Broken Base Cleanup

Personally, I think 1 month after release is enough for the conflict to be sustained.

I actually think one month is too short. This might just be the way I interpret Broken Base, but it seems like it needs to be an issue that still plagues the fandom for a very, very long time, as in "years after the work released, and people still won't shut up about <<insert flame bait issue here>>" long.

Heck, I even wonder if "three months" might be a tad short. I mean, if we used 1 year to be the measuring stick, at least that seems like a reasonable time to wait for people to cool down. And if they haven't cooled down even after all that time, then we might have a Broken Base on our hands.

edited 19th Jan '18 4:16:47 PM by dragonfire5000

I'd call three months an absolute minimum. In most cases six months to a year is better.

One month is WAY too short. That's when movies are still in theaters, people still haven't finished video games, etc.

If it still remains a point of active contention within the fandom long after the point where the work is no longer part of the public conversation outside it, you might have a Broken Base.

After thinking about it, I feel 3 months should be the minimum, though 6 months to a year is preferable.

I’m in favor of six months.

At least six months gets a from me.

Regarding the Fire Emblem example, I remember I'm the one who created it at the time because people kept writing Kris under The Scrappy and put that there, and IIRC people on the scrappy thread at the time agreed with that idea. Except I'm fairly sure I never wrote the last sentence of the entry, which makes the entire entry moot. Would just reverting the changes be good enough ?

edited 21st Jan '18 1:59:38 AM by Yumil

From BrokenBase.Steven Universe:

• Surprisingly, Steven's Heroic Sacrifice at the end of Season 4 got this treatment after his return from Homeworld and weeks of friction with Connie. Namely, was his sacrifice the best thing they could work with in the heat of the moment, and Connie was just feeling hurt the same way Katara felt hurt towards her father? Knowing that it needed to be done, but still feeling hurt for it happening? Or was it something foolish, and Steven should've had a little more faith that they could've escaped later on with Connie's help? There's also a few people who think Connie was being unreasonable by taking Lion away for a month in her frustration, discounting that her feelings matter that much in the face of the big situation they had gotten into and that Lion stayed with Connie out of his own volition.

From what I've seen, the split is less about Steven's sacrifice and more about the argument they have afterward, with who being right or wrong being the main debate. The Avatar comparison is also unnecessary.

The episodes were released on November 10th, and the example was added two months later.

So... we all agree on six months? If there aren't any objections by Saturday I'm going to add it to the main page.

Honestly, I think even six months is too short to call that something is actually a lasting divide.

As a rule, it works. It really depends on the context of the fandom. If it's a long-lasting fandom you need more than that. If it's about a short work that rises and falls in popularity relatively quickly it can be shorter.

I disagree with that last bit. If it's something that comes and goes from the public consciousness relatively quickly— say, a movie that's talked about while it's still in theaters but quickly forgotten afterwards, which is to say, most movies that aren't part of a larger franchise— then there's no real "fanbase" to be split, and it can't apply by definition.

I'm fine with context-dependent with 6 months as the baseline.

Same. It's a good number to help generate actual proper feedback, good or bad.

Here, have a slice of Dark Souls II :

• Broken Base: Some of the changes from Dark Souls to Dark Souls II have divided the base.
  • The biggest point of contention is that unlike the explicit Dark Fantasy feel of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, Dark Souls II is High Fantasy.
  • Being Hollow no longer protects the player from invasions in Dark Souls. One camp believes this is a good thing and tells others that if they don't want to be invaded they should play offline. The other believes they shouldn't be invaded while Hollow and that they play online for the ghost and player messages. On the other hand, invasions happen very rarely if you don't play New Game Plus.
  • This has been eased with the revelation that one can sacrifice a human effigy (this game's equivalent to humanity) at a bonfire to temporarily disallow invasions. However, there are certain areas of the game where you can't do this. Those areas also happen to be the ones where you're most likely to get invaded — the Bell areas and the Grave of Saints. This is extremely frustrating for the Bell areas, as one requires you to beat a very difficult boss (so when trying to summon help while human, you wait for any summon sign to appear...and get invaded by two players at once instead), and the other requires you to get through an extensive gauntlet of tough enemies in order to progress through the Iron Keep. In the latter case, if the invader manages to beat you to the ladder or simply waits by some of the native enemies of the level, you're effectively and completely screwed.
    • Being offline or burning the Human Effigy doesn't stop NPC invaders from showing up though. They may be easier than player-controlled phantoms and only appear in fixed locations, but there are so damned many of them across the game.
  • You're no longer invulnerable while stuck in certain animations — like opening a door, pulling a switch, or even performing a backstab or riposte. In the latter case, this proved to be so problematic that it was actually patched after release, making you invulnerable for most of the critical attack animations. Before the patch, critical attacks were a great way to get yourself killed, and it sucks to be you if you unintentionally perform a backstab on an enemy in a room full of enemies. FROM learned pretty quickly that they screwed up when players treated critical attacks like a guaranteed suicide. They kept the delay between creating the window for a critical attack and actually doing the attack, though, which remains a point of serious contention.
  • The fact that the PC version is releasing a month after the console versions (despite the PC version being the main release, as detailed in the link under Porting Disaster) and screens like these◊ being released are making quite a few PC gamers expect Dark Souls: Prepare To Die 2.0, despite the fact that the screens with the weakened graphical effects come from the console versions.
    • The PC version, while better than the disaster that the first game was, is still far from perfect with issues like mouse acceleration and input lag, 30 FPS animations for models not in the immediate vicinity, some seriously low res textures in many places, and an engine issue that makes equipment durability degrade twice as fast at 60 FPS.
    • The weapon durability bug did get fixed... After the Scholars of The First Sin was released, which is 60 FPS on next gen consoles. Many people take from this that From doesn't care about issues unless they affect the console versions.
  • There's a surprisingly intense argument among the lore fans as to whether or not Drangleic is located on the ruins of Lordran or Vinheim. Proponents of the former note significant similarities in rough geography as well as a number of creatures, items, and other leftovers from Lordran. Proponents of the latter argue that the Lingering Dragoncrest Ring is clear evidence that Drangleic is Vinheim, and are backed up by Word of God that Drangleic is far away from Lordran.
    • It should be noted that the Lingering Dragon Crest ring states that it was used in the land that is Drangleic, not made in it, and that the statement about Drangleic not being in Lordran is both taken out of context and was made by Miyazaki before the public Beta, after which he stopped being involved and much of the lore was changed.
  • The Soul Memory system for matchmaking. Essentially, the matchmaking is made by calculating how many souls you've ever had and used. The basic idea is to put together players who have similar amount of soul memory. Problem is, too much grinding and you would find yourself unable to summon or be summoned until a greater proportion of the players catch up. It also bafflingly ignores lost souls and souls not in use; imagine a newbie player who stumbles through the game, loses souls permanently frequently, and spends lots of souls on equipment they end up swapping for something else. If you compared them to someone replaying the game with a set build in mind, they could have many more levels and far stronger equipment but be at a much lower Soul Memory just because they didn't waste anything. And that's not counting the horror of modded saves that completely destroy that system by theoretically making it possible for a level 838 maxed character to invade a newly created character, something that the more classical "pair with similar level" system in Dark Souls handily prevented.
  • The sheer fact that the Ring of Life Protection and Ring of Soul Protection can be repaired after they break, rather than be a completely one-time use ring that disappears when broken. There have been numerous cries for the rings to be either nerfed in some way or completely dummied out via a patch.
  • The implantation of Valve Anti Cheat for the PC version. Some fans are happy to see some form of anti-cheating measure being in the game, as hacking was a major issue with the PC port of the first game. Having VAC also means that players cannot use any mods that alters the game engine, as they risk being banned. It's terrible for users who wish to use texture and graphic mods.
  • PVP-oriented players returning from Dark Souls will find themselves ranting on about the new poise mechanic, which is essentially similar to Demons Souls (read: NO POISE). Not matter how high that poise number is, even wearing a full Havel set doesn't do much to stop getting stunlocked by spammable weapon attacks.
    • This is an exaggeration; poise does exist, but it's much weaker, so you can't simply lean on it like a crutch to walk through your opponent's heaviest attacks and backstab them while they're trying to recover from their attack animation any more. Dark Souls' version of poise was generally regarded as WAY overpowered. Dark Souls III actually ended up much closer to "no poise" than DSII was, with poise almost useless in that game.
    • Relatedly, fans of PVP don't take kindly to the new unbalanced meta of the multiplayer, which boils down to either spamming light melee attacks nonstop (ensuring swift stunlocking) or unleashing barrages of magic faster than Harry Potter could draw his wand.
  • Pretty much every single patch brings a storm of complaints. This isn't helped by From Software's translation of their own patch being riddled with errors or poor syntax (such as the infamous "no healing during Pv P" patch, which was misconstrued by a small number of people who became very vocal when they found out the truth). A good example would be the patch for the second DLC; the translator somehow managed to mistranslate Stability as Damage (the patch will nerf the stability of several shields, not the damage those shields do).
  • Just as in the first game, hackers are a pretty big problem. Now, however, cheat engines can be used to change the game in much more interesting ways, meaning that there's quite a few "fun hackers". These people tend to invade and act as powerful minibosses, combining spell effects to make them more elaborate or powerful looking, or changing the movesets of weapons on the fly. As always, the community is split on whether these kinds of hackers are just as bad as the usual unlimited health, unlimited stamina kind, considering that these fun hackers are generally pretty well behaved, entirely possible to be killed, and are actually fun to fight against.
  • Finally, is the updated Scholar of the First Sin edition (which mixed up enemy and item placements as well as including all 3 DLC campaigns and a new ending) an improvement over the base game, or is it actually worse? Since Scholar's alternate ending and True Final Boss (Aldia, Scholar of the First Sin) were added into the base game as well and you can buy the 3 DLC campaigns, Scholar has no automatic advantages over the original other than the remixed layout, and some people claim that not only do the rearranged enemy placements exacerbate the problems the game has with unfair gank-fests, they don't even make thematic sense.

-the first one might be legit but fails to explain the two sides and just state something. (and said something is already quite a stretch. While DS 2 might be more light-hearted on some points and that this is a point of contention among the fandom, it really doesn't qualify for what is described under High Fantasy.)

-The second might be fine. -the third is clearly pre release, cut and integrate the valid points in the above point. -fourth one is blatant complaining, explain no sides and was patched since then, cut.

-Pc release one : cut, because there's no broken base here. nobody's arguing that the 60 fps bug is stupid, and the rest is so old nobody in their right mind would start a flame war over it since a year after the release.

-The lore argument needs to be cleaned up since the bullet point is respond instead of repair, but it might be a legit point of contention.

- the soul memory is a unilateral complaint, not something the base is actually being torn over (unless there are proponents to the soul memory system, which I haven't heard of)

-The ring of life protection one is unilateral, cut.

- the VAC one is too small and too quiet to qualify.

-the PVP one is again made of 1) someone complaining and not presenting both sides of the argument and 2) with a sub bullet that directly contradicts it. cut.

-the patches one fails the sustained criteria.

-the hackers one fails the no middle ground and exceptionally vicious.

-scholar of the first sin might be legit since there is two sides of the debate that argue over wich one is better even nowadays I believe, but the example isn't doing a good job presenting both sides and presenting the actual issue.

This section is a HUGE mess.

edited 23rd Jan '18 3:55:38 PM by Yumil

Someone added to this entry I had to rework for Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn.

Ike's sexuality is hotly debated among the fandom. Some fans believe that Ike is homosexual or asexual due to various factors in game ranging from him rejecting all of Aimee's advances, to how his endings involve him leaving Tellius on his own, or with Ranulf or Soren. Others believe he either isn't, or instead argue there isn't any proof to it beyond fans twisting or overplaying elements of his character. The presence of Priam in Fire Emblem: Awakening did not help the situation at all. Granted, much of this was because of Ike's situation compared to most other Fire Emblem protagonists having well-defined marriages and/or sexualities, as well as a portion of his fanbase^note largely comprised of heterosexual male Super Smash Bros. players disliking the idea of their beloved hero as a Manly Gay; best to leave it at that.

The second to last sentence feels like something of a Take That!.

I'd say cut it entirely, honestly. most of the fanbase just don't care about Ike's sexuality.

Yeah, that last sentence does not need to be there.

Edit: since the debate has only been around for about three months, the Steven and Connie example should be cut, right?

edited 23rd Jan '18 4:15:06 PM by Crossover-Enthusiast

So here's the examples from Sherlock and the last one really needs to be trimmed as having that many bullet points for one epsiode is insane.

• Broken Base:
  • Although fans of the show had their minor disagreements over various aspects of the show during its course, nothing caused more controversy than Season 4. Aside from (possibly) "The Lying Detective", the first and final episodes of the season were polarizing at best, with critics and fans crying out how the series became less about of a detective series and more action packed and obsessed with the mentality of Darker and Edgier. "The Final Problem" became the biggest polarizing episode however, with more fans and critics debating on whether the series ended on a good note or if it ended in a cop out, especially with the revelations involving Eurus. And of course it lead to some fans attacking Steven Moffat for "ruining the show", like some do to the other show he runs for.
  • Some fans outright detested "The Six Thatchers" for focusing on drama rather than an actual case and for focusing too heavily on Mary. It goes without saying that a lot of fans disliked the fact that John, of all people, was unfaithful, and that he was ultimately pushed to the background by both Sherlock and Mary; the former stating that Mary was far better at helping him. Some viewers also did not like changes to Sherlock’s characterization. On the other hand, some fans thought it was a refreshing episode with a much-needed change of pace. They liked that Mary got some more backstory, and enjoyed that she was made into a badass super spy, rather than just sitting in the background with the baby. They liked that there was more action, as opposed to detective work, and liked seeing the dynamic of Sherlock and Mary working together. Fans also liked the implication that John isn't perfect, and did cheat on his wife, and they also liked seeing the more human side of Sherlock saying it is a good case of Character Development.
  • The finale "The Final Problem" somehow manages to be even more polarizing to the point of causing significant Internet Backdraft, with the episode's ratings hitting an all-time low for the series:
    • Some believe that it was an intense, emotional roller-coaster of an episode and served its role as an exhilarating conclusion for the darkest and most tragic season of Sherlock. The ending of the episode is considered to be both a satisfying uplifting wrap up of the series, in case it is indeed the end, and a positive affirmation of the immortal status of Sherlock Holmes’ legend.
    • Some believe that it is by far the worst episode of the whole series, considering it to be a particularly edgy variation of Jumping the Shark. Why? The series makes a drastic genre shift to what may be considered an out of place Saw rip-off with newly arrived Holmes sibling Eurus serving as an improbable antagonist. She shatters viewers' suspension of disbelief regarding what is humanly possible, even by the show’s already borderline-superhuman standards, with her superpowers including instant brainwashing of anyone she meets and predicting terror attacks in an hour based on Twitter patterns. Like most antagonists of the series, she is obsessed with Sherlock and uses her alleged intellect to construct a clichéd slasher maze full of sadistic choices. This whole incredibly complex and well-prepared long-range plan, based on numerous unpredictable variables, was forged by her and Jim Moriarty in five minutes, breaking the suspension of disbelief even further. Unsurprisingly, both Sherlock and Mycroft look severely underpowered and helpless in this episode, for no reason playing by the villain's rules for quite some time. Mycroft specifically turns out to be an imbecile by letting a dangerously-psychotic genius mastermind have an unsupervised conversation with another dangerously-psychotic genius mastermind, who both openly obsessed over and directly threatened his little brother. Ultimately, Sherlock defeats his sister through equally magical abilities and empathy, revealing the horrible truth about what happened to Redbeard in the process and learning about the undercooked motivation of Eurus. Unsurprisingly, lots and lots of blatant plot holes appear. Perhaps it is also not surprising that some people saw it as a bad fanfiction rather than a genuine episode.
    • Not to mention how emotionally oppressive and uncomfortable to watch "The Final Problem" was. Witnessing Molly Hooper being humiliated again by being forced to confess her love to Sherlock by an equally-humiliated and unwilling Sherlock was an especially gruelling experience for quite a lot of fans.
    • Mary's narration at the end is seen as either a touching way to cover the ending montage, while others found it Narm and out of place. A fan edit was made removing the narration, which had many people feeling it made the ending a lot better.
    • Some fans think that despite the episode’s plot being a mess, its emotional moments, especially the ending, as well as completed character arcs for Sherlock and John were more than enough to make up for its other shortcomings.
    • Yet another group liked the episode fine despite its flaws, but disliked the Grand Finale-like ending, feeling it came out of nowhere after the whole Eurus story, thus ruining an episode that could have been fine on its own if not for it being treated as the very last.
    • Other than the argument of whether or not it was a good finale, the fact that John and Sherlock are not explicitly in a relationship did not go over silently. One half of the fandom is enraged that the creators queerbaited them for the entire series only to not go through with it at the end. The other half point out that the creators never said the relationship would happen, and that a few people looked too deeply into John and Sherlock's relationship. The argument of whether the Johnlock ship is more appreciated than the show itself is a whole new war entirely.

Jeeze.

Considering those bullets are all spoilered, I say just cut them outright.

edited 24th Jan '18 12:35:30 PM by Crossover-Enthusiast

Mmm The Sherlock fanbase AFAIK seems like an Unpleasable Fanbase who can't agree on anything.

YMMV.Spider Man Homecoming could have some trimming as well.

edited 26th Jan '18 10:49:28 AM by Silverblade2

Several of these were blatantly added pre-release and therefore don't qualify.

So should I cut all examples from Sherlock as it seems like fandom so divided there can't be examples.

I will remove the seven bullets about that Episode but should I cut the rest.

While doing a bit of cleanup on YMMV.TokyoMirageSessionsFE, I ran into these examples:

• Broken Base:
  • The game itself, basically. Is it a horrible blackspot against both the Shin Megami Tensei and the Fire Emblem series due to its more cheerful atmosphere and idol aesthetics? Or is it one of the best Wii U games with a highly polished battle system that not enough people have given a try? Notably, although complaints from those who have actually played the game exist, the biggest and most vocal critics of the game come from the portions of the Atlus and Fire Emblem fanbases who haven't even bothered to go beyond the initial marketing.
  • Would the traditional crossover everyone thought the game was going to be actually have been a good idea? Or was the final product a better attempt at hybridizing two series that are drastically different in design philosophy, style, tone, and even basic gameplay?
  • The pre-final-battle spontaneous rendition of the Fire Emblem theme that the heroes do (See Memetic Mutation for details) has essentially three camps: those who think it's the most perverse and disgusting betrayal of both proud series conceivable by man or beast, those who think it's gloriously campy, and those who unironically love the song for its Visual Effects Of Awesome, having all the main characters joining in, and being a rousing Song of Courage before the Final Boss.
  • The rumours of what might be a sequel has once again split the fanbase, with some fans being happy the series might get a second chance, those who want the possible sequel to flop even harder than the original and those who are even more angry that it could possibly get a sequel anyway.
  • When it was revealed that the main characters would receive an Age Lift from 17 to 18 and some female characters' outfits will be bowdlerized in Western localizations of the game, the localizations received a strong backlash from some circles. Whether said circles are overreacting or not is hotly debated, and it definitely doesn't help that both sides are fresh off the similarly controversial localization of Fire Emblem Fates.

• The game itself: This is about the reception of the game as a whole, and the game's detractors are obviously not part of the base. Cut.
• The game not being a traditional crossover: Looks like it can be kept.
• Pre-final battle rendition of the Fire Emblem theme: Calling it a betrayal of both series sounds more like something a detractor of the game would do. The other two camps are people who both enjoyed it, albeit in different manners (ironicalliy and unironically respectively). Cut.
• Possible Sequel: Again, the people who got mad about the game receiving a potential sequel are detractors, not fans. Cut.
• Bowdlerization: This is a definite keep.

edited 26th Jan '18 3:46:25 PM by ADrago

The Bowdlerization could use some more context.