Quality Vs Popularity

[Realitycrash]

It's an easy question, but with a very diffuse answer.
What makes something good?. For the sake of this discussion, we will limit ourselves to books, games, plays, art, etc. Created, material things which can be enjoyed. No metaphysical concepts.

For example; Oprah has a book-club. Books which are given the Oprah-seal-of-approval are often considered as low-brow trite by the Academia. But often, said books are still very popular. Now, should the fact that they are popular be the same as they are of 'high quality', or is quality "something else", which has nothing to do with popularity?

Same can be applied to videogames. Is CoD a high-quality franchise? Maybe it's just popular? But if quality is not dictated by popularity, then how on earth do we determine quality? By referring to reputed scholars and experts? But what gives these experts the right to determine what is 'good' and what is 'bad', as this is in essence just 'quality by popular vote of scholars and experts'?

Discuss.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You mean Oprah?

Anyhoo, isn't CoD made to sell? It's success, and therefore it's quality could be said to be linked to its popularity, at least amongst people who buy games.

Otherwise...draw knives and fight over it, that seems to be the best way to settle it.

 

[Bertylicious]

"Is it better to have super awesome, inherant, quality or to be vapid and lame and liked by a bunch of losers" doesn't seem like much of a discussion.

Unless I've misunderstood and you're asking whether a thing being critically acclaimed trumps a thing having mass appeal. If that is what you're asking then I might have to go with mass appeal; critics tend to offer narrow opinions subject to the whims we all suffer from, although they will (or at least should be able to) articulate these feelings in a way that helps you make a choice. The visceral action of the masses speaks loudly to a thing's broad appeal and overall quality; elevating it beyond the niche.

I think there is the dimension of "popular amongst whom?" to consider in all this, but for now we'll just say "popular with everyone".

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Good and bad is something I alone determine for my own pleasure and benefit. Fuck everybody else's opinion, unless I'm undecided.
As a CRITIC, though (I review movies for a couple of sites) I'm forced to take into consideration everything I've ever seen and everything I've ever reviewed, filtering criteria such as genre, auteurship, budget, market, target demographic, style, tone, source material, subject matter, filmographies and... you get the picture.
Then again this is just a way of saying "I choose my criteria".
So.

 

[Realitycrash]

You mean Oprah?

Yes -.-
Don't blame me, I never watch her show.

 

[Realitycrash]

"Is it better to have super awesome, inherant, quality or to be vapid and lame and liked by a bunch of losers" doesn't seem like much of a discussion.

The question is: Is there such as "inherent quality", and if so, who decides what this "Quality" is and what is is not?.
Why shouldn't the masses decide? Or, why should scholars decide?

 

[shrekfan246]

But if quality is not dictated by popularity, then how on earth do we determine quality? By referring to reputed scholars and experts? But what gives these experts the right to determine what is 'good' and what is 'bad', as this is in essence just 'quality by popular vote of scholars and experts'?

I think the problem that really plagues this is mere human nature.

What's "good" to one person is "the worst thing in the history of humanity" to another, and so on.

Call of Duty is arguably a high-quality franchise. The gameplay is typically extremely solid, and the stories are entertaining Hollywood action-romps, even if they are incredibly shallow and predictable.

But, then you have people who start hating on it because of the infamous community, or because of the perceived impact they think it has on the industry, or just because another Call of Duty game sold over ten million copies, or even just because it's entirely predictable that another one will release every year at full price. Sure, occasionally you get the complaints that the multi-player is unbalanced (though you'll typically have to look elsewhere than here because a lot of the people who bash it around here don't even play it), and sure the reactions to something as small as a .2 change in fire rate for one weapon from the community justifies a bit of that hatred, but it still isn't as much of a black mark on the franchise itself.

Or in other words, it's like saying that any LoL/DotA game ever made sucks because of the vile, spiteful, hate-filled communities they have. You're not necessarily wrong, but your complaints have little to do with the actual game, and more to do with the meta surrounding it. For some people, that's enough to justify something as being "bad", though I wouldn't necessarily agree with them.

So for me, I generally just consider the quality. Do I feel engaged while I'm playing/watching/listening/reading, and does the piece function on a basic level? If yes, then I consider how the piece engages me, and how deeply. Does it make me want to continue further, does it make me pay attention? Tons of questions I could potentially ask to determine how and why I might consider something to be good. The opinions of others are a bit of structuring laid down for me to build off from at a later point, either to provide context for why I may or may not be interested in something to begin with, or to help me discover why something might be better or worse than I thought (though it's rare that I'll see something in a worse light because someone else hates it).

 

[Queen Michael]

The way I see it, there are two kinds of quality: Popcorn quality and steak quality. Stuff with popcorn quality is fun but doesn't give any lasting satisfaction, while stuff with steak quality leaves an impression and doesn't just entertain you for a while.

 

[jesse220]

I don't think any subjective material can be considered 'good' or 'bad' without context. I.e. The Simpsons is a good show to put on in the background while I'm more focused on other things but if I am just sitting and watching it I get bored fairly quickly. The West Wing is a good show if I can give it my full attention but if I'm not paying attention all the time I get confused and frustrated. Different films, games, tv, etc, are designed for different purposes and for different audiences, so with that in mind I strongly feel that there's no absolute good or bad, just opinions.

 

[VoidOfOne]

When it comes to what is quality, we run into a problem: everyone is different, and as such so are their tastes. What I find enjoyable may turn off several other people, such as FFX. And what may get many people excited, I would personally find uninteresting, like the GTA series. So when we want to know what is considered quality, no two people will give the same exact answer.

Which is why I'm glad we have several reviews, and several gaming sites. It gives us a chance to see the difference of opinion and who's opinion we line up best with, and why. I think the best reviews are when the reviewer gives his or her explanation of how a game affected them personally, which then flavors the gaming experience. There's no way to get around that.

I'm also glad there are many developers, and as such many different kinds of games of which to partake, and then we can decide what is of good quality or not, simply by our wallets.

 

[tilmoph]

The problem with this question boils down to taste; things with mass apeeal tend to be good in simple, direct ways. To pick two example I'm not a fan of for the sake of fairness;

1. CoD is fun because competition plus repetitive violence. The thrill is in killing other virtual people in either flashy ways ("I just cleared the whole room with backstabs hahaha") or by playing a particular weapon/playstyle strategy better than one's rivals. Fairly straightforward. It doesn't have much flourish, and frankly, it doesn't need it.

2. Now look at something like papers please. Highly recommended, definitely different, but appeals to much more specific tastes. Any sub group will be smaller than the main group, which means that papers please won't outsell CoD, since it's appeal (which, from having tried to play with, seems to involve scrutinizing objects for tiny details) is going to entertain a smaller group of all gamers (here defined as anyone who will spend money on interactive digital amusement, to be as broad as possible) than CoD's bullet and missile fueled murder.

Does this make CoD better, as a game, than Papers Please? No, of course not. What it means is the thing CoD does well has more fans than what Papers Please does well. Therefore, there isn't really much of a vs. to be found.

 

[Mrkillhappy]

The way I see it as do some of the people who have posted already quality is what you make of it. As for popularity it is just based on how common it is for people to enjoy it and doesn't all ways reflect substance or quality an example is Citizen Kane is wildly regarded as the best movie of all time made less at the box office then Twilight. Another example in film that I find disturbing is that the Lone Ranger made more money then Pulp Fiction so I would be inclined to say that from an academic stand point popularity does not equal quality, but that doesn't make you wrong for enjoying something that lacks quality, everyone has those guilty pleasures.

It should be noted though that with games just because something is popular with critics doesn't mean it will sell well just look at the initial run of Psychonauts.

The way I judge quality at least for movies and video games is on two scales an academic one and a enjoyment one. An example of a good game from an academic standpoint is Ico the game play is some what awkward but the narrative and the way it is conveyed is done very artistically. A game that I view as being good for just being fun to play is something like Just Cause 2 where the story and style of the game aren't very philosophical or artistic but the game is just a blast to play.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

As I've learned from working in and living in a world with the entertainment industry, marketing is a huge factor in popularity, probably even more than the actual product. Popularity is not equivalent to quality.

 

[bug_of_war]

You know the phrase "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", yeah that kind of applies to a situation like this. Different people have different interpretations for what counts as quality when it comes to subjective form such as media and because of this I personally think that there isn't one way to solidify a definite definition for quality.

 

[Agayek]

It's an easy question, but with a very diffuse answer.
What makes something good?. For the sake of this discussion, we will limit ourselves to books, games, plays, art, etc. Created, material things which can be enjoyed. No metaphysical concepts.

For example; Oprah has a book-club. Books which are given the Oprah-seal-of-approval are often considered as low-brow trite by the Academia. But often, said books are still very popular. Now, should the fact that they are popular be the same as they are of 'high quality', or is quality "something else", which has nothing to do with popularity?

Same can be applied to videogames. Is CoD a high-quality franchise? Maybe it's just popular? But if quality is not dictated by popularity, then how on earth do we determine quality? By referring to reputed scholars and experts? But what gives these experts the right to determine what is 'good' and what is 'bad', as this is in essence just 'quality by popular vote of scholars and experts'?

Discuss.

Well that depends entirely on your definition of quality.

If high quality means something that would meet the general criteria for "high art" (thought provoking, provides insight into the human condition, etc, etc), then no, the vast majority of popular things would not be good.

However, if "quality" means something that is enjoyable to consume, then most popular things most assuredly would be.

That's about as close as anyone will ever get to an objective answer to this question.

Unfortunately, I don't think the objective answer to this question actually means anything, so it's not terribly helpful.

 

[DrOswald]

How good something is kind of depends on the person, but not totally. For example, some people like TNG and some people like TOS. It is hard to say which is really better and it really is up to the individual. But I think we can say some art has greater value than other art. Moby Dick, for example, is better than Twilight. That said, Twilight is going to be better for a certain audience.

Moby Dick is sophisticated. It requires a certain level of knowledge and experience with the art form to appreciate. Most sophisticated art has a really high barrier of entry. Anyone who is not on that level will not really see it for the great art it is. They cannot appreciate it because they do not know how. Twilight may be the better art for them. 300 million teenage girls will read Twilight (maybe more) and many of them will move on to more sophisticated art. To better art. But everyone has to start somewhere. And in that respect art like Twilight is very important. They create new enthusiats and without fresh blood to bring in new ideas art will stagnate.

COD is one of these situations. People who are really into video games are bored by it. It is just so... bland to us, I guess. Uninteresting. But that does not make it bad. It hit the sweet spot of being entertaining without being deep so any random Joe off the street can enjoy it. COD is, like twilight, shallow and lacking in all the ways many enthusiasts will despise. That does not make it bad. But it does mean that most people who want a sophisticated gaming experience find it lacking. Combine this with its immense popularity and you get rage over how it is so well received when much "better" games are left to fail.

That is not to say that something sophisticated and interesting cannot be enjoyed by, for want of a better word, newbs. The early Pixar films are masterworks in this respect. There is something for everyone, layers upon layers. And just because something is unsophisticated does not mean it cannot be enjoyed by an enthusiast. FTL is a really good game but I would not call it sophisticated.

P.S. I am not saying that if you like COD you are unsophisticated in your appreciation of video games. Everyone has different tastes and COD is a technically well made game. It is entertaining if you are into that sort of thing. If you enjoy that art then it certainly does not mean you are incapable of appreciating more sophisticated games. But a game like, say, Bioshock has much more artistic value.

TLR

More Popular =/= Better
Popular usually means low art
High art > Low art
Low art =/= Bad art
Low art is important to every art form. High art cannot survive, in the long run, without it.

 

[Signa]

To me, if the care and love a creator puts into his product shows through the commercialism that surrounds the said product, there is a STRONG chance that it is good.

The reverse holds true in some respects, because I can't argue against the fact that CoD are "good" games. Shallow, commercial products still have to meet a certain level of "goodness" and quality to get its mass appeal, but to say it's good because it's popular is a false assumption. I don't think anyone thinks the Transformers movies are good, but they still are popular enough to make the money. Some fans would argue that Twilight is also good, but it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny either.

 

[Norithics]

As a pusher of the lowest arts, quality is absolutely independent of popularity and completely subjective. You can tie it to more objective terms measuring various components of said art, but ultimately those are also completely arbitrary and tied to nothing more than personal preference. I got in an argument about this once, and the absolute nail in the coffin of the person arguing that quality could be objective, was when he appealed to the fact that many other (haughty) people thought so.

Of course, this doesn't mean those measurements are useless; just that they're not objective.

 

[Strazdas]

Popularity - what masses want.
Quality - what masses need.

Thing is, quality is often quite mixed and a lot of subjectivity comes into it. Really, you cannot determine quality for things that are subjective, therefore its pretty much impossible to determine quality of, say, mona lisa, but it is possible to determine the quality of the painting method used to paint mona lisa. because we can objectively value the painting method. we cant the painting.
So to elaborate, the best scenario is when we get what we need - quality, and we get it in such a way that we want it - popular (to people like us due to subjectivity, duh). Popularity and quality are not mutually exclusive.


Capcha: margin of error.
seriuosly.....

 

[Something Amyss]

Is CoD a high-quality franchise?

They spend a lot of money polishing Call of Duty games. There's no doubt it's a high-quality franchise, even if that quality is applied to "the masses."

That's a different question from "is it good?" which has no real subjective markers.

On a similar note, Oprah books are often not quality because the books she picks are often cheap cash-ins and the like. At least, based on the few book club books I'm aware of and have any knowledge of. Are they good? Well....I don't think so. But again, what is good?

I hate hamburger. Actually, red meat (and pork, screw you advertising) makes me ill. You can make the finest quality hamburger, but I'm still not going to like it (and will probably throw up if I eat it). Now, the illness factor actually makes it objectively bad for me, but that doesn't matter much if I won't eat it.

A quality hamburger is better for you than a Big Mac, but does that make it better? From a health perspective, almost certainly. But from an enjoyment perspective? Not necessarily. Maybe you really like that Bic Mag taste, or whatever.

Things that are popular have to, by nature, have some level of appeal. They don't have to be of any particular quality.