Max Payne 3 Fights Gamer Nostalgia

[Xanadu84]

It was actually meant as a form of embellishment. I didn't mean to insult the local English Nazis. Not every game in the last 5 years has been in a tropical jungle setting, clearly. My use of the word literally was this one: Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling. I know they used the word in the definition, but this is what the results of googling "literally definition" were. Also, this was not constructive at all. But, glad everyone got to say their piece. ;-p

To emphasize my point, this is from "Thefreedictionary.com"-

Usage Note: For more than a hundred years, critics have remarked on the incoherency of using literally in a way that suggests the exact opposite of its primary sense of "in a manner that accords with the literal sense of the words." In 1926, for example, H.W. Fowler cited the example "The 300,000 Unionists ... will be literally thrown to the wolves." The practice does not stem from a change in the meaning of literally itselfif it did, the word would long since have come to mean "virtually" or "figuratively"but from a natural tendency to use the word as a general intensive, as in They had literally no help from the government on the project, where no contrast with the figurative sense of the words is intended.

I have to take issue here. The purpose of the word literally is to signify that you should take the statement at its word, using the strict definition, without metaphor. If cats and dogs are falling from the sky, you would say that it is, "Literally raining cats and dogs", since simply saying that it is raining cats and dogs would be confusing. And Literally is still primarily used for this purpose. To specifically give it a unrelated definition, or even a directly contradictory definition (As yes another on a long list of intensive), the ONLY purpose you serve is to confuse the listener for no gain, while eliminating other users ability to communicate important information that would otherwise be impossible. I am all for the evolution for language, and when words get added or morph there meaning for a purpose, Im fine with that. But when a change, such as some peoples use of the word Literally incorrectly, literally does absolutely nothing except make understanding harder and more frustrating for everyone, I get annoyed.

I should point out that I have no problem with you. I'm not going to get angry at an individual for making a common mistake. But it's a mistake that shouldn't be made, because it is toxic.

 

[Jagger916]

Jagger, granted I've never been to Brazil and didn't look into the climate of Sao Paulo, but the images from the MP3 certainly play up Brazil as a hot place. Maybe that's part of why we're confused.

Not to sound like a dick, but a bit of sunlight doesn't mean hot. New York has sunlight.
São Paulo is a warm(but ultimately dreary) place, but it is not tropical, it's not a jungle, it's not some dream city on a beach.

 

[Baresark]

snip

I have to take issue here. The purpose of the word literally is to signify that you should take the statement at its word, using the strict definition, without metaphor. If cats and dogs are falling from the sky, you would say that it is, "Literally raining cats and dogs", since simply saying that it is raining cats and dogs would be confusing. And Literally is still primarily used for this purpose. To specifically give it a unrelated definition, or even a directly contradictory definition (As yes another on a long list of intensive), the ONLY purpose you serve is to confuse the listener for no gain, while eliminating other users ability to communicate important information that would otherwise be impossible. I am all for the evolution for language, and when words get added or morph there meaning for a purpose, Im fine with that. But when a change, such as some peoples use of the word Literally incorrectly, literally does absolutely nothing except make understanding harder and more frustrating for everyone, I get annoyed.

I should point out that I have no problem with you. I'm not going to get angry at an individual for making a common mistake. But it's a mistake that shouldn't be made, because it is toxic.

LoL, there is no reason for anyone to be angry. I just cited how/why I was using the language I did. Also, things like sarcasm and embellishment are part of standard vernacular for the English language. I only put the usage note to back up what I was saying and my use of the word. I know it's not proper to write as we speak. I don't normally. It's not toxic because I didn't really use it improperly, only sarcastically. This form of the word has been used for over 100 years. And it has been a point of contention for just as long. But language must change with the time. If it did not, we would all still be speaking the same English of the original settlers who settled America. It still means the original meaning though.

Also, by your own admission, there was no confusion of the language. Everyone seemed to pick up what I was saying. You didn't think I meant what I said, no more than the other folks who pointed out my egregious(another fine word that can mean shockingly bad or outstandingly good, though people only seem to subscribe the former and not the ladder) English error.

For good fun, I'll play up on your thoughts at the end of your response with:
YOU COMING AT ME, BRO!!

Edit: Also, it's not uncommon in many other languages to take the use of a word out of context. It is a way that can make language deeper and more expressive.

 

[Baresark]

snip

To quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means"

Sorry, improper use of the word, "Literally" is a pet peeve of mine.

snip

snip

As is misusing the phrase "the way every game has gone in the last five years". He's using it to mean "three games tops in the last 5 years have used the jungle setting, and even then those three started in said setting and moved away from it".

Unless he knows absolutely nothing.

It was actually meant as a form of embellishment. I didn't mean to insult the local English Nazis. Not every game in the last 5 years has been in a tropical jungle setting, clearly. My use of the word literally was this one: Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true but is used for emphasis or to express strong feeling. I know they used the word in the definition, but this is what the results of googling "literally definition" were. Also, this was not constructive at all. But, glad everyone got to say their piece. ;-p

So, you intentiaonally said that something that has barely happened at all in th last 5 years has happened in "every game has gone in the last five years" because.....what?

I actually meant to express my concern about the idea of it changing from a city to a tropical jungle like setting. As it turns out, what this article failed to mention was that it was still going to be in a city. And, as I pointed out, it was about embellishment, not fact.

 

[DoctorM]

Why do companies feel that a franchise's name exist separately from the actual games?

If they wanted to make a game about an ex-cop on the gunning down lots of bad guys in Brazil, why on earth did they need to tack the "Max Payne" name on to it?

Are we really expected to see everything about the game changed except for the name "Max Payne" and still believe it is in any way related to the prior games?

Something tells me we'll never know if Mona survived or not.

It makes me think about Far Cry 2. It was just a name stamped on to whatever other project they were developing.
Crysis felt like more of a sequel to Far Cry than the real sequel ever did.

 

[Signa]

I'm just trying to imagine why a New York City cop would ever find himself out of the country on an adventure. Sure, I'm sure he didn't go to Brazil to find treasure, but it's not what I'd consider a vacation hot spot either; at least not for Payne. No, I'm sure he got roped into some drug bust or some other lame-ass shit like that. I will reserve judgment until I play it, because Rockstar kinda knows what they are doing when it comes to story telling. I'm just feeling the need to brace myself even before hearing a proper synopsis, which shouldn't be my reaction to hearing that there is a new Payne on its way out.

 

[Jagger916]

Are we really expected to see everything about the game changed except for the name "Max Payne" and still believe it is in any way related to the prior games?

How has everything changed?

 

[Phishfood]

I am totally torn. On the one hand, we already have max payne 1 and 2. We don't especially need a game that is essentially the same game with new levels.

On the other hand, if you stray too far from the source you get a game that everyone will hate even though it may well have been a perfectly serviceability game.

I'm definately looking forward to it though, if it turns out the scene change is a complete fuck up I'm sure they will reverse it for 4.

 

[Gormers1]

Not that I care so much about these details, but if I remember correctly, I heard on a podcast that the game does start in new york city, with a pre-bald Max Payne. And apparently a lot of the game takes place there.

They might have done themselves an unfavor by presenting the change without the transition and reason for it.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

WHY IS HE BOLD AND FAT?

No seriously, why would you just go ahead and ruin an iconic look for no bloody reason.

Maybe there is a reason, I don't know I haven't played the game but still.

And why didn't they just make a new game with a new story with bullet time.