• Vespair@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    Conversational language should inherently be different than journalistic prose. It was considered good form (really necessary form) for the vast majority of my life to fully define any non-ubiquitous terms in the text before using them. It only seems recently to me, and especially in games journalism, that they’ve decided to eschew the defining part of the process and just give the reference undefined.

    Like it’s okay, useful even, to say things like “Like ARK, Palworld utilizes X mechanic to achieve Y by doing Z.” That’s a great way to use a touchpoint for increased clarity to readers! But to just say “Palworld’s combat is ARK-like,” without defining what ARK-like is, is lazy and unhelpful to anyone outside the know already.

    • sugar_in_your_tea
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Exactly.

      I really dislike the term “Soulslike” for a similar reason. Most “Soulslike” games have almost nothing in common with “Dark Souls,” but they’ve latched onto one defining characteristic (tough boss fights) and ran with it, instead of using three words, “hard boss fights.”