The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[CleverNickName]

I might have to reduce the number of prizes in my little contest; a 60% chance of winning seems a bit rich.

The prizes don't really expire. I can always save some of them for next time.

 

[Alzrius]

To quote Uncle Joe, Quantity has a quality all its own.

Adding this just in case some people don't get the "Uncle Joe" reference.

 

[prabe]

I agree.

That said, you don't often see the actual argument that "Something is good because it is popular," on the internet (other than the troll-ish, "Scoreboard" argument that you'll see when people are arguing about their favorite para-social relationships, whether it's MCU v. DCEU, or Star Trek v. Star Wars, or, um, stuff that we see here ....).

Instead, we often see people misunderstanding and incorrectly dismissing the issue of popularity. In other words, "Oh, who cares about that? That's just ... popular." Well, yeah. But understanding why something is popular is often an interesting task- after all, what are the factors that go into making something that is broadly appealing? I mean, that's interesting to me.

To quote Uncle Joe, Quantity has a quality all its own.

That dismissal--which tends toward (or at least gestures at) "that sucks because it's popular"--is what I'm talking about when I say it's the same fallacy.

I think--sometimes--popularity is a worthwhile thing to look at, but I think it's as likely to point up matters of popular taste (including trends and other Zeitgeist-type effects) as much as the actual quality of a given work. I'm not going to dismiss someone--author, musician, filmmaker--just because they're popular, and if they stay popular for at least a chunk of their career, that does seem as though it says ... something ... even if that is just "They're really good at being popular."

 

[Cadence]

I might have to reduce the number of prizes in my little contest; a 60% chance of winning seems a bit rich.

The prizes don't really expire. I can always save some of them for next time.

I'm still thinking!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That dismissal--which tends toward (or at least gestures at) "that sucks because it's popular"--is what I'm talking about when I say it's the same fallacy.

I think--sometimes--popularity is a worthwhile thing to look at, but I think it's as likely to point up matters of popular taste (including trends and other Zeitgeist-type effects) as much as the actual quality of a given work. I'm not going to dismiss someone--author, musician, filmmaker--just because they're popular, and if they stay popular for at least a chunk of their career, that does seem as though it says ... something ... even if that is just "They're really good at being popular."

True. But I also think that there are useful things to learn about what people actually want. This is easier to see in discussions of consumer products; the most popular products often make design decisions to increase accessibility for more people at the expense of being "better." Or they may be appealing to a zeitgeist even if that zeitgeist is not realized by most consumers (see, e.g., the massive popularity of pick-up trucks in the US, despite the limited use-case for most of them).

But it even applies to music. We think of the early 90s as being dominated by Nirvana and grunge- and that was revolutionary for the time. But Smells Like Teen Spirit, while huge, was only #32 on the Billboard charts for 1992. Do you know who was in the top 10?
Boy II Men (#1!)
Si Mix-a-Lot
Kris Kross
Vanessa Williams
TLC
Eric Clapton
En Vogue
RHCP
Color Me Badd
Jon Secada


....so it goes.

 

[Velderan]

I agree.

That said, you don't often see the actual argument that "Something is good because it is popular," on the internet (other than the troll-ish, "Scoreboard" argument that you'll see when people are arguing about their favorite para-social relationships, whether it's MCU v. DCEU, or Star Trek v. Star Wars, or, um, stuff that we see here ....).

Instead, we often see people misunderstanding and incorrectly dismissing the issue of popularity. In other words, "Oh, who cares about that? That's just ... popular." Well, yeah. But understanding why something is popular is often an interesting task- after all, what are the factors that go into making something that is broadly appealing? I mean, that's interesting to me.

To quote Uncle Joe, Quantity has a quality all its own.

We see plenty of cases where a musician has a big hit that makes it nearly impossible to ignore them and time passes with people largely forgetting about them. The interesting thing to me is sustained popularity. Something doesn't continue to grow in popularity for 10 years without there being something there beyond "it's popular". For some things, the parasocial aspect is definitely a thing in a sustained level of popularity but that doesn't always explain everything because well.. it's complicated.

I think it would be a fascinating thing to discuss further, but I also think it stands a snowball's chance in hell of not ending in edition warring and the mods needing to close the discussion. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[payn]

That dismissal--which tends toward (or at least gestures at) "that sucks because it's popular"--is what I'm talking about when I say it's the same fallacy.

I think--sometimes--popularity is a worthwhile thing to look at, but I think it's as likely to point up matters of popular taste (including trends and other Zeitgeist-type effects) as much as the actual quality of a given work. I'm not going to dismiss someone--author, musician, filmmaker--just because they're popular, and if they stay popular for at least a chunk of their career, that does seem as though it says ... something ... even if that is just "They're really good at being popular."

What they often mean is that they dislike the accessibility of the product. It's baseline design doesn't cater to expert aficionados, but laymen novices. In this aspect, D&D is a rare bird because its the very cultural zeitgeist of the entire hobby, so the stakes are seemingly higher than your average subject.

The, 5E is bad because its popular folks, I think are missing the forest for the trees. During the E.war the direction was fought by expert aficionados and it alienated laymen novices. The accessible approach may seem limited, held back, archaic, by experts but there is no question about the merits of 5E direction. It didnt dawn on me just how popular D&D5E has become until I heard news from Paizo. Despite going through a very divisive edition change, the company is doing better than ever. The community has grown that much!

 

[CleverNickName]

True. But I also think that there are useful things to learn about what people actually want. This is easier to see in discussions of consumer products; the most popular products often make design decisions to increase accessibility for more people at the expense of being "better." Or they may be appealing to a zeitgeist even if that zeitgeist is not realized by most consumers (see, e.g., the massive popularity of pick-up trucks in the US, despite the limited use-case for most of them).

But it even applies to music. We think of the early 90s as being dominated by Nirvana and grunge- and that was revolutionary for the time. But Smells Like Teen Spirit, while huge, was only #32 on the Billboard charts for 1992. Do you know who was in the top 10?
Boy II Men (#1!)
Si Mix-a-Lot
Kris Kross
Vanessa Williams
TLC
Eric Clapton
En Vogue
RHCP
Color Me Badd
Jon Secada


....so it goes.

Well to be fair, Kris Kross will make you jump, jump.

Every time someone mentions Boyz II Men, 98 Degrees, etc., I'm reminded of this work of genius:

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The, 5E is bad because its popular folks, I think are missing the forest for the trees. During the E.war the direction was fought by expert aficionados and it alienated laymen novices. The accessible approach may seem limited, held back, archaic, by experts but there is no question about the merits of 5E direction. It didnt dawn on me just how popular D&D5E has become until I heard news from Paizo. Despite going through a very divisive edition change, the company is doing better than ever. The community has grown that much!

Bolded for emphasis.

It is truly staggering how much 5e has grown the total RPG "pie." It's like the prior golden age (early 80s), but on steroids ... and, seemingly, sustainable.

 

[overgeeked]

I mean, have you tried reading Ulysses?

There are two types of people. Those who have read Ulysses and did not understand it and those who lie about it.