon 's Souls ?
And I 'm speaking about New Super Mario Bros. This game is not easy as most 'casual ' games , but a gamer can finish it with 99 lives without much effort .
And still , it sold a lot , it recieved very good critics , and more importantly , it 's fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, a game can be very difficult and be considered GOTY.But what about a game that's easy but sold millions and surely gave mone profit to its company than Demon's Souls?
And I'm speaking about New Super Mario Bros. This game is not easy as most 'casual' games, but a gamer can finish it with 99 lives without much effort.
And still, it sold a lot, it recieved very good critics, and more importantly, it's fun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021404</id>
	<title>Re:Translation please...</title>
	<author>Dr. Hellno</author>
	<datestamp>1265294220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>sleeper hit means it sold well, just not right away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>sleeper hit means it sold well , just not right away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sleeper hit means it sold well, just not right away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023994</id>
	<title>Re:I don't find 'difficulty' useful in itself</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1265307120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree - I don't understand the marketability of something based on the fact that its "Difficult". <b>ESPECIALLY</b> on such a subjective matter such as that. I have long since been the guy with no difficulty playing video games. Its not that I was always the Best, because I wasn't, but I never had any problems picking up a game and learning its symantics quickly. My friends played Halo 1, 2, and 3 religiously within succession of each other, never spending much time playing online in any other game. I had played Halo 1 for the PC when it came out, for about 4 months, then I hadn't touched it again. Then one day I was living on my own and I wanted to play Rock Band. Halo 3 came with the 360. After a weekend of playing I was in a comparable field with my friends. They didn't understand reaching rank 45 in a week. I had played it every once in a while with them at a party, but I mean a 10 minute round every 2 months was only enough to make me familiar with the controls. So now a days I'm on par with the guys who spent years playing the game whereas I've only spent months.</p><p>So my buddy recommends Demons Souls, claiming its the most difficult game he's ever encountered. Spoiler alert ahead for those who haven't played it, you are intended to die on the first boss. It took me about 5 minutes, but I got that boss down to 1/5th health. I felt a little upset, knowing that I had actually bested most people who attempt that boss, and that its a horrible game element when something FORCES you to die when it can leave you wondering if you could have survived. If it had actually been able to drop a 1 hit kill attack across the entire room leaving me with ZERO chance of dodging or surviving, I would understand that fight a whole lot more. As it stands, hopping around for 5 minutes carefully attacking leaving me with the same end result left a dis-satisfied taste in my mouth.</p><p>But whatever right? Moving on from that - the game never really got "Difficult", or at least in any of the ways I was expecting. All of the enemies were as easily predictable (even more predictable) than other video games and succeeding in killing them is usually capable with patience with block and attack, or if you know your class you have a few cheap moves at your disposal.</p><p>And from there it essentially boiled down to either A) You're strong enough to do this area, congrats easy mode - or B) You're not strong enough to do this area - you got pwned by the boss's undodgable attack and blocking it destroys all your stamina. Try again later. The non-linear level design will accidentally lead noobs onto veteran bosses, which doesn't make the game hard it makes it stupid. It'd be like Super Mario Brothers having a level that you can't complete without a tail so fly to the other side, but leading you along various platforms to make you think there must be a way to complete the level. I don't recall dieing on any part that wasn't a boss fight. If they had set things up so that you were meant to go through the first boss first and the second boss second (like perhaps doors that required the keys of subsequent bosses) than the game would have been no more difficult than any other game to have come out this decade.</p><p>Take your favourite game, put it on the hardest difficulty, and see how difficult it really CAN be. Not putting in any difficulty scalability, and then combining it with terrible level layouts does not constitute a "good" game. If their aim was to make the game difficult for the sake of being difficult, than they did it in the worst way possible. And for all the wrong reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree - I do n't understand the marketability of something based on the fact that its " Difficult " .
ESPECIALLY on such a subjective matter such as that .
I have long since been the guy with no difficulty playing video games .
Its not that I was always the Best , because I was n't , but I never had any problems picking up a game and learning its symantics quickly .
My friends played Halo 1 , 2 , and 3 religiously within succession of each other , never spending much time playing online in any other game .
I had played Halo 1 for the PC when it came out , for about 4 months , then I had n't touched it again .
Then one day I was living on my own and I wanted to play Rock Band .
Halo 3 came with the 360 .
After a weekend of playing I was in a comparable field with my friends .
They did n't understand reaching rank 45 in a week .
I had played it every once in a while with them at a party , but I mean a 10 minute round every 2 months was only enough to make me familiar with the controls .
So now a days I 'm on par with the guys who spent years playing the game whereas I 've only spent months.So my buddy recommends Demons Souls , claiming its the most difficult game he 's ever encountered .
Spoiler alert ahead for those who have n't played it , you are intended to die on the first boss .
It took me about 5 minutes , but I got that boss down to 1/5th health .
I felt a little upset , knowing that I had actually bested most people who attempt that boss , and that its a horrible game element when something FORCES you to die when it can leave you wondering if you could have survived .
If it had actually been able to drop a 1 hit kill attack across the entire room leaving me with ZERO chance of dodging or surviving , I would understand that fight a whole lot more .
As it stands , hopping around for 5 minutes carefully attacking leaving me with the same end result left a dis-satisfied taste in my mouth.But whatever right ?
Moving on from that - the game never really got " Difficult " , or at least in any of the ways I was expecting .
All of the enemies were as easily predictable ( even more predictable ) than other video games and succeeding in killing them is usually capable with patience with block and attack , or if you know your class you have a few cheap moves at your disposal.And from there it essentially boiled down to either A ) You 're strong enough to do this area , congrats easy mode - or B ) You 're not strong enough to do this area - you got pwned by the boss 's undodgable attack and blocking it destroys all your stamina .
Try again later .
The non-linear level design will accidentally lead noobs onto veteran bosses , which does n't make the game hard it makes it stupid .
It 'd be like Super Mario Brothers having a level that you ca n't complete without a tail so fly to the other side , but leading you along various platforms to make you think there must be a way to complete the level .
I do n't recall dieing on any part that was n't a boss fight .
If they had set things up so that you were meant to go through the first boss first and the second boss second ( like perhaps doors that required the keys of subsequent bosses ) than the game would have been no more difficult than any other game to have come out this decade.Take your favourite game , put it on the hardest difficulty , and see how difficult it really CAN be .
Not putting in any difficulty scalability , and then combining it with terrible level layouts does not constitute a " good " game .
If their aim was to make the game difficult for the sake of being difficult , than they did it in the worst way possible .
And for all the wrong reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree - I don't understand the marketability of something based on the fact that its "Difficult".
ESPECIALLY on such a subjective matter such as that.
I have long since been the guy with no difficulty playing video games.
Its not that I was always the Best, because I wasn't, but I never had any problems picking up a game and learning its symantics quickly.
My friends played Halo 1, 2, and 3 religiously within succession of each other, never spending much time playing online in any other game.
I had played Halo 1 for the PC when it came out, for about 4 months, then I hadn't touched it again.
Then one day I was living on my own and I wanted to play Rock Band.
Halo 3 came with the 360.
After a weekend of playing I was in a comparable field with my friends.
They didn't understand reaching rank 45 in a week.
I had played it every once in a while with them at a party, but I mean a 10 minute round every 2 months was only enough to make me familiar with the controls.
So now a days I'm on par with the guys who spent years playing the game whereas I've only spent months.So my buddy recommends Demons Souls, claiming its the most difficult game he's ever encountered.
Spoiler alert ahead for those who haven't played it, you are intended to die on the first boss.
It took me about 5 minutes, but I got that boss down to 1/5th health.
I felt a little upset, knowing that I had actually bested most people who attempt that boss, and that its a horrible game element when something FORCES you to die when it can leave you wondering if you could have survived.
If it had actually been able to drop a 1 hit kill attack across the entire room leaving me with ZERO chance of dodging or surviving, I would understand that fight a whole lot more.
As it stands, hopping around for 5 minutes carefully attacking leaving me with the same end result left a dis-satisfied taste in my mouth.But whatever right?
Moving on from that - the game never really got "Difficult", or at least in any of the ways I was expecting.
All of the enemies were as easily predictable (even more predictable) than other video games and succeeding in killing them is usually capable with patience with block and attack, or if you know your class you have a few cheap moves at your disposal.And from there it essentially boiled down to either A) You're strong enough to do this area, congrats easy mode - or B) You're not strong enough to do this area - you got pwned by the boss's undodgable attack and blocking it destroys all your stamina.
Try again later.
The non-linear level design will accidentally lead noobs onto veteran bosses, which doesn't make the game hard it makes it stupid.
It'd be like Super Mario Brothers having a level that you can't complete without a tail so fly to the other side, but leading you along various platforms to make you think there must be a way to complete the level.
I don't recall dieing on any part that wasn't a boss fight.
If they had set things up so that you were meant to go through the first boss first and the second boss second (like perhaps doors that required the keys of subsequent bosses) than the game would have been no more difficult than any other game to have come out this decade.Take your favourite game, put it on the hardest difficulty, and see how difficult it really CAN be.
Not putting in any difficulty scalability, and then combining it with terrible level layouts does not constitute a "good" game.
If their aim was to make the game difficult for the sake of being difficult, than they did it in the worst way possible.
And for all the wrong reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020014</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>bertok</author>
	<datestamp>1265277300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer. They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula. BAM! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.</p><p>The secret, which isn't a secret at all, is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming. Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft isn't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again. It's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting. It is the thrill of being able to beat a game but with enough challenge that victory isn't guaranteed.</p></div><p>I totally agree. One of the brilliant things about Supreme Commander is that it matches you against players of equal skill. When I played RTS games before, games were always one of two types: I rolled over the enemy effortlessly, which is boring, or I got crushed like a bug, which is just as boring, and frustrating too. In SC, once it learns your rank, every game is a constant uphill struggle against an opponent you can almost but not quite defeat. It's brutal, but that's what makes it a fun challenge!</p><p>Meanwhile, games like Valve's TF2, L4D, and L4D2, which are <i>highly</i> dependent on not just your own player skill, but the skill of your teammates has zero in the way of skill level based match ups. There's nothing worse than a game with some 13 year old idiot in it. There's always that one prepubescent who got the game 10 minutes ago, but thinks he can do whatever the fuck he wants, including run the wrong way, ignore his team, etc...</p><p>I like to think of this analogy: imagine how stupid it would be if the world championship game of, say, football, had one team member replaced by a fucktard who just does "whatever he feels like", because, you know, "it's just a game", and there would be absolutely <i>nothing</i> the other players could do about it. Does that sound like a good game to you?</p><p>Unfortunately, this is the state of almost all team PC and Console gaming right now. Players with literally 10 years of experience play side-by-side with mouthbreathers who struggle to tie their own shoelaces in the morning, and have difficulty in grasping advanced concepts like "pressing a button fires the weapon". It's common to see 50:1 point ratios on TF2 servers between players, which is just insane, if you stop and think about it.</p><p>Many people would argue that this is what clans are for, but clan games are usually very small, are played only on a subset of the maps, and are few and far between. There's just no opportunity to play, say, a 32-player game for 4 or 5 hours straight with clan-level players only.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer .
They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula .
BAM ! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.The secret , which is n't a secret at all , is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming .
Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft is n't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again .
It 's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting .
It is the thrill of being able to beat a game but with enough challenge that victory is n't guaranteed.I totally agree .
One of the brilliant things about Supreme Commander is that it matches you against players of equal skill .
When I played RTS games before , games were always one of two types : I rolled over the enemy effortlessly , which is boring , or I got crushed like a bug , which is just as boring , and frustrating too .
In SC , once it learns your rank , every game is a constant uphill struggle against an opponent you can almost but not quite defeat .
It 's brutal , but that 's what makes it a fun challenge ! Meanwhile , games like Valve 's TF2 , L4D , and L4D2 , which are highly dependent on not just your own player skill , but the skill of your teammates has zero in the way of skill level based match ups .
There 's nothing worse than a game with some 13 year old idiot in it .
There 's always that one prepubescent who got the game 10 minutes ago , but thinks he can do whatever the fuck he wants , including run the wrong way , ignore his team , etc...I like to think of this analogy : imagine how stupid it would be if the world championship game of , say , football , had one team member replaced by a fucktard who just does " whatever he feels like " , because , you know , " it 's just a game " , and there would be absolutely nothing the other players could do about it .
Does that sound like a good game to you ? Unfortunately , this is the state of almost all team PC and Console gaming right now .
Players with literally 10 years of experience play side-by-side with mouthbreathers who struggle to tie their own shoelaces in the morning , and have difficulty in grasping advanced concepts like " pressing a button fires the weapon " .
It 's common to see 50 : 1 point ratios on TF2 servers between players , which is just insane , if you stop and think about it.Many people would argue that this is what clans are for , but clan games are usually very small , are played only on a subset of the maps , and are few and far between .
There 's just no opportunity to play , say , a 32-player game for 4 or 5 hours straight with clan-level players only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer.
They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula.
BAM! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.The secret, which isn't a secret at all, is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming.
Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft isn't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again.
It's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting.
It is the thrill of being able to beat a game but with enough challenge that victory isn't guaranteed.I totally agree.
One of the brilliant things about Supreme Commander is that it matches you against players of equal skill.
When I played RTS games before, games were always one of two types: I rolled over the enemy effortlessly, which is boring, or I got crushed like a bug, which is just as boring, and frustrating too.
In SC, once it learns your rank, every game is a constant uphill struggle against an opponent you can almost but not quite defeat.
It's brutal, but that's what makes it a fun challenge!Meanwhile, games like Valve's TF2, L4D, and L4D2, which are highly dependent on not just your own player skill, but the skill of your teammates has zero in the way of skill level based match ups.
There's nothing worse than a game with some 13 year old idiot in it.
There's always that one prepubescent who got the game 10 minutes ago, but thinks he can do whatever the fuck he wants, including run the wrong way, ignore his team, etc...I like to think of this analogy: imagine how stupid it would be if the world championship game of, say, football, had one team member replaced by a fucktard who just does "whatever he feels like", because, you know, "it's just a game", and there would be absolutely nothing the other players could do about it.
Does that sound like a good game to you?Unfortunately, this is the state of almost all team PC and Console gaming right now.
Players with literally 10 years of experience play side-by-side with mouthbreathers who struggle to tie their own shoelaces in the morning, and have difficulty in grasping advanced concepts like "pressing a button fires the weapon".
It's common to see 50:1 point ratios on TF2 servers between players, which is just insane, if you stop and think about it.Many people would argue that this is what clans are for, but clan games are usually very small, are played only on a subset of the maps, and are few and far between.
There's just no opportunity to play, say, a 32-player game for 4 or 5 hours straight with clan-level players only.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021486</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1265294820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you played the new Super Mario game? Care to name some other Mario games that are harder?</p></div><p>I've played and finished the new SMB Wii game.<br>A game harder than this is notably SMB2;that is, </p><p><div class="quote"><p>the original SMB2.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Just because it's easy to get into for newbies does NOT make it unchallenging.</p> </div><p>For me, challenging is not the same as difficult. I like games which are easy and interesting to play for the first 1 to 3 hours, yet they are challenging (but not difficult) for the next hours.</p><p>I do not care how long or short the games are. For example "House of Death Overkill", quite a short game, easy to play, but challenging enough to deserve my attention until I finished Director's cut story.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you played the new Super Mario game ?
Care to name some other Mario games that are harder ? I 've played and finished the new SMB Wii game.A game harder than this is notably SMB2 ; that is , the original SMB2.Just because it 's easy to get into for newbies does NOT make it unchallenging .
For me , challenging is not the same as difficult .
I like games which are easy and interesting to play for the first 1 to 3 hours , yet they are challenging ( but not difficult ) for the next hours.I do not care how long or short the games are .
For example " House of Death Overkill " , quite a short game , easy to play , but challenging enough to deserve my attention until I finished Director 's cut story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you played the new Super Mario game?
Care to name some other Mario games that are harder?I've played and finished the new SMB Wii game.A game harder than this is notably SMB2;that is, the original SMB2.Just because it's easy to get into for newbies does NOT make it unchallenging.
For me, challenging is not the same as difficult.
I like games which are easy and interesting to play for the first 1 to 3 hours, yet they are challenging (but not difficult) for the next hours.I do not care how long or short the games are.
For example "House of Death Overkill", quite a short game, easy to play, but challenging enough to deserve my attention until I finished Director's cut story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024516</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Gogo0</author>
	<datestamp>1265309340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is absolutely true.<br>part of what made Demons Souls so great was that it was so well balanced. when you died, 99\% of the time it was your own fault.<br>also, you could play through the game knowing that a pile of rocks wasnt going to fall on you or the floor open up when you stepped on it. there were no cheap hits that artificially added 'difficulty' (frustration).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is absolutely true.part of what made Demons Souls so great was that it was so well balanced .
when you died , 99 \ % of the time it was your own fault.also , you could play through the game knowing that a pile of rocks wasnt going to fall on you or the floor open up when you stepped on it .
there were no cheap hits that artificially added 'difficulty ' ( frustration ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is absolutely true.part of what made Demons Souls so great was that it was so well balanced.
when you died, 99\% of the time it was your own fault.also, you could play through the game knowing that a pile of rocks wasnt going to fall on you or the floor open up when you stepped on it.
there were no cheap hits that artificially added 'difficulty' (frustration).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021062</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>goozer321</author>
	<datestamp>1265291340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most games arre bought by 16s, and most 16s cheat. Developers respond to this by making games that still play well under cheats. Hence games become increasingly difficult.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most games arre bought by 16s , and most 16s cheat .
Developers respond to this by making games that still play well under cheats .
Hence games become increasingly difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most games arre bought by 16s, and most 16s cheat.
Developers respond to this by making games that still play well under cheats.
Hence games become increasingly difficult.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020004</id>
	<title>Case in point: Dragon Age Origins</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265277180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd have to agree that in many ways games today are easier than in the past, however I too have noticed a swing back towards difficulty in a few titles. Most recently in Dragon Age Origins. Even played on the easy setting, it can be brutally difficult in some parts, the spikes are enormous. I prefer to play my RPG's in real-time, provided the game has such a mode, and while the easy setting in DAO is supposed to allow real-time battles, it is not strictly true. In many cases it still takes a huge amount of micro-management, pausing and tactics to succeed in certain battles, and party selection can be a critical point. If you have somehow chosen the wrong party members, spells or equipment, you will be utterly crushed without mercy. Re-loading saves and re-grouping and re-arming your party are common, even on easy difficulty.</p><p>To be honest, the game would be more enjoyable if the difficulty spikes on easy mode were not so severe; several reviewers have also pointed this out. I cannot see playing through this game on the most difficult setting, it would not be enjoyable to me. I'm not saying it should be a walk in the park, a good challenge is welcome, but being brutally beaten time-after-time and re-loading saves again and again is not a good gameplay experience. Adaptive AI is the way to go here, where the game will recognize you have been killed for the 10th time in a row in the last 60 seconds and ease up the difficulty a bit.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, this is one of the finest RPG's in quite a long while, and it has a depth and character development that is very enjoyable. This depth and feeling of character development was missing from recent games like Fallout 3 and Bioshock. While these games have some characteristics of RPG's, they are missing a large chunk of what makes a true RPG, and that's what DAO delivers, despite the difficulty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd have to agree that in many ways games today are easier than in the past , however I too have noticed a swing back towards difficulty in a few titles .
Most recently in Dragon Age Origins .
Even played on the easy setting , it can be brutally difficult in some parts , the spikes are enormous .
I prefer to play my RPG 's in real-time , provided the game has such a mode , and while the easy setting in DAO is supposed to allow real-time battles , it is not strictly true .
In many cases it still takes a huge amount of micro-management , pausing and tactics to succeed in certain battles , and party selection can be a critical point .
If you have somehow chosen the wrong party members , spells or equipment , you will be utterly crushed without mercy .
Re-loading saves and re-grouping and re-arming your party are common , even on easy difficulty.To be honest , the game would be more enjoyable if the difficulty spikes on easy mode were not so severe ; several reviewers have also pointed this out .
I can not see playing through this game on the most difficult setting , it would not be enjoyable to me .
I 'm not saying it should be a walk in the park , a good challenge is welcome , but being brutally beaten time-after-time and re-loading saves again and again is not a good gameplay experience .
Adaptive AI is the way to go here , where the game will recognize you have been killed for the 10th time in a row in the last 60 seconds and ease up the difficulty a bit.Do n't get me wrong , this is one of the finest RPG 's in quite a long while , and it has a depth and character development that is very enjoyable .
This depth and feeling of character development was missing from recent games like Fallout 3 and Bioshock .
While these games have some characteristics of RPG 's , they are missing a large chunk of what makes a true RPG , and that 's what DAO delivers , despite the difficulty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd have to agree that in many ways games today are easier than in the past, however I too have noticed a swing back towards difficulty in a few titles.
Most recently in Dragon Age Origins.
Even played on the easy setting, it can be brutally difficult in some parts, the spikes are enormous.
I prefer to play my RPG's in real-time, provided the game has such a mode, and while the easy setting in DAO is supposed to allow real-time battles, it is not strictly true.
In many cases it still takes a huge amount of micro-management, pausing and tactics to succeed in certain battles, and party selection can be a critical point.
If you have somehow chosen the wrong party members, spells or equipment, you will be utterly crushed without mercy.
Re-loading saves and re-grouping and re-arming your party are common, even on easy difficulty.To be honest, the game would be more enjoyable if the difficulty spikes on easy mode were not so severe; several reviewers have also pointed this out.
I cannot see playing through this game on the most difficult setting, it would not be enjoyable to me.
I'm not saying it should be a walk in the park, a good challenge is welcome, but being brutally beaten time-after-time and re-loading saves again and again is not a good gameplay experience.
Adaptive AI is the way to go here, where the game will recognize you have been killed for the 10th time in a row in the last 60 seconds and ease up the difficulty a bit.Don't get me wrong, this is one of the finest RPG's in quite a long while, and it has a depth and character development that is very enjoyable.
This depth and feeling of character development was missing from recent games like Fallout 3 and Bioshock.
While these games have some characteristics of RPG's, they are missing a large chunk of what makes a true RPG, and that's what DAO delivers, despite the difficulty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025836</id>
	<title>Difficult Saying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265316360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a wise man who once said "If the game doesn't drive you insane at least once, you're not having fun."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a wise man who once said " If the game does n't drive you insane at least once , you 're not having fun .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a wise man who once said "If the game doesn't drive you insane at least once, you're not having fun.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31022684</id>
	<title>Sense of Accomplishment</title>
	<author>formfeed</author>
	<datestamp>1265300880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a game is too easy you feel like just wasted your time. <p>
But after you spent months mastering a difficult game, <br> you can proudly emerge from your basement, <br>knowing that you accomplished something in life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a game is too easy you feel like just wasted your time .
But after you spent months mastering a difficult game , you can proudly emerge from your basement , knowing that you accomplished something in life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a game is too easy you feel like just wasted your time.
But after you spent months mastering a difficult game,  you can proudly emerge from your basement, knowing that you accomplished something in life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019718</id>
	<title>Difficulty</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1265316420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I consider a game to be a failure if I can play through the whole thing the first time through without dying. Final Fantasy VII was this way - I only died and reloaded when taking on the optional challenges like Wrong Number or Ruby.</p><p>A problem I've noted more recently is uneven difficulty levels in a game - they're easy hard at the beginning and then trivial by the end (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 1) or games that appear easy in the first couple levels or your first time through so you kick up the difficulty level to give yourself more of a challenge, and they become ridiculous (Halo 3 Legendary Mode).</p><p>Some games also conflate higher difficulty settings with "being higher level", and make the game impossible if you think "Difficult" could possibly be played by an experienced player with a 1st level character. Dark Alliance 2 was this way. Sacred 2 and Diablo 2 were as well, but at least they made you beat the game once before you could turn on Nightmare difficulty. While you could still be underleveled for it, at least you couldn't stumble into it with a 1st level character, like you could in DA2. Even still, I hate game mechanics that have a "you must be this tall to play" mechanic in place, like in Diablo 2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider a game to be a failure if I can play through the whole thing the first time through without dying .
Final Fantasy VII was this way - I only died and reloaded when taking on the optional challenges like Wrong Number or Ruby.A problem I 've noted more recently is uneven difficulty levels in a game - they 're easy hard at the beginning and then trivial by the end ( Dragon Age , Mass Effect 1 ) or games that appear easy in the first couple levels or your first time through so you kick up the difficulty level to give yourself more of a challenge , and they become ridiculous ( Halo 3 Legendary Mode ) .Some games also conflate higher difficulty settings with " being higher level " , and make the game impossible if you think " Difficult " could possibly be played by an experienced player with a 1st level character .
Dark Alliance 2 was this way .
Sacred 2 and Diablo 2 were as well , but at least they made you beat the game once before you could turn on Nightmare difficulty .
While you could still be underleveled for it , at least you could n't stumble into it with a 1st level character , like you could in DA2 .
Even still , I hate game mechanics that have a " you must be this tall to play " mechanic in place , like in Diablo 2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider a game to be a failure if I can play through the whole thing the first time through without dying.
Final Fantasy VII was this way - I only died and reloaded when taking on the optional challenges like Wrong Number or Ruby.A problem I've noted more recently is uneven difficulty levels in a game - they're easy hard at the beginning and then trivial by the end (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 1) or games that appear easy in the first couple levels or your first time through so you kick up the difficulty level to give yourself more of a challenge, and they become ridiculous (Halo 3 Legendary Mode).Some games also conflate higher difficulty settings with "being higher level", and make the game impossible if you think "Difficult" could possibly be played by an experienced player with a 1st level character.
Dark Alliance 2 was this way.
Sacred 2 and Diablo 2 were as well, but at least they made you beat the game once before you could turn on Nightmare difficulty.
While you could still be underleveled for it, at least you couldn't stumble into it with a 1st level character, like you could in DA2.
Even still, I hate game mechanics that have a "you must be this tall to play" mechanic in place, like in Diablo 2.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31030378</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>lpq</author>
	<datestamp>1265298720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ditto on this balanced bit -- games need to quickly adapt (automatically would be best, but manually is better than nothing) to the player -- to scale up their difficulty as the player shows they are having it too easy, but scaling down difficult if the player is clueless or dying alot.  That's, IMO, should be a grail of game programming.</p><p>Even if someone improves -- game play can be stepped up to provide a challenge.</p><p>It's like in 'learning' any skill -- challenge too hard = discouraging.  Challenge too easy = boring.<br>Either way the 'attention' falls off and the player gets tired of the game.</p><p>-l</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditto on this balanced bit -- games need to quickly adapt ( automatically would be best , but manually is better than nothing ) to the player -- to scale up their difficulty as the player shows they are having it too easy , but scaling down difficult if the player is clueless or dying alot .
That 's , IMO , should be a grail of game programming.Even if someone improves -- game play can be stepped up to provide a challenge.It 's like in 'learning ' any skill -- challenge too hard = discouraging .
Challenge too easy = boring.Either way the 'attention ' falls off and the player gets tired of the game.-l</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditto on this balanced bit -- games need to quickly adapt (automatically would be best, but manually is better than nothing) to the player -- to scale up their difficulty as the player shows they are having it too easy, but scaling down difficult if the player is clueless or dying alot.
That's, IMO, should be a grail of game programming.Even if someone improves -- game play can be stepped up to provide a challenge.It's like in 'learning' any skill -- challenge too hard = discouraging.
Challenge too easy = boring.Either way the 'attention' falls off and the player gets tired of the game.-l</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021252</id>
	<title>A rock falls from the ceiling!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265293080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations, you have reached level 10... a huge rock falls from the ceiling. You die...<br>Would you like to see the last messages before your death?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations , you have reached level 10... a huge rock falls from the ceiling .
You die...Would you like to see the last messages before your death ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations, you have reached level 10... a huge rock falls from the ceiling.
You die...Would you like to see the last messages before your death?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019996</id>
	<title>Re:People want accomplishment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265277000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People like to win, of course. But if that win is easy to achive, the achivement feels hollow. Anyone could have done it.</p></div><p>Seems to me that developers can often hide how easy a win is, making an easy win feel like an accomplishment.  Peggle, like many puzzle style games, doesn't require much skill.  A lot of it comes down to knowing the ins and the outs of the game, and chance.  After you learn how to play it, you'll make a play that happens to come out well by chance.  It's easy to feel like you played that well and have an enjoyable sense of achievement, when really you got lucky... although I guess another way of looking at it is not that your skill is making the ball go exactly where you want it, the skill is playing the odds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People like to win , of course .
But if that win is easy to achive , the achivement feels hollow .
Anyone could have done it.Seems to me that developers can often hide how easy a win is , making an easy win feel like an accomplishment .
Peggle , like many puzzle style games , does n't require much skill .
A lot of it comes down to knowing the ins and the outs of the game , and chance .
After you learn how to play it , you 'll make a play that happens to come out well by chance .
It 's easy to feel like you played that well and have an enjoyable sense of achievement , when really you got lucky... although I guess another way of looking at it is not that your skill is making the ball go exactly where you want it , the skill is playing the odds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like to win, of course.
But if that win is easy to achive, the achivement feels hollow.
Anyone could have done it.Seems to me that developers can often hide how easy a win is, making an easy win feel like an accomplishment.
Peggle, like many puzzle style games, doesn't require much skill.
A lot of it comes down to knowing the ins and the outs of the game, and chance.
After you learn how to play it, you'll make a play that happens to come out well by chance.
It's easy to feel like you played that well and have an enjoyable sense of achievement, when really you got lucky... although I guess another way of looking at it is not that your skill is making the ball go exactly where you want it, the skill is playing the odds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019898</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Fire\_Storm82</author>
	<datestamp>1265275800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The secret, which isn't a secret at all, is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming. Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft isn't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again. It's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting.</p></div><p>Thats exactly whats wrong with a lot  games today. games that a made so that even if you are grizzly korean with a lot of skill and experience, you're still on the same level casual player that doesnt care. by heavily crippling the players or making thier actual actions or less relevant, but they are both crippled equally, so its fun?
</p><p>

Harder games make you improve, understand the game better, actually overcome obstacles. Remember that boss or level you thought you'd never ever beat, but finally got it, and now it seems easy? </p><p>


Difficult to master video games make you learn a skill. Making it more difficult makes you have to improve more to master it, thats where the real fun comes in. Getting so close, almost being able to beat that guy not knowing how the next battles gonna go makes is what makes it thrilling. </p><p>


Easy games just don't challenge you, don't really engage you. Theres no reward or payoff if you don't overcome anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The secret , which is n't a secret at all , is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming .
Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft is n't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again .
It 's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting.Thats exactly whats wrong with a lot games today .
games that a made so that even if you are grizzly korean with a lot of skill and experience , you 're still on the same level casual player that doesnt care .
by heavily crippling the players or making thier actual actions or less relevant , but they are both crippled equally , so its fun ?
Harder games make you improve , understand the game better , actually overcome obstacles .
Remember that boss or level you thought you 'd never ever beat , but finally got it , and now it seems easy ?
Difficult to master video games make you learn a skill .
Making it more difficult makes you have to improve more to master it , thats where the real fun comes in .
Getting so close , almost being able to beat that guy not knowing how the next battles gon na go makes is what makes it thrilling .
Easy games just do n't challenge you , do n't really engage you .
Theres no reward or payoff if you do n't overcome anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The secret, which isn't a secret at all, is that balanced gameplay is the true Sangreal of gaming.
Pitting a newbie against a grizzled Korean veteran in Starcraft isn't going to give anyone a challenge or make them feel like they want to come back to the game again.
It's only when the players are evenly matched or only slightly mismatched that gameplay becomes exciting.Thats exactly whats wrong with a lot  games today.
games that a made so that even if you are grizzly korean with a lot of skill and experience, you're still on the same level casual player that doesnt care.
by heavily crippling the players or making thier actual actions or less relevant, but they are both crippled equally, so its fun?
Harder games make you improve, understand the game better, actually overcome obstacles.
Remember that boss or level you thought you'd never ever beat, but finally got it, and now it seems easy?
Difficult to master video games make you learn a skill.
Making it more difficult makes you have to improve more to master it, thats where the real fun comes in.
Getting so close, almost being able to beat that guy not knowing how the next battles gonna go makes is what makes it thrilling.
Easy games just don't challenge you, don't really engage you.
Theres no reward or payoff if you don't overcome anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025948</id>
	<title>Re:Demon's Souls is a bad example</title>
	<author>KyoMamoru</author>
	<datestamp>1265316960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing with Demon's Souls is that though the game is initially difficult, you find the design holes and exploit them. After all, you remind yourself, the game is hard, so I should use every cheap method of winning that I can think of. For example, every guide and player swears by using a Thief Ring [reduces aggro range] so that you can always have the first hit on your opponent at a range. In fact, many enemies won't even react to the first hit. Many guides suggest abusing this hole in AI/Game design as much as possible from the first foe to the final boss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing with Demon 's Souls is that though the game is initially difficult , you find the design holes and exploit them .
After all , you remind yourself , the game is hard , so I should use every cheap method of winning that I can think of .
For example , every guide and player swears by using a Thief Ring [ reduces aggro range ] so that you can always have the first hit on your opponent at a range .
In fact , many enemies wo n't even react to the first hit .
Many guides suggest abusing this hole in AI/Game design as much as possible from the first foe to the final boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing with Demon's Souls is that though the game is initially difficult, you find the design holes and exploit them.
After all, you remind yourself, the game is hard, so I should use every cheap method of winning that I can think of.
For example, every guide and player swears by using a Thief Ring [reduces aggro range] so that you can always have the first hit on your opponent at a range.
In fact, many enemies won't even react to the first hit.
Many guides suggest abusing this hole in AI/Game design as much as possible from the first foe to the final boss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019594</id>
	<title>Virtual virtues</title>
	<author>You'reJustSlashFlock</author>
	<datestamp>1265314740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't get enough money to hire two hookers at the same time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get enough money to hire two hookers at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get enough money to hire two hookers at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020282</id>
	<title>Re:People want accomplishment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265281560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something given has no value.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something given has no value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something given has no value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019850</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Yetihehe</author>
	<datestamp>1265275200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still remember my first hard pc game. It was so hard I couldn't even run it. I was so frustrated I made special mount for small electric engine (3v), connected it to 12v, and scratched off all the silver stuff from top of the CD. This was the most fulfilling game experience I've ever had in my life, I can't even remember the game's name.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still remember my first hard pc game .
It was so hard I could n't even run it .
I was so frustrated I made special mount for small electric engine ( 3v ) , connected it to 12v , and scratched off all the silver stuff from top of the CD .
This was the most fulfilling game experience I 've ever had in my life , I ca n't even remember the game 's name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still remember my first hard pc game.
It was so hard I couldn't even run it.
I was so frustrated I made special mount for small electric engine (3v), connected it to 12v, and scratched off all the silver stuff from top of the CD.
This was the most fulfilling game experience I've ever had in my life, I can't even remember the game's name.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023202</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265303280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you for nitpicking the details and completely ignoring the whole point of the comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for nitpicking the details and completely ignoring the whole point of the comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for nitpicking the details and completely ignoring the whole point of the comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020036</id>
	<title>Re:Fake Difficulty</title>
	<author>CrazyJim1</author>
	<datestamp>1265277600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Warcraft3 AI only was charged like 1 gold per unit or something so you couldn't starve the AI.<br> <br>
Starcraft always knew all your units and built counter units.<br> <br>

Starcraft2 they say is supposed to have really keen ai that even needs to learn through fog of war, but we'll see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Warcraft3 AI only was charged like 1 gold per unit or something so you could n't starve the AI .
Starcraft always knew all your units and built counter units .
Starcraft2 they say is supposed to have really keen ai that even needs to learn through fog of war , but we 'll see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warcraft3 AI only was charged like 1 gold per unit or something so you couldn't starve the AI.
Starcraft always knew all your units and built counter units.
Starcraft2 they say is supposed to have really keen ai that even needs to learn through fog of war, but we'll see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019682</id>
	<title>People want accomplishment</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1265316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People like to win, of course. But if that win is easy to achive, the achivement feels hollow. Anyone could have done it. People also enjoy the feeling of being "special". And I don't mean in the PC sense. They want to have the feeling they did something not everyone could do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People like to win , of course .
But if that win is easy to achive , the achivement feels hollow .
Anyone could have done it .
People also enjoy the feeling of being " special " .
And I do n't mean in the PC sense .
They want to have the feeling they did something not everyone could do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like to win, of course.
But if that win is easy to achive, the achivement feels hollow.
Anyone could have done it.
People also enjoy the feeling of being "special".
And I don't mean in the PC sense.
They want to have the feeling they did something not everyone could do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023450</id>
	<title>Re:Having fun</title>
	<author>musicalmicah</author>
	<datestamp>1265304420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The point of a game is to have fun.  Period.</p></div><p>Maybe that's the original intent of the user, but oftentimes what keeps a game selling is often not how "fun" it is, but rather, how "engaging" or "immersive" it is. Sure, games can have all those qualities, but sometimes when the "fun" disappears, lots of gamers will continue to play for the immersion. Case example: every massively multiplayer game ever made. I know I've definitely put in hour after hour while not having fun, but just being "sucked into" a game world or set of objectives.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of a game is to have fun .
Period.Maybe that 's the original intent of the user , but oftentimes what keeps a game selling is often not how " fun " it is , but rather , how " engaging " or " immersive " it is .
Sure , games can have all those qualities , but sometimes when the " fun " disappears , lots of gamers will continue to play for the immersion .
Case example : every massively multiplayer game ever made .
I know I 've definitely put in hour after hour while not having fun , but just being " sucked into " a game world or set of objectives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of a game is to have fun.
Period.Maybe that's the original intent of the user, but oftentimes what keeps a game selling is often not how "fun" it is, but rather, how "engaging" or "immersive" it is.
Sure, games can have all those qualities, but sometimes when the "fun" disappears, lots of gamers will continue to play for the immersion.
Case example: every massively multiplayer game ever made.
I know I've definitely put in hour after hour while not having fun, but just being "sucked into" a game world or set of objectives.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020834</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265289120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Some random loser on Slashdot considers one of the most heralded video games of all time to be a 'failure', because he claims that he only 'reloaded' (wtf?) twice.</p><p>Anything else you'd like to share, Mr. game expert?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Some random loser on Slashdot considers one of the most heralded video games of all time to be a 'failure ' , because he claims that he only 'reloaded ' ( wtf ?
) twice.Anything else you 'd like to share , Mr. game expert ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Some random loser on Slashdot considers one of the most heralded video games of all time to be a 'failure', because he claims that he only 'reloaded' (wtf?
) twice.Anything else you'd like to share, Mr. game expert?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020138</id>
	<title>Re:Difficulty(&amp;sometimes bugs!)gives a game ch</title>
	<author>mogness</author>
	<datestamp>1265279280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>omg Ninja Gaiden.... i hated that game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>omg Ninja Gaiden.... i hated that game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>omg Ninja Gaiden.... i hated that game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023982</id>
	<title>Re:Difficulty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265307060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least in Diablo II you can rush through the easy difficulty really fast by being good. The original Diablo required that you level up before playing higher difficulties.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least in Diablo II you can rush through the easy difficulty really fast by being good .
The original Diablo required that you level up before playing higher difficulties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least in Diablo II you can rush through the easy difficulty really fast by being good.
The original Diablo required that you level up before playing higher difficulties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021228</id>
	<title>Re:Case in point: Dragon Age Origins</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1265292960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate adaptive AIs, when I run against something over and over that means I want to develop the skills to beat it instead of it giving in because it doesn't want me to struggle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate adaptive AIs , when I run against something over and over that means I want to develop the skills to beat it instead of it giving in because it does n't want me to struggle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate adaptive AIs, when I run against something over and over that means I want to develop the skills to beat it instead of it giving in because it doesn't want me to struggle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025020</id>
	<title>Un-Mod as Troll both parent &amp; replies</title>
	<author>cmdrwhitewolf</author>
	<datestamp>1265311740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't know why this post and all of replies are marked incorrectly as trolls. None of the posts seem to warrant such moderation to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know why this post and all of replies are marked incorrectly as trolls .
None of the posts seem to warrant such moderation to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know why this post and all of replies are marked incorrectly as trolls.
None of the posts seem to warrant such moderation to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019650</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019838</id>
	<title>Difficulty, what?</title>
	<author>Kenoli</author>
	<datestamp>1265275020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From gamespot:<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...<br>Demon's Souls is an extraordinary blend of the old and the new, and the result is so distinctive that it's hard to even find games to compare it to. Yes, it's a hard game. It is ruthlessly, unforgivingly difficult. But it is also amazingly compelling and rewarding, because the tools you need to survive are built into the very fabric of the experience. Demon's Souls is innovative, immersive, and immensely entertaining--and the best game of 2009.</p></div><p>I wouldn't exactly call that 'compelling evidence that hard=good'.<br>
It's almost like they're saying it's good <i>despite</i> being hard, because of all other interesting things in the game.<br>
<br>
Either way, gamespot picking Demon's Souls as game of the year doesn't mean squat. Sure, difficulty is important for any game, but it's not the all-important defining characteristic that determines overall success.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From gamespot : ...Demon 's Souls is an extraordinary blend of the old and the new , and the result is so distinctive that it 's hard to even find games to compare it to .
Yes , it 's a hard game .
It is ruthlessly , unforgivingly difficult .
But it is also amazingly compelling and rewarding , because the tools you need to survive are built into the very fabric of the experience .
Demon 's Souls is innovative , immersive , and immensely entertaining--and the best game of 2009.I would n't exactly call that 'compelling evidence that hard = good' .
It 's almost like they 're saying it 's good despite being hard , because of all other interesting things in the game .
Either way , gamespot picking Demon 's Souls as game of the year does n't mean squat .
Sure , difficulty is important for any game , but it 's not the all-important defining characteristic that determines overall success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From gamespot: ...Demon's Souls is an extraordinary blend of the old and the new, and the result is so distinctive that it's hard to even find games to compare it to.
Yes, it's a hard game.
It is ruthlessly, unforgivingly difficult.
But it is also amazingly compelling and rewarding, because the tools you need to survive are built into the very fabric of the experience.
Demon's Souls is innovative, immersive, and immensely entertaining--and the best game of 2009.I wouldn't exactly call that 'compelling evidence that hard=good'.
It's almost like they're saying it's good despite being hard, because of all other interesting things in the game.
Either way, gamespot picking Demon's Souls as game of the year doesn't mean squat.
Sure, difficulty is important for any game, but it's not the all-important defining characteristic that determines overall success.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265275800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not the ONLY road to success. But it's part of the secret blend of herbs and spices.</p><p>It's not about cranking the difficulty up until it becomes impossible. Impossible enough <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQHJDt0icnI" title="youtube.com">even a bot can't succeed anymore</a> [youtube.com]. That's not enjoyable.</p><p>It's about finding that sweet spot where it is doable but a challenge. This is, of course, something different for everyone. Hell, there's a good reason why difficulty levels are so popular in games. Let's stay with Guitar Hero since it's been the example in the video. Would it be fun to play that game if all you have to do is hit a note throughout the entire song? Probably not even for a beginner. Take games like Burnout. Would it be enjoyable if the winning time is set to a level where you could basically stop to take a piss during the game? Would any game be enjoyable if it had an "I win" button? Maybe for a moment, but certainly not for long.</p><p>It's boring to win constantly without even having to try. Why bother playing?</p><p>Likewise, it's frustrating if a game is so friggin' hard that it simply is not fun anymore either. Constant failure is like constant success: Unsatisfying.</p><p>People like a challenge in their game, at least if the game itself is the gratification. Of course people like easy money, but only because the money is just the means to the end. And some people enjoy cheating in multiplayer games, but the gratification seems to be seeing the other person get frustrated (at least that's my assumption, maybe a cheater could shed some light on this one). But when you play against the computer, why bother playing when you have already won?</p><p>The challenge is the key. It has to be a challenge, but it has to be doable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not the ONLY road to success .
But it 's part of the secret blend of herbs and spices.It 's not about cranking the difficulty up until it becomes impossible .
Impossible enough even a bot ca n't succeed anymore [ youtube.com ] .
That 's not enjoyable.It 's about finding that sweet spot where it is doable but a challenge .
This is , of course , something different for everyone .
Hell , there 's a good reason why difficulty levels are so popular in games .
Let 's stay with Guitar Hero since it 's been the example in the video .
Would it be fun to play that game if all you have to do is hit a note throughout the entire song ?
Probably not even for a beginner .
Take games like Burnout .
Would it be enjoyable if the winning time is set to a level where you could basically stop to take a piss during the game ?
Would any game be enjoyable if it had an " I win " button ?
Maybe for a moment , but certainly not for long.It 's boring to win constantly without even having to try .
Why bother playing ? Likewise , it 's frustrating if a game is so friggin ' hard that it simply is not fun anymore either .
Constant failure is like constant success : Unsatisfying.People like a challenge in their game , at least if the game itself is the gratification .
Of course people like easy money , but only because the money is just the means to the end .
And some people enjoy cheating in multiplayer games , but the gratification seems to be seeing the other person get frustrated ( at least that 's my assumption , maybe a cheater could shed some light on this one ) .
But when you play against the computer , why bother playing when you have already won ? The challenge is the key .
It has to be a challenge , but it has to be doable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not the ONLY road to success.
But it's part of the secret blend of herbs and spices.It's not about cranking the difficulty up until it becomes impossible.
Impossible enough even a bot can't succeed anymore [youtube.com].
That's not enjoyable.It's about finding that sweet spot where it is doable but a challenge.
This is, of course, something different for everyone.
Hell, there's a good reason why difficulty levels are so popular in games.
Let's stay with Guitar Hero since it's been the example in the video.
Would it be fun to play that game if all you have to do is hit a note throughout the entire song?
Probably not even for a beginner.
Take games like Burnout.
Would it be enjoyable if the winning time is set to a level where you could basically stop to take a piss during the game?
Would any game be enjoyable if it had an "I win" button?
Maybe for a moment, but certainly not for long.It's boring to win constantly without even having to try.
Why bother playing?Likewise, it's frustrating if a game is so friggin' hard that it simply is not fun anymore either.
Constant failure is like constant success: Unsatisfying.People like a challenge in their game, at least if the game itself is the gratification.
Of course people like easy money, but only because the money is just the means to the end.
And some people enjoy cheating in multiplayer games, but the gratification seems to be seeing the other person get frustrated (at least that's my assumption, maybe a cheater could shed some light on this one).
But when you play against the computer, why bother playing when you have already won?The challenge is the key.
It has to be a challenge, but it has to be doable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023762</id>
	<title>Re:Having fun</title>
	<author>Feyshtey</author>
	<datestamp>1265305860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And people should have choices.
<br>
<br>

Your premise is sound; The point of the game is to have fun. Your logic is flawed.
<br>
<br>

How does one have fun doing what they find fun, if no one makes a product they find fun because the majority (and that's an assumption) demand ease of access and nearly garuanteed progress.
<br>
<br>

Quite often the people saying that they dislike the 'easy mode' games or the gimme skill levels are vilified as "telling others that they're doing it wrong", when the reality is those being vilified are just desperate for someone, -anyone- to make a game that they find fun themselves.
<br> <br>

It's easy to get pissed at a group who are telling you that what you're doing is wrong when you have what you want. But consider the frustration of that group who have little they find fun because every developer seems dead-set to make what you want. Consider that it's largely the whining about things being too difficult (i.e. - telling someone that what they find fun is wrong...) that has curbed the industry's practice of presenting challenges on any notable scale.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And people should have choices .
Your premise is sound ; The point of the game is to have fun .
Your logic is flawed .
How does one have fun doing what they find fun , if no one makes a product they find fun because the majority ( and that 's an assumption ) demand ease of access and nearly garuanteed progress .
Quite often the people saying that they dislike the 'easy mode ' games or the gim me skill levels are vilified as " telling others that they 're doing it wrong " , when the reality is those being vilified are just desperate for someone , -anyone- to make a game that they find fun themselves .
It 's easy to get pissed at a group who are telling you that what you 're doing is wrong when you have what you want .
But consider the frustration of that group who have little they find fun because every developer seems dead-set to make what you want .
Consider that it 's largely the whining about things being too difficult ( i.e .
- telling someone that what they find fun is wrong... ) that has curbed the industry 's practice of presenting challenges on any notable scale .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And people should have choices.
Your premise is sound; The point of the game is to have fun.
Your logic is flawed.
How does one have fun doing what they find fun, if no one makes a product they find fun because the majority (and that's an assumption) demand ease of access and nearly garuanteed progress.
Quite often the people saying that they dislike the 'easy mode' games or the gimme skill levels are vilified as "telling others that they're doing it wrong", when the reality is those being vilified are just desperate for someone, -anyone- to make a game that they find fun themselves.
It's easy to get pissed at a group who are telling you that what you're doing is wrong when you have what you want.
But consider the frustration of that group who have little they find fun because every developer seems dead-set to make what you want.
Consider that it's largely the whining about things being too difficult (i.e.
- telling someone that what they find fun is wrong...) that has curbed the industry's practice of presenting challenges on any notable scale.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021644</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265295600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your goal is 100\% completion then New Super Mario Bros. Wii is a challenge. However if to you, as it is to many, "beating" the game entails reaching the final boss and defeating him, then I would say NSMB Wii is much easier than many of it's predecessors, such as SMB3.  While the final bowser battle in NSMB Wii was fun, I was somewhat dsappointed that I got through it on the first try (especially since I had racked up scores of lives while playing through the levels and was finally hoping to need to use a few of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your goal is 100 \ % completion then New Super Mario Bros. Wii is a challenge .
However if to you , as it is to many , " beating " the game entails reaching the final boss and defeating him , then I would say NSMB Wii is much easier than many of it 's predecessors , such as SMB3 .
While the final bowser battle in NSMB Wii was fun , I was somewhat dsappointed that I got through it on the first try ( especially since I had racked up scores of lives while playing through the levels and was finally hoping to need to use a few of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your goal is 100\% completion then New Super Mario Bros. Wii is a challenge.
However if to you, as it is to many, "beating" the game entails reaching the final boss and defeating him, then I would say NSMB Wii is much easier than many of it's predecessors, such as SMB3.
While the final bowser battle in NSMB Wii was fun, I was somewhat dsappointed that I got through it on the first try (especially since I had racked up scores of lives while playing through the levels and was finally hoping to need to use a few of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31108904</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265903160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No pausing? No ability to save, even to a single constantly overwritten slot, just in case? There is difficult, there is masochistic, and then there is just plain bad game design. I don't regard having to find a safe spot before being able to take a leak or answer the phone to be 'hardcore', just stupid.</p></div><p>How many good multiplayer games can be paused? I think it is safe to say that From may have chose not to include a pause function due the pseudo-persistent world design of Demon's Souls. Enabling/disabling pause every time you got invaded? Sounds like fun. You must be a game designer.</p><p>In soul form, you could stand in a lot of places on almost any level and be completely safe forever. It is not that difficult.</p><p>Also, from the in-game menu inside any of the five worlds, choose Quit Game or whatever it is called. The game saves your location and progress, and you can pick up right where you left off.</p><p>Seems like a single, constantly overwritten slot to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No pausing ?
No ability to save , even to a single constantly overwritten slot , just in case ?
There is difficult , there is masochistic , and then there is just plain bad game design .
I do n't regard having to find a safe spot before being able to take a leak or answer the phone to be 'hardcore ' , just stupid.How many good multiplayer games can be paused ?
I think it is safe to say that From may have chose not to include a pause function due the pseudo-persistent world design of Demon 's Souls .
Enabling/disabling pause every time you got invaded ?
Sounds like fun .
You must be a game designer.In soul form , you could stand in a lot of places on almost any level and be completely safe forever .
It is not that difficult.Also , from the in-game menu inside any of the five worlds , choose Quit Game or whatever it is called .
The game saves your location and progress , and you can pick up right where you left off.Seems like a single , constantly overwritten slot to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No pausing?
No ability to save, even to a single constantly overwritten slot, just in case?
There is difficult, there is masochistic, and then there is just plain bad game design.
I don't regard having to find a safe spot before being able to take a leak or answer the phone to be 'hardcore', just stupid.How many good multiplayer games can be paused?
I think it is safe to say that From may have chose not to include a pause function due the pseudo-persistent world design of Demon's Souls.
Enabling/disabling pause every time you got invaded?
Sounds like fun.
You must be a game designer.In soul form, you could stand in a lot of places on almost any level and be completely safe forever.
It is not that difficult.Also, from the in-game menu inside any of the five worlds, choose Quit Game or whatever it is called.
The game saves your location and progress, and you can pick up right where you left off.Seems like a single, constantly overwritten slot to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023666</id>
	<title>Re:New games need to get rid of auto health regen</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1265305440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>New games need to get rid of auto health regeneration or at least make it a power up / upgrade that uses power.</p><p>I don't that deus ex 3 will have it deus ex 1 had a good system it was a upgrade that used up power. IF you don't want people to back track a lot add more med kits / have no limit on how many you can carry at one time.</p></div><p>Nonsense, auto-regen and more health kits are both desperate hacks to the real problem: Bullets need to stop hurting so much!</p><p>Honestly I'd like to see more games that, you know, actually make bullets lethal and humans much more human. I'd have fun with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>New games need to get rid of auto health regeneration or at least make it a power up / upgrade that uses power.I do n't that deus ex 3 will have it deus ex 1 had a good system it was a upgrade that used up power .
IF you do n't want people to back track a lot add more med kits / have no limit on how many you can carry at one time.Nonsense , auto-regen and more health kits are both desperate hacks to the real problem : Bullets need to stop hurting so much ! Honestly I 'd like to see more games that , you know , actually make bullets lethal and humans much more human .
I 'd have fun with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New games need to get rid of auto health regeneration or at least make it a power up / upgrade that uses power.I don't that deus ex 3 will have it deus ex 1 had a good system it was a upgrade that used up power.
IF you don't want people to back track a lot add more med kits / have no limit on how many you can carry at one time.Nonsense, auto-regen and more health kits are both desperate hacks to the real problem: Bullets need to stop hurting so much!Honestly I'd like to see more games that, you know, actually make bullets lethal and humans much more human.
I'd have fun with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021204</id>
	<title>Re:Games should not feel like work</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1265292780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes pushing yourself to the limit and trying to figure out just how the fuck you're supposed to beat that is a part of the game's fun. Some multiplayer games feel like stupid repetition unless you deal with someone of an appropriately high skill. E.g. RTSes aren't really much fun if all you do is amass a gigantic army and then attack move over anything of a different color, they are much more fun when you have to balance your constraints like resources and leaving yourself open in the hope that your opponent cannot capitalize on it fast enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes pushing yourself to the limit and trying to figure out just how the fuck you 're supposed to beat that is a part of the game 's fun .
Some multiplayer games feel like stupid repetition unless you deal with someone of an appropriately high skill .
E.g. RTSes are n't really much fun if all you do is amass a gigantic army and then attack move over anything of a different color , they are much more fun when you have to balance your constraints like resources and leaving yourself open in the hope that your opponent can not capitalize on it fast enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes pushing yourself to the limit and trying to figure out just how the fuck you're supposed to beat that is a part of the game's fun.
Some multiplayer games feel like stupid repetition unless you deal with someone of an appropriately high skill.
E.g. RTSes aren't really much fun if all you do is amass a gigantic army and then attack move over anything of a different color, they are much more fun when you have to balance your constraints like resources and leaving yourself open in the hope that your opponent cannot capitalize on it fast enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020054</id>
	<title>Re:Demon's Souls is a bad example</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265277840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Strictly speaking Demon's Souls isn't a <i>hard</i> game, as once you get into the hang of it you'll find that most deaths come from lack of carelessness.</p></div><p>Yeah, I know I really have a problem with that lack of carelessness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strictly speaking Demon 's Souls is n't a hard game , as once you get into the hang of it you 'll find that most deaths come from lack of carelessness.Yeah , I know I really have a problem with that lack of carelessness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strictly speaking Demon's Souls isn't a hard game, as once you get into the hang of it you'll find that most deaths come from lack of carelessness.Yeah, I know I really have a problem with that lack of carelessness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019722</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31058410</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265569920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Congratulation! You've lived up to your nick Yet Again!</p></div><p>I, at the least, would be thoroughly disappointed if they didn't.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulation !
You 've lived up to your nick Yet Again ! I , at the least , would be thoroughly disappointed if they did n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulation!
You've lived up to your nick Yet Again!I, at the least, would be thoroughly disappointed if they didn't.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024238</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>fprintf</author>
	<datestamp>1265308260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was a newbie to TF2 last October (bought the game for $2 I think) and I constantly got rolled the first few weeks/months. It was only through persistence and the encouragement of my 13-year old son, who is very accomplished at the game, that I stuck with it and started to achieve positive kill/death ratios. I will also note that the public servers I play on (UO, Stompfest, Reddit), folks have been generally encouraging, even when doing something stupid. Not always ("move that sentry gun a$$hole!") but surprisingly often.</p><p>So where does one go to learn these multiplayer games, if not on a public server matched up against people who have been playing for months or years?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was a newbie to TF2 last October ( bought the game for $ 2 I think ) and I constantly got rolled the first few weeks/months .
It was only through persistence and the encouragement of my 13-year old son , who is very accomplished at the game , that I stuck with it and started to achieve positive kill/death ratios .
I will also note that the public servers I play on ( UO , Stompfest , Reddit ) , folks have been generally encouraging , even when doing something stupid .
Not always ( " move that sentry gun a $ $ hole !
" ) but surprisingly often.So where does one go to learn these multiplayer games , if not on a public server matched up against people who have been playing for months or years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was a newbie to TF2 last October (bought the game for $2 I think) and I constantly got rolled the first few weeks/months.
It was only through persistence and the encouragement of my 13-year old son, who is very accomplished at the game, that I stuck with it and started to achieve positive kill/death ratios.
I will also note that the public servers I play on (UO, Stompfest, Reddit), folks have been generally encouraging, even when doing something stupid.
Not always ("move that sentry gun a$$hole!
") but surprisingly often.So where does one go to learn these multiplayer games, if not on a public server matched up against people who have been playing for months or years?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019738</id>
	<title>IWannaBeTheGuy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265316660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>anyone played it ? that is fun. and hard.<br>seriously.<br>hardest game ever</p><p>I'm in the half of the game. 1091 deaths...</p><p>http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/<br>try it, and die. many many times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>anyone played it ?
that is fun .
and hard.seriously.hardest game everI 'm in the half of the game .
1091 deaths...http : //kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/try it , and die .
many many times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>anyone played it ?
that is fun.
and hard.seriously.hardest game everI'm in the half of the game.
1091 deaths...http://kayin.pyoko.org/iwbtg/try it, and die.
many many times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019678</id>
	<title>Having fun</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1265316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The point of a game is to have fun.  Period.<br><br>Some players find difficulty fun, and some players find that frustrating instead.  Telling people that they must play on higher difficulties to have fun is like proclaiming that football is more fun than baseball or tennis.<br><br>The problem really are those few players who seem to find fun in telling others that they're doing it wrong.  People should worry about themselves, not what others are doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of a game is to have fun .
Period.Some players find difficulty fun , and some players find that frustrating instead .
Telling people that they must play on higher difficulties to have fun is like proclaiming that football is more fun than baseball or tennis.The problem really are those few players who seem to find fun in telling others that they 're doing it wrong .
People should worry about themselves , not what others are doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of a game is to have fun.
Period.Some players find difficulty fun, and some players find that frustrating instead.
Telling people that they must play on higher difficulties to have fun is like proclaiming that football is more fun than baseball or tennis.The problem really are those few players who seem to find fun in telling others that they're doing it wrong.
People should worry about themselves, not what others are doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019774</id>
	<title>Chromium B.S.U. is supposed to be hard!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the FAQ:</p><p>Q: I keep getting killed. Why is is so difficult?<br>A: Quitcher whinin', you ninny! It's supposed to be hard! Seriously, the game is intended to be a 15 minute adrenaline rush/mental cleanser. Frequent doses of explosions (even your own) can be very therapeutic.</p><p>http://chromium-bsu.sourceforge.net/faq.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the FAQ : Q : I keep getting killed .
Why is is so difficult ? A : Quitcher whinin ' , you ninny !
It 's supposed to be hard !
Seriously , the game is intended to be a 15 minute adrenaline rush/mental cleanser .
Frequent doses of explosions ( even your own ) can be very therapeutic.http : //chromium-bsu.sourceforge.net/faq.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the FAQ:Q: I keep getting killed.
Why is is so difficult?A: Quitcher whinin', you ninny!
It's supposed to be hard!
Seriously, the game is intended to be a 15 minute adrenaline rush/mental cleanser.
Frequent doses of explosions (even your own) can be very therapeutic.http://chromium-bsu.sourceforge.net/faq.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020772</id>
	<title>Re:Difficulty(&amp;sometimes bugs!)gives a game ch</title>
	<author>Lisandro</author>
	<datestamp>1265288160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>or example, the Ninja Gaiden games on the NES would not fly in today's gaming community, except among a small, masochistic market segment.</i></p><p>I hear that the newer versions of NG (XBox et all) are insanely difficult, just as the original.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or example , the Ninja Gaiden games on the NES would not fly in today 's gaming community , except among a small , masochistic market segment.I hear that the newer versions of NG ( XBox et all ) are insanely difficult , just as the original .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or example, the Ninja Gaiden games on the NES would not fly in today's gaming community, except among a small, masochistic market segment.I hear that the newer versions of NG (XBox et all) are insanely difficult, just as the original.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31026844</id>
	<title>Have you tried Ikaruga?</title>
	<author>smd75</author>
	<datestamp>1265277300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the best games I have ever seen was Ikaruga. I had to use a continue on the Training mode set on EASY. The game is freaking fantastic though.</p><p>I think difficulty is a good thing, but frustratingly impossible is another thing altogether.</p><p>I love Final Fantasy Tactics, but if you forgot about what you were doing and went into a particular mission underprepared, the previous 4+ hours you put into the game were for nothing, since you cant win and you cant leave.<br>I even got frustrated (after I beat Super Mario Wii) in trying to collect all the coins, that was tough, but beyond necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the best games I have ever seen was Ikaruga .
I had to use a continue on the Training mode set on EASY .
The game is freaking fantastic though.I think difficulty is a good thing , but frustratingly impossible is another thing altogether.I love Final Fantasy Tactics , but if you forgot about what you were doing and went into a particular mission underprepared , the previous 4 + hours you put into the game were for nothing , since you cant win and you cant leave.I even got frustrated ( after I beat Super Mario Wii ) in trying to collect all the coins , that was tough , but beyond necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the best games I have ever seen was Ikaruga.
I had to use a continue on the Training mode set on EASY.
The game is freaking fantastic though.I think difficulty is a good thing, but frustratingly impossible is another thing altogether.I love Final Fantasy Tactics, but if you forgot about what you were doing and went into a particular mission underprepared, the previous 4+ hours you put into the game were for nothing, since you cant win and you cant leave.I even got frustrated (after I beat Super Mario Wii) in trying to collect all the coins, that was tough, but beyond necessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020366</id>
	<title>Translation please...</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1265282580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Demon's Souls was a sleeper hit</p></div></blockquote><p>Would I be right in thinking this translates as "Me and my friends liked it, but it didn't sell very well"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Demon 's Souls was a sleeper hitWould I be right in thinking this translates as " Me and my friends liked it , but it did n't sell very well " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Demon's Souls was a sleeper hitWould I be right in thinking this translates as "Me and my friends liked it, but it didn't sell very well"?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023174</id>
	<title>Re:I don't find 'difficulty' useful in itself</title>
	<author>Sirusjr</author>
	<datestamp>1265303160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no problem with hard games per se but I think when you have something as widely known for being hard as Demon Souls, it would be beneficial to sales for the game to include an easier difficulty for those of us who don't appreciate frustration as a key to enjoyment.  Otherwise I'll just ignore the game and stick to my flexible difficulty rpgs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no problem with hard games per se but I think when you have something as widely known for being hard as Demon Souls , it would be beneficial to sales for the game to include an easier difficulty for those of us who do n't appreciate frustration as a key to enjoyment .
Otherwise I 'll just ignore the game and stick to my flexible difficulty rpgs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no problem with hard games per se but I think when you have something as widely known for being hard as Demon Souls, it would be beneficial to sales for the game to include an easier difficulty for those of us who don't appreciate frustration as a key to enjoyment.
Otherwise I'll just ignore the game and stick to my flexible difficulty rpgs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020044</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1265277660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bingo! Your first paragraph is exactly correct. Whether a game is difficult or easy is independent of whether it's good or not. There are plenty of great games that are easy (e.g. Super Mario Galaxy or Katamari Damacy) and great games that are hard (e.g. Ikaruga or the Megaman franchise), as well as bad games that are easy and bad games that are hard (I'm sure we all have our own examples of those latter two). There are also those that try to walk the fine line in between (e.g. Braid), which are designed to be <em>just right</em>, but may just be a bit too easy or too hard for some people.
<br>
<br>
Regardless, I do welcome difficult games. Looking through my favorite games list (yes, I maintain one...don't you?), quite a few of them are "easy" titles. Quite a few are also difficult or complicated titles as well. As much as I love my Wii and the types of games it attracts, I also like the variety offered by a more challenging game at times. Neither one is inherently better than the other, and I enjoy playing both. That the developers may be paying more attention to the one end of the spectrum that they had been moving away from is pleasing news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo !
Your first paragraph is exactly correct .
Whether a game is difficult or easy is independent of whether it 's good or not .
There are plenty of great games that are easy ( e.g .
Super Mario Galaxy or Katamari Damacy ) and great games that are hard ( e.g .
Ikaruga or the Megaman franchise ) , as well as bad games that are easy and bad games that are hard ( I 'm sure we all have our own examples of those latter two ) .
There are also those that try to walk the fine line in between ( e.g .
Braid ) , which are designed to be just right , but may just be a bit too easy or too hard for some people .
Regardless , I do welcome difficult games .
Looking through my favorite games list ( yes , I maintain one...do n't you ?
) , quite a few of them are " easy " titles .
Quite a few are also difficult or complicated titles as well .
As much as I love my Wii and the types of games it attracts , I also like the variety offered by a more challenging game at times .
Neither one is inherently better than the other , and I enjoy playing both .
That the developers may be paying more attention to the one end of the spectrum that they had been moving away from is pleasing news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo!
Your first paragraph is exactly correct.
Whether a game is difficult or easy is independent of whether it's good or not.
There are plenty of great games that are easy (e.g.
Super Mario Galaxy or Katamari Damacy) and great games that are hard (e.g.
Ikaruga or the Megaman franchise), as well as bad games that are easy and bad games that are hard (I'm sure we all have our own examples of those latter two).
There are also those that try to walk the fine line in between (e.g.
Braid), which are designed to be just right, but may just be a bit too easy or too hard for some people.
Regardless, I do welcome difficult games.
Looking through my favorite games list (yes, I maintain one...don't you?
), quite a few of them are "easy" titles.
Quite a few are also difficult or complicated titles as well.
As much as I love my Wii and the types of games it attracts, I also like the variety offered by a more challenging game at times.
Neither one is inherently better than the other, and I enjoy playing both.
That the developers may be paying more attention to the one end of the spectrum that they had been moving away from is pleasing news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025922</id>
	<title>Mega Man 9</title>
	<author>sesshomaru</author>
	<datestamp>1265316780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gentlemen, I give exhibit A, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega\_Man\_9" title="wikipedia.org">Mega Man 9</a> [wikipedia.org], <a href="http://www.nintendo.com/wii/wiiware" title="nintendo.com">WiiWare</a> [nintendo.com], a game which I truly think counts as <a href="http://www.auntiepixelante.com/?p=11" title="auntiepixelante.com">masocore</a> [auntiepixelante.com].</p><p>Trust me, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wily\_Wars" title="wikipedia.org">the Wily Wars</a> [wikipedia.org] never ended.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gentlemen , I give exhibit A , Mega Man 9 [ wikipedia.org ] , WiiWare [ nintendo.com ] , a game which I truly think counts as masocore [ auntiepixelante.com ] .Trust me , the Wily Wars [ wikipedia.org ] never ended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gentlemen, I give exhibit A, Mega Man 9 [wikipedia.org], WiiWare [nintendo.com], a game which I truly think counts as masocore [auntiepixelante.com].Trust me, the Wily Wars [wikipedia.org] never ended.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019616</id>
	<title>needs to be entertainment.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265315040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesnt matter if a game is easy or hard. it needs to be accessible with a good UI and entertaining with a good story.<br>everything else is irrelevant. trainers are easily available as are cheat codes for those who want them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>doesnt matter if a game is easy or hard .
it needs to be accessible with a good UI and entertaining with a good story.everything else is irrelevant .
trainers are easily available as are cheat codes for those who want them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesnt matter if a game is easy or hard.
it needs to be accessible with a good UI and entertaining with a good story.everything else is irrelevant.
trainers are easily available as are cheat codes for those who want them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024086</id>
	<title>Has the author even played Demon's Souls?</title>
	<author>jinushaun</author>
	<datestamp>1265307540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or did he just read some reviews about how difficult it was?</p><p>The game isn't difficult as so much as it is sadistic. No pausing at all, not even when checking inventory. On screen elements that totally block 80\% of your screen during battle&mdash;effectively making you a sitting duck until it goes away. Remember, no pausing during all this. WTF?! No real story or purpose, so only the masochists will continue to play through if only to prove to themselves that they can beat it. The lack of plot elements mean you really have to rely on the PSN feature of the game whereby players on PSN leave you clues about what to do next. You can kill any NPC, including ones critical to the game such as the girl that levels up your character. It's just a poorly designed game. The whole time I was playing, I was like, "Seriously? WTF?"</p><p>However, despite all of its flaws, all the reviewers are right about the game having a strong sense of achievement. There were a lot of comparisons made to the old cartridge days when the only way to beat a game was all the way through in one go. Or where you had to collect more 1-ups to prevent death. Demon's Souls is kind of like that. No save points and if you die, you start back at the beginning of the current level and lose all your unspent money/souls.</p><p>Dying in modern games isn't as big of a deal as it used to be. You often start off right where you died with all your items and full stats. A lot of games nowadays have auto-regen health so you just wait it out and you're good as new. Demon's Souls makes player really adverse to death.</p><p>And lastly, casual doesn't mean easy or unfulfilling. A game doesn't have to be "difficult" to be challenging. For example, my favourite game is and always will be Tetris. Easy to learn, but challenging to get really good at. I can spend hours trying play the perfect game, get the highest score or see how fast I can play, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or did he just read some reviews about how difficult it was ? The game is n't difficult as so much as it is sadistic .
No pausing at all , not even when checking inventory .
On screen elements that totally block 80 \ % of your screen during battle    effectively making you a sitting duck until it goes away .
Remember , no pausing during all this .
WTF ? ! No real story or purpose , so only the masochists will continue to play through if only to prove to themselves that they can beat it .
The lack of plot elements mean you really have to rely on the PSN feature of the game whereby players on PSN leave you clues about what to do next .
You can kill any NPC , including ones critical to the game such as the girl that levels up your character .
It 's just a poorly designed game .
The whole time I was playing , I was like , " Seriously ?
WTF ? " However , despite all of its flaws , all the reviewers are right about the game having a strong sense of achievement .
There were a lot of comparisons made to the old cartridge days when the only way to beat a game was all the way through in one go .
Or where you had to collect more 1-ups to prevent death .
Demon 's Souls is kind of like that .
No save points and if you die , you start back at the beginning of the current level and lose all your unspent money/souls.Dying in modern games is n't as big of a deal as it used to be .
You often start off right where you died with all your items and full stats .
A lot of games nowadays have auto-regen health so you just wait it out and you 're good as new .
Demon 's Souls makes player really adverse to death.And lastly , casual does n't mean easy or unfulfilling .
A game does n't have to be " difficult " to be challenging .
For example , my favourite game is and always will be Tetris .
Easy to learn , but challenging to get really good at .
I can spend hours trying play the perfect game , get the highest score or see how fast I can play , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or did he just read some reviews about how difficult it was?The game isn't difficult as so much as it is sadistic.
No pausing at all, not even when checking inventory.
On screen elements that totally block 80\% of your screen during battle—effectively making you a sitting duck until it goes away.
Remember, no pausing during all this.
WTF?! No real story or purpose, so only the masochists will continue to play through if only to prove to themselves that they can beat it.
The lack of plot elements mean you really have to rely on the PSN feature of the game whereby players on PSN leave you clues about what to do next.
You can kill any NPC, including ones critical to the game such as the girl that levels up your character.
It's just a poorly designed game.
The whole time I was playing, I was like, "Seriously?
WTF?"However, despite all of its flaws, all the reviewers are right about the game having a strong sense of achievement.
There were a lot of comparisons made to the old cartridge days when the only way to beat a game was all the way through in one go.
Or where you had to collect more 1-ups to prevent death.
Demon's Souls is kind of like that.
No save points and if you die, you start back at the beginning of the current level and lose all your unspent money/souls.Dying in modern games isn't as big of a deal as it used to be.
You often start off right where you died with all your items and full stats.
A lot of games nowadays have auto-regen health so you just wait it out and you're good as new.
Demon's Souls makes player really adverse to death.And lastly, casual doesn't mean easy or unfulfilling.
A game doesn't have to be "difficult" to be challenging.
For example, my favourite game is and always will be Tetris.
Easy to learn, but challenging to get really good at.
I can spend hours trying play the perfect game, get the highest score or see how fast I can play, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021342</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265293740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Rachael Ray is, among other things, the Queen of EVOO and the inventor of the term.  (For those of you who don't watch <i>Thirty Minute Meals,</i> the term stands for Extra Virgin Olive Oil.)</p></div><p>And every time that I've ever heard Rachael Ray say "E-V-O-O", I feel like slapping her.  RR is most likable when she's NOT talking (for multiple reasons).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rachael Ray is , among other things , the Queen of EVOO and the inventor of the term .
( For those of you who do n't watch Thirty Minute Meals , the term stands for Extra Virgin Olive Oil .
) And every time that I 've ever heard Rachael Ray say " E-V-O-O " , I feel like slapping her .
RR is most likable when she 's NOT talking ( for multiple reasons ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rachael Ray is, among other things, the Queen of EVOO and the inventor of the term.
(For those of you who don't watch Thirty Minute Meals, the term stands for Extra Virgin Olive Oil.
)And every time that I've ever heard Rachael Ray say "E-V-O-O", I feel like slapping her.
RR is most likable when she's NOT talking (for multiple reasons).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019736</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019944</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>bronney</author>
	<datestamp>1265276280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I cut the bonding plant instead of rooting it and wondered why I couldn't go into the comedy club and had to play the whole thing again hehehe.  Quite challenging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I cut the bonding plant instead of rooting it and wondered why I could n't go into the comedy club and had to play the whole thing again hehehe .
Quite challenging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cut the bonding plant instead of rooting it and wondered why I couldn't go into the comedy club and had to play the whole thing again hehehe.
Quite challenging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021594</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>bigstrat2003</author>
	<datestamp>1265295360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are either a phenomenally great Mario player, are letting the times you used Super Guide skew your difficulty assessment ("I can skip this hard level so the game is easy"), or a colossal liar. The game is not easy by any stretch of the imagination.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are either a phenomenally great Mario player , are letting the times you used Super Guide skew your difficulty assessment ( " I can skip this hard level so the game is easy " ) , or a colossal liar .
The game is not easy by any stretch of the imagination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are either a phenomenally great Mario player, are letting the times you used Super Guide skew your difficulty assessment ("I can skip this hard level so the game is easy"), or a colossal liar.
The game is not easy by any stretch of the imagination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019722</id>
	<title>Demon's Souls is a bad example</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1265316420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It started off as a cult game that looked really promising in it's original Asian release, then someone in the western gaming community got a hold of it and it became a real bandwagon game, being name-dropped everywhere. With a huge following of people that have probably hardly played it, claiming that they love difficult games, because that's what everyone else is doing. Also see : God Hand. Actually, Demon's Souls owes more than a bit to the Gothic games, for which it plays basically like a linear version of, except with bosses.</p><p>Strictly speaking Demon's Souls isn't a <i>hard</i> game, as once you get into the hang of it you'll find that most deaths come from lack of carelessness. You can't simply rush head-long into everything and know that the game won't hurt you for it, like most games. It's just a very punishing one; when you do make a mistake it really does kick you in the nuts. And someone in the design team has confused flawed design with difficulty. No pausing? No ability to save, even to a single constantly overwritten slot, just in case? There is difficult, there is masochistic, and then there is just plain bad game design. I don't regard having to find a safe spot before being able to take a leak or answer the phone to be 'hardcore', just stupid.</p><p>Speaking of God Hand, it is a much better example of proper difficulty. In Demon's Souls, if you tip-toe around, you'll go okay most of the time, and most lessons you learn once and you're okay from then on. God Hand kicks your ass early on, and you wonder how it got released in such an unworkable state (also, if you're an IGN reviewer, you'll likely go off and start writing at this point), but if you pay attention to the combat system and start out on an easy level, you'll become comfortable with the combat system, and then eventually you'll start tearing up the place, ready to advance in difficulty, and things that once seemed impossible will now merely present a fun challenge instead of sending you back, tail between your legs. Urban Reign did the same thing. They are great games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It started off as a cult game that looked really promising in it 's original Asian release , then someone in the western gaming community got a hold of it and it became a real bandwagon game , being name-dropped everywhere .
With a huge following of people that have probably hardly played it , claiming that they love difficult games , because that 's what everyone else is doing .
Also see : God Hand .
Actually , Demon 's Souls owes more than a bit to the Gothic games , for which it plays basically like a linear version of , except with bosses.Strictly speaking Demon 's Souls is n't a hard game , as once you get into the hang of it you 'll find that most deaths come from lack of carelessness .
You ca n't simply rush head-long into everything and know that the game wo n't hurt you for it , like most games .
It 's just a very punishing one ; when you do make a mistake it really does kick you in the nuts .
And someone in the design team has confused flawed design with difficulty .
No pausing ?
No ability to save , even to a single constantly overwritten slot , just in case ?
There is difficult , there is masochistic , and then there is just plain bad game design .
I do n't regard having to find a safe spot before being able to take a leak or answer the phone to be 'hardcore ' , just stupid.Speaking of God Hand , it is a much better example of proper difficulty .
In Demon 's Souls , if you tip-toe around , you 'll go okay most of the time , and most lessons you learn once and you 're okay from then on .
God Hand kicks your ass early on , and you wonder how it got released in such an unworkable state ( also , if you 're an IGN reviewer , you 'll likely go off and start writing at this point ) , but if you pay attention to the combat system and start out on an easy level , you 'll become comfortable with the combat system , and then eventually you 'll start tearing up the place , ready to advance in difficulty , and things that once seemed impossible will now merely present a fun challenge instead of sending you back , tail between your legs .
Urban Reign did the same thing .
They are great games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It started off as a cult game that looked really promising in it's original Asian release, then someone in the western gaming community got a hold of it and it became a real bandwagon game, being name-dropped everywhere.
With a huge following of people that have probably hardly played it, claiming that they love difficult games, because that's what everyone else is doing.
Also see : God Hand.
Actually, Demon's Souls owes more than a bit to the Gothic games, for which it plays basically like a linear version of, except with bosses.Strictly speaking Demon's Souls isn't a hard game, as once you get into the hang of it you'll find that most deaths come from lack of carelessness.
You can't simply rush head-long into everything and know that the game won't hurt you for it, like most games.
It's just a very punishing one; when you do make a mistake it really does kick you in the nuts.
And someone in the design team has confused flawed design with difficulty.
No pausing?
No ability to save, even to a single constantly overwritten slot, just in case?
There is difficult, there is masochistic, and then there is just plain bad game design.
I don't regard having to find a safe spot before being able to take a leak or answer the phone to be 'hardcore', just stupid.Speaking of God Hand, it is a much better example of proper difficulty.
In Demon's Souls, if you tip-toe around, you'll go okay most of the time, and most lessons you learn once and you're okay from then on.
God Hand kicks your ass early on, and you wonder how it got released in such an unworkable state (also, if you're an IGN reviewer, you'll likely go off and start writing at this point), but if you pay attention to the combat system and start out on an easy level, you'll become comfortable with the combat system, and then eventually you'll start tearing up the place, ready to advance in difficulty, and things that once seemed impossible will now merely present a fun challenge instead of sending you back, tail between your legs.
Urban Reign did the same thing.
They are great games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021688</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>Simulant</author>
	<datestamp>1265295960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  Parent is so right.   I've been playing Super Mario Galaxy on &amp; off for two years with my daughter and we still haven't beaten it.  It's not easy... and I tend to lose interest, at least temporarily, after playing and failing on the same level for the 20th time in a row.   Hell, even Bebbled on my Android is a challenge (anyone get past Xmas level 10?).  On the other hand I've beaten every FPS I've ever installed on my PC on Normal to Hard difficultys.  I suppose I'm a pussy for not playing them at the highest difficulty level but, personally, when I want that kind of challenge (and I frequently do) I rather play against people instead of AI. I can't say I get much gratification from beating AI at any level.   I mean really, who cares if I beat MW2 on Insane?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I would also like to point out that there is a difference between Hard and Complex.   I don't mind hard as much as I dislike unnecessary complexity like, say, a billion secret button combos or tedious inventory management  (on the other hand,  I do like my keyboard mouse FPS controls and I hate the console controller equivalents but I don't find mouse/keyboard to be all that complex)  I've got enough complexity in my life, and I don't feel the need or impulse to spend vast amounts of time mastering overly complex games for the sole reward of beating the AI.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Finally, as for RPGs, I welcome the Mass Effect 2 interface/controls.  It's the first RPG in years that I will probably  play all the way through because I don't feel like I'm forced to repeat tedious  tasks over &amp; over &amp; over again...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent is so right .
I 've been playing Super Mario Galaxy on &amp; off for two years with my daughter and we still have n't beaten it .
It 's not easy... and I tend to lose interest , at least temporarily , after playing and failing on the same level for the 20th time in a row .
Hell , even Bebbled on my Android is a challenge ( anyone get past Xmas level 10 ? ) .
On the other hand I 've beaten every FPS I 've ever installed on my PC on Normal to Hard difficultys .
I suppose I 'm a pussy for not playing them at the highest difficulty level but , personally , when I want that kind of challenge ( and I frequently do ) I rather play against people instead of AI .
I ca n't say I get much gratification from beating AI at any level .
I mean really , who cares if I beat MW2 on Insane ?
    I would also like to point out that there is a difference between Hard and Complex .
I do n't mind hard as much as I dislike unnecessary complexity like , say , a billion secret button combos or tedious inventory management ( on the other hand , I do like my keyboard mouse FPS controls and I hate the console controller equivalents but I do n't find mouse/keyboard to be all that complex ) I 've got enough complexity in my life , and I do n't feel the need or impulse to spend vast amounts of time mastering overly complex games for the sole reward of beating the AI .
    Finally , as for RPGs , I welcome the Mass Effect 2 interface/controls .
It 's the first RPG in years that I will probably play all the way through because I do n't feel like I 'm forced to repeat tedious tasks over &amp; over &amp; over again.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  Parent is so right.
I've been playing Super Mario Galaxy on &amp; off for two years with my daughter and we still haven't beaten it.
It's not easy... and I tend to lose interest, at least temporarily, after playing and failing on the same level for the 20th time in a row.
Hell, even Bebbled on my Android is a challenge (anyone get past Xmas level 10?).
On the other hand I've beaten every FPS I've ever installed on my PC on Normal to Hard difficultys.
I suppose I'm a pussy for not playing them at the highest difficulty level but, personally, when I want that kind of challenge (and I frequently do) I rather play against people instead of AI.
I can't say I get much gratification from beating AI at any level.
I mean really, who cares if I beat MW2 on Insane?
    I would also like to point out that there is a difference between Hard and Complex.
I don't mind hard as much as I dislike unnecessary complexity like, say, a billion secret button combos or tedious inventory management  (on the other hand,  I do like my keyboard mouse FPS controls and I hate the console controller equivalents but I don't find mouse/keyboard to be all that complex)  I've got enough complexity in my life, and I don't feel the need or impulse to spend vast amounts of time mastering overly complex games for the sole reward of beating the AI.
    Finally, as for RPGs, I welcome the Mass Effect 2 interface/controls.
It's the first RPG in years that I will probably  play all the way through because I don't feel like I'm forced to repeat tedious  tasks over &amp; over &amp; over again...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021656</id>
	<title>Re:Fake Difficulty</title>
	<author>hal2814</author>
	<datestamp>1265295660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Fake difficulty" annoys the crap out of me in Madden.  I'd like the AI difficulty in Madden to be the difference between going up against a Jerry Glanville coached team vs. a Don Shula coached team.  Instead I get a team that rolls over and plays dead vs a team that consistently gets huge passing plays even when I make the best call on defense to stop them.  It's really annoying and the Madden Karma (like if you go for 4th down and fail, something BAD will happen to your team in the next possession) only makes it worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Fake difficulty " annoys the crap out of me in Madden .
I 'd like the AI difficulty in Madden to be the difference between going up against a Jerry Glanville coached team vs. a Don Shula coached team .
Instead I get a team that rolls over and plays dead vs a team that consistently gets huge passing plays even when I make the best call on defense to stop them .
It 's really annoying and the Madden Karma ( like if you go for 4th down and fail , something BAD will happen to your team in the next possession ) only makes it worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Fake difficulty" annoys the crap out of me in Madden.
I'd like the AI difficulty in Madden to be the difference between going up against a Jerry Glanville coached team vs. a Don Shula coached team.
Instead I get a team that rolls over and plays dead vs a team that consistently gets huge passing plays even when I make the best call on defense to stop them.
It's really annoying and the Madden Karma (like if you go for 4th down and fail, something BAD will happen to your team in the next possession) only makes it worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023060</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>Lueseiseki</author>
	<datestamp>1265302680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You say there are hard games on the Wii, but you dont acknowledge the 10 "Imagine Babyz" and "Avatar: The Game", etc. for each of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You say there are hard games on the Wii , but you dont acknowledge the 10 " Imagine Babyz " and " Avatar : The Game " , etc .
for each of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say there are hard games on the Wii, but you dont acknowledge the 10 "Imagine Babyz" and "Avatar: The Game", etc.
for each of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019736</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265316660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer. They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula. BAM! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.</i> <p>
Congratulation!  You've lived up to your nick Yet Again!  As any Food Network junkie could have told you, Emeril isn't particularly attached to EVOO -- in fact, he never uses the term -- preferring to spice anything and everything he makes with a seasoning blend he calls "essence," even if it doesn't seem appropriate.  Rachael Ray is, among other things, the Queen of EVOO and the inventor of the term.  (For those of you who don't watch <i>Thirty Minute Meals,</i> the term stands for Extra Virgin Olive Oil.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer .
They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula .
BAM ! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up .
Congratulation ! You 've lived up to your nick Yet Again !
As any Food Network junkie could have told you , Emeril is n't particularly attached to EVOO -- in fact , he never uses the term -- preferring to spice anything and everything he makes with a seasoning blend he calls " essence , " even if it does n't seem appropriate .
Rachael Ray is , among other things , the Queen of EVOO and the inventor of the term .
( For those of you who do n't watch Thirty Minute Meals , the term stands for Extra Virgin Olive Oil .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Emeril Lagasse suffers from the same problem as the article writer.
They both think that one ingredient is the key to a winning formula.
BAM! Just add some EVOO or in this case turn the difficulty all the way up.
Congratulation!  You've lived up to your nick Yet Again!
As any Food Network junkie could have told you, Emeril isn't particularly attached to EVOO -- in fact, he never uses the term -- preferring to spice anything and everything he makes with a seasoning blend he calls "essence," even if it doesn't seem appropriate.
Rachael Ray is, among other things, the Queen of EVOO and the inventor of the term.
(For those of you who don't watch Thirty Minute Meals, the term stands for Extra Virgin Olive Oil.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021384</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>Cerberus7</author>
	<datestamp>1265294100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just made the mistake of saying something was hard.  All the "that's not hard, you just suck" folks ALWAYS come out of the woodwork for these situations.  It's like having a 5-digit UID and claiming to have been around forever.  The 4 and 3-digit folks magically appear.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>For what it's worth, I have cleared 100\% on Mario Kart and Galaxy, but it WAS HARD.  Fine, I suck, I can accept that.  What I had the hardest time with was when Mario Kart's AI started ramping up the cheating.  Mario Kart wasn't hard because of difficulty, it was hard because the AI got massive artificial bonuses.</p><p>Mario Galaxy, though, was hard because of intrinsic difficulty, but also the controls.  There were times when it felt like the control scheme was designed to make specific levels harder than they had to be.  Beating the game is a challenge, but getting 100\% is downright brutal.</p><p>And then my house got broken into, my Wii stolen. *RAGE*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just made the mistake of saying something was hard .
All the " that 's not hard , you just suck " folks ALWAYS come out of the woodwork for these situations .
It 's like having a 5-digit UID and claiming to have been around forever .
The 4 and 3-digit folks magically appear .
: ) For what it 's worth , I have cleared 100 \ % on Mario Kart and Galaxy , but it WAS HARD .
Fine , I suck , I can accept that .
What I had the hardest time with was when Mario Kart 's AI started ramping up the cheating .
Mario Kart was n't hard because of difficulty , it was hard because the AI got massive artificial bonuses.Mario Galaxy , though , was hard because of intrinsic difficulty , but also the controls .
There were times when it felt like the control scheme was designed to make specific levels harder than they had to be .
Beating the game is a challenge , but getting 100 \ % is downright brutal.And then my house got broken into , my Wii stolen .
* RAGE *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just made the mistake of saying something was hard.
All the "that's not hard, you just suck" folks ALWAYS come out of the woodwork for these situations.
It's like having a 5-digit UID and claiming to have been around forever.
The 4 and 3-digit folks magically appear.
:)For what it's worth, I have cleared 100\% on Mario Kart and Galaxy, but it WAS HARD.
Fine, I suck, I can accept that.
What I had the hardest time with was when Mario Kart's AI started ramping up the cheating.
Mario Kart wasn't hard because of difficulty, it was hard because the AI got massive artificial bonuses.Mario Galaxy, though, was hard because of intrinsic difficulty, but also the controls.
There were times when it felt like the control scheme was designed to make specific levels harder than they had to be.
Beating the game is a challenge, but getting 100\% is downright brutal.And then my house got broken into, my Wii stolen.
*RAGE*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</id>
	<title>You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265274000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The Wii and various mobile gaming platforms have done wonders<br>&gt; for the trend toward casual or "easy" games.</p><p>Yeah. Care to cite specific examples? Because this, here, until proved otherwise, sounds like gamer nerd handwringing over their hobby's new mass popularity, no more.</p><p>Have you <i>played</i> the new Super Mario game? Care to name some other Mario games that are <i>harder</i>? Take your time, I'll wait. Heck, has there <i>ever</i> been a Mario game where failing one time too many on a single level, no matter how many lives you have, means you can't reach 100\% completion unless you trash your save game and start over from scratch?</p><p>Hell, have you played the Wii poster child, Mario Kart? How are those mirror cups going? Unlocked the Rainbow Road expert staff ghost yet? <i>Beaten</i> it?</p><p>Just because it's easy to get into for newbies does NOT make it unchallenging. Seriously, guys, this is the same line of thinking that gives us people who seem to think that user friendly and powerful GUIs are mutually exclusive. It's a real design challenge to reconcile both, I know. This makes it all the more important to recognize and laud those attempts that succeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The Wii and various mobile gaming platforms have done wonders &gt; for the trend toward casual or " easy " games.Yeah .
Care to cite specific examples ?
Because this , here , until proved otherwise , sounds like gamer nerd handwringing over their hobby 's new mass popularity , no more.Have you played the new Super Mario game ?
Care to name some other Mario games that are harder ?
Take your time , I 'll wait .
Heck , has there ever been a Mario game where failing one time too many on a single level , no matter how many lives you have , means you ca n't reach 100 \ % completion unless you trash your save game and start over from scratch ? Hell , have you played the Wii poster child , Mario Kart ?
How are those mirror cups going ?
Unlocked the Rainbow Road expert staff ghost yet ?
Beaten it ? Just because it 's easy to get into for newbies does NOT make it unchallenging .
Seriously , guys , this is the same line of thinking that gives us people who seem to think that user friendly and powerful GUIs are mutually exclusive .
It 's a real design challenge to reconcile both , I know .
This makes it all the more important to recognize and laud those attempts that succeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The Wii and various mobile gaming platforms have done wonders&gt; for the trend toward casual or "easy" games.Yeah.
Care to cite specific examples?
Because this, here, until proved otherwise, sounds like gamer nerd handwringing over their hobby's new mass popularity, no more.Have you played the new Super Mario game?
Care to name some other Mario games that are harder?
Take your time, I'll wait.
Heck, has there ever been a Mario game where failing one time too many on a single level, no matter how many lives you have, means you can't reach 100\% completion unless you trash your save game and start over from scratch?Hell, have you played the Wii poster child, Mario Kart?
How are those mirror cups going?
Unlocked the Rainbow Road expert staff ghost yet?
Beaten it?Just because it's easy to get into for newbies does NOT make it unchallenging.
Seriously, guys, this is the same line of thinking that gives us people who seem to think that user friendly and powerful GUIs are mutually exclusive.
It's a real design challenge to reconcile both, I know.
This makes it all the more important to recognize and laud those attempts that succeed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021160</id>
	<title>Re:IWannaBeTheGuy</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1265292420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got annoyed at the first boss because I didn't manage to get past the third part and every death meant I had to repeat the first and second parts which were pure puzzle parts that are trivial once you know how to beat them. Hard is fine, wasting my time with piss-easy stuff before the parts that actually challenge me is not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got annoyed at the first boss because I did n't manage to get past the third part and every death meant I had to repeat the first and second parts which were pure puzzle parts that are trivial once you know how to beat them .
Hard is fine , wasting my time with piss-easy stuff before the parts that actually challenge me is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got annoyed at the first boss because I didn't manage to get past the third part and every death meant I had to repeat the first and second parts which were pure puzzle parts that are trivial once you know how to beat them.
Hard is fine, wasting my time with piss-easy stuff before the parts that actually challenge me is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024440</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265308920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you <i>played</i> the new Super Mario game? Care to name some other Mario games that are <i>harder</i>? Take your time, I'll wait. Heck, has there <i>ever</i> been a Mario game where failing one time too many on a single level, no matter how many lives you have, means you can't reach 100\% completion unless you trash your save game and start over from scratch?</p></div><p>I haven't played it yet, but unlocking all the white toad houses in Super Mario 3 is very difficult. Also, what's a save state?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;p</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you played the new Super Mario game ?
Care to name some other Mario games that are harder ?
Take your time , I 'll wait .
Heck , has there ever been a Mario game where failing one time too many on a single level , no matter how many lives you have , means you ca n't reach 100 \ % completion unless you trash your save game and start over from scratch ? I have n't played it yet , but unlocking all the white toad houses in Super Mario 3 is very difficult .
Also , what 's a save state ?
; p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you played the new Super Mario game?
Care to name some other Mario games that are harder?
Take your time, I'll wait.
Heck, has there ever been a Mario game where failing one time too many on a single level, no matter how many lives you have, means you can't reach 100\% completion unless you trash your save game and start over from scratch?I haven't played it yet, but unlocking all the white toad houses in Super Mario 3 is very difficult.
Also, what's a save state?
;p
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31022976</id>
	<title>Re:I don't find 'difficulty' useful in itself</title>
	<author>Feyshtey</author>
	<datestamp>1265302320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think it's been suggested that you make a game that's just hard. If one were to design a game with that single premise (or any single premise) in mind they would most certainly find themselves in the same boat as so many failed designers; a protracted development cycle that eventualy (maybe) produces a cobble of mis-matched concepts into a craptastic POS.
<br> <br>
Obviously a rounded game design is essential to a successful and interesting title. But designers for years have become convinced that if the public cannot easily and quickly 'achieve' they will throw down their controllers and keyboards in disgust. That, to me, shows a rather low opinion of game players in general. While there are certainly the instant-gratification hordes (*cough*) out there , there are also certainly those who find near-certain and zombie-like success far more tiresome and disgusting than regularly getting their asses whooped till they get better and overcome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's been suggested that you make a game that 's just hard .
If one were to design a game with that single premise ( or any single premise ) in mind they would most certainly find themselves in the same boat as so many failed designers ; a protracted development cycle that eventualy ( maybe ) produces a cobble of mis-matched concepts into a craptastic POS .
Obviously a rounded game design is essential to a successful and interesting title .
But designers for years have become convinced that if the public can not easily and quickly 'achieve ' they will throw down their controllers and keyboards in disgust .
That , to me , shows a rather low opinion of game players in general .
While there are certainly the instant-gratification hordes ( * cough * ) out there , there are also certainly those who find near-certain and zombie-like success far more tiresome and disgusting than regularly getting their asses whooped till they get better and overcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's been suggested that you make a game that's just hard.
If one were to design a game with that single premise (or any single premise) in mind they would most certainly find themselves in the same boat as so many failed designers; a protracted development cycle that eventualy (maybe) produces a cobble of mis-matched concepts into a craptastic POS.
Obviously a rounded game design is essential to a successful and interesting title.
But designers for years have become convinced that if the public cannot easily and quickly 'achieve' they will throw down their controllers and keyboards in disgust.
That, to me, shows a rather low opinion of game players in general.
While there are certainly the instant-gratification hordes (*cough*) out there , there are also certainly those who find near-certain and zombie-like success far more tiresome and disgusting than regularly getting their asses whooped till they get better and overcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020332</id>
	<title>Systems need some tactical depth</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265282160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why I love Nethack.  The permadeath gives you plenty of difficulty, but the challenge doesn't feel "false" because there's so much tactical depth.  Yeah, sure, there are plenty of monsters that are pretty brutal ("go team ant!"), but if that stupid orc has a wand of death, you *get* that wand of death if you manage to kill him without him killing you first and he doesn't have infinite uses of it.  And there are usually a dozen ways you could have survived that last death.  Contrast this with, say, Angband (or many MUDs, for that matter), where the trend in many variants has been that "we want a harder monster, so let's give it 50\% more HP and make it resist *everything*!"  But the only way you could have avoided dying was having more heal potions handy or retreating.</p><p>I used to be an immortal on a MUD, actually.  Nobody knew how to write a mobprog except for random drops, or so it seemed at times, so almost everyone who made hard mobs just set them to aggro and cranked up their HP and armor so that you had to heal via potions for 3 hours while they dropped 1\% at a time.  I made the first actual mob that used intelligent spell selection to target player racial weaknesses and which used debuffs in a reasonably tactical manner, forced the player to solo it, kept the HP, armor and damage reasonable, gave it a limited number of low HP cohorts that allowed for a flanking bonus, and limited the player's ability to gulp potions so you couldn't just set an autoquaff trigger and watch TV while waiting for it to die.</p><p>People had a lot more fun inventing clever tactics to use against it and watching their use of mana for healing vs. damage over a relatively short (~5 minute) fight, vs. other critters where the main challenge was making sure you had enough potions in your bag before attacking and chatting or something while you waited for it to die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I love Nethack .
The permadeath gives you plenty of difficulty , but the challenge does n't feel " false " because there 's so much tactical depth .
Yeah , sure , there are plenty of monsters that are pretty brutal ( " go team ant !
" ) , but if that stupid orc has a wand of death , you * get * that wand of death if you manage to kill him without him killing you first and he does n't have infinite uses of it .
And there are usually a dozen ways you could have survived that last death .
Contrast this with , say , Angband ( or many MUDs , for that matter ) , where the trend in many variants has been that " we want a harder monster , so let 's give it 50 \ % more HP and make it resist * everything * !
" But the only way you could have avoided dying was having more heal potions handy or retreating.I used to be an immortal on a MUD , actually .
Nobody knew how to write a mobprog except for random drops , or so it seemed at times , so almost everyone who made hard mobs just set them to aggro and cranked up their HP and armor so that you had to heal via potions for 3 hours while they dropped 1 \ % at a time .
I made the first actual mob that used intelligent spell selection to target player racial weaknesses and which used debuffs in a reasonably tactical manner , forced the player to solo it , kept the HP , armor and damage reasonable , gave it a limited number of low HP cohorts that allowed for a flanking bonus , and limited the player 's ability to gulp potions so you could n't just set an autoquaff trigger and watch TV while waiting for it to die.People had a lot more fun inventing clever tactics to use against it and watching their use of mana for healing vs. damage over a relatively short ( ~ 5 minute ) fight , vs. other critters where the main challenge was making sure you had enough potions in your bag before attacking and chatting or something while you waited for it to die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I love Nethack.
The permadeath gives you plenty of difficulty, but the challenge doesn't feel "false" because there's so much tactical depth.
Yeah, sure, there are plenty of monsters that are pretty brutal ("go team ant!
"), but if that stupid orc has a wand of death, you *get* that wand of death if you manage to kill him without him killing you first and he doesn't have infinite uses of it.
And there are usually a dozen ways you could have survived that last death.
Contrast this with, say, Angband (or many MUDs, for that matter), where the trend in many variants has been that "we want a harder monster, so let's give it 50\% more HP and make it resist *everything*!
"  But the only way you could have avoided dying was having more heal potions handy or retreating.I used to be an immortal on a MUD, actually.
Nobody knew how to write a mobprog except for random drops, or so it seemed at times, so almost everyone who made hard mobs just set them to aggro and cranked up their HP and armor so that you had to heal via potions for 3 hours while they dropped 1\% at a time.
I made the first actual mob that used intelligent spell selection to target player racial weaknesses and which used debuffs in a reasonably tactical manner, forced the player to solo it, kept the HP, armor and damage reasonable, gave it a limited number of low HP cohorts that allowed for a flanking bonus, and limited the player's ability to gulp potions so you couldn't just set an autoquaff trigger and watch TV while waiting for it to die.People had a lot more fun inventing clever tactics to use against it and watching their use of mana for healing vs. damage over a relatively short (~5 minute) fight, vs. other critters where the main challenge was making sure you had enough potions in your bag before attacking and chatting or something while you waited for it to die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020178</id>
	<title>On Guitar Hero III and casual vs. hardcore gaming</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1265279760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A game might be hard because [list of reasons] [...] Plus, it's not even really something to set in opposition to casual games.</p></div><p>I think Guitar Hero III is an excellent example of this.</p><p>If you play at the easier levels, you can have some casual fun with friends (if you have two controllers or can put up with using a wiimote.)</p><p>On the higher difficulty levels, you can get some real finger-twitching challenges, topping out at Through the Fire and Flames.  I've tried hard, I've only completed it once on Expert.  Raining Blood is pretty tough too.</p><p>Plus, if you play in battle mode, you get to exercise your brain---the lefty switch and the amp overload (makes all the dots blink) requires you to pay attention, remember lots of data, and think <b>fast</b>.</p><p>As a poster above you said: games being difficult is really about being an appropriate challenge.  For games of opposition, that means playing against a roughly even opponent.  For single-player GH3, you can choose between a wide range of songs, each at four different difficulty levels.  I guesstimate that most people can find a suitable difficulty level, where they make progress but not blazingly fast.</p><p>Now, the game is buggy, the menu layout is crap, the QA team has done a shoddy job, it ought to have better lag handling and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...; the game design is 9/10, implementation 4/10.</p><p>But Guitar Hero really hits both the casual gamers and the twitch lovers, and it hits twitch lovers at various skill levels.  Heck, you can even play casually with your friends and <em>you</em> still play at expert.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A game might be hard because [ list of reasons ] [ ... ] Plus , it 's not even really something to set in opposition to casual games.I think Guitar Hero III is an excellent example of this.If you play at the easier levels , you can have some casual fun with friends ( if you have two controllers or can put up with using a wiimote .
) On the higher difficulty levels , you can get some real finger-twitching challenges , topping out at Through the Fire and Flames .
I 've tried hard , I 've only completed it once on Expert .
Raining Blood is pretty tough too.Plus , if you play in battle mode , you get to exercise your brain---the lefty switch and the amp overload ( makes all the dots blink ) requires you to pay attention , remember lots of data , and think fast.As a poster above you said : games being difficult is really about being an appropriate challenge .
For games of opposition , that means playing against a roughly even opponent .
For single-player GH3 , you can choose between a wide range of songs , each at four different difficulty levels .
I guesstimate that most people can find a suitable difficulty level , where they make progress but not blazingly fast.Now , the game is buggy , the menu layout is crap , the QA team has done a shoddy job , it ought to have better lag handling and ... ; the game design is 9/10 , implementation 4/10.But Guitar Hero really hits both the casual gamers and the twitch lovers , and it hits twitch lovers at various skill levels .
Heck , you can even play casually with your friends and you still play at expert .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A game might be hard because [list of reasons] [...] Plus, it's not even really something to set in opposition to casual games.I think Guitar Hero III is an excellent example of this.If you play at the easier levels, you can have some casual fun with friends (if you have two controllers or can put up with using a wiimote.
)On the higher difficulty levels, you can get some real finger-twitching challenges, topping out at Through the Fire and Flames.
I've tried hard, I've only completed it once on Expert.
Raining Blood is pretty tough too.Plus, if you play in battle mode, you get to exercise your brain---the lefty switch and the amp overload (makes all the dots blink) requires you to pay attention, remember lots of data, and think fast.As a poster above you said: games being difficult is really about being an appropriate challenge.
For games of opposition, that means playing against a roughly even opponent.
For single-player GH3, you can choose between a wide range of songs, each at four different difficulty levels.
I guesstimate that most people can find a suitable difficulty level, where they make progress but not blazingly fast.Now, the game is buggy, the menu layout is crap, the QA team has done a shoddy job, it ought to have better lag handling and ...; the game design is 9/10, implementation 4/10.But Guitar Hero really hits both the casual gamers and the twitch lovers, and it hits twitch lovers at various skill levels.
Heck, you can even play casually with your friends and you still play at expert.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019664</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019966</id>
	<title>Re:You gotta be kidding.</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1265276640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fire Emblem:Radiant Dawn.  I've put over a hundred hours into that, and still some levels on hard will take a dozen restarts to beat.  And the AI doesn't cheat; when you lose, it's because you screwed up.<br> <br>

There's a lot of punishing games for the Wii (just like all the other consoles) -- and they don't have to be "hardcore" to be difficult.  Go watch a youtube video of "We Cheer 2".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fire Emblem : Radiant Dawn .
I 've put over a hundred hours into that , and still some levels on hard will take a dozen restarts to beat .
And the AI does n't cheat ; when you lose , it 's because you screwed up .
There 's a lot of punishing games for the Wii ( just like all the other consoles ) -- and they do n't have to be " hardcore " to be difficult .
Go watch a youtube video of " We Cheer 2 " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fire Emblem:Radiant Dawn.
I've put over a hundred hours into that, and still some levels on hard will take a dozen restarts to beat.
And the AI doesn't cheat; when you lose, it's because you screwed up.
There's a lot of punishing games for the Wii (just like all the other consoles) -- and they don't have to be "hardcore" to be difficult.
Go watch a youtube video of "We Cheer 2".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020354</id>
	<title>Re:Fake Difficulty</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1265282400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The AI in AI War is pretty much cheating (its units act like yours but it has no resources or unit caps to worry about) but then again using your brains to surgically exploit its weaknesses and beat a threat that could crush you if it ever took you seriously is kinda the point of the game. Make the AI really angry and you'll have an army that you couldn't even remotely obtain yourself annihilating your systems in no time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The AI in AI War is pretty much cheating ( its units act like yours but it has no resources or unit caps to worry about ) but then again using your brains to surgically exploit its weaknesses and beat a threat that could crush you if it ever took you seriously is kinda the point of the game .
Make the AI really angry and you 'll have an army that you could n't even remotely obtain yourself annihilating your systems in no time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The AI in AI War is pretty much cheating (its units act like yours but it has no resources or unit caps to worry about) but then again using your brains to surgically exploit its weaknesses and beat a threat that could crush you if it ever took you seriously is kinda the point of the game.
Make the AI really angry and you'll have an army that you couldn't even remotely obtain yourself annihilating your systems in no time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019650</id>
	<title>Middle ground</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265315640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like just about everything else in life...there is a nice middle ground between difficulty and accessibility. there is no point in playing a game that doesn't challenge at all, whether that challenge is a single player game, or a social experience; likewise there is no point in playing a game that is so difficult (I'm thinking of the lost levels on Super Mario All Stars) that it loses all entertainment value and becomes an exercise in frustration.</p><p>a little bit of frustration isn't a bad thing, so long as it is used as a gameplay mechanic, rather than the point of the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like just about everything else in life...there is a nice middle ground between difficulty and accessibility .
there is no point in playing a game that does n't challenge at all , whether that challenge is a single player game , or a social experience ; likewise there is no point in playing a game that is so difficult ( I 'm thinking of the lost levels on Super Mario All Stars ) that it loses all entertainment value and becomes an exercise in frustration.a little bit of frustration is n't a bad thing , so long as it is used as a gameplay mechanic , rather than the point of the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like just about everything else in life...there is a nice middle ground between difficulty and accessibility.
there is no point in playing a game that doesn't challenge at all, whether that challenge is a single player game, or a social experience; likewise there is no point in playing a game that is so difficult (I'm thinking of the lost levels on Super Mario All Stars) that it loses all entertainment value and becomes an exercise in frustration.a little bit of frustration isn't a bad thing, so long as it is used as a gameplay mechanic, rather than the point of the game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023634</id>
	<title>Challenges are good.</title>
	<author>Aphoxema</author>
	<datestamp>1265305260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never get pissed at games, I just can't understand when anyone throws a fit over getting shot or something. I either step away and come back later or push until I succeed.</p><p>What's depressing about how I treat gaming, however, is that it's nothing like how I treat life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never get pissed at games , I just ca n't understand when anyone throws a fit over getting shot or something .
I either step away and come back later or push until I succeed.What 's depressing about how I treat gaming , however , is that it 's nothing like how I treat life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never get pissed at games, I just can't understand when anyone throws a fit over getting shot or something.
I either step away and come back later or push until I succeed.What's depressing about how I treat gaming, however, is that it's nothing like how I treat life.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020094</id>
	<title>Well, after all...</title>
	<author>WaroDaBeast</author>
	<datestamp>1265278440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"To vanquish without peril is to triumph without glory."<br>&mdash; Pierre Corneille, <i>Le Cid</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>" To vanquish without peril is to triumph without glory .
"    Pierre Corneille , Le Cid</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"To vanquish without peril is to triumph without glory.
"— Pierre Corneille, Le Cid</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019664</id>
	<title>I don't find 'difficulty' useful in itself</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1265315820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are certainly hard games I've enjoyed, but difficulty isn't really a single-axis thing, so I don't find it that useful to talk about in the abstract, and I certainly don't see any benefit to games that are "hard" just for the sake of it. A game might be hard because it has complex puzzles, or because it requires highly honed twitch skills, or because it requires non-obvious inferences, or because it requires acute observation, or any number of other things. Sometimes those are useful, sometimes not.</p><p>Plus, it's not even really something to set in <i>opposition</i> to casual games. It's really hard to get the kinds of low times on Minesweeper that aficionados get, and there are pretty hardcore communities based around such things.</p><p>I do agree that not every game has to be for a mass market. But surely, if you're given the luxury of designing a game that doesn't have to appeal to everyone, there are more interesting niches?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are certainly hard games I 've enjoyed , but difficulty is n't really a single-axis thing , so I do n't find it that useful to talk about in the abstract , and I certainly do n't see any benefit to games that are " hard " just for the sake of it .
A game might be hard because it has complex puzzles , or because it requires highly honed twitch skills , or because it requires non-obvious inferences , or because it requires acute observation , or any number of other things .
Sometimes those are useful , sometimes not.Plus , it 's not even really something to set in opposition to casual games .
It 's really hard to get the kinds of low times on Minesweeper that aficionados get , and there are pretty hardcore communities based around such things.I do agree that not every game has to be for a mass market .
But surely , if you 're given the luxury of designing a game that does n't have to appeal to everyone , there are more interesting niches ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are certainly hard games I've enjoyed, but difficulty isn't really a single-axis thing, so I don't find it that useful to talk about in the abstract, and I certainly don't see any benefit to games that are "hard" just for the sake of it.
A game might be hard because it has complex puzzles, or because it requires highly honed twitch skills, or because it requires non-obvious inferences, or because it requires acute observation, or any number of other things.
Sometimes those are useful, sometimes not.Plus, it's not even really something to set in opposition to casual games.
It's really hard to get the kinds of low times on Minesweeper that aficionados get, and there are pretty hardcore communities based around such things.I do agree that not every game has to be for a mass market.
But surely, if you're given the luxury of designing a game that doesn't have to appeal to everyone, there are more interesting niches?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31029664</id>
	<title>Demon Souls reviews</title>
	<author>therufus</author>
	<datestamp>1265292660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least there is one game reviewer that pulls no punches! Here is <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1321-Demons-Souls" title="escapistmagazine.com">Zero Punctuation's Review</a> [escapistmagazine.com] of Demon Souls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least there is one game reviewer that pulls no punches !
Here is Zero Punctuation 's Review [ escapistmagazine.com ] of Demon Souls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least there is one game reviewer that pulls no punches!
Here is Zero Punctuation's Review [escapistmagazine.com] of Demon Souls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31040556</id>
	<title>Confidence boost = Sales boost</title>
	<author>CuBeFReNZy</author>
	<datestamp>1265369880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that there has to be a slight challenge. If I think its hard, and then persevere and beat it, I will feel good about my self. Then I will want to play more and more. Its a basic self-efficacy formula... I have to consider it as a teacher all the time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that there has to be a slight challenge .
If I think its hard , and then persevere and beat it , I will feel good about my self .
Then I will want to play more and more .
Its a basic self-efficacy formula... I have to consider it as a teacher all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that there has to be a slight challenge.
If I think its hard, and then persevere and beat it, I will feel good about my self.
Then I will want to play more and more.
Its a basic self-efficacy formula... I have to consider it as a teacher all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021996</id>
	<title>Re:Men In Black Playstation... The Horror...</title>
	<author>itschy</author>
	<datestamp>1265297520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I was a lead tester...</p></div><p>Dude, you really shouldn't do that.<br>I heard its really bad and can make you ill and stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was a lead tester...Dude , you really should n't do that.I heard its really bad and can make you ill and stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was a lead tester...Dude, you really shouldn't do that.I heard its really bad and can make you ill and stuff.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019794</id>
	<title>Games should not feel like work</title>
	<author>Castaa</author>
	<datestamp>1265274240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Games of extreme challenge are either the result of rushed production with little real testing and correction of game balance. Or designers making the games to be a struggle in the misconceived idea that people will play it more because of all the retrying and struggle.</p><p>Games are an escape from your job, and not a job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Games of extreme challenge are either the result of rushed production with little real testing and correction of game balance .
Or designers making the games to be a struggle in the misconceived idea that people will play it more because of all the retrying and struggle.Games are an escape from your job , and not a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Games of extreme challenge are either the result of rushed production with little real testing and correction of game balance.
Or designers making the games to be a struggle in the misconceived idea that people will play it more because of all the retrying and struggle.Games are an escape from your job, and not a job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019990</id>
	<title>Re:Difficulty(&amp;sometimes bugs!)gives a game ch</title>
	<author>IorDMUX</author>
	<datestamp>1265276940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a trope for that.<br> <br>It's called <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NintendoHard" title="tvtropes.org">Nintendo Hard</a> [tvtropes.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a trope for that .
It 's called Nintendo Hard [ tvtropes.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a trope for that.
It's called Nintendo Hard [tvtropes.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31034818</id>
	<title>Re:I returned Return to Zork in one day</title>
	<author>Ol Olsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1265387400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I still play E.T. on my old Atari.......</htmltext>
<tokenext>I still play E.T .
on my old Atari...... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still play E.T.
on my old Atari.......</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023450
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021706
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020732
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021702
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31069324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31029638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31022976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31022040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31058410
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31034818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31108904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31030378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31027892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31036274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_04_077232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019708
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31030378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021772
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020928
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31029638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31034818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31058410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019850
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31108904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31027892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021404
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31022976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31036274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31022040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31024440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31025922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31069324
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31019660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020762
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31023666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_04_077232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31020004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_04_077232.31021228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
