Alt titles (15/9/12): Not A Scratch On It

First off, stats:

Not A Scratch On It found in: 13 articles, excluding discussions.

Since January 1, 2011 this article has brought 1 person to the wiki from non-search engine links.

Now this trope, which is about vehicles going through hell, and coming out without any visual damage whatsoever, is a lot more common than this, I know, especially in older video games. I personally suspect that the name's not sayng what this trope is about is the biggest problem here. I have to admit, though, that I can't come up with a good name for this trope that covers it well enough.

Also, I've been having a strange lucky streak with TRS as of late. Huh

Several things need to be done with this trope. 1) The examples need to be crosswicked. There appear to be more than thirteen examples on the page. 2) Nasty trope namer effect, which does not excuse the Zero Context Example for the trope namer in the examples section (I despise examples in the description because it encourages this sort of BS). 3) The big third paragraph can probably be dropped. I suspect that somebody slipped into essay mode on the main page. There's more than one reason for this, such as limited rendering/hitbox programming, essentially making it a cost cutting measure. 4) We need to decide oif the example in 3 counts for this, as do humorous versions.

Yeah, I was one of the ones who came up with this one. I guess I just sort of expected the Wiki Magic to happen on its own.

Do you think it needs a better name as well?

My instinct is "probably". You need to crosswick as soon as you launch it. That's how Wiki Magic happens in the first place.

In retrospect, Indestructible Vehicles would probably be a better name, and the Critical Existence Failure examples should probably be moved over to that trope.

Well, as the guy who actually launched the trope, I'd like to recommend Arbitrary Vehicular Indestructibility, since the trope is basically "vehicles are generally indestructible, except when convenient to the plot."

Or perhaps Arbitrarily Indestructible Vehicles?

edited 24th Mar '12 7:13:41 PM by Ryusui

Please God no

^Why not?

Too many syllables, too dry :)

Because then we'd have to type Arbitrarily Indestructible Vehicles every time we wanted to write something about Arbitrarily Indestructible Vehicles.

No Vehicle Damage?

I could get behind No Vehicle Damage.

Also, should we run a rename crowner?

Probably.

In the future, please create the crowner, then holler. Thank you.

Emmm, this is a multi-prop. Shouldn't we have a single-prop instead?

Huh, it says single-prop but it's showing like a multi-prop! What gives?

edited 28th Mar '12 5:29:14 AM by lu127

Bump for votes.

And another bump.

Calling crowner in favor of a rename.

I think the problem here is that it is a Universal Trope: in older video games it was not worth the effort to simulate damage as it would only clutter the clean lines of the vehicles, and even now damage usually doesn't look right (where it got hit and where the dents appear coincide weakly). In animation, deviating from set models is hard on the artists. In live-action, it's just expensive and can screw up continuity. So vehicles are damaged in plot-relevant ways (destroyed, made unusable, showing how powerful the opponent is, or tied to a repair montage later).

I think the name's fine, snappy and fairly descriptive. But maybe we should note the genres (police chases, mecha battles, racing games) where this tends to apply, and then note the aversions.

Stray alt titles tied to the thread.

Bumping for votes.

The problem with the current suggestions is that they sound like they describe a tank, or other heavily armored vehicle, as opposed to an ordinary vehicle that averts damage for no particular reason.

Every Car Is A Tank? Every Car Is Made Of Indestructium? Car Made Of Indestructium?

Yes, any of those work better for me than the current options.

edit: typo

edited 23rd Jul '12 2:55:12 PM by Xtifr

Added 'em to the crowner.