Who "Won" E3 2021?

[AngryLittleAlchemist]

Shaunodon said:

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

You basically said the loud part very quietly: "objectivity" is, at best, just an appeal to popularity. And appeals to popularity are terrible arguments.

"Art is MOSTLY objective, and it's often people who are aiming to be unique or different that purposely try to drive the bell curve outwards further and further (you know you've met contrarians: if everyone else loves it, they hate it, and if everyone hates it, they find a reason to love it). " 

The kind of logic you're using is why Lou Reed stayed underground (hehehe) for years and didn't become popular till long after he had already contributed some of what is now considered the greatest music of all time. Objectivity isn't "objective" if it can change with the times so massively that artists who were once considered shit years ago are now among the most acclaimed of all time. That's literally just popularity, because "facts" don't change. You would have called a lot of artists who weren't considered good at their time "contrarian", too, because you wouldn't know just how beloved they'd be now. That is actually how you push most art forward, by changing (or at least expanding the boundaries of) standards. 

Edit: And further more, while I know I am guilty of this as well, I don't think that adding to the conversation whether people are answering objectively or subjectively actually adds anything meaningful to the thread. It just bloats the discussion because it's probably not going to change many people's answers (if at all) and is just putting to question the poll results for no real reason other than "this isn't a fact" ... surely there could be better arguments for why Microsoft won then just pulling out arguments from the objectivity book, no? Why not try to appeal to people with a real point? 

What he said has nothing to do with popularity. Popularity is based around exposure people have to something. The reason many artists can remain unpopular for a long time but then suddenly become well-regarded, is becuase they lack exposure and the funds/means to spread their work early in their careers.

On the other hand, a car can be generally considered as ugly, but still be very popular and common because it's cheap and practical. Most people would generally accept the new Fast & Furious movie will be garbage, but it'll still rake close to a billion dollars in box office because it offers cheap fun and boasts enough name-talent to appeal to a wide number of people. None of that relates to objective value or quality though, just like your comment doesn't relate to his argument.

For the record: I watched both showcases in full and they were the only showcases I bothered to watch at all. I felt Nintendo won pretty easily. I didn't hate Microsoft's, but they didn't show me anything I wasn't already aware of, other than the new co-op shooter from Arkane. I also don't have much optimism in the new direction for Halo lately, but I'm keeping some hope alive.

pop·u·lar·i·ty

/ˌpäpyəˈlerədē/

Learn to pronounce

noun

the state or condition of being liked, admired, or supported by many people.

His comment: "  But ever see a car that is generally accepted as ugly?  Yea, of course you have.  You've also seen a car that is generally accepted as good-looking, too. "

His appeal is to popularity. Now, you're right that generally, the connotation of popularity derives from that thing also being very successful among a mass audience. And his comment didn't directly say that, for something to be good, it has to have a mass audience. At the same time, how popular something is can also be a microcosm of what kind of product it is, so it didn't really need mentioning (for example, being the most popular Jazz musician in America right now would be very different from being the most popular rapper, you'd still be popular in a certain criteria), because within the criteria he's expressing (the "general" people being referred to), it would be about popularity. It is an appeal to popularity, because within the fixed data size he's making an example out of, most of the people agree with a certain narrative (I mean that's literally what he means when he says "generally"). 

Even if we want to say that, for something smaller it wouldn't be an appeal to popularity because the data-size would be too small, none of my arguments change regardless of the wording. Walk up to someone, tell them their favorite thing isn't better than this other thing because the other 2 people in the room prefer something else. What kind of argument is that? Lol. 

The funny thing is, even the argument you're making isn't correct: There are a ton of artists who could have made it big, because enough people examined their work to get them funding or some kind of push for mainstream success, and they didn't.