255 réponses à ce sujet

[baryonic member]

Drogo45 wrote...

As of right now, DA2 is the RPG of the decade. No other game comes close.

Mass Effect 2? 

[Bhav]

The_Illusive wrote...

My review for DA II was something like this

Mine was like that too, and a little like this:

[Cobrawar]

Csec_2 wrote...

Who's PC Gamer? That doesn't matter. They don't know a thing

 its a PC game magazine.

[TelkEvolon]

I don't think I even consider Mass Effect 2 to be a RPG.

CoD isn't an RPG just because you can upgrade stuff.

[Ferretinabun]

Ascorius wrote...

No, you are wrong. There was even a lot of discussion if the milennia change should have been celebrated in 2001 or 2000, and in those countries were they did celebrate it at 2000 it as seen as a precedence.

Probably because it is easier to bow to public misunderstanding than stick to what is technically correct when it is counter-intuitive. I'm sure it was merely a practical decision.

When they started the Gregorian calendar the number 0 wasn't invented. And now that we have year 0 (and year 0 is actually used by many historians today), we cannot  discount the fact that starting a decade at 1 is highly illogical.

Nevertheless it was done. And if the first year was 1AD and yet decades now go from 0-9, then we have lost a year somewhere along the way.

General perceptions set precedence in language. I can fret all I want about the word bag actually means a wooden container (the original meaning), but I would be wrong since the concencus is different.

That's semantics. The definition of a word IS what people use it to mean. This is not the same with maths. Maths works on brute facts. It is entirely possible for everyone in the world to be 'wrong' about a mathematical fact.

[Sir Caradoc]

I hope pc gamer got good money from this bs "review". Or they sold what was left of their sorry reputation very cheap.

Modifié par Sir Caradoc, 12 mars 2011 - 06:07 .

[Noir201]

They lose all respect when saying something silly like that, DA2 good or bad depending what you think but lets say put DA2 next to Deux Ex 3 or Skyrim or maybe even Mass Effect 3. One thinks it won't touch them three in this "best of the decade"

[Elevon]

Drogo45 wrote...

As of right now, DA2 is the RPG of the decade. No other game comes close.

No way,you can bet "The Witcher 2" will be a lot better   .

[Oliver Sudden]

Monica83 wrote...

When skyrim and the witcher 2 comes out we will see.... this game is not so Awesome afrer all

I'd replace skyrim with Risen 2, but that might not come out until 2012.

[Shirosaki17]

When people say the best game of this decade, they should be talking about within the past 10 years regarless of date. (So if it's 2015 it's the best game since 2005, etc) You shouldn't be giving out titles of best game in the decade of 2010-2019, when it's 2011. That's just stupid and a marketing/hype ploy.

Why don't you just come out and say EA pays you or gives you some kind of incentive to write trash like that?

Modifié par Shirosaki17, 12 mars 2011 - 06:12 .

[ColdbringeR]

Ferretinabun wrote...

ColdbringeR wrote...

I'm not saying you are wrong in that there was no year zero. I'm simply saying that people don't offset everything after that when referring to periods of time.

If there was no year 0 and 1980-1989 is a decade, then somewhere a year has gone missing. That just maths. 

The flaw was in starting a time scale at year 1, which makes no sense since 365 days hadn't passed yet.

You can consider it a flaw. Nevertheless it was done. 

This is where the absurdity comes from. It's currently more practical to assume that the first year of the first decade was the year before year 1 (year zero, so to speak). We can do this, because year 1 is just some arbitrary starting point christians pulled out of their ass in the first place.

Are you suggesting we reassign years? Rewrite 1BC as Year 0, have 2BC as 1BC, etc,...?
Yes it is indeed possible for us to do that, because yes, our numbering system is arbitrary. Nevertheless, it is the one we have, and in it the first year (AD) was 1 AD, which means the first year of the second decade was 11AD.

We don't have to rewrite anything. Just consider 1BC the AD equivalent of year zero and it all works out nicely. Astronomers do it. Why can't we?

[svenus97]

GregoriusMaximus wrote...

Decades run from 0-9 people. Or do you consider 1980 to have been in "the seventies"?

No, decades run from 1-10. What you are refering to is a 10 year period, which is a decade, but not a measurred decade, like there is the 26th decade, or 6th century.

This decade started on January 1st 2011, and will end on December 31st 2020.

[ColdbringeR]

svenus97 wrote...

GregoriusMaximus wrote...

Decades run from 0-9 people. Or do you consider 1980 to have been in "the seventies"?

No, decades run from 1-10. What you are refering to is a 10 year period, which is a decade, but not a measurred decade, like there is the 26th decade, or 6th century.

This decade started on January 1st 2011, and will end on December 31st 2020.

Yet we celebrated the new millenium on 1-1-2000. Were you yelling at all of your friends and relatives to stop the madness and wait one more year?

[Ferretinabun]

ColdbringeR wrote...

We don't have to rewrite anything. Just consider 1BC the AD equivalent of year zero and it all works out nicely. Astronomers do it. Why can't we?

So 1BC is Year 0 as well?
That means that 1 BC is part of the first decade AD. And, consequently, 1AD is part of the first century BC, right?

[Ferretinabun]

ColdbringeR wrote...

Yet we celebrated the new millenium on 1-1-2000. Were you yelling at all of your friends and relatives to stop the madness and wait one more year?

To be honest, it was common knowledge at the time. Everyone I knew knew it wasn't TECHNICALLY the new millennium, but, well, why let that get in the way of a big party?

[Hyunsai]

Because like Dragon Age II compared to Dragon Age Origins, 2000 is an "Awesome" number compared to 2001...

[svenus97]

ColdbringeR wrote...

svenus97 wrote...

GregoriusMaximus wrote...

Decades run from 0-9 people. Or do you consider 1980 to have been in "the seventies"?

No, decades run from 1-10. What you are refering to is a 10 year period, which is a decade, but not a measurred decade, like there is the 26th decade, or 6th century.

This decade started on January 1st 2011, and will end on December 31st 2020.

Yet we celebrated the new millenium on 1-1-2000. Were you yelling at all of your friends and relatives to stop the madness and wait one more year?

So because a lot of people do something incorrect it has to be correct ?

[Ascorius]

Ferretinabun wrote...

Ascorius wrote...

No, you are wrong. There was even a lot of discussion if the milennia change should have been celebrated in 2001 or 2000, and in those countries were they did celebrate it at 2000 it as seen as a precedence.

Probably because it is easier to bow to public misunderstanding than stick to what is technically correct when it is counter-intuitive. I'm sure it was merely a practical decision.

When they started the Gregorian calendar the number 0 wasn't invented. And now that we have year 0 (and year 0 is actually used by many historians today), we cannot  discount the fact that starting a decade at 1 is highly illogical.

Nevertheless it was done. And if the first year was 1AD and yet decades now go from 0-9, then we have lost a year somewhere along the way.

General perceptions set precedence in language. I can fret all I want about the word bag actually means a wooden container (the original meaning), but I would be wrong since the concencus is different.

That's semantics. The definition of a word IS what people use it to mean. This is not the same with maths. Maths works on brute facts. It is entirely possible for everyone in the world to be 'wrong' about a mathematical fact.

No, if you count from 0-9 there is no loss of a year. And its not bowing to general misconceptions, its regulating it to fit the numbersystem of today. As mentioned there was no 0 when the calendar started so it is mathematically flawed... If it is a practical decision or not does not really matter. Precedence in language is precedence like in a courtroom. In my country at least its officially correct language to say year 0. And you are the one arguing semantics my friend... stating that what people percieve as the real start of a decade has something to do with mathematical facts. People see year zero as the start like in the astronomical calendar (don't confuse it with astrological), and nothing in the mathematical system proves this as wrong. Nearly all languages has written rules to what is correct or not when it comes to language, so it is not arguing semantics when something changes meaning.... its a linguistical fact.

[ColdbringeR]

Ferretinabun wrote...

ColdbringeR wrote...

We don't have to rewrite anything. Just consider 1BC the AD equivalent of year zero and it all works out nicely. Astronomers do it. Why can't we?

So 1BC is Year 0 as well?
That means that 1 BC is part of the first decade AD. And, consequently, 1AD is part of the first century BC, right?

Yes. 1AD would be the BC equivalent of year zero, and yes year zero would obviusly mean something different in both contexts. You would not need to refer to either of these as "year zero" however. Simply call them by their respective names (1BC and 1AD).

[Literateminority]

Oliver Sudden wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

When skyrim and the witcher 2 comes out we will see.... this game is not so Awesome afrer all

I'd replace skyrim with Risen 2, but that might not come out until 2012.

I agree, truly something to look forward too!

[Ferretinabun]

ColdbringeR wrote...

Yes. 1AD would be the BC equivalent of year zero, and yes year zero would obviusly mean something different in both contexts. You would not need to refer to either of these as "year zero" however. Simply call them by their respective names (1BC and 1AD).

Umm, okay. So the first year of the first decade AD was 1BC?

[ColdbringeR]

svenus97 wrote...

ColdbringeR wrote...

svenus97 wrote...

GregoriusMaximus wrote...

Decades run from 0-9 people. Or do you consider 1980 to have been in "the seventies"?

No, decades run from 1-10. What you are refering to is a 10 year period, which is a decade, but not a measurred decade, like there is the 26th decade, or 6th century.

This decade started on January 1st 2011, and will end on December 31st 2020.

Yet we celebrated the new millenium on 1-1-2000. Were you yelling at all of your friends and relatives to stop the madness and wait one more year?

So because a lot of people do something incorrect it has to be correct ?

I'm saying there is no correct or incorrect here. It's a matter of perception. The gregorian calendar is not based on scientific fact. It's just a tool, and one that many find miscalibrated.

[GregoriusMaximus]

Ferretinabun wrote...
That's semantics. The definition of a word IS what people use it to mean. This is not the same with maths. Maths works on brute facts. It is entirely possible for everyone in the world to be 'wrong' about a mathematical fact.

The only mathematical 'fact' relating to the word 'decade' is that it must be 10 years in length. There is nothing else about the term that means that it is tied to the Gregorian calendar in the manner you suggest. Its relation to the calendar is historical, not mathematical. Not to mention the fact that there was no Gregorian calendar in 0/1 AD

The term was used by a game review mag. PRAY TELL: which version of 'decade' do you think he meant? The common sense version or the ludicrous pseudo-intellectual pedant version?

Do you pedants really consider the 1960s to have ended at the beginning of 1971? Did you all celebrate the millennium in 2001? Lmaooo

Modifié par GregoriusMaximus, 12 mars 2011 - 06:33 .

[Ferretinabun]

Ascorius wrote...

No, if you count from 0-9 there is no loss of a year. And its not bowing to general misconceptions, its regulating it to fit the numbersystem of today.

But how do you regulate it? Do you, as ColdbringeR suggets, make 1BC also Year 0? And thus have 1BC as the first year of the first decade AD?

As mentioned there was no 0 when the calendar started so it is mathematically flawed...

It would be if decades went from 0-9. If they go from 1-10, then it meakes perfect mathematical sense.

If it is a practical decision or not does not really matter. Precedence in language is precedence like in a courtroom. In my country at least its officially correct language to say year 0. And you are the one arguing semantics my friend...

It's an expression. But what year is Year Zero referring to?

stating that what people percieve as the real start of a decade has something to do with mathematical facts. People see year zero as the start like in the astronomical calendar (don't confuse it with astrological), and nothing in the mathematical system proves this as wrong. Nearly all languages has written rules to what is correct or not when it comes to language, so it is not arguing semantics when something changes meaning.... its a linguistical fact.

I'm not arguing that words change meaning. They do. But numbers don't.