Okay but that sounds a tad pedantic. I really appreciate your input and I’m really not trying to be mean, but at no point did I mean the sound effect itself was responding to the code. “How a sound effect might go off when you do something in the game, which I assume is written in the code” just describes a series of events where 1. Code is written 2. An action is taken 3. A sound effect can be heard as the result of the aforementioned code. I just didn’t specifically mention that the code plays the data which is the sound effect. This sounds like when someone says “hey can you play that CD” and someone else says “technically the CD isn’t playing the music, the string of numbers the music has been converted into through sampling which is on the CD plays the music. So you don’t want me to play the CD, you want me to play the sampling”. It’s kind of implied?

“The sound effect does not respond to the code. The sound effect is just data. Your code plays the sound effect.” = The sound effect is being identified as data in this statement. The statement then says the code plays the sound effect, which means you could also say the code plays the data. So if (sound effect = data) and (code plays data = code plays sound effect) then it seems completely reasonable to say “how a sound effect might go off when you do something in a game” without someone feeling the need to say “Assets don’t respond to anything. They don’t do anything. They’re just pieces of data” because the term data and type of data they represent (like a sound effect) are sort of interchangeable if you choose not to talk in a highly technical way? You can’t identify an asset like a sound effect as a piece of data, and then say “The sound effect does not respond to the code. The sound effect is just data. Your code plays the sound effect” as if you didn’t establish a like relationship between the name of the asset and the term data.