FA+
Shop
Hype and Chocolate
13 years ago
"I hate chocolate. I've never eaten it, and I don't plan to. I hate it because it's so popular. Everyone's always talking about how much they like chocolate, how awesome chocolate is. Makes me sick. You can't even find a damn restaurant anymore without seeing chocolate somewhere on the dessert menu. Chocolate is so over-hyped! If I ever did eat it, I know it couldn't possibly live up to all the praise it gets."
Sounds really stupid, doesn't it?
And yet, that's the argument I hear from a lot of people about pretty much anything popular. The truth is, things tend to get popular for good reason: either they are high quality, or they have mass appeal, or both.
However, it is just as true that people have a saturation point after which hearing good things about something makes them less interested. Past this point, they feel bullied to try something or like something just because it is popular. Not liking what everyone else likes becomes a blow to their self-esteem. They try to compensate by striving to be "cool" through hating it... and by surrounding themselves with others who are also attempting to desperately salvage their self-image through similar hatred and association. The greater irony is that most of these people would actually like what they are hating if they weren't so invested in hating it.
And, of course, there are those who are just jealous of the success of someone else, who need to tear down what they know they could never create themselves. It is a defense mechanism, a way to prevent themselves from becoming despondent over their own lack of achievement, and their ability to harm others becomes their measure of self-worth.
Most people who descend into such hate-groups use the word "hype" to justify their hatred of the whatever they are railing against. Or, more appropriately, misuse.
If a movie, television show, story, candy or whatever is being promoted by the creators, producers, distributors or merchants: that's hype. That is an attempt to boost the appeal and popularity of something to increase their own sales or other returns.
If the same thing is being praised by the audience, critics, fans or community: that's acclaim. Acclaim happens because something is good.
People who are hating use "hype" because either they don't understand the difference, or because they do but even they realize that railing against acclaim just makes them look like losers.
Additionally, people want to feel elite. Particularly amongst the younger members of society, there is a drive to believe that they are better than their peers, much less the general population. They allow their likes and dislikes to be driven by "hipster mentality" (as described in the quote below):
Have you ever heard a band or worn a certain clothing line that was just phenomenal, but then you get this sense of pride somehow by knowing something great that very few others do? Then suddenly, when it becomes popular, somehow now it's not as good.
To clarify, when others discover said band/clothing/item etc. and it becomes 'mainstream' (achieved success), suddenly it's not as good anymore to the person who discovered it early on.
There is a war against good things.
Sounds really stupid, doesn't it?
And yet, that's the argument I hear from a lot of people about pretty much anything popular. The truth is, things tend to get popular for good reason: either they are high quality, or they have mass appeal, or both.
However, it is just as true that people have a saturation point after which hearing good things about something makes them less interested. Past this point, they feel bullied to try something or like something just because it is popular. Not liking what everyone else likes becomes a blow to their self-esteem. They try to compensate by striving to be "cool" through hating it... and by surrounding themselves with others who are also attempting to desperately salvage their self-image through similar hatred and association. The greater irony is that most of these people would actually like what they are hating if they weren't so invested in hating it.
And, of course, there are those who are just jealous of the success of someone else, who need to tear down what they know they could never create themselves. It is a defense mechanism, a way to prevent themselves from becoming despondent over their own lack of achievement, and their ability to harm others becomes their measure of self-worth.
Most people who descend into such hate-groups use the word "hype" to justify their hatred of the whatever they are railing against. Or, more appropriately, misuse.
If a movie, television show, story, candy or whatever is being promoted by the creators, producers, distributors or merchants: that's hype. That is an attempt to boost the appeal and popularity of something to increase their own sales or other returns.
If the same thing is being praised by the audience, critics, fans or community: that's acclaim. Acclaim happens because something is good.
People who are hating use "hype" because either they don't understand the difference, or because they do but even they realize that railing against acclaim just makes them look like losers.
Additionally, people want to feel elite. Particularly amongst the younger members of society, there is a drive to believe that they are better than their peers, much less the general population. They allow their likes and dislikes to be driven by "hipster mentality" (as described in the quote below):
Have you ever heard a band or worn a certain clothing line that was just phenomenal, but then you get this sense of pride somehow by knowing something great that very few others do? Then suddenly, when it becomes popular, somehow now it's not as good.
To clarify, when others discover said band/clothing/item etc. and it becomes 'mainstream' (achieved success), suddenly it's not as good anymore to the person who discovered it early on.
There is a war against good things.
I admit, I am guilty of that some times. Usually however it is conscious decision on my part because the "hype" or "acclaim" whatever you want to call it annoys me.
But you do have a very good point. Thank you.
I am thrilled when something I love becomes popular. Every day I see the fan-base for Fallout: Equestria grow, new fans gushing and being excited as they read chapters I myself have read more then a few times. Hearing about them discovering a side story that becomes special to them. My love for that fan base just grows, as it should.
MLP is no longer a "strange" hobby, being a brony is now "mainstream", it's damn near accepted in many places. This does not make the MLP fan-base any less exciting or special.
... I repeated myself a bit, oh well.
Let's take a recent example of something that went mainstream and suffered because of it. Video games.
Before it went mainstream,video games were a niche industry. You either went for kid appeal or you tried for the richer,but harder to plus adult market. Trying to appeal to a broader audience was met with mediocre results because most people weren't interested in video games. At least not publicly. As such,they had to appeal to an audience that was tough to please as kids catch on quick about what's good and what isn't and the older gamers already know about it.
Once it hit the mainstream,we see a HUGE influx of new players (noobs) who simply don't know a good game from a bad one. They have no history or context to compare games to. Simply put,they just have no idea what makes a good game good and a bad game bad. This creates a HUGE market for mediocre product. Companies,eager to make money on this hot new product,push out huge piles of shovelware in order to cash in. The market is saturated with crappy games that LOOK nice but play like shit.
So you end up with a lot of new players either continuing to play these crappy games because they don't know what they're missing or they give up in frustration thinking all games suck this bad. And because it's mainstream,there's always more players coming in than going out.
A while ago,I watched an episode of Jimquisition. It was about hardcore gamers vs. casual games. Essentially,his retarded argument broke down to "hardcore gamers play simple "casual games" too." Proving he didn't get it and is probably a total noob. When a hardcore gamer calls a game a "casual game",he doesn't mean it's a game solely for casual gamers,like companies do when they say it. He means it's a game made by a casual designer,a casual programmer,or a casual writer. In other words,it's a crappy game made by people who have no idea what the medium is capable of these days. He had the gall to sight that a lot of people remember Punch Out fondly. That's because,as simple as it is,it's a good game. FOR THE EARLY 1980S WHEN IT CAME OUT!!! Now lets see how the new Punch Out for Wii did. Oh,it didn't do so good because it's too simple and the controls are crap. Huh. I guess that since better boxing games have come out SINCE THE EARLY 1980S!! people have a higher standard of what makes a good boxing game.
In other words,new games should improve on what older games did before. This should be true of any medium. The old stuff should help the new stuff to be better stuff. But when something goes mainstream and you get that flood of noobs and you got corporate sharks who smell fresh blood in the water,you also get a huge ton of crappy knock offs flooding the market. Sure,there's always gonna be those jerks who are all "I was (insert thing here) before it was cool." but they aren't the only ones complaining about the state of things. So,listen to the bitter old school jerks sometimes. You might find they have very valid complaints about new stuff in your new favorite hobby and they might just point you to a few golden oldies that deserve a spot in your library.
The cool kids look at this and sneer because I'm not cool, or pity because I'm "Too old to get it."
They miss the point that when you stop caring, when you are over shame about your clothing or habits, that is called freedom, and it is the best feeling in the world. Yes, it tends to come with age. That was my case. One day I realized that I didn't need the approval of the world to do anything. This is why older people are noted as happier than younger ones.
Chocolate is a good example. I don't particularly care for chocolate myself, but that's because most of it tastes so bitter to me. Even so, I get an occasional craving for chocolate milk or flavoured cocoa.
Things can gain popularity (or acclaim if you prefer) because they're good, but that's not the only possible reason. Not everything that is popular is good. Not everything that is good becomes popular, either, although I realize that was entirely outside your argument.
Mass appeal doesn't equate to quality. Sometimes it seems the opposite, in fact. Pet rocks. Rebecca Black. Fast food. Reality television. One way of achieving mass appeal is to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and that's another reason popular things become suspect in the eyes of some people.
But there is a difference between not automatically concluding that something is good based on its popularity and automatically suspecting that it isn't. The former is simple wisdom. The latter is pre-judging based on no actual information beyond its popularity. In other words: prejudice. And this is usually a product of hipster mentality and a need to feel elite.