Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8937656" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I certainly recognize that it's difficult (if it were easy I probably would've done it myself.) But I don't agree that developing jargon is an inherently bad thing. Almost all fields of study develop jargon. I consider game design to be a field of study--indeed, I consider it to be a technology. Hence, developing some jargon is inevitable. We just happen to be people who live at a time where most of that jargon is yet to be defined.No one would want to have to constantly explain what bildungsroman means or spend a paragraph explaining what a "motif" is every single time they wanted to say anything about novels or music respectively. Yet those are jargon terms.It is, of course, important to recognize that jargon can be a barrier to entry and address those issues. Actual research mathematics can be practically incomprehensible even to someone with a relatively high level of math education (e.g. someone with a physics or engineering degree) because so many terms go unexplained, but that doesn't mean the jargon is bad for mathematics. It means that there's a lot of it and mathematicians don't really put that much effort into explaining what "rings" and "fields" and "manifolds" etc. are to non-mathematicians. Given there is no such thing as an academia of game design yet, I think we are reasonably protected from that level of impenetrability, but it never hurts to keep in mind that it can happen.</blockquote>

Verification