[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Sumac

I hate to break this to you, but do you know that both games were released on more platforms than PC?
...

Please provide data. Is it possible that the game is being played way more on Switch than on PC and totally blows Steam numbers out of the water? Yes, but I need to see it to believe it. Steam is one of biggest storefronts for games and we can generally assume Steam still gives you a good idea of what is being played a lot. You can't just say the game was well liked and leave it at that, it just states that someone somewhere liked it, not how many or if they still play it.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Apparently this "quick burst" has been lasting for the last two years...?
...

If anything, I see that FW TMNT only becoming more popular, especially, with other incarnations being not particularly known or outright garbage.

Two years from? What? Regardless, I'm not talking about various different projects being an indicator of sustained popularity, I'm talking about individual ability to keep interest. If we are talking about Shredder's Revenge specifically, then the data shows that there was a quick burst interest at launch but the number of players dropped drastically, not just from what the initial numbers were (which were mediocre for what can be consider mid-tier releases) but just low period. If Shredder's Revenge is still popular and wasn't just popular in the first two weeks or so, why did the numbers drop so quickly and so low?

Originally Posted by Sumac

Oh no, people can't point out every single episode from the series they've watched who knows when!!

...

I bet most people can't tell you about most episodes of Transformers or Star Trek, but apparently they didn't make a major bump in pop-culture, right?

...

That's not the argument I made, it's pretty much the opposite of the argument I made. The argument wasn't that they should be able to remember most episodes, it was that they should be able to remember a few episodes or at the very least a single one. If the series did leave an impact, then being able to remember at least some details beyond the premise shouldn't be difficult. And yes, if the claim is that Transformers and Star Trek left an impact on those who watched it then they should be able to recall what a single episode. But remember, my argument is just one episode and preferably more than one, not most episodes and definitely not all of them.

Originally Posted by Sumac

OK, there are mistakes no-none denies it.

...

I was talking about venomous and hilarious seething hatred of everything about this cartoon, not only animation.

...

Your response was to me before that post was in reference to a statement I made about the flaws, which in turn had nothing to "venomous" behavior. It's not moving the goal post if you fail to properly respond what I had to say in the first place.

Originally Posted by Sumac

How do you check their relevancy?

...

And about comic book: numbers, care to provide them? The fact they've been made at all is already a sign that FW is much more popular than your pwecious Mirage stuff, sans Last Ronin, which is an exception from the rule.

I've already cited the Steam numbers as in indicator that Shredder's Revenge isn't as popular as is being claimed and you still haven't provided anything to counter that beyond conjecture. I'd also be remissed to point out that what data we do have (albeit not as clear as it used to be) does show that Last Ronin, The Power Rangers crossover and Armageddon Game all register during the months SMA has been selling, while SMA itself does not. Not happy about the data we are getting on comic book sales these days though I must admit. And I never claimed that Mirage is "pwecious" to me.

Originally Posted by Sumac

...

Your arguments are complete crap
...
disjointed combination of theories, without any prove.

What you are responding to here is speculation for alternatives, not arguments. I wanted to demonstrate how factors beyond quality can impact popularity and accessibility.

Originally Posted by Sumac

...

Kids might not have high standards, but they sure can understand when the show is good and when show is crap. With abundance of shows in the 80s it was easier than ever for kids to find something for their liking.

...

Point being there were no shortage of shows and some of them had more interesting concepts and better general premises than TMNT, yet kids flocked to FW Turtles. Now, whine all you want about lack of quality, but with dozens shows on the market wouldn't watch some ****** crap.

...

But TMNT was able to hold attention for what? Almost 6 years, give or take. And apparently according to your dumb hot take, those kids didn't grow up and new kids, who joined TMNTmania later were equally as dumb. And none of the competitors throughout those 6-7 years were able to shatter TMNT power, even more bizarre TMNT rip-offs of 90s.

By the time the shows you cited came along, the fad was already dying down, so it's not like there was in terms of popularity to "shatter". It is also worth noting that the estimated popularity of the show, as in when it reached it's height, is closer to two or three years, not six or seven as claim. That's still enough time to only really apply to a single batch of children. If your argument is the show lasted as long as it did because of sheer popularity alone, I'd like to counter that with the fact that we are talking about a studio that had exactly one show that got popular, which gave them reason to keep it going, even if the viewership had severely dwindled.

More crucially though, let's remember here that most shows had these types of problems (which again, does not mean these problems were excusable).

Originally Posted by Sumac

...

And, no schedules and other stuff, has nothing to do with due to aforementioned reasons.

You are deliberately ignoring the possibility that accessibility and other may still have played a role here. The reason schedules and accessible networks are a legitimate factor to consider here is because not everyone can get every cable network and nobody can watch every show that airs at the same time.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Obvious conclusion of the normal person: FW was a damn fine show for its time ...

You can't just rely on the amount of people who claim to like it, you have to assess the contents of the show itself in order to argue for the quality.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Actually it does, since if all shows were bad, kids won't have reason to stick exclusively to afew of them.
...

Remember that the majority of these shows were and these children didn't have much to compare them to on account that they were children. The "best" out of a hundred bad shows is still a bad show, if you don't have anything better to go by then "least bad" becomes "good".

Originally Posted by Sumac

This nonsense has been disproven above.

No, you haven't. You've just applied an appeal popularity fallacy and coupled it with your own bias.

Originally Posted by Sumac

Not liking something and considering it to be objectively bad are two different things.
...
And, I given that FW TMNT mostly remembered for voice acting and jokes, well, you are in minority. And you've been in minority for the last 30+ years.

...

Animation was passable and writing was exactly which attracted people to that show, which means you are mistaken.

Again, this is just an appeal popularity fallacy, not an actual argument in favor of the quality. And once again, no, the animation is not passable just because the standards were low at the time. And as for the jokes, I'm sorry but they are not funny. You saying that they are funny and insisting that someone else somewhere agrees with you does not make them any funnier.

And since I admitted that I didn't feel like like commenting on the acting or music, I might as well make it clear that I did not claim to have an objective argument against them in the first place, I thought that spoke for itself.

Originally Posted by Sumac

...

You are genuinly unable to figure out, how acting works and how a good perfomance can save disastrous story and directorship. Because, of it, you are obviously can not figure out why dialogues in FW TMNT work, since you obviously just don't see acting as a component of them. You see them as a plain text and this is the core of the problem. You can't understand neither intention nor emotion nor interaction.
...

No that's not really true. The reason I didn't feel like commenting on the voice acting is that if I admitted it's just bog standard generic voice acting that is highly over rated, is because I feared that if I did then someone would start throw out arguments like this. Which is annoying because it's even more difficult to convince someone that the acting they consider to be great is actually rather standard, mostly because I can't really use many objective measures to prove it. I guess that since it happened anyway, I might as let it out that out, not that I'm actually going to attempt to argue for my opinion since people here tend to dismiss objective arguments and using subjective arguments is nearly impossible here.

Originally Posted by Sumac

It is not to say you don't understand it on a mechanical level, it is just there is more to the writing than a story or dialogues. Perfomance and character nuances, all things, which FW TMNT exceled at, matter probably the most, if not more, than a good story. Because, of it you simply can't understand what is going on.
...

I do understand what's going on in the show, I just don't have to rose tinted glasses to excuse the objective problems and I didn't feel like commenting on my more subjective ones with the show because it's way too easy for others to just dismiss them.