I truly believe that the renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful than the 'renders can mean any kind of drawing (even though it's clear from context that the writer meant computer 3D rendered)' clarification. Not that the second one was useless, but calling the photoshop point 'wrong' is way over doing it.
> renders -> photoshop clarification was genuinely more useful
Except 'the clarification' is wrong. If you have a render, it doesn't mean it's 3D. It can be 3D, 2D, a mixture of both (last is probably the most frequent). It's a render.
This question can be more important than you think, since people may have the wrong expectations when they get a 'render' from the industry. Good post-processing (color balance, a bit of motion blur and other small effects) can work wonders to show off a product (e.g. video-game), while not being so representative of the end result. Which explains then the disclaimers on trailers and screenshots, which are not there to be pedantic.
Anyway, I'm off sending Wittgenstein to the camps.
I disagree that it was wrong. A render is clearly a term with multiple meanings, depending on context, and in the context and audience here most readers will take it to mean 3D rendering . That there is a context where the statements are true does not mean that the statements weren't making the wrong impression in the readers here. Check out the author's reply, clearly indicating that they were surprised at the clarification.
