• Crul@lemm.eeOP
    2·
    1 year ago

    pre-apocalyptic vs post-apocalyptic is a better distinguisher?

    Hehe, personally that seems more confusing. With “inhabited” at least there is something specific to look for (people). Judging if something is pre or post apocalyptic, while allowing abandoned stuff to be pre-apocalyptic, feels more difficult.

    I think I will try to focus on the other explanation you gave me:

    most likely if the buildings were built from scratch for their current function, it fits here, whereas if they’re scratch-built from old vehicle carcasses or whatever, they’d fit better in wastelands.

    It would have worked with this post.

    • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.eeMEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      sorry :(

      Judging if something is pre or post apocalyptic, while allowing abandoned stuff to be pre-apocalyptic, feels more difficult.

      yeah that’s fair, that’s why i do accept it’s conjecture. i just go by the kind of “feeling” of the piece, but i know that isn’t exactly something you can use

      i’ve also just noticed i used “built from scratch” and “scratch-built” as opposites in that comment, which i imagine also isn’t hugely helpful…

      • Crul@lemm.eeOP
        2·
        1 year ago

        sorry :(

        Don’t worry at all. Understanding the difference between genres is part of the fun :).

        i’ve also just noticed i used “built from scratch” and “scratch-built” as opposites in that comment, which i imagine also isn’t hugely helpful…

        Oh… I didn’t notice. Now I’m not sure I understood it correctly. What I though you meant is:

        • If the buildings / setting was new at one point and has decayed with time, it fits in [email protected]
        • If the buildings / setting has been built with scrap and it was crappy from the start, it fits in [email protected]

        Did I got it correctly?