>>718439001
>but the actual levels are shit, incredibly bland, repetitive and especially flat
this is a warning to intelligent anons. any time somebody criticizes something like this. note that it is a "characterization".
it is something people do when they dont have the self awareness to understand their own tastes, or even their own experiences of objective things independent of themselves (otherwise known as "objects in the external world").
so they outline a set of characteristics, that dont actually describe anything unique or particular about the object being judged, but instead its essence is "masked" by appealing to generic words with prebuilt in implications and associations of what to think of something or how to think of something. Almost like a "label". If you label something "dysfunctional" then its supposed to be treated as dysfunctional. This is useful for the human language in getting people to do stuff or think certain ways without always having to argue or justify yourself.
To understand this, just think about how useful this would be in a work or factory setting where you had to sort functional and dysfunctional items.
This is effective when you need to treat human beings as bots without autonomous capacities for emergent thought. This is built into the social fabric of human beings. And is the underlying conflict between being a social creature who depends on language, and being an individual who uses language in new and deeper ways to bring out further meaning and understanding in things.
Just keep this in mind. He has said nothing actually about the game or its level design. Simply characterized it. Slapped a label over it. That defines the object more than the object itself.
