where are all the bernbandlikes
2026-07-08
the language we use to describe and categorize games is incredibly limited. it's dry, sterile and nebulous, a prime example of corpowashing.
it's partly down to gamers and developers alike being inept at naming things, partly due to a complete lack of imagination on the part of marketing people, and partly thanks to the internet's inclination towards misapropriating labels without truly understanding either the label or the thing being labeled.
what the fuck is even an action-adventure? a role playing game? a multiplayer online battle arena?? these things mean nothing.
one exception is the walking simulator. it's a great name for several reasons. first of all it's a good descriptor: it's a game where most of what you do is walking. at least, most of what you do on screen. but secondly, and more importantly, it was concieved as an insult by people who think they're really funny and clever, then coopted by the developers it was supposed to make fun of. i find that brilliant.
but it's not granular enough. there's varying degrees of walking simulatorness. some have you collect things. some are purist, just about inhabiting a space and exploring it. others are wireframe models built to hold up poetry. all of them should have names.
we should be looking up to the music scene and their hyperspecificity fetish, and not limiting ourselves. since we're so fond of describing games as functions of other games (it's like X meets Y!), i suggest we lean into our own laziness and just describe everything as a somethinglike.
just overload the system with idiocy. either it sticks, or it topples over and we can start again. maybe we'll do better next time around?