Being confused with any fan-splitting thing: Base Breaker

I frequently see Base Breaker being misused as anything that splits the fans. The trope's current definition is that it's a character that splits the fans, not just anything. Can we rename it to something more indicative of the definition, like "Base Breaking Character"?

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

Now, we have Broken Base to refer to any kind of split in a fan community over any kind of change or new addition to a work. From what I can gather, this page is both the more popular of the two and originator of where the term Base Breaker came from.

That said, I'd have to say that I think the name Base Breaker would be a textbook case of a Bad Snowclone. It's a rehash of an original name with a very broad definition that is referring to something far more specific and exclusive than its name (and origins) would otherwise suggest.

edited 13th Jun '11 9:49:37 AM by SeanMurrayI

I have an idea for a rename, Base-Breaking Character. Then the trope would be Exactly What It Says on the Tin and probably never misused.

edited 13th Jun '11 10:05:06 AM by nuclearneo577

I already came up with that title in the OP. It's just in quotation marks because I don't like Red Links.

But, nevertheless, I agree. It should be "Base Breaking Character".

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

Well I should have read it better. Anyway, added it as a redirect for now. Also, fixed the tag.

edited 13th Jun '11 11:28:37 AM by nuclearneo577

EDIT: Whoops, never mind

edited 13th Jun '11 11:40:12 AM by WaxingName

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

I agree that Base-Breaking Character would probably be a better name.

Still, it looks to me like the current name is getting some pretty healthy use so I would prefer to see some specific examples of misuse before going through the effort of renaming it. I would consider broadening the trope instead of renaming it, but I think that if we did that, the trope would probably be very difficult to distinguish from Broken Base.

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

Base Breaker already has a broadened form, and that's Broken Base. Broken Base can cover to anything in a work. Base Breaker only covers characters.

As for misuses, the YMMV page for Final Fantasy VII contains one, IIRC. I'll put up more pages with misuses if I find them.

EDIT: Taking out factually incorrect words.

---

Found some more: The YMMV pages for Crash Bandicoot, Portal 2, and Harry Potter all contain a non-character example.

edited 13th Jun '11 3:59:37 PM by WaxingName

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

That's not how misuse is checked.

Grab a number of random wicks—25 is good—by going to the "related to" button at the top of the trope page. Then manually check each page to see if its correct, and publish the results here.

Yes, its annoying as hell, not least because you'll find a lot of X Just X examples, but its the best we've got.

Sorry, didn't know that.

Please help out our The History Of Video Games page.

If the trope refers specifically to characters, why is the naming scheme so confusing for the others? It's been stated that Broken Base is for non-character elements, cool, but that name implicates the base itself rather than the inciting incident. It seems like if anything, Broken Base should be renamed to Base Breaker and give this trope a new name.

Personally, I feel that Broken Base should be kept as the Super-Trope page, with Base Breaker as a redirect to there, and Broken Base having the following SubTropes:

• Base Breaking Adaptation - i.e. Anime fans vs Manga fans or Book fans vs Movie Fans. Also for individual treatments vs other treatments in the same medium. Subs vs. Dubs also qualifies here.
• Base-Breaking Character - As Existing
• Base Breaking Installment - Essentially, one faction rejoices over what they think is a Surprisingly Improved Sequel, whereas their foes invoke They Changed It, Now It Sucks! and Sequelitis. Base Breaking SpinOffs go here as well.
• Base Breaking Mechanic - No, not a Scrappy Mr Fix It, that belongs with BBC. This covers mainly what rules of the 'Verse fans are willing to accept or not, though ScrappyMechanics could also qualify if not universally designated. Not exclusive to Video Games. (May need a better Snowclone.)
• Base Breaking Plot Point - Within the same Volume/Season in a multi-Volume/Season work. (Also covers mixed opinions of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot or They Plotted a Perfectly Good Waste)

All examples would be moved to the appropriate sub page. The ultimate goal would be to give Broken Base an Example Removal with examples in the specific categories.

EDIT: If a base within a single adaptation is broken, then once the breaker is identified, it should be moved to the appropriate Sister Sub-Trope.

edited 17th Sep '11 1:56:09 PM by DonaldthePotholer

Ketchum's corollary to Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced tactic is indistinguishable from blind luck.

No way, all those sub-entries will just open the floodgate to an assload of whining.

Why do we need to split this trope according to what, specifically, causes a Broken Base? Does it give us any value other than a platform for Complaining of all sorts? In fact, why are we listing examples at all? Like so many other complaining tropes, they only serve as Flame Bait.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I agree with Fighteer.

Why do we even need this "trope"? Kill it.

Excellent idea, Fighteer. My vote.

My suggested options

1. Kill this trope and kill Broken Base
2. Kill this trope. Cull the examples from Broken Base.

In my humble opinion, we really, really really do not need to tropes that basically amount to gossiping about what the fandumb for a particularly work may or may not be saying on whatever fan forums various tropers hang out on. We should stick to describing the works themselves.

Stale?

Well, I know I'm with Auxdarastrix, and to heck with the 700 wicks. I despise "tropes" like this.

As I said in this thread, yes, just cut this. The page doesn't collect examples that share anything notable in common. Its only purpose is to catalog complaints.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to document the divisive effect a character might have on a fanbase. Certainly that attitude fuels derivative fanworks, and sometimes even the actual work.

The problem is when people use it to attack/strawman the other half of the broken base (e.g. "they don't like her only because they can't handle change"), but there are plenty of entries that refrain from that kind of thing.

It really isn't possible to document what the "fanbase" thinks about things. Have you done a comprehensive scientific study of what every X fan out there thinks about character Y, ploted and out on a chart, and concluded that "50% of all fans hate this character and 50% of all fans love this character"?

With real tropes you can actually look at the book and say "Yes, the author includes a X". With these sort of tropes, "fanbase" becomes "Me and my buddies over as Obscure Fan Forum.com".

I mean, I grew up watching Star Trek in a family full of Star Trek fans, with most of my friends being Star Trek fans, and no one ever told me they hated Wesley Crusher, for example. Yet now I go on TV Tropes and find out that supposedly America Hate Wesley Crusher. It is all simply a matter of subjective pools of reference, not to mention a large does of personal opinion.

There's no point comparing it to tropes. It's not a trope, it's an Audience Reaction.

Basically we keep these around because they can be entertaining and tell you something interesting about the fandom in question. Yes, you don't have scientific studies, but you have the honest experience of any fan of the series who'll come across the page, and forum polls, and the like - that's plenty of stuff to build off of.

Well, you have it in theory. In practice what you have is fans who decide that we're actually here to listen to how they were totally right in that argument they got into on that Pac Man forum in 2004. I'm not even sure whether it's better or worse when they go into the specifics of why they were so obviously right.

Pretentious quote || In-joke from fandom you've never heard of || Shameless self-promotion || Something weird you'll habituate to

Given the nature of the internet to collect complaints about, well, everything, I really fail to see how either this or Broken Base needs examples. Every show, book, or game has been Ruined Forever 9001 times so far.

I say nuke the examples. I'm okay with having the page stay otherwise.

Rhetorical, eh? ... Eight!