What I said and what you said can be true at the same time, the same way that procedurally generated terrain can be technically unique in some specific part of it but still be bland.
Or NFTs. “Unique” doesn’t automatically mean good, creative, or interesting if it’s just a randomizer of cliches.
As long as they are unique you will de able to tell them apart if you see enough of them. This also aplies to procedually generated terrain.
I never said they werent bland i agree with you there. I think blandness is kind of the point. I see so much media trending in that direction. Its probably easier to market.
This also aplies to procedually generated terrain.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. Something can be technically unique and still uninspired, bland, and repetitive because even its “unique” arrangement is just a sum of repetitive component parts, like all those “bored apes” NFTs.
I think blandness is kind of the point. I see so much media trending in that direction. Its probably easier to market.
It’s cheaper and the hogs still gobble it up, so it’s more profitable, yeah.
The point is that its easy to distinguish things once you are aquinted to it. So the weebs are not wierd in that particular sesnse. They are wierd for other reasons. I agree its bland but that does not necesarily make them hard to distinguish.
Id go further on the second point. More hogs are going tl eat a bland thing than a thing with character since the latter may be too much effort. Or it may appeal to very specific tastes.
The point is that its easy to distinguish things once you are aquinted to it. So the weebs are not wierd in that particular sesnse. They are wierd for other reasons. I agree its bland but that does not necesarily make them hard to distinguish.
I’m still not seeing where this invalidates anything I said about how lazy and bland and uncreative it is to swap waifu cliches with hair colors/styles. “Technically” unique waifus don’t really have any more creativity to them than a technically unique combination that results in a Bored Ape NFT.
It does not. Im commenting abou how you are surprised weebs are able to distingush them. Wich they should be as long as they are technichally unique. No matter how bland they are.
What I said and what you said can be true at the same time, the same way that procedurally generated terrain can be technically unique in some specific part of it but still be bland.
Or NFTs. “Unique” doesn’t automatically mean good, creative, or interesting if it’s just a randomizer of cliches.
As long as they are unique you will de able to tell them apart if you see enough of them. This also aplies to procedually generated terrain.
I never said they werent bland i agree with you there. I think blandness is kind of the point. I see so much media trending in that direction. Its probably easier to market.
I don’t know what point you’re trying to make here. Something can be technically unique and still uninspired, bland, and repetitive because even its “unique” arrangement is just a sum of repetitive component parts, like all those “bored apes” NFTs.
It’s cheaper and the hogs still gobble it up, so it’s more profitable, yeah.
The point is that its easy to distinguish things once you are aquinted to it. So the weebs are not wierd in that particular sesnse. They are wierd for other reasons. I agree its bland but that does not necesarily make them hard to distinguish.
Id go further on the second point. More hogs are going tl eat a bland thing than a thing with character since the latter may be too much effort. Or it may appeal to very specific tastes.
I’m still not seeing where this invalidates anything I said about how lazy and bland and uncreative it is to swap waifu cliches with hair colors/styles. “Technically” unique waifus don’t really have any more creativity to them than a technically unique combination that results in a Bored Ape NFT.
It does not. Im commenting abou how you are surprised weebs are able to distingush them. Wich they should be as long as they are technichally unique. No matter how bland they are.