on 2nd playthrough i got irony poisoning from the overdose chapter ("bad art is good not because art has no inherent value and what you think of as gods are but mortals, but because it's really funny when people put effort into something that i deem bad
") - not because of changes made in v2.0 but because i just looked at how i felt more - and i guess the overdose dunking was self-reflective but it felt like a message that people are allowed to make "bad art" as long as they "correctly" regard it as hilariously bad, or accept that they belong in a "cringe" niche that the main clique can analyze and ridicule.
my main experience with the vvvvvv community in general (way back when, during tolp) felt like trying to act "in line" so i could break into a clique - don't feel any genuine emotions because only the designated art people were allowed to, make fun of the cringe young newbie users it was acceptable to make fun of, etc, and this feels like a byproduct of trying to produce a small amount of change in that era, dismissing the "stop making make bad art, don't even try" attitude with a marginally better "bad art is good because you can laugh at it or point to it and say 'weird' "
it's a good audiovisual still (this is weird terminology but what i refer to is the experience of the level as an experience rather than as a conventional video game level; the interactive audiovisual carved out of something intended to be a run-and-jump platformer is a continually resurfacing medium that remains underrated), especially the trolley problem dialogue, the surface-level "bad art is ok" thing, and the realization that serious art isn't better than "bad art" - but then the way "bad art" can be "better" seems to be mainly that one can marvel at it, chuckle knowingly, and say "wow, this is bad". (at the end the "serious art" is shown in contrast to be unconsciously authoritarian unlike the "bad art", which i do agree is a problem with art that tries to be dignified, and it's a legitimate reason to support "bad art", but the whole "haha bad art funny" thing almost contradicts it)
the "omg this should be required playing
" responses on the thread kind of reflect that this level is by, and for, a clique that the level sort of deconstructed but that it didn't actually dissipate
7/10 but i don't know what "out of ten" actually means because i'm scared of most vvvvvv levels i haven't played yet

my main experience with the vvvvvv community in general (way back when, during tolp) felt like trying to act "in line" so i could break into a clique - don't feel any genuine emotions because only the designated art people were allowed to, make fun of the cringe young newbie users it was acceptable to make fun of, etc, and this feels like a byproduct of trying to produce a small amount of change in that era, dismissing the "stop making make bad art, don't even try" attitude with a marginally better "bad art is good because you can laugh at it or point to it and say 'weird' "
it's a good audiovisual still (this is weird terminology but what i refer to is the experience of the level as an experience rather than as a conventional video game level; the interactive audiovisual carved out of something intended to be a run-and-jump platformer is a continually resurfacing medium that remains underrated), especially the trolley problem dialogue, the surface-level "bad art is ok" thing, and the realization that serious art isn't better than "bad art" - but then the way "bad art" can be "better" seems to be mainly that one can marvel at it, chuckle knowingly, and say "wow, this is bad". (at the end the "serious art" is shown in contrast to be unconsciously authoritarian unlike the "bad art", which i do agree is a problem with art that tries to be dignified, and it's a legitimate reason to support "bad art", but the whole "haha bad art funny" thing almost contradicts it)
the "omg this should be required playing

7/10 but i don't know what "out of ten" actually means because i'm scared of most vvvvvv levels i haven't played yet
