Needs Help: Stylish Action

Since this is here, would ICEY qualify for the list? Admittedly, it's nowhere near Devil May Cry levels, but you do need to keep up combo momentum in increasingly tight timeframes to survive while playing how, presumably, the developer intended to play.

Also, not knocking it's exclusion, but why was Bulletstorm taken out? It does require you to be very stylish, yet efficient if you want to keep a steady stream of ammo & upgrades your way (especially on hard), and it's more akin to a traditional Spectacle Fighter than Vanquish gameplay-wise.

If answers to my questions were already given (and I skipped over them), feel free to laugh at me and call me an idiot.

No developers in this genre (of which admittedly there are only one studio left) are actually using this term.

"Spectacle fighter" Steam tag only exists because anyone can put any tag on anything. And even then MORE popular, MORE sensible, and OLDER names for this sub-genre ("stylish action", "character action") would also be applied to the very same games and be more prominent.

Metal Gear Revengeance's page on Steam store has these tags: http://store.steampowered.com/app/235460/

Great Soundtrack, Action, Hack and Slash, Ninja

Steam pages for DMC 4 and DMC 4:SE say: http://store.steampowered.com/app/45700/ http://store.steampowered.com/app/329050/

Action, Hack and Slash, Character Action

Transformers: Devastation: http://store.steampowered.com/app/338930/

Action, Robots, Character Action, 1980s

Rain Blood Chronicles: Mirage has: http://store.steampowered.com/app/240660/

Action, Indie, Adventure, Hack and Slash, 2D

Similarly on the more iffier games: Dm C, Legend of Korra, Mitsurugi Kamui Hikae, Fairy Bloom Freesia, Proxy Blade Zero also don't have that tag.

And noone in the community are using this term either.

Do what you want about criteria or definitions but this must be renamed.

Just to make it clear: Everyone here understand that Spectacle Fighter that:

1. Isn't the most used name
2. Isn't the Oldest
3. Isn't actively used by the hardcore community
4. Steam tag doesn't really mean anything, I mean, the page for Spectacle Fighter on Steam puts a weird ass combat racing that doesn't seem to have depth and it also puts fucking Darksiders in the list, even thought I'm 200.00% sure Darksiders isn't a Stylish Action, there's also some games on that list that I'm 99.99% sure aren't Stylish Action either, since: Either I haven't seen them in any ~hardcore~ discussion of the genre(like Blades of Times, Marlon Briggs), and some of them I remember being criticized because of their combat aren't that great (Killer is Dead, RWBY ), and Yaiba being hated almost literally by everyone
5. Being used by youtubers really shouldn't be used as pro, it just make it freaking easy to argue as "the youtuber you mentioned is really just misusing it" or "I haven't seen this youtuber and he isn't huge like the one I mentioned"

Like, I know I'm being a pain in the ass, but I simply cannot understand how someone thinks Spectacle Fighter is a good name, or worse yet the best of all the dozens of names this genre has, I know none of the names are particularly good, but we have:

Stylish Action:

1. Is 10 to 50 times more used than Spectacle Fighter
2. Is one of the oldest, if not the oldest term used for this genre
3. is used by youtubers

Cuhrayzee:

1. Used by the ~hardcore~ community, which has its own competition called VST/V Style Tournament which is held at every 6ish months
2. Is used by youtubers

Character Action Game

1. Is also one of the oldest
2. Is used by youtubers

edited 30th Mar '17 11:49:31 AM by ChristianWS

I prefer Stylish Action.

I'm for Stylish Action too. I'm worried that discarding the list of common characteristics will lead to incorrect examples coming back, but "Stylish Action" is more specific and harder to shoehorn than "Spectacle Fighter".

edited 30th Mar '17 1:22:27 PM by TheOrbOfConfusion

Huh, Is this enough time or what? Is it safe to assume we should rename this trope?

Also I have no fucking idea what the "Definition" options really means, so one we just make the trope page a single line and leave at that? And I think Skill Ceiling is basically a logical conclusion to having a deep combat, so it doesn't make sense using that as a exemple of additional criteria

I think it's pretty safe to assume most of us want a new definition, we're not just clear about the additional criteria, we should have set up exemples.

I think a proper page would Start with a single line defining the genre, the next couple of paragraphs we should detail the Deep Combat, with a couple of mentions of some techniques, like cancels and stuff, and the skill ceiling thing so that people know more or less what to expect, then we would move to a list of some common elements, and maybe end with the history of the genre and others names, I dunno

We generally holler for a moderator to make a final call on a crowner. I'll holler for one now.

Also, once a crowner gets put up, that usually overrides thread consensus.^note  The reason for this is a crowner allows more tropers to give their input on the decision and it puts solid numbers on votes.. I would suggest waiting until the crowner is officially called before working on rewriting the definition.

edited 10th Apr '17 2:53:34 PM by pokedude10

Alright, it's been three days since the last bump. So we can keep the forward momentum, I'm hollering for a deadline on the crowner.

I still disagree with a rename, its not going to do anything as it is a preexisting term that people will still use on and off the wiki.

We are just documenting the trope as created by others.

edited 13th Apr '17 6:00:12 PM by Memers

Just make it a redirect then.

So will we change the description? It's just odd I dunno, there's basically 3 options on the crowner for the description, two of them are for changing the description(total 14 votes) and 1 one of them to go back (there's two options for going back, but they're basically complementary, so someone who voted on one would vote on the other since it's basically the same thing, which is unlike the options to change the description which are two different ideas)

To me it appears pretty obvious we should change the name and change the description (following my logic there's 14 votes on changing and 5 for going back), but we don't have a consensus on how to change the description

edited 14th Apr '17 7:18:11 PM by ChristianWS

Changing the name seems to be decided upon at this point.

We could vote next on whether the genre needs to be redefined (I think it does).

Here's what we have on the page under "it's also called this".

• Character Action
• Stylish Action
• Deep Action
• Extreme Action
• Cuhrayzee Games

I'm in favor of "stylish action" since it's relatively clear about what the genre is; it implies that style is a core part of the action. It's common language that's appropriate for a genre, and while "stylish action" is subjective, it's a lot more grounded and specific than "deep action" or "extreme action". Using either of those names is just inviting back the Gushing About Shows You Like tropers who want Kirby or the Arkham series to be listed as "deep" or "extreme".

"Character action" seems to make more sense if you already play the genre, though it's fine otherwise.

"Cuhrayzee" sounds way too meme-y for this, even though there's a small community that uses it seriously.

Frankly I think the only names that really matters are Character and Stylish Action due to the age of the names(which makes them the most used names), and Cuhrazyee due to being used by a specific community with a more well defined description.

Honestly I don't remember Extreme or Deep Action Game being used by anyone besides being mentioned as a alternative name for the genre

And while I agree that Cuhrayzee is kinda meme-y, I think it kinda makes sense if you already played the genre, crazy is usually what people use to describe the tone of most of these games and also the gameplay, its also spelled in a unique way which means when people write "cuhrayzee" they're really meaning this genre, which in turns make google searches more accurate, which is a problem with the other names, due to wording and context "Stylish Action Game" in a text can refer to a Action Game that is Stylish or a Action Game that focus on Character, which is some frequently search results I often find (although this is mostly probably a problem with wording in a text, not that the authors think these games part of the genre, which in turn is the problem with Spectacle Fighter). And I don't really think there's any way to misuse the name itself, it's so far removed for anything and only makes sense you read a description that I think it would be really hard to shoehorn exemples based on the name alone

Genre name doesn't have to be clear unlike trope names. So I may actually agree with

If genre names don't have to be clear, why has that been a major argument for the rename in the first place?

I would recommend leaving "game" out of the options. That strictly limits it to entire games when it could exist in small sequences in other games. Also don't think "Cuhrayzee" is a good name because it is not clear to people who have not played the genre.

Since when? Last I checked all names should be clear unless there's a unanimous preexisting term (ex: "Cowboy movie" might be clearer, but "western" is so unanimous.)

Exactly. If people voted to change the name, it should be as clear as possible so the trope is actually "fixed."

Did this thread ever come to a decision about the definition? Berrenta's mod post + the crowner outcome seems to reflect a "no", and I'm too lazy to reread this thread again.

We should have decided on the final definition before trying to lobby for a rename. Coming up with a trope name kind of requires knowing what we're naming.

edited 18th Apr '17 3:30:51 PM by Karxrida

Renaming the genre has the best individual score and ratio out of all the options, so I think that's close to a consensus. The problem is that renaming the genre on its own won't be enough to combat incorrect examples. Also, figuring out what the genre should be renamed to is taking focus off of the bigger issues, which are 1) how the genre should be defined to make the description more accurate, and 2) whether or not listing specific genre criteria are necessary to make incorrect examples harder to shoehorn.

This is the first TRS thread I've participated in (as my earlier posts can attest to), but if it's possible, I think taking the issues one at a time and using multiple crowners — one for which rename to use, one to decide how to define the genre, one to decide whether or not to list specific criteria, etc. — would make this easier.

It's a bit of a mess, but then again, so was the page before ChristianWS sent the TRS request. It doesn't help that this is already a small genre that's difficult to define in objective language.

edited 18th Apr '17 3:00:42 PM by TheOrbOfConfusion

Do Madworld and Anarchy Reigns really belong in this genre over God of War? The former are more like 3D beat'em ups than anything? I'm also questioning Senran Kagura's placement as well since the games are more musou-like than DMC-like.

edited 18th Apr '17 3:47:04 PM by Rynnec

The point of a page action is to have multiple options that could win, even some at the same time.The only exception is when there are options that are mutually exclusive, such as the definition options (or "do nothing" type options). We do this because when a thread comes up with multiple potential solutions, and the crowner then votes on multiple options.

Multiple crowners for each single sub-issue and point is not how we usually do it. That's overkill and drags the thread out longer and longer. A page action lets us tackle multiple issues at once ^note  Orb, I'm explaining these last two paragraphs since you mentioned this was your first TRS thread, I"m not trying to talk down.Yes, doing things point-by-point would make a "better" trope, but our goal in the TRS isn't to create the perfect page, just fix it enough so it won't cause problems in the future.

Berrenta, a mod, already called the crowner specifically for the rename option only, without mentioning the other options. By that call, only the rename option won. From that, let's get to work on finalizing that action assuming the current description.

Here is a new Alt Title Crowner with all the names from #89. I don't remember any other suggested names from the thread. If you want to add a name, add it to the crowner and make a post here. I'll holler to have it hooked.

edited 18th Apr '17 4:25:41 PM by pokedude10

My opinions on the choices.

• Stylish Action: Lateral change tbh. Extremely similar in meaning to Spectacle Fighter without adding much, if anything. I'm personally sticking with this anyway since the name change is going to happen (I didn't think it was necesssary) and I don't like the other viable choices.
• Character Action: Extremely vague. I'd argue it's the worst choice.
• Deep Action: Viable choice since it gets the point across, though it sounds kind of pretentious to me.
• Extreme Action: Viable choice for the same reason as Deep Action, though it sounds kind of unnecessarily edgy. Probably better than Deep Action but behind Stylish Action to me.
• Cuhrayzee Game: Considering the reason brought forth to justify the name change (something about how it's not a widely used term coined by an internet reviewer), going with this seems kind of hypocritical since its origin and use are apparently of similar ilk. It's also non-indicative as hell for a name, and that's the one of the last things we need.

edited 18th Apr '17 5:00:52 PM by Karxrida

As the case with TheOrbOfConfusion this is also my first TRS topic and I basically created my TV Tropes account just to fix this mess, so I don't understand what is usually the case, but in my opinion it was pretty clear that the consensus was to change the description, whoever we didn't agree with how, let me explain it:

Of the 5 options, four are related to the description:

• 2 options are to change the description, however those two are competing ideas, one was to change and leave it without criteria, and another was to put additional criteria, If you upvoted one you had motivation to downvote the other. So I think its safe to assume we could add the number of upvotes of both of them as a way to see how many people wanted to change the description (which added to about 15 votes I belive), whoever we couldn't add the number of downvotes since it's entirely possible that part of those downvotes came from users who agreed to change the description, but thought the other option was better and didn't want this option to change
• The 2 other options are to revert it back, however those two are complementary, meaning that if you voted on reverting back the description, you probably voted to fix the old exemples, and if you voted to fix the exemples its obvious you also voted to change the description back, so we can't add the votes like the options to change the description (PS: one of the options have 4 votes and another one had 3, and both have a ton of downvotes)

tl;dr: I think it was unfair to have two options to change the criteria that competed with each other(and the option to revert it), the previous crowner was confusing and the way it was set up didn't helped to see the consensus and it became a mess.

It should have been 3 options: Rename, Change the Description, Revert the description. Later we would make a crowner on how to change it, rather than having the options competing with other options

After this rename crowner is finished I think we should have another one with the options on how to change the criteria (since I do think the consensus is to change the description), or if you don't agree with me, we should have another crowner with only two options: Change the Description and Revert the Description

I don't think it would be hypocritical since one was a name coined by a single person, while the other was coined by a community based entirely around the concept

Edit: "Whether or not the title will actually be changed is determined with a different kind of crowner"

What the fuck? Wasn't the consensus that we should rename the trope? Why would we need to have another crowner to decide what was already decidde? Shouln't we just pick up the most upvoted name on the crowner? The previous Crowner already gave the option if you wanted to rename or not, by downvoting the option to rename. So following my train of thought, was the previous Crowner a waste of time?

edited 18th Apr '17 5:51:10 PM by ChristianWS