Complaining: Scrappy Mechanic

Just so much complaining. We have 36,000 words worth of "things I didn't like about game X" written in the whiniest way possible.

I propose an Example Sectionectomy. I'd propose a cut, but I'm guessing the 291 inbounds take that idea off the table.

Yes, the example section of a trope like this seems to be an unavoidable whining magnet. The description itself might be complaining about complaining, but that's much easier to keep under control. In the event of an examples cut, we could at least mention that certain gameplay mechanics frequently end up being scrappy (Escort Mission, Press X to Not Die, Press X to Die, Rail Shooter levels, mandatory reflex-based minigames, collecting Lost Forever Plot Coupons, etc.)

The example section isn't "things I don't like about X"

It's almost totally things that are actually acknowledged by a large fandom as being annoying, and most of the examples are written fairly.

I was thinking, for these tropes about audience reactions, maybe we could only include examples that have supporting links?

For example, instead of just saying "Critics hated X. I guess <Sarcasm> and <Not-so-witty-comment>," they should be "Some critics, such as [link here] and [link here], hated X because <Insert explanation>."

If that can't work, however, I'd totally dig removing the examples.

I agree with the proposal.

It shouldn't be, but at the moment it kinda is. At the very least the rambling, first-person accounts need to be cleaned up.

The "only examples with a weblink" idea might help a little, but mostly because looking for a link would require a little more effort. A whiny example doesn't become less whiny just because there's a blog somewhere that agrees with it.

I think there are far too many legit examples to just cut them all.

I also started laughing when I read some of them, such as Wall Jump in Super Metroid. That was one of the good mechanics, if abusable. Same with the camo system in Metal Gear Solid 3. Done very well. It was just some munchkin who wanted to change clothes all the time who found the delay annoying. At least one, like the graze-to-auto-collect in Touhou's Subterranean Animism is only beneficial, and not at all essential to the game.

It can certainly use a cleanup, but I'm not sure [citation needed] is what we need here.

And likewise, I actually enjoyed the digging minigames in Okami, and I found the weapon-switching delay in Devil May Cry 1 annoying mostly because switching guns in every room like a munchkin is the easiest way to get S-ranks on every level. Subjective Audience Reaction tropes in general seem to frequently have problems with whining like that. Even so, periodic cleanup and warnings against rambling and first-person testimonials might be enough.

edited 28th Apr '12 8:31:50 PM by EnragedFilia

I just hate the logic that went into the page's creation. "We have a page called The Scrappy for bad characters, so that must be a license for creating snowlone/subtropes about bad things in general."

What is the criteria for examples on this page? Just stuff in otherwise good games that contributors think suck? According to the laconic, yes, that's literally the page's definition.

With a definition like that, I'm surprised someone didn't add a Real Life section with entries on dying and farting.*

edited 28th Apr '12 11:53:05 PM by Routerie

I'm looking through the examples to see what needs to be changed, but, honestly, it looks pretty nice. Most of it even has proper indenting and everything - that's rare.

Check out the Mario section. Editors could potentially have put hundreds of different examples there, but instead it's just the few things that most mario fans agree on. That's what I'm seeing in all the examples I'm familiar with. I guess I could make them slightly less negative - change every "it's annoying" to "some people found it annoying" - does it really matter?

No matter how tightly edited, there's still no definition but things people don't like. How is that any more acceptable that a list of things people do like?

You mean like Funny Moments or Heartwarming Moments? That's sort of what the YMMV tag is for.

Generally speaking, if having a page like this requires any significant amount of effort to keep it tidy, it's probably better just to lock it and save the trouble. We can grandfather in these Scrappy pages, but we don't want new ones like them and we shouldn't work too hard to keep them unlocked.

I do think if there are volunteers willing to massage it into less of a mess and then curate it, we should give those volunteers a chance to do that before we lock or example-sectionectomy the page. I also think that if the page gets swept over at least once, then locking would be preferable to example-sectionectoming.

@9: I actually like those Real Life examples... They're funny, and brings a lighter edge to the page. On a complaining page, that's a decently good idea.

This page looks fine to me. I know there's a trend against removing all forms of complaining, but I do think we should draw a distinction between whining (which we don't want) and targeted criticisms (which can be useful). The examples on this page are complaints about specific annoying gameplay mechanics in otherwise good games, and they do a pretty good job of explaining why the mechanic isn't liked.

It's almost totally things that are actually acknowledged by a large fandom as being annoying

The problem with is that there is absolutely no way to back up that claim, no standard of what constitutes a sufficiently large portion of the fandom, and nothing at all to prevent people from equating "Me and five guys on the fan forum" with "a large fandom".

I have no problem with cutting examples from this and any similar trope.

edited 29th Apr '12 6:14:42 PM by Catbert

The problem with is that there is absolutely no way to back up that claim

How many examples do you see that you think are unverifiable? Seriously, I want specific examples.

I hope you don't want all of them...

Kingdom of Loathing:

It had a "much-maligned, super-secret hidden interaction between + Monster Level and + Noncombat Chance" (as the creators themselves would later call it) that was added with NS13. Specifically, if you had a positive net + Noncombat Chance, then for every + 5 Monster Level you had, it would cancel out + 1% Noncombat Chance. Due to the considerable advantage one can gain with even a mere + 5% Noncombat Chance, this had the problematic side effect of making anything that gave + Monster Level not only useless, but an active detriment to the player in most scenarios. It was removed a year and a half later.

The mechanic in question only affected speedrunners, its impact was very minor, and only really mattered in a handful of situations. As I recall, the KoL community at the time largely considered it trivial.

In most Tetris games after and starting with Tetris Worlds (for example, Tetris DS) it is possible in single player for a player to keep a piece from locking in place by hammering at a rotation button (yes, even the square, and no, we don't quite know how that one works) It's theoretically possible to literally play a given game forever if this and the algorithm to prevent certain piece sequences is in effect. The hardcore Tetris scene (yes, one exists) typically frowns upon any version with infinite spin, claiming that it doesn't take much skill to just hammer the rotation button.

This looks like an example of a slightly different trope, as this is (generally) a single-player game, and the mechanic can only make it easier.

Rock Band:

A bug in drumming called "squeezing", which is a scrappy for those anal about the scoring. If you hit the crash on a fill a little early, and then in the next split-second hit what would have been there if the fill wasn't in the way, you get the points for the hitting those notes. This means you have to memorize what to hit and finish fills a little awkwardly for extra points. Usually not enough to make a difference unless both players are doing perfect, but can cause a rift between Scrubs and "Stop Having Fun" Guys.

Bugs probably don't count as mechanics in the first place, and as mentioned it's rarely relevant

And these are all from games I happen to be familiar with

edited 30th Apr '12 8:06:08 PM by EnragedFilia

Yeah, I'm thinking Example Sectionectomy and people can put examples on the works' YMMV pages.

I don't think you understood what I was asking for. I wasn't asking for misuse - I wanted examples where there's "absolutely no way" to tell whether it's correct usage or not. Catbert was claiming that all the examples are like that, and I wanted evidence.

edited 1st May '12 11:45:21 AM by abk0100

There is no way to verify if examples are true or not. It's too subjective. The license system in FFXII was fine, which is why there's a bunch of justifying edits on it. FFIX's Tetra Master and ability system had nothing scrappy. They worked perfectly fine for me. This is complaining about mechanics you don't like.

edited 1st May '12 11:46:53 AM by lu127

Which means they probably belong on Wall Bangers or possibly even Idiot Programming over on Darth Wiki; YMMV might be too tempting.

Probably not Idiot Programming. IIRC, that's about problems with the code itself than intended features that don't go over well. As for Wallbangers, that page just kinda strikes me as being a dumping ground for complaining in general (its actual intention aside, that's how it's used).

This trope (like all the Scrappy-related tropes) isn't about whether the thing is actually bad or not. It doesn't matter if it worked for you personally - the scrappy tropes are about fan response. I actually liked Scrappy, but he's still The Scrappy.

Anything written in the first person can be safely nuked.

edited 1st May '12 12:17:05 PM by abk0100

But those are not fandom responses. The fact that Tetra Master has become official merchandise makes it kinda hard to be a scrappy. The fact that the License Board has people defending it on the very page itself is also telling. This is just the editor's opinion. There's no way to verify if it's a fandom perception.

edited 1st May '12 12:26:30 PM by lu127