vonAchdorf
Arcane
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 13,465
I wouldn't consider Larian's move to expand the scope of the sequel while also expanding the studio drastically to work on at least an additional IP "playing it safe".
I wouldn't consider Larian's move to expand the scope of the sequel while also expanding the studio drastically to work on at least an additional IP "playing it safe".
I don't mind reading a million of words. Sadly numenera's writing is shit and pointless. I can't remember a single meaningful dialogue.Full VO is a money sink which can literally sink a company if the game flops. Unlike InXile though, they brought a game to consoles, which apparently even console players buy - while in Numas case, not even PC gamers felt like reading 2 trillion words - and console players even less (though that's on Techland and not InXile).
If the studio has their headquarters on a boat and they try to have too many voice actors on board at once.Full VO can literally sink a company
In a dictionary that exists nowhere.Reusing the formula of your highly successful game while upping the production values is literally a definition of playing it safe.
If the studio has their headquarters on a boat and they try to have too many voice actors on board at once.Full VO can literally sink a company
In a dictionary that exists nowhere.Reusing the formula of your highly successful game while upping the production values is literally a definition of playing it safe.
Two posters in a row. I hate you people.
Using exaggeration is indeed fine; however, using the word "literally" literally means your intent is not to exaggerate. Instead of providing emphasis, your misuse undercuts your point by showing that you can't differentiate fact from fiction, and don't understand the very words you're trying to make a point with.Figure of speech, mate. Using exaggeration to emphasize a point is a perfectly fine use of language.
On the one hand, very doesn't mean "much" either, it means "truthfully". Really means .. Real-ly. On the other hand, it would be nice to have some words to do with truth left that weren't brought low into "general intensifier".
Using exaggeration is indeed fine; however, using the word "literally" literally means your intent is not to exaggerate.
"Gigantic" does not mean "freakishly large and I am definitionally not exaggerating", so it is not an inappropriate word to use for exaggerative purposes. "Literally" does mean "I am definitionally not exaggerating" and is inappropriate to use for such purposes.Not if you're employing the word as a figure of speech or a rhetorical device, because that literally means that you're not using the word literally in its literal meaning. In the example above,- literally is literally not used literally, because literally is literally where the exaggeration takes place. If I call you a gigantic dumbass, are you going to consult the dictionary and conclude that you can't be a gigantic dumbass because giants are fictional? That's not how any of it works, pal.
If the studio has their headquarters on a boat and they try to have too many voice actors on board at once.Full VO can literally sink a company
"Literally" does mean "I am definitionally not exaggerating" and is inappropriate to use for such purposes.
I have sympathies for linguistic purists and precise language, so I appreciate the reminder, but like Tom stated, there has been a shift in meaning which - like it or not - already crept into the dictionaries. Interestingly there are similar examples in German, where words did a 180 in the public perception of their meaning.
That's just how it works though. Dictionary is not sacred scripture, it's just catalogue of most recent usage trends. Language purists are just insecure autists who like to pat themselves on the back about their self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, whereas in reality they never were within a 100 miles of a linguistics textbook. If they were, they'd knew that all their crusading is not only misguided, but entirely futile. Correct way to speak is how the majority speaks.
That's just how it works though. Dictionary is not sacred scripture, it's just catalogue of most recent usage trends. Language purists are just insecure autists who like to pat themselves on the back about their self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, whereas in reality they never were within a 100 miles of a linguistics textbook. If they were, they'd knew that all their crusading is not only misguided, but entirely futile. Correct way to speak is how the majority speaks.
So usefulness has nothing to do with it? As an example you used to have to have an implication to make an inference - now, thanks to your kind of low brow monkey thinking, infer and imply mean the same thing.
How is this better for anyone but stupid people? You had two words meaning two different things and it helped intelligent people communicate clearly and efficiently. Now you have two words meaning the same thing and it just leads to confusion for intelligent people. Are you talking to a new age dummy and not bother wondering if there was an implication? Or is this person somewhat intelligent and should I bother wasting time and effort thinking about what implication his inference is referring to?
Only retards want the language dumbed down and made less useful and less efficient.
Edit: retards who pretend to be Wolverine and call people bub should be shot for being extra retarded.