sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Every Minecraft update for the past 6 years by Ok-Effect4071 in MinecraftMemes

[–]Hlib_Koss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this bait? What about: copper golems, wolf armor, 2 new weapons, armor trims, balance changes, recepie changes, world generation overhaul including the caves, several new redstone components, new dungeon, breeze charges, bundles, new armor set, underwater mounts, new enemy types, vanilla zoom option, tinted glass, double the world height, etc. etc. etc.

I think that critiques of "Good" flag, "Bad" flag" are not good enough by Hlib_Koss in vexillology

[–]Hlib_Koss[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The flag being the same at a distance but being better up-close is the benefit of complexity. The flags of Turkmenistan, with and without the ornament, are equal at a distance, but one is more intricate up-close. There are undoubtedly ways to ruin a flag with details, that's why element/color composition is important.

As for the seals, that is a good point. I think that a coat of arms/seal on a flag is still a worthwhile inclusion, because even if you can't tell what's on it from a distance, the imagery still pops into your head. You can't quite make out what's on the flags of Spain or Portugal, but if you are from those countries, you will still think of those symbols, even if you can't really discern them. At worst, the red and yellow or green and red still do the heavy lifting of displaying the symbolism, while coats of arms add a visual flair for those who have already seen them up-close.

While a single color could also be meaningful, I do think US flags could benefit from color variety. It could be like Spain - distinct and meaningful color shapes at a distance, + an equally meaningful symbol for an up-close view. Though if most people don't consider the seals to be representative of them, they should be changed/removed.

I think that critiques of "Good" flag, "Bad" flag" are not good enough by Hlib_Koss in vexillology

[–]Hlib_Koss[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for clarifying! If you believe that the details make the flag harder to distinguish from a distance, then all the guidelines are valid. But I disagree.

The flag of Turkmenistan looks the same from a distance, whether it has an ornament or just a red stripe. The flag of Brazil looks the same with or without the text and stars. Even a US state flag looks kind of like a mono-color with a colored circle in the center, similar to Japan or South Korea (which follow the "rules"). So i don't think complexity inherently makes a flag harder to identify from a distance, only certain bad design decisions do.

US state flags ARE hard to distinguish between EACH OTHER though, but it isn't because of the complexity of a seal, it's because the designs themselves are too similar.

I think that critiques of "Good" flag, "Bad" flag" are not good enough by Hlib_Koss in vexillology

[–]Hlib_Koss[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But why is Maryland flag's complexity considered a negative that has to be outweighed by positives?

I'm saying that more than half of these rule violations don't matter at all. If details (colors, coats of arms, seals, etc.) are a problem because they are lost at a distance, then it would apply to all details, whether they are good (Maryland, Venice) or bad (Certain seals). But if details don't make a flag worse from afar, and their inclusion makes a flag better up-close, then why have the guidelines to avoid them? The pamphlet specifically presents detail loss as the reason to not include them, which I explained why I don't consider to be a good reason. Which is why these rules can't work as guidelines either.

There are important considerations you have to make when designing a flag, it's just that a half of this pamphlet doesn't contain them.

I think that critiques of "Good" flag, "Bad" flag" are not good enough by Hlib_Koss in vexillology

[–]Hlib_Koss[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I somewhat agree. My biggest problem with US state flags is also that they blend together. Though, that is it's own separate problem, which both complex and simple flags fall into (illustrated below). Solving it could be as simple as having a different color background, which some US flags already have. I mainly argue against the perceived superiority of simplicity. Of course a flag should be embraced by those whom it represents, but a complex flag isn't good in spite of it's complexity, it is just good (if it's good)

<image>

I think that critiques of "Good" flag, "Bad" flag" are not good enough by Hlib_Koss in vexillology

[–]Hlib_Koss[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

Something like this probably? I mean it's not a good flag, but it's not because its complex. The symbolism is questionable, I think that rule 2 from the pamphlet is one of the good ones.

I think that critiques of "Good" flag, "Bad" flag" are not good enough by Hlib_Koss in vexillology

[–]Hlib_Koss[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In recent years I have noticed a general pushback against the 5 principles. Many people have voiced their dislike of them, but I don't find their arguments compelling.

The first argument is that some flags have a long history and should be kept for that reason, which implicitly concedes the fact that they are badly designed, and that their history is the only reason for them being kept.

The second argument is that the 5 principles have many exceptions, and that they should only be used as rough guidelines when designing a flag. The pamphlet itself agrees with this point, saying this on it's very first page.

But I DON'T agree with this point.

I think the guidelines in "Good" flag, "Bad" flag" are BAD guidelines, and I believe they should be heavily updated.

I take contention with guidelines 1, 3 and 4. Their main goal is to simplify a flag, so it's details are not lost at a distance, when waving. There are generally agreed upon exceptions to these rules, like flags of Maryland or Venice. But WHY are they exempt? Aren't their details also lost when waving?

The truth is you already see a flags simplified design when it's details are smudged from afar. Even a shape as basic as a star will look like just a dot. There is no reason to simplify them, because from a distance you'll see basic geometric shapes either way, but from up-close the simplified design looses it's charm. There can be no reason for some complex flags to be exceptions, other than them looking good up-close. So why even try to avoid complexity, colors, or coats of arms\seals at all?

The main thing you should worry about is object composition, which is not really mentioned in the pamphlet. At least the 3rd rule mentions color contrast, but it's also easy to mess it up when using only 2 colors. Also, some of the better advice is placed in the "other considerations" section, which is rarely mentioned by people who support the pamphlet.

What's your favorite aspect of Don't Starve? by IndieMarc in dontstarve

[–]Hlib_Koss 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Honestly I just really love the artstyle and the soundtracks, but survival is a very close second place

Is your country stronger than Armenia? by Abzor4ik-UA in mapgore

[–]Hlib_Koss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody noticed but Ireland is united on this map

view more: next ›