Game News Get your Dungeon Siege III Demo

[Shannow]

So you just discussed whether a singular object should be referred to using "is" or "are" for twenty-five pages?

Decent at grammar but counting past three is too difficult? *g*
(Just kidding, but the grammar discussion (at least for the first 3 comments or so) was far more interesting than DS3...)

 

[Hirato]

I'm with Jaeson on this one.
The sentence was an "an army of Lescanzi mercenaries is hiding," not "an army is hiding" and I think the correct way to say the former is to use ARE not IS as it refers to the mercenaries and not the army.




As for DS3's demo I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, the PC is being treated as a second class citizen and it really shows.

I don't even know why they are arsed to render a cursor in the game proper, there is nothing to click on, absolutely NOTHING. You can't click on ANYTHING; you can't click to talk to people, you can't click to reorient yourself and attack a certain enemy, you can't click on loot to gather it. It literally serves no purpose and they would've been far better of adopting WAD for movement, mouse events for orienting the player and camera and the mouse buttons to launch attacks. It is borderline unplayable as is.

As for the interface, I don't mind the layout and the big fonts, but what does irk me is the all the menus within menus within menus, as well as all the wasted screen estate.
How many of you went out and gathered lore as well as examined objects, didn't the tiny little window they crammed everything in annoy the shit out of you?
How many of you tried to read the descriptions for the assorted skills and abilities only for the game to select another one as you moved the cursor to the box?
How many of you were annoyed by the half-arsed smooth scrolling they implemented? Windows literally ignore all further input until it has finished scrolling.

Plus it doesn't help that I'm being bereaved of 360 vertical rows of pixels as well, I can understand letterboxing for cutscenes but for the whole game?!
There is absolutely no good reason for that. Seriously, making programs that are 100% aspect ratio independent is absolutely trivial, unless those components were done by absolute dumbfucks there is NO reason for resolutions of a non-16:9 aspect ratio to not be properly supported, especially in this day and age (This goes for TW2 as well).
You are most welcome to quote me on that.

(and yes I am very butthurt about it)

 

[Radisshu]

EDIT: Or are you talking to Jasede?

Jasede and everyone else who'd even think that "army are" could be debatable.

And I'm not Azrael, ffs, I had this avatar a year before he started using it too.

So apparently I can use English grammar correctly, but reading user names is too much for me

I'm with Jaeson on this one.
The sentence was an "an army of Lescanzi mercenaries is hiding," not "an army is hiding" and I think the correct way to say the former is to use ARE not IS as it refers to the mercenaries and not the army.

GRAMMAR FAIL, fucktard.

The sentence was indeed "an army of Lescanzi mercenaries". It could have been "a house of bricks", or anything similar, the head word of the phrase is still "AN ARMY".

If "An army of Lescanzi mercenaries are hiding in the nearby bush!!!!!" would be grammatically correct (which it isn't), so would:
"A house made of bricks are standing in your way."
"Did you see those army of Lescanzi mercenaries hiding in the nearby bush?"

The phrase "of Lescanzi mercenaries" only serve to describe the main word, and can be removed or replaced without affecting the structure of the sentence at all.

"An army that looks kind of shitty is hiding in the nearby bush."
"An army of Lescanzi mercenaries is hiding in the nearby bush."

Noun phrase: (A (huge) army (of (Lescanzi) mercenaries (that look (kind of) shitty) (and) (are holding hands, (singing ((beautiful) songs (about the fate of their (fallen) kingdom of Lescanza, (that fell under the trampling feet of the great Army of Popamole Faggotry))))))) Verb phrase: (is hiding (in the (nearby) bush)). (there should be more parentheses there but I got bored)

The verb phrase, "is hiding in the nearby bush", is only affected by the head word ('an' is counted as part of the head word in this instance) of the noun phrase.

 

[Rivmusique]

Why am I getting an English 101 lesson on the Codex? I mean, what are* this place?

*

 

[Radisshu]

Shit, I dreamt of this city consisting entirely of small pieces of bread, man were those places awesome!

 

[J_C]

It's amazing that you write pages about a single grammar mistake. Who gives a fuck about it?

 

[Regdar]

I'm with Jaeson on this one.
The sentence was an "an army of Lescanzi mercenaries is hiding," not "an army is hiding" and I think the correct way to say the former is to use ARE not IS as it refers to the mercenaries and not the army.

It depends on whether the group is/are being treated, in the context of the sentence, as a group or as individuals.

A group of people is hiding, BUT

A group of people are raging on the forums.

Generally in such cases the British prefer using are over is, while Americans can get away with either.

 

[Shannow]

I'm with Jaeson on this one.
The sentence was an "an army of Lescanzi mercenaries is hiding," not "an army is hiding" and I think the correct way to say the former is to use ARE not IS as it refers to the mercenaries and not the army.

It depends on whether the group is/are being treated, in the context of the sentence, as a group or as individuals.

A group of people is hiding, BUT

A group of people are raging on the forums.

Generally in such cases the British prefer using are over is, while Americans can get away with either.

No.
It'd be "(some) people on the forums are raging" or "a group of people is raging".
And bringing in other sentences just serves to muddy the argument. You'll do it so long until you're suddenly right with that new sentence. Doesn't affect the original one, so don't go down that road.
It's simple: "army" is singular, so you use the corresponding form of the verb,
"armies" would be plural and as such require the plural form. English is imprecise enough as it is, no point in making it moreso by making up grammar rules because you don't like/are too dumb to follow the given ones. /grammar nazi (Which I'm not. The only thing that gets on my nerves is mixing up "then" and "than".)

 

[Regdar]

No.
It'd be "(some) people on the forums are raging" or "a group of people is raging".
And bringing in other sentences just serves to muddy the argument. You'll do it so long until you're suddenly right with that new sentence. Doesn't affect the original one, so don't go down that road.
It's simple: "army" is singular, so you use the corresponding form of the verb,
"armies" would be plural and as such require the plural form. English is imprecise enough as it is, no point in making it moreso by making up grammar rules because you don't like/are too dumb to follow the given ones. /grammar nazi (Which I'm not. The only thing that gets on my nerves is mixing up "then" and "than".)

The point I was addressing is that in the sentence "an army of Lescanzi mercenaries", "Lescanzi mercenaries" supposedly determines the form of the predicate, which is wrong.

"Army" is still a collective noun and thus subject to the rule above. http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/nouncollective.htm

 

[made]

It seems the Codex are of two minds on this issue.

 

[Hoaxmetal]

A group of people is hiding, BUT

A group of people are raging on the forums.

PEOPLE ARE raging on the forums.
GROUP of people IS raging on the forums.

How can't you see that word like group or army while describing something that cosists of many is still singular, no matter what descriptive "of" comes after.

Seriously, I've opened grammar book longer for five minutes, I had problems with several grammar tasks in school (all that present perfect continious bullshit ffs) but at least I feel when something is totally wrong.

Of course when you're reading fast or talking little thing like "armies are'' can seem to be right but if it's still not clear after several examples then

 

[J_C]

 

[SuicideBunny]

The point I was addressing is that in the sentence "an army of Lescanzi mercenaries", "Lescanzi mercenaries" supposedly determines the form of the predicate, which is wrong.

"Army" is still a collective noun and thus subject to the rule above. http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/nouncollective.htm

you misunderstand the rule.
an army of mercenaries are hiding in the bush to varying degrees of success, since here you have focus on the individual members and the differences between their effectivity, but it's still an army of mercenaries is hiding in the bush because those mercenaries are hiding uniformly and collectively as an army.
likewise, to pull and example from that page, the committee has reached its decision still retains the singular verb if you add a descriptor like the committee of party members has reached its decision.
a group of fans is visiting the comic-con vs. a group of fans are fighting for the last ticket, and so on.

 

[Darth Roxor]

An army of Lescanzi mercenaries ARE hiding...

:/

"Army" is a collective noun:

Depends on context. If you are using 'army' as 'the US army' like 'the police', it is a collective noun that should go with 'are'. But if you mean a specific mass of soldiers sitting around chilling and waiting to ambush someone, the noun is most definitely singular.

The sentence was an "an army of Lescanzi mercenaries is hiding," not "an army is hiding" and I think the correct way to say the former is to use ARE not IS as it refers to the mercenaries and not the army.

'Of mercenaries' is a modifier of 'an army'. It doesn't need to be there. The only things that are mandatory are 'army' and 'is hiding'.

 

[Commissar Draco]

So far it's better than DS1 and 2 and DA2, more RPG elements than in Skyrim and Witcher but worse storyline than the latter, worth torrenting for all the boobs and old style DnD heroic climate atleast.
6/10.

 

[Jaesun]

I only wish Saint (RIP) was here to express his love over DS1 and 2, and to share his thoughts on DS III. *sigh*

 

[jiujitsu]

My take:

Camera is terrible.

Combat doesn't flow like it should. The character rigidly moves forward slightly with each weapon swing.

Models are dated.

Looting can be frustrating.

I had problems with a voice over bug. The sound stuttered.

It's being released too close to The Witcher 2, which makes everything else look like total half-assed garbage.

 

[circ]

You're seriously telling me they removed the autoloot button (Z) from DS 1 and 2? Why would you do that?

Can you still have a donkey? It's not DS without one.

Or companion animals like in DS 2?

 

[KalosKagathos]

Played through the demo and wasn't impressed at all. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of character customization, and experimenting with various builds is why I play games like this.

 

[4m3rica]

What is you guys talking about in this thread?

 

[Metro]

You think us Americans is ignorant, but we ain't!

 

[Excommunicator]

I love this thread.

Wallace going all I AM DISAPPOINT on Radisshu, then the 4 page grammar-Nazi takeover (being led by actual Germans, no less), plus the old "Hoaxmetal =/= azrael the cat" thing, and all this happening in the News section in a topic about DS3.

Good times, Codex.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Couldn't stay on topic. Thread locked.



















































Wouldn't it be weird if this forum was like that?

 

[J_C]

You forgot to add "end of line".

 

[Hoaxmetal]

Dungeon.Siege.III-RELOADED

To derp or to hurp?