3 ms·
As a different layman, your objections seem ridiculous and might be summarised as “I would prefer to watch professional wrestling or a stage fighting demonstrat
by thoroughburro 2y ago
As a different layman, your objections seem ridiculous and might be summarised as “I would prefer to watch professional wrestling or a stage fighting demonstration in which the actors are trained to strongly emote the storyline of the action to the audience.”
Or, “I prefer sports which uninterested parties can easily understand.” Nothing you’ve said speaks to objective entertainment value.
- jalapenos 2y agoThey poke each other simultaneously with a barely visible "sword" and you only know who won if you know what the lights on the board mean. Someone getting punched and falling down - immediately clear who's winning, makes sense. Ball gets kicked in a net - immediately clear, makes sense. Common knowledge of sword fighting, albeit coming from movies, is: if you get stabbed by a sword, that's bad. You're not winning. And yet in fencing, they get stabbed and then some lights appear and they have "won" somehow. What I personally prefer is only relevant to the extent you will feel better about your day if you believe you have beaten a stream of text on the internet. What matters is what's universally true, and obviously it's universally true that for spectators to enjoy watching something their ability to understand it is a factor.
- jbaber 2y agoThey're simulating a duel, which really did involve rushing at each other.
- dagw 2y agoAs yet another layman, if they want to simulate a duel then they should make it first clean hit wins. Kind of like judo or boxing, where you do have points, but if someone lands a 'finishing' attack they win. Points only come in if no-one finishes the fight.