This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
samperi: The opinion-to-fact ratio is so high in this article that it really needs the "subjective" tag.
AC: I'm surprised that no one has referred to Tolkien fans in relation to the LOTR movies. Despite the fact that they are very much loved as a good film adaptation, I know and have heard of a good deal of fans who are still displeased with them.
arromdee: I took out the D&D reference. Second to third edition was pretty much universally liked—it's almost the classic example of the right way to do a big update to something with a supposedly unpleasable fanbase. There'll be *someone* playing any old version, but it's really not that common.
Zander Schubert: For the curious, the second quote (which I put up) is from this Bonus Stage episode
during the Easter Egg that comes on after the credits.
KJ Mackley: Obviously, I should have chosen my words more carefully when talking about the person who whined about the Cowboy Bebop dub. I certainly didn't mean to ignite the wrath of the Subtitle fans. The conversation I described had just irked me a little because this person claimed that because they saw the subtitled version that they knew all of the intricacies of the language and the show, which even the posters didn't claim. Then lumping the dub with all the other horribly Macekred anime just reminded me of the Unpleasable Fanbase. Is there any objection if I take out that whole section and replace it with less...wrath-bringing word choice?
Caphi: Regarding the Dominic Deegan line, isn't this trope about things that try to improve only to be met with complaints opposing the original complaints? The complaints about Teracciano have been the same since they popped up - mainly, that Deegan is one giant exercise in Writer on Board.
The Nifty: Edited the Star Wars entry to remove: "Matthew Stover's novels" as something universally liked by fans, as it simply isn't true. The easiest way to start a flamewar on any EU forum is to mention that you liked NJO:Traitor. Don't think I've ever seen a book that so polarizes the fanbase.
Man Called True: Pulled the Breath Of Fire entry because, frankly, the complaints of the fanbase is valid and not just They Changed It, Now It Sucks!. The only connection Dragon Quarter has to the main series is that there are characters named Ryu and Nina. That's why fans complained; after four games set in the same, ever-evolving world, getting a In Name Only game felt like an insult.
Rogue 7: Does anyone really believe that Kishimoto's got P.S.L. for Sasuke and people aren't just taking hyperbole too seriously?
That Other 1 Dude: I doubt anyone really does, but a lot of the people act like they're serious.
Deuxhero:removed "Nothing near enough to justify the sheer Fan-Dumb the fanbase can muster, mind you." Opinion much?
Rebochan: Pulled spoiler tags from the Smash Bros. Brawl entry. I could understand them if it had anything to do with the story mode, but they were tagging the mere existence of the secret characters shown in the introduction of the game. I'm sorry, spoiler tags do not belong on the rosters for fighting games. Everyone knows they're there.
dkellis: Removed:
- *** The complaints about the villain side being neglected still have some justification as the newer content is very hero-biased, making villains feel like they're being brought along for the ride as long as they help the heroes.
Large Blunt Object: Oh, look, Complaining About Complaining You Don't Like. Stupid, futile entry. The time for using the knife to remove these pages is long gone...
Rogue 7: I', pretty sure this is legitimate. I'd vote for keeping it.
Idle Dandy: I vote keep, too. This is a very real phenomenon.
Donomni: Ditto. It's pretty much everywhere. That and it's not the monster that Discontinuity was. O.o
A moment later: Ok, it is close, actually. Still, it shouldn't just be axed... maybe some trimming?
Cosmetor: No. This trope is rotten to the core, from the title on down. In reality, there is no such thing as an "unpleasable" fan. Though, it would be helpful to have a trope about authors that did what fans asked for but didn't do it in a way that satisfied them, as long as it isn't phrased in a way that condemns anyone who thinks such a thing is even possible. For that, though, we'd need to change the title first and foremost.
Seanette: Add another vote for "keep this, since it is a verifiably real phenomenon, thus a valid meta-trope".
Cosmetor: No. There are no fans who cannot be pleased, only authors who fail to do so. It's a verifiably unreal phenomenon.
Tanto: No individual fans? Maybe. A fandom as a whole (which is what this trope is about), though? Hell fucking yeah, they're real.
Cosmetor: So this trope is about grouping people with conflicting opinions together to make them look bad? Sound like bigotry of the highest and stupidest order. By your definition, every fanbase is "unpleasable", because the people in it are individuals with differing opinions.
Rogue 7: It's a real and observeable phenomenon. Look at Super Smash Bros Brawl. I fucking loved the game. But a large portion of the fanbase bitched to no end about the changes made (see "Stop Having Fun" Guys for more details), despite the massive amount of characters, extras, free internet play, and sheer awesome that's packed into the game.
Cosmetor: So you basically use this trope to insult and group together people you don't agree with. This just proves my point more.
Rogue 7: The point is, even if the changes are objectively good, albeit different, fans will complain. If things stay the same, they'll complain. If there are no changes whatsoever, some people will complain. It's a phenomenon that happens in fandoms, so we document it here. Fans complain, we take note. No real malice intended.
Cosmetor: There is no "objectively good", only what you subjectively like. The "phenomenon" you describe consists almost entirely of hypothetical acts of unrealistic stupidity you claim people you don't like would do if certain things which didn't happen did. Thus, this malicious observation is blatantly false as you described it.
Cosmetor: On the other hand, something that is an observable phenomenon is when authors do what fans ask them to, but the fans don't like how they did it. The problem is that the title of this trope is so ludicrously biased that it's an insult to anyone who thinks such a thing is possible. There are delicate balances at work here, and whenever the more reasonable fans don't think the authors strike them, rabid fanboys rant and rave about how "unpleasable" they are.
Grev: I'd just like to know one thing: When did TV Tropes turn into Wikipedia's Af D?
Ninjacrat: You know what I'd like? I'd like if there could be a discussion on this wiki without someone playing the ZOMGZWIKIPEDIA card.
Also? Cosmetor, stop playing silly buggers.
Large Blunt Object: I think we should delete the examples, which are mostly just wank, and either leave the page as it is without examples or lump it with Fan Dumb.
Tanto: Ah, I see. So this is Cosmetor's victim complex playing itself out. Carry on, then.
Rogue 7: I'd be fine with lumping this with Fan Dumb so long as the examples are kept. I've never liked tropes without examples.
Cosmetor: You have completely failed to respond to anything I've said. Can you provide any reason whatsoever that this pile of trolling should exist?
Idle Dandy: Keep, and keep the examples. This is for "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations for the writer, when fans complain about one thing, then complain about the exact opposite. It doesn't mean all members of a fanbase are unpleasable. It just means that some writers get flak for whatever they do. It's a valid entry, and people like it; stop abusing the damn cutlist already.
Rogue 7: Cosmetor, let me put this simply: You're outvoted on this one- 6 to 2, giving you L B O's vote. More, if you count the however many people have seen this page and haven't complained. And we have- numerous people have come here to say that this is an observed phenomenon that they have seen. Hell, I'm a member of the fanbase for some of these, and I'm not mad at all.
Fast Eddie: The consensus seems to be "keep." The article will be removed from the Cut List. The examples are at issue. Disputed examples should be moved to discussion.
Cosmetor: So basically, this is about fanbases so divided in their opinions that it's impossible to make all of them happy?
Donomni: That sums it up well, methinks.
Rogue 7:Two questions regarding the Estrogen Brigade example for Naruto: the first is that it doesn't really seem like an example of the trope specifically, and the second is that I'm curios as to why those two are exempt.
- The Simpsons' fanbase. The Comic Book Guy exists largely so that the writers can comment on the phenomenon. Whether this is subtle and clever or petty and childish really depends on who you ask.
Trogga: Honestly, is the last part necessary?
Rebochan: There's a lot of discussion that they overuse Comic Book Guy to deflect *any* criticism of the show.
Eric DVH: And the show's own advertisements proudly proclaim that what's up next is the “Worst. Episode. EVER.”
So, how come this's been cutlisted again? I thought that'd been discussed.
whitetigah: Exactly. We've already been through this, as can be seen from the discussion above.
Deux Hero:Lets see, for one the most famous example here isn't acctualy an example but infact (as said by NMA) the takeing of a few radical members as representive of a group.
fleb: We're talking about Fallout, right? What is NMA, anyway?
Voting nay on cutting this just because the examples section occasionally resembles a particularly chatty tumor. (For all the same reasons as in the last time this was nominated.)
Deux Hero: what you just said makes me lulz, it also means you have no place in determining if this is complaining about fanbases you don't like, seeing as you haven't even heard of the fanbase. I am cuting the Fallout example at least, seeing as how it isn't an example...
Charredknight: You do know you can just DELETE the Fallout example right? You don't have to delete the whole page because you don't like one example. Click edit, find the Fallout example and delete it. If your only problem is deleting one example than don't Cutlist it, just delete the page.
Deuxhero:Yes I do, and I did, but 1.this single entry has additional reason to be removed, while the rest are still complaining about fanbases you don't like with poor standards for inclusion (Someone doesn't like one thing while someone likes it! how narrow...) and 2.Delteing an entire artical isn't the same as a single example.
Gregory Hayes: I'm sorry, it's just that the Fallout fanbase pulling out the Screwed by the Network card bugs me. Plenty of other franchises have been screwed over worse (for example, pretty much everything listed on Screwed by the Network) and their fans would be overjoyed to see someone actually try to revive them, possible Adaptation Decay are not. Fallout is not unique in its situation, it is unique only in how Unpleasable its Fanbase is.
Rebochan: Okay, I know the goal is to clean up this page, but almost all of the content is stripped down in this current version. At the very least, I'm putting the Fallout entry back just because they're so famous.
Eric DVH: (Relocated the above two Fallout comments from higher up) First off, while the Fallout fanbase IS unpleasable in many respects, it mostly has legitimate grievances. Second, while most grievances are legitimate, some of them ARE really stupid. Third, irregardless of all that, Fallout fans tend to cultivate (with varying degrees of deservedness and intent) a legendary (if somewhat exaggerated) reputation for fickleness and Serious Business. Basically, Fallout presents a textbook example of this trope.
I mean, I remember when the first two actual public screenshots from VB came out, this was like the holy grail everybody had been longing for since the dawn of time, and guess what the first nitpicker harped on? ARCHITECTURE. He was all “These apocalyptic ruins are Modern, FO1/2 were Gothic Deco, this game is garbage, it's A TRAVESTY.” After that, of course, was the “It has optional PRT like BG's PRT, BG had terrible quests, therefore THIS GAME SUCKED!!”. In spite of that nitpickery and more, everyone STILL wet themselves with joy and sadness when they saw those screens.
Oh, and Gregory Hayes? Spinoffs and tributes from unrelated developers are nice and all, but what we're after is a legitimate sequel by the original people, we want some (two-headed) BEEF to go with the heaps of side dishes that've been shoved down our throat. A brief history of the “series”:
- Fallout released, sells like gangbusters, saves Interplay and [=RPGs=] alike from Brink of Doom. Players clamor for sequel.
- Interplay announces sequel… a $50 expansion pack. A very nice (if um, somewhat unstable) expansion pack, but come on.
- It doesn't sell very well, I wonder why?
- Fans clamor for sequel, Van Buren Project repeatedly put on backburner in lieu of violations like FoT:BoS, BG:DA, Lionheart, and the especially insulting FO:BoS.
- They don't sell very well, I wonder why?
- Pissed off for these and numerous other abuses suffered, most of Fallout's developers resign in disgust, Van Buren Project finally shut down… Along with BG3 and Torn.
- Interplay implodes, I wonder why?
- Instead of Troika, Obsidian, or even Bioware getting the Fallout license, Interplay reaches up from beyond the grave to sell it to probably the only western RPG company that hasn't ever had ANYTHING to do with Fallout.
- Blood thick enough with pure rage to burn a hole to China boils out of every fan's eyes, I wonder why?
Charred Knight: You have made several mistakes.
- Fallout 3 was cancelled when Black Isle Studio was SHUT DOWN in 2003! They where FIRED! Pink Slip! You are confusing this with the layoff of 53 members in 2001 that caused the cancellation of Torn. While some Fallout members did leave this was after Fallout 1. The creator of Fallout 2 and the Van Buren Project was fired.
- Baldur's Gate 3 was cancelled before the shut down. Although Dark Alliance 3 was cancelled because of the Shut Down.
- Out of the games you mentioned for delaying the Van Buren Project, only Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliances even had anything to do with BIS, and they only developed the second one. The only impact Lion Heart, and Fallout Tactics had was that poor sales helped contribute to Interplay's financial difficulties. By the way if you ignore the Baldur's Gate name Dark Alliance is actually a good game if you come in with the mindset that it has nothing to do with Baldur's Gate games created by Bio Ware. BIS only used the Baldur's Gate name because that was the only name they had the rights to. The Van Buren delays where caused by the simple fact that it was not completed in time. Blizzard does it all the time. Also Dark Alliance sold well as mentioned they where making a third one when they where fired. I can't imagine a poor selling game having two sequels.
- Interplay imploding was the cause of BIS shutting down, not BIS leaving
- Interplay sold Fallout to the highest bidder, they where trying to save their company. It would have made matters worse if they had sold it to Troika. Imagine learning that the creators of the original Fallout are back. Then find out that Troika is shutting down and has to sell the Fallout IP.
Gregory Hayes: I'd also like to point out that, for a $50 expansion pack, Fallout 2 has plenty of They Changed It, Now It Sucks! going for it, as well. And calling games like Fallout Tactics and Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance "violations" seems like pretty strong evidence for an Unpleasable Fanbase to me, or at least something closely related.
Dalantia: Violations of canon or violations of gameplay? Fallout Tactics.. was a good game, but it wasn't a good Fallout game. Brotherhood of Steel was a bad Fallout game and a bad game altogether. (I might be willing to go as high as mediocre on it, but that's about as far as I'll go willingly.) Both of them ignored canon pretty egregiously, to my knowledge. Especially Brotherhood of Steel. (And before the voices start: I did like BG:DA. I need to play it again.)
Uncanny Garlic: NMA has been mislabeled as an unpleasable fanbase when in fact they have been pretty clear about what they do and do not want in games. A demonstration of this is their reactions to Tactics and Van Buren. The Glittering Gems of Hatred article referenced has been cherry picked to represent the opposite of what it presents, the following quote sums up the article and NMA, "Fallout fans have been bitterly disappointed and outspoken in their frustration. But is there an irrational element to the Fallout fan attitude? The answer is: “No not a lot.”" The entry is uninformed and should be rephrased with the additional comments, which are really agreeing discussion, being removed. While they have been mislabeled, they remain to be cited often as an unpleasable fanbase (particularly whenever Bo S or Fallout 3 is brought up), so they deserve an entry. Side note, Fallout 3 was not put to auction, Interplay was shopping around for a buyer and Bethesda was the first who negotiated a deal to buy it. Van Buren was canceled in order for Interplay to focus it's resources on Bo S 2, which was also later canceled. Also, Dark Alliance is not a game that NMA cares about as it is not a Fallout game, that aside, it is a mediocre Diablo clone. Fallout Tactics has not been labeled as a violation, it has been said that it violated canon and is a Fallout spin-off, both of which are true. Again, read the article, it describes the reaction to Tactics which was that it was good for what it was, it just wasn't a Fallout sequel.
Mister Bibs: ^ Alleging that NMA as "uninformed" about how they act is the very definition of Alternative Character Interpretation. That article you're claiming is being read wrong is being read correctly; that NMA is an elitist, proud, and delusional little group of people that gaming - hell, even their own game has left behind. When the developers of a Fallout game put one of NMA's admins into a game as an old man who pisses into people's drinks, there's not much material to claim that NMA is being mis-represented.
Uncanny Garlic: The character was a tribute and a joke in a spin-off game (Fallout: Tactics) that the developers clearly said was neither a sequel nor the same kind of game as Fallout 1&2. He's a crazy old man who pisses in people's Nuka Cola's but he was also right that the airships would crash if they tried to go through the storm, so they were clearly having fun. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Roshambo - Link to the character on The Vault. Also note that Leonard Boyarski, one of the minds behind the original game, put himself in Fallout 2 as a man who was exiled from Vault 8 for murder and unauthorized research. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Boyarsky http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Leonard_Boyarsky_%28character%29 ... You have to dig around in the archives of NMA's forums to really figure out the history of it, as I'm sure he talked about it at some point and I know that some of the developers were around.
Charred Knight: Changed the Nintendo thing, since Nintendo only has Animal Crossing announced in the future, so the gaming crowd has gotten pissed that Nintendo is concentrating on the general public that don't play video game system. Their main problem is that while Nintendo has made new games none of them are ain=med at them except for sequels.
Deux Hero:As you just showed, the fact that most of these so called "unpleasable" fan bases have valid reasons for complaining is one of many reasons this needs to go.
Eric DVH: Most, but not all. Irreconcilable is different from right or wrong. Also, since it's bloated with Nintendo and Square Enix examples, I split those out for easier reading.
That Other 1 Dude: Is there a reason why that picture is linked to GaoGaiGar?
whitetigah: Beats me.
Eric DVH: Ahem, uh… Sorry 'bout that. Lewted some of the code from another article, forgot to replace all of it.
Alex319: Removed the following text from the D+D example:
(by making every class...able to do exactly equivalent levels of damage and removing most social interaction)
- It is not true that every class does "exactly equivalent levels of damage." Strikers (such as rogues), for example, do more damage than other roles because of their increased damage abilities like sneak attack, while leaders do less damage but can heal allies, etc.
- It is not true that 4e "removed most social interaction". The amount of social interaction compared to combat in a game is a function of the GM and campaign, not the game system: you can run a 3.5e campaign with nothing but combat and you can run a 4e campaign with social interaction, and vice versa. And skills for social interaction, like bluff, diplomacy, and insight, are still in the game.
Rebochan: I slightly mucked with one of the Fallout entries. Specifically the one complaining that Bethesda "stonewalled" or "ignored" input from the creators of the franchise. The main reason I took the comment out was because it was irrelevant to the entry - Fallout and Elder Scrolls fans are fighting regardless of Bethesda's actions. I was also under the impression that nobody involved in the original game had any input to offer other than either accepting the franchise was not theirs anymore or a much more hostile response about mucking with their IP.
UncannyGarlic: It's irrelevant to this page but Bethesda did refuse to hire Leonard Boyarski, one of the three head designers on the first Fallout game, so that complaint is legit, though more broadly worded than is accurate. http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=170807&highlight=#170807
Nornagest: Cut a ludicrous amount of natter from the Star Wars and Warhammer 40 K entries:
- ** One example that may come under "weren't satisfied when it was done badly" may be the release of the original versions of the Star Wars movies. Fans had been asking for them to be put on DVD for a long time. They finally did it, but released them only during 2006 in the 2 1/2 month period of September 12 to December 31, only bundled with the new versions, and using non-anamorphic transfers whose video was taken from the 1993 laserdisc prints.***They're doing it again in November 2008, but they're bundled in a box set. Yes, I mean the 2006 re-release. And the prequels too.
** In the Expanded Universe, however, there seem to be some universally liked works, like Knights Of The Old Republic (the first game and the comic; the second game is controversial) and the books written by Timothy Zahn.*** Whenever a new Star Wars project is announced, expect a good portion of the fanbase to hate it preemptively (except in the case of Lego Star Wars, which is too easygoing for fans to hate).** Similarly, many fans hated the prequels because they weren't campy or lighthearted like the originals and focused too much on politics instead of Jedi kicking arse. Then comes the Clone Wars movie, which is campy and lighthearted, and consists entirely of Jedi kicking arse. The same fans hated it. This goes beyond an Unpleasable Fanbase. This is a fanbase that surgically removed the pleasure centers from their brains, replaced them with brain tissue from the Great Old Ones and is now left as a corpselike shell surrounding an abyss of pure anger and hatred.*** It might be helpful if said movie had been more like, oh, the animated series of the same name that had plenty of lighthearted asskicking, didn't have a caracter specifically designed to offend people, and didn't feature dialogue so bad that it makes the "I hate sand" speech in Episode II look like King Lear.*** This Troper actually disliked the prequel trilogy because he felt that it was more campy and lighthearted (Jar-Jar, lil' Anakin, gangsta-jedi Sam Jackson, C3PO's "comic relief" in AotC) than the original.*** Seriously: Empire Strikes Back? Lighthearted? Surely you jest, sir.**They also have the tendency to shoot down any computer game based on their franchise for very minor background reasons like a gun having the incorrect clip size in a leaked pre-alpha proof of concept video or attempt to substitute their own "fluff(background material)" balance over any sensible or practical game balance even though the tabletop game falls short even further. This gets even more complicated when said balance depends on which of the (supposedly all canon) books you look at. In some, a single space marine can defeat 100.0000 humans without effort and in others they are a roughly equal match 1:1. And taking a stad for one of those viewpoints gets you flamed of the board by the other side ofcourse.**Don't forget the comparison of real life military technology and armour to that of a universe set 38,000ish years into the future, where Faster Than Light travel is achieved by flying through Hell, 8-foot genetically modified superwarriormonks beat up daemons, planet-eating aliens and Terminator wannabes from the dawn of time using chainsaw swords, and a gigantic anti-tank laser has a 1 in 6 chance of not completely vapourising a human target.**Games Workshop do have a habit of not really testing their ruleset very well, so it often has large holes and exploits in it, which doesn't help. However, rabid criticism of everything GW does is rife on the forums, balanced or not; as well as the counterpointing justifications of the craziest, most senseless and most overpowered new rules. There are people out there who argue that Death Company getting rending makes sense.***(To non-players of the game, Death Company are just normal space marines that are really angry because of some guy who died 10,000 years ago, and rending is a special rule that lets them punch through tanks and armour that can withstand plasma reactors. With their bare hands. Other things that get rending: a weapon that lashes the target to bloody chunks from the inside via a whip of nanowire; genetically bred alien monsters with four claws bigger than your head. That's REAL rending.)
There might be some valid comments there, but I can't be bothered to dig them out. This page is about fanbases as a whole; pet peeves are fine if they illustrate an Unpleasable Fanbase's particular obsessions (like the Super Smash Brothers wavedashing saga), but by and large they don't contribute to the discussion.
(Later...)
Also Dungeons And Dragons, this time because the comment thread had evolved into a discussion of why this particular fan is unpleasable. Seriously, folks, did you even read the lead?
- ** One of the biggest complaints of the earlier editions was that the base classes were wildly unbalanced, making fighters near useless at later levels compared to magic users. When Wizards of the Coast fixed this exact problem by making every class of roughly equal power in combat, people complained that it was "too much like an MMORPG." and that Wizards "nerfed" the powerful classes.*** This troper has seen a small minority of the against-4e crowd (himself included) more ticked that the removed or uglied up every single attractive monster in the game.*** Hear hear! This troper is particularly hurt by the loss of the hot Tieflings (aka boobs with horns) from 3.5, and is baffled by the fact that the new, ugly ones get a bonus to Charisma of all things.*** Because Charisma is not only physical beauty (though it's possible to be appealing/beautiful while also being definitively inhuman: see Draenei), it's force of personality and instinctive persuasiveness.
Charred Knight: I will never understand some people, a couple of days ago I just watched the episode of Gurren Lagann, where Rossiu attempts to commit suicide, and it is without a doubt one of the finest anime episodes I have ever seen. Rossiu wanting to atone for all the harm he did to his best friend, Kinon and Simon wanting to save Rossiu from making another horrible mistake, the discussion with the priest, the fact that Kinon and Simon used the power of love and friendship to teleport directly to Rossiu, and stop him. The scene where Kinon goes over to Rossiu, and Simon tells Rossiu that he forgives him for his actions.
And some people where pissed that Simon didn't give Rossiu a Giga Driill Breaker? What show where you watching? Do you lack any compassion what so ever?
Rebochan: I pulled this from the Nintendo section because of how nattertastic and whiny it was getting.
- If, with your comment about the DK fanbase's upset about Jungle Beat you are referring to DKU, then you my friend are somewhat mistaken. They didn't hate it for the gameplay, with most of them grudingly acknowleging that it was good, but they hated the fact that they ditched the franchise's rich legacy of characters created by Rare for complete no-names out of sheer spite. Nintendo Tokyo even admitted in an interview that they did it because they thought the DKC characters "weren't fresh enough", and that pissed the fans off. It's like doing a Mario game without any of the existing supporting cast or locations out of sheer hatred of the fans! However, they aren't unsatisfiable, as they do enjoy the King of Swing series, dispite it being very different in gameplay from the old DKC games, for its respect of the franchise's history. Of course they also enjoyed Barrel Blast for the same reason...
- Nintendo did do that, it's called Super Mario Bros. Only Mario and his brother Luigi were ported into the new continuity with Peach replacing Pauline and Bowser replacing Donkey Kong. Besides, Diddy Kong appears in nearly every Mario Sports game now
- To be fair, the main cast wasn't very large when Super Mario Bros. came around. Donkey Kong got a larger cast with Donkey Kong Country that had been expanding since 1994. With the main character's redesign, possible Character Derailment, and the lack of any past character besides Donkey Kong "and the banana" in mind, it might be easier to see why they don't like it too much. Some fans claim they'd have been more satisfied if they'd gotten so much as Diddy Kong. On the flip side, some fans won't give DK: King of Swing and DK: Jungle Climber a fair shake because they aren't traditional platformers. The fanbase may not be so much unpleasable as it is divided.
- Stop trying to justify it. Donkey Kong wasn't even playable in the sequels to Donkey Kong Country and Diddy wasn't even playable in the third game. I'll grant you the fact that the Kremling Krew were the enemies, but in Japan even the main villain was considered different for each game. Not only that, the only tie to Donkey Kong Country in the original Diddy Kong Racing was Diddy Kong and a Kremling.
- If, with your comment about the DK fanbase's upset about Jungle Beat you are referring to DKU
Jonn: Okay, what "numerous efforts" to please Sonic fans has Sega made in the 3D games? There are a few token efforts, such as Secret Rings, but the main 3D games have been Sonic shackled with a few unnecessary tagalongs. In fact, they seem to be adding at least one new Scrappy each game. The closest they've really gotten to a good 3D Sonic game is Unleashed, and they felt the inexplicable need to add "Were-hog" gameplay to the mix, which turns the lead character himself into a part-time Scrappy.
Unless there are some concrete examples, this is more of an example of Polygon Ceiling than Unpleasable Fanbase. time=1228075721
Twilightdusk: I feel the need to voice an observation. I see multiple examples where listening to fan complaints has made the fandom complain more (this being written just after having read the Xenosaga example). Given this, I have two theories on what the fans think in that situation 1. before change: there's a lot about this I don't like, but if I complain about too much they might not listen to me at all, so I'll just complain about X. after change: hey! they listened to me about X! maybe now they'll listen about Y and Z. 2. before change: haha, this game is awesome, but wouldn't it be fun to troll the forums and complain about. hmm.....X after change: what!? they actually listened to me!? no, no, change X back! change X back!
Anyone have anything to add?
Danel: Half of this is just examples of fans not being pleased. How are complaints about misoynistic comics an example of this? I'm not even sure what that point means unless someone seriously believes that misogyny is a core part of the art form.
Rebochan: Took out this giant pile of natter:
- At least some of this is due to a) most of the streams being region-locked which is a big problem for fans not residing in North America; b) the more than questionable quality of the streams and c) the fact that many of the streams are English dubs(Or in the case of Naruto and Bleach, just subs, although this is likely because of Cartoon Network\Adult Swim licensing issues).
- Perfectly justifiable for the first reason alone. North Americans in general seem to have a huge problem understanding that not everyone lives in their country, and for those that don't, there's zero difference between "it's available in America" and "it's not available". It's also quite annoying when people asking for worldwide access to be met with American fans telling them to "stop bitching, the companies are doing their best." Easy to say when THEY can watch it. The same fans would probably not accept their question on whether a particular series would be licensed being answered with "be happy it exists in Japan in the first place".
- That's because the Japanese company sell's the streaming rights per region. Take Fullmetal Alchemist, Funimation owns the streaming rights for Canada, and USA, while Madman owns the rights for Australia. This results in someone in Montreal being able to watch Fullmetal Alchemist online legally while someone from London can't. The reason is because only aniplex owns the right to stream Fullmetal Alchemist in Britain but they don't want to stream it, they want some British company to buy the rights. It makes little sense for Funimation to buy all these streaming rights for countries that don't have large amounts of English speakers.
- Although depending on the study you check, English speakers in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia put together may account for just over a third of the English speakers in the world, thanks to the former British Empire.
Because it all boiled down to something that was much more easily added to the example: Some of the complaints have merit if you don't live in North America.
Jsor: The Nostalgia Critic's new Nostalgic Fuckups video just contained a great quote about the *ahem* Mako incident that embodies this trope pretty well. It was "This [fuckup] started with my TMNT review, which I'd like to point out everyone requested me to do and yet got really pissed off when I did it. Does my audience just have Multiple Personality Disorder?" We have a lot of quotes as it is, so I was thinking - would it be worth it to either make a quotes page or (alternatively) retire an old quote? Or should we just leave it as is?
Sabre Justice: This page really should have this comic
as the page picture. It's perfect.
Kitsune Inferno: Can we please have Metallica's New Album Sucks as an alternate title?
