|
Post by zzz on Mar 30, 2009 5:23:29 GMT -5
Btw, just a tiny correction: it's "eponymous star of the series", not titular. Eponymous means to give your name to something, while titular, I believe, relates to official titles like "sir". Not sure without checking the OED, but the mix up with titular and eponymous I find is the number one mistake made in writing about games (mainly since so many game titles are based on character names). And I say this because I used to use "titular" A LOT in my writing, until someone pointed it out to me. That someone was mistaken. Titular means two things: 1) In title only, and 2) The exact same thing that everyone thinks it does. An eponym is the source of a title. So, while Mega Man is the titular star of Mega Man, Norman Bates would probably be considered the eponymous star of Psycho (for lack of a better example).
|
|
|
Post by necromaniac on Mar 30, 2009 7:23:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Mar 30, 2009 12:50:57 GMT -5
Btw, just a tiny correction: it's "eponymous star of the series", not titular. Eponymous means to give your name to something, while titular, I believe, relates to official titles like "sir". Not sure without checking the OED, but the mix up with titular and eponymous I find is the number one mistake made in writing about games (mainly since so many game titles are based on character names). And I say this because I used to use "titular" A LOT in my writing, until someone pointed it out to me. That someone was mistaken. Titular means two things: 1) In title only, and 2) The exact same thing that everyone thinks it does. An eponym is the source of a title. So, while Mega Man is the titular star of Mega Man, Norman Bates would probably be considered the eponymous star of Psycho (for lack of a better example). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eponymen.wikipedia.org/wiki/TitularThat someone was as right as wikipedia. Actually, titular can mean a lot more things: 1. Relating to, having the nature of, or constituting a title. 2. a. Existing in name only; nominal: the titular head of the family. b. Bearing the title of a church or monastery that is no longer active. 3. Bearing a title: titular dignitaries. 4. Derived from a title: the titular role in a play. www.thefreedictionary.com/titularYour alternative definition of eponymous is off, though.
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Mar 30, 2009 12:57:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Mar 30, 2009 13:15:20 GMT -5
titular1 a: existing in title only ; especially : bearing a title derived from a defunct ecclesiastical jurisdiction (as an episcopal see) <a titular bishop> b: having the title and usually the honors belonging to an office or dignity without the duties, functions, or responsibilities <the titular head of a political party> 2: bearing a title : titled 3: of, relating to, or constituting a title <the titular hero of the play>My definition of titular was correct. Your alternative definition of eponymous is off, though. eponymous: of, relating to, or being an eponymeponym1 : one for whom or which something is or is believed to be named 2 : a name (as of a drug or a disease) based on or derived from an eponym... And so was my definition of eponymous. It means relating to or being something which something is believe to be named after. Meaning the source of the name, like I said. It does not mean sharing the same name as.
|
|
|
Post by aganar on Mar 30, 2009 16:23:07 GMT -5
I'd love to see a Darkseed article. Ha ha! What a stupidly designed game that is. The games the site does articles on aren't required to be good, they're just meant to be noteworthy. Quality or not, a game series direct by H.R. Giger qualifies as "noteworthy" in my book, at least as much as Betrayal at Kondor or Advent Rising do.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Mar 30, 2009 16:29:51 GMT -5
I got Darkseed recently in a bundle of PC games, I'll have to check it out. I think it actually got a Saturn port in Japan.
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Mar 30, 2009 16:42:30 GMT -5
When playing Dark Seed, I totally didn't know what I was supposed to do. Infact, I wasn't even sure if I was supposed to do anything at all. 1 : one for whom or which something is or is believed to be named
(...) It means relating to or being something which something is believe to be named after. Meaning the source of the name, like I said. It does not mean sharing the same name as. That dictionary doesn't give a very well-defined definition though. I'd read that as linguistical derivement, while you obviously did read it as semantical derivement. I need a better dictionary.
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Mar 30, 2009 17:01:20 GMT -5
I don't think there is a better dictionary than Merriam-Webster. M-W is as literal and explicit as they come. When it says "of, relating to, or being one for whom or which something is or is believed to be named" it means just that.
|
|
Yuan
Full Member
The Original Wind and Water: Puzzle Battles Yuan
Posts: 248
|
Post by Yuan on Mar 30, 2009 19:05:16 GMT -5
I only played the first one, and MAN did I get stuck badly in that game. Maybe I just suck at American Adventure game logic.
Still I enjoyed what far I got.
|
|
|
Post by Sketcz-1000 on Mar 31, 2009 3:12:24 GMT -5
Erm, this probably doesn't need pages of debate... It's not something I feel that strongly enough about to argue over, but just so that I don't look stupid, I'm blaming my dictionary...
I was going on the Oxford English Dictionary which my friend pointed out to me, which goes on about the Queen being the titular head of England (in title only), and other examples. The closest to the meaning you're describing stated: "2. related to or denoted by a title". Which I took to mean an official title (like the Pope, President, etc...) as opposed to, say, the name of a person being used as the name to a play/book/film/game.
To me that wasn't as obvious and clean cut as the eponymous description: "(of a thing) named after a particular person or group: their eponymous debut album".
If the dictionaries conflict, then hey, cool, I'm happy to concede that both are legitimate ways to describe something.
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Jan 28, 2010 13:45:29 GMT -5
Gabriel Knight is now on GOG.com! Their countdown really didn't promise too much. Woohoo!
Also Arcanum. And more Activision stuff to come (didn't even know Activision owns Gabriel Knight now).
|
|
|
Post by papersquadcontrol on Jan 31, 2010 5:54:05 GMT -5
Gabriel Knight is now on GOG.com! The first one at that! I presume this one fixed the glitches that prevented one from finishing the game?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2010 11:27:21 GMT -5
What glitches? I've never had problems with finishing the game and I've finished three different CD-ROM releases in the past (including the GOG release, which I finished last night).
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jan 31, 2010 11:48:12 GMT -5
When I played it last year, the DOS version was unbeatable. Even with all of the patches (fan and official) applied and different versions of DOSBOX, it crashes at the beginning of Day Seven (I think.) The Windows version is patchable and playable, but it's also ugly. I hope the DOS one is fixed.
|
|