Common language makes difficult-to-describe ideas easier for people to understand. It's important not to use jargon in any form of writing, game-writing or otherwise. I'm sure you read about ideas every day that may be hard to understand but make sense to you because they've been properly edited by editors and copy editors that understand the importance of clarity.

I don't disagree with your point about common language. Your comment makes me think about Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking. They do what you describe, but I'm under no illusions that their explanations, which give me the ability to grasp the theories they are talking about, give me anything other than a tenuous grasp. The common language makes the most basic precepts of what they mean available to me, but that's as far as I can go.

The issue I had with Leigh's example of Fallout 3 is that, as a commenter noted, it sounds like her parents were just giving her a hard time. They didn't really not understand what she meant as a result of her language, but she also didn't use the language very well in the story as she told it. She didn't say "Fallout actually is a FPS game in part," when her father asked if whether it was an FPS, and she didn't say "This is a Washington, D.C. from an alternate future," when her mother said it didn't look like Washington.

I get that Leigh is telling a story, but surely there's a better example than this to describe "the problems" with the language we use. When Luke Plunkett wrote his story, he similarly was using bad examples of "the problems" of "the shorthand of gaming" which undercut his point.

I've never had a problem explaining my love of a particular video game, and why it was important, to anyone who genuinely wanted to know - but that common language I used was only able to give them the same tenuous grip I get from Sagan and Hawking. If Leigh's issue is that she cannot adequately convey the depth of her feelings on Fallout 3 using common language, perhaps it's because the experience of playing Fallout 3 is not a common experience, any more than astrophysics is a common discipline.

When it comes to art, the very best critics and fellow artists struggle to come up with the right words to make their reactions and feelings understood by someone who has not viewed the same work of art. With video games it's not only a matter of not having seen the work, but a matter of not having experienced the work. We're in double the bind, aren't we?

Fellini is the shit... Avatar is a dog shit of a movie... good points :P

I absolutely love this article! I feel a long comment coming.

I totally agree on your point that video game journalists (and really, sometimes I feel that title gets credited to so many undeserved people,) make problems just to "report" them. My dad says the same thing about sports journalists. They "stir up shit" he states in his colorful language.

You're completely right though: if someone doesn't have an interest in what you're speaking about, then it doesn't matter how plainly you put it, they're just not going to grasp it.

Onto Bitmob as a whole, I humbly disagree with Jason. Bitmob is a healthy enough of a site to support both the plain language pieces and the jargon-filled articles that are specifically targeted to gamers in the know. If the editors of Bitmob only promote the plainly written stories to the front page, that's their prerogative, but personally, I enjoy digging into a really in-depth piece that may have a bit of a barrier of entry every once in a while.

I don't really understand complex fighting game language. Focus attack-dash-cancel? Delayed Hyper Combo? It's a little beyond me, but if I were extremely well versed in fighting games, Seth Killian's Domination 101 articles like this one: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2813749/Domination-101-Controlling-Space would be totally interesting to me (and in anticipation of Marvel Vs. Capcom 3, I'm trying my best to break into that next level.)

Similarly, I've never played a MMORPG, so when my friends talk about the DPS of their rouge or when the perfect time to cast their DOTs is, I don't quite get it, but I know that in their world, they can understand and appreciate the conversation (like your example of trying to talk about jazz music with a non-musician.)

If someone wrote an article on Bitmob about high-level play of Advance Wars: Dual Strike, I wouldn't want them to try to put it plainly, it would just get in the way of what they were trying to say - by the way, someone should get on that.

Lastly, I've only ever read anything by Leigh Alexander in a second-hand context - whether through Bitmob or another source. I'm sure she's a talented writer and all, but I've disagreed with almost every single point she's made that I've read.

As if I needed to write any more, I did have one more thing to add.

To play devil's advocate, I also wouldn't want to read an infinite amount of articles that all basically said the same things. To Leigh's credit, she's is finding new things to write about - despite how I feel about the validity of the arguments she makes.

That's one of the hard parts about being a journalist: you have to dig to find stories. When I write an article for Bitmob, I try to write something I haven't seen anyone write about before.

The problem comes in when a journalist starts "making" news instead of just reporting it, which personally, is what I think Leigh was doing in this situation (be it consciously or not.)

There's a lot to unpack here. The diction you use depends somewhat on the audience you're writing for. If it's for a group of gamers, than the vocabulary would reflect that, inside jokes included. For an audience of new or non-gamers, the language would need to change. Then again, sometimes you have no choice but to go into complicate language because there's not other way to explain it. And even then, it helps to explain the terminology. But more important we can't use gaming jargon to show arrogance and make the reader feel dumb--writers work to invite the reader into a conversation, at least.

There's also the larger question of identity. How central is it for gamers to use language that creates who they are? Other countries have had this problem throughout history. Noah Webster didn't want French to influence English; some Japanese politicians today insist that Japan use less English words and words that have been influence by the English language, even to the point of replacing those influenced words with new words. So there's the issue of explaining our experience to others and the issue of how people see us based on the language we use--and how we perceive ourselves, too.

Great thesis. Great line here: My question: Why should we suspect that there exists a lexicon that might help us explain our complex experiences to those who don't care to share them?

I honestly never thought about it, but that is an excellent point. Even if you could make it more accessible...does that person really care?

One thing I always ask my writers to do: make your writing more accessible. Don't use "FPS" when you can use "first-person shooter"...or don't name drop "Miyamoto" without putting him in some sort of context. It isn't exactly what you're talking about here in this article, Dennis...but close.

I tell them: It's not about treating your audience as stupid or clueless, because we already assume they have some interest or knowledge if they're coming to Bitmob (or in the past, EGM) to begin with. But there are tiers of knowledge and hardcoreness, and if you can open up your writing just a tad to a slightly wider audience, via more accessible text -- then why not? You won't alienate maybe newcomers to the hobby...you won't be using all these abbreviations and insider lingo that makes it feel like you have to be part of a special club (like message boards often are like) to appreciate.

But again, it's not about going all the way in the other direction. My mom might not know what a "first-person shooter" is, but that's OK. :)  (And I tell the writers to save the abbreviations for after they've been spelled out initially.)

You know, going back and reading this again, I don't know if Tony's article I linked to really has anything to do with this. Tony was talking about the fact that video game writers take things too seriously, which really isn't the same thing as discussing their language, is it? He was taking issue with how games writers can nitpick, which I whole-heartedly agree with. I hate it when critics look too hard for things to criticize. If something's really worth going on about, I find it's usually unavoidable to notice.

If there is one thing I've learned from the more senior editors at Bitmob, it's to make your writing as accessible as possible.

Something to consider is that not all writing about games is journalistic.  Writers aren't always "inventing news" any more than the guy who writes about Shakespeare is inventing news about Shakespeare if he writes a scholarly essay about Othello.

Yes, much of game writing seems relegated to either writing the games themselves or writing journalistic stories, but there's an entire world of writing for scholarship that somehow got lumped into, and judged by, the same standards as news/journalistic writing.

If someone questions the lexical possibilities of talking about gaming, it's not even just about games--it's about specialized language in general (if you're willing to read beyond your own field of vision). We're trying to create a communal language at all times.  Some of the finest writers in the world have urged against jargon and for simple language.  It hasn't stopped their writing from changing the world--be it poets, novelists, playwrights or musicians.

A column isn't breaking news. It's an opinion meant to do just what it has, create a discussion point and get people thinking in a scholarly way--thinking beyond their next Trophy or Achievement and about deeper things.

I would argue that there are plenty of gamers who don't want to explain games because they don't think about much more than, "boom, big explosion--rad!"  We could do a better job of communicating with gamers who are outside of our particular wheelhouse--and not just non-gamers. Games have expanded to the point that talking to a gamer who plays TellTale adventure titles could be a totally different experience than talking to a hard core Starcraft player--or a Halo 3 online junkie.

If these things exist within our own hobby it doesn't hurt to assume that there's someone out there waiting to experience gaming the way we do--if we only present it.  Maybe your grandpa doesn't want to remember World War II any longer because he lost friends there--but if you handed him Mario Galaxy he'd find a different enchantment.  We assume people won't care and that we shouldn't reach out or adjust--but that's just an insular excuse to avoid remodeling our own way of thinking.

Hell, the example of Jazz is a case in point.  Did you play standards? Did you play fusion? Did you play simple Basie style piano charts with a plink or two or virtuoso piano parts?

Even saying you played jazz doesn't mean much to a jazz musician since it spans a huge range of styles itself. No one would ever mistake Weather Report for Miles Davis--but I prefer Davis to Pastorious, so if I heard Weather Report first and someone just called it Jazz--I wouldn't be as interested when I hear a very simplified "Davis is also jazz," from someone who didn't have the time to talk about their passion in a deeper way.

You don't have to explain the circle of fifths to make someone understand that Coltrane is different than Kenny G. and you don't have to pretend that people who don't know what the Circle of 5ths is simply care too little about Jazz to ever understand it.

"Alexander's inability to convey her Fallout 3 experience to them wasn't a failure of language -- it was an extension of their lack of interest in video games as anything more than a dalliance."

No, I think it really was a failure of language on her part. She did a poor job of explaining Fallout 3, regardless of her audience. She even admits knowing she was doing a poor job while explaining it to her parents. She should have stuck to explaining the higher concepts involved, most of which don't even require explaining their connection to the game's mechanics to get the point across.

You can't expect people to appreciate something through your explanation, but anyone with a firm grasp of their language and the greater concepts of the game at hand should be able to spread understanding.

I know what the writer means. My group of friends have a large assortment of interests, that at times, a whole hour of conversation can go by with one person being completely left out. You don't know how many times I just sat, bored out of my mind when they start talking about the sci-fi epic, Babylon 5 or Star Trek. Then there are times when we're talking about KOTOR, and one of my friends tunes us out for an hour. I almost when home one day when they were talking about the Nazi 3rd Reich, which meant that the also went on about the 1st and 2nd as well.

It's not so much that you can't communicate about gaming to non-gamers, but it's difficult to talk about any in-depth topic with an audience that hasn't experienced it. Other examples are describing runners high to couch potatoes or why people love "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" to someone who is straight-edge. 

@ Stephen Kilpatrick - 

I'm having trouble placing some of your feedback in the context of a response to either Leigh's column or my article. Ironic that we're talking about clear language, because I don't entirely know what you're saying, here. :)

"If these things exist within our own hobby it doesn't hurt to assume that there's someone out there waiting to experience gaming the way we do--if we only present it.  We assume people won't care and that we shouldn't reach out or adjust--but that's just an insular excuse to avoid remodeling our own way of thinking."

If someone wants to experience gaming - put a controller in their hand. I'm personally of the opinion that we shouldn't be trying to "convert" anyone, which is what it sounds like you're talking about here when you say "reach out." It's not like video games are some closeted activity that people have to seek out, they're as mainstream as film and television. If someone wants to learn about video games, and they ask you, play games with them. Start teaching them the language of gaming the way that matters most.

"You don't have to explain the circle of fifths to make someone understand that Coltrane is different than Kenny G. and you don't have to pretend that people who don't know what the Circle of 5ths is simply care too little about Jazz to ever understand it."

You're going to have to unpack this one for me, because it seems like an inappropriate metaphor. If you mean that someone doesn't need to understand something more complex to understand something simple...I'm not sure what that adds to this conversation. Tell us something we don't know - but who's talking about "complex knowledge" that's required?

My thesis is that when enthusiasts are talking to enthusiasts, i.e. when gaming journalists are discussing gaming with their audience, it's okay to use jargon where appropriate. If we're talking about discussing gaming with complete and utter strangers who have never picked up a controller in their life, then we're not going to be able to jump straight into the sort of conversations that gamers like to have with one another. We have to take those beginning steps first, teach "video games 101" to them.

If Leigh was arguing that there's some lexicon to be developed to allow video game enthusiasts to make themselves easily understood, when talking about video games at the level that video game enthusiasts find interesting, to people who don't play video games, I disagree. I'm not saying that it's impossible to discuss video games with people who don't play them, I'm saying that in order to have the kinds of conversations we have amongst ourselves that yes, some prior knowledge or experience is required.

Telling a jazz musician that you play jazz means the two of you may be able to jump straight into higher-level discussions of jazz, that you may share a lexicon of specific language to enable you to immediately discuss some of the nuances of your art form. It means that you certainly should be able to skip "music theory 101" and jump straight into discussion of fusion and standards and such.

Do you honestly not think that a lack of experience or knowledge of video games doesn't prevent someone from accessing certain levels of discussion regarding video games? Move away from the jazz example - I'd love to hear you use some examples, in gaming language, to explain what you mean by your response.