Go to any game that uses cards and then look at the settings. What should say "Visibility of opponent's playing cards" is "Visibility of opponents playing card".

Who's read that and hasn't fallen asleep due to boredom?

I'm not sure this is an actual error... We need a grammer expert up in here

Oh my god.... *Dials former English teacher*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6qFJ09KY-A

I'm not sure this is an actual error... We need a grammer expert up in here

It's missing an apostrophe.

You are incorrect, Loony. No matter how Fizzer puts it, it will be grammatically incorrect one way or the other.
What if you have more than one opponent? It would have to say opponents' cards.

However, no apostrophe at all is wrong all in cases.

"Visibility of opponents playing card(s)"

Would solve the problem.

"Visibility of opponents playing card(s)"

Yes, I also believe this would fix the problem.

Edited 9/9/2014 17:23:22

There should never be an apostrophe. The phrase is not possessive. It is not speaking the visibility of their cards but to the action of their playing cards.

The point of the phrase is asking if their action of playing a card should be visible, not if their playing cards should be visible.

"Visibility of the opponents playing card(s)" would be even better.

Moros 'the' is only helpful when playing one opponent, dropping the 'the' whilst slightly less grammatically correct for 1v1 has much more utility for 1v1 or team games.

Edited 9/9/2014 17:44:16

If you want something between the 'of' and 'opponents' why not 'your'?

Currently, the settings also say "Visibility of opponent's cards" because the cards belong to the opponent. Therefore, going by the same rules of grammar, since the playing cards belong to the opponent, it should be "Visibility of opponent's playing cards".

Why? That they are playing cards is obvious from the context ... there is no definite rule in English to specify what is obvious.

You can say "I am going to the shop"

You are not required to say: "I am going to the Tesco's which is on xxx street"

Edited 9/9/2014 18:23:38

Why does it even matter, honestly?

We all understand what it means.

We can spend hours on here arguing about it, or choose to ignore general stupidity from people like the creator of this post.

Why does it even matter, honestly?

No, but I was very bored when I made this thread.

We can spend hours on here arguing about it, or choose to ignore general stupidity from people like THE CREATOR OF THIS POST.

So you're calling yourself stupid, if you want to call me stupid then you'd have said this thread, not post.

Edited 9/9/2014 18:32:37

*Dials former English teacher*

Not sure why I imagined you using a rotary phone

Or what's weirder is GoldenBullet has the number of his/her former English teacher.

visibility of the opposition's playing cards.

there's no need to put "card(s)" because it is a conditional sentence, the opposition may have any number of cards or none at all, but all of their cards will be visible if the setting is selected, therefore it is cards. this is intuitive from the context.

The point of the phrase is asking if their action of playing a card should be visible, not if their playing cards should be visible.

No, I thought you could see their cards when this setting is selected? If you go to the cards window there is a drop-down menu where you can select whose cards you want to see?

Edited 9/10/2014 08:10:14