Ask The Tropers

Unwinnable by Insanity relies on a deliberate player action that exploits something unintentional in the game's design, while Unwinnable by Design and Unwinnable by Mistake rely on the game's design. I'm not quite sure if I agree with that because "a player can exploit this" technically is objective - otherwise Video Game Perversity Potential and Video Game Cruelty Potential would be subjective for the entries relying on the whims of the player not always anticipated by the game designers.

Edited by mightymewtron I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

Not all Audience Reactions are 100% opinion-based — the main point is that they're how audiences react to the work, which can include doing things with a video game that the creators didn't plan.

Patiently awaiting the release of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass.

^^See my point about Obviously Evil. If that isn't considered subjective, why is this? In addition, who's to say that those elements in a game's design are unintentional? Those things might very well work that way because making them idiot-proof isn't worth the extra effort when it would only help people who either deliberately sabotage their own game or act contrary to common intuition. The important part is that those elements exist, and they can render the game unwinnable, and a player who is not just bad, but is either deliberately trying to sabotage the game, or acting contrary to how anyone would naturally play the game, can render the game unwinnable by putting in the effort.

Also, added a paragraph at the start to better explain my thoughts.

Edited by AGuy I'm just.. a guy....

Also, off topic, but this belongs more in Trope Talk, not ATT.

As for Obviously Evil...I'm not seeing any similarities so I'm not sure why you're comparing them. One is "Audiences do dumb things that can make a game unwinnable", the other is "a work goes out of it's way to show that a villain is very obviously a villainous evildoer". You're comparing Apples and Pumpkins here.

V I'll be honest, I couldn't get through the entire post because it's too long, practically a wall of text. Still though, Trope Talk still seems like a much better fit.

Edited by WarJay77 Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

^As per my post, I have this here because I don't know if my understanding of what the wiki qualifies as a YMMV trope is off - so not just a matter of an individual trope, but a potential question about YMMV. If there's something I'm missing, then I'd be happy to learn it.

As to your edit: I don't get how you're missing my comparison. Both tropes are reliant on the general idea of something being obvious to a reasonable person. To say you don't see any similarities comes off as a bit dismissive to me when I, on multiple occasions, explain where the similarities are in my post, including in my first mention of Obviously Evil.

Also, I don't think that it's reasonable to choose to define Unwinnable by Insanity as something about what players do, instead of something about game design like the other two. The page isn't "a player does something dumb to make the game unwinnable." It's "some aspect of the game's design allows a player who violates all common sense to make the game unwinnable." The page isn't a list of YouTube videos of people doing dumb things, it has examples of things in game design which allow a player to render the game unwinnable - and those things aren't put there by the players, they're put there by the designers.

As I currently understand things, the YMMV space is for things which can be reasonably subjective - the mere possibility that someone can disagree with an example is not sufficient. For example, Complete Monster is a YMMV trope because, even though someone might commit inarguably heinous crimes, one might feel that their status as The Unfettered and having a goal which is, by itself, respectable, means that they are still redeemable, while someone else might feel that justifications and lack of malice doesn't absolve someone to any degree. Too Dumb to Live, however, is not a YMMV trope, because self-preservation is an instinct, there are things which are almost universally understood as dangerous, and the few people who don't share that understanding are an exceptional outlier.

If I am misunderstanding the requirements for YMMV, and what I said is partially or completely incorrect, then I would appreciate being educated on what I'm misunderstanding - if that happens, then the resulting information isn't about tropes, but about how something on the wiki works (in this case, what qualifies something for the YMMV space.) If I am understanding things correctly - and what I said about YMMV is true - then all I need is for someone to say "yes, your understanding of YMMV is correct". If I just asked the question, with no context, I could just get an answer of someone else's understanding - and as my own understanding was challenged, I don't think that asking the question without the context that brought it about is conducive to getting the answer I need.

The reason I made such a write-up is because, adding context, I knew people would inevitably bring up some detail or other as to what justifies the different namespaces in spite of the requirements for YMMV. In order to preempt some responses, I thought to show:

• Yes, these scenarios in Unwinnable by Insanity are (or should be) actually impossible for any reasonable person to run into organically, even if they're bad at the game.
• Yes, there are tropes which rely on a subjective term or concept like "obvious" that aren't in YMMV.
• With those two things established, either my understanding of what entails YMMV would have to be wrong, or there's a discussion to be had about the two tropes.

Generally, I like to explain my thoughts on things, such as my reasoning or analyses, very thoroughly. I went into a lot of detail on one example of Fire Emblem, a series I understand very well, in order to best demonstrate the concept here - again, to establish that the trope doesn't involve scenarios that one should reasonably see as feasible. I did that by breaking down the details of the scenarios in the example, to demonstrate to those unfamiliar with the game that the troper who posted that example wasn't some experienced player dismissing unskilled play as insanity, but was providing an example of scenarios that really shouldn't occur for even the worst players of the game unless they're actively working against themselves.

Perhaps due in large part to my poor title, this appears to have come off as an attempt to start a discussion about the details of a trope here, rather than an effort to see whether I was missing something or had a legitimate point on which to start a discussion about the trope. Unfortunately, this was a mistake on my part; I get very frustrated when people misunderstand me, so I try to be very thorough when explaining myself. I get very annoyed when I have to go back and forth with people about things that are quickly demonstrable, so I try to do that ahead of time.

Edited by AGuy I'm just.. a guy....

ATT can be used to see if an example fits or not. If your arguing the definition or working of a trope, am not sure if ATT is the place to do it. As Warjay points out there are better places to do it.

^I'll quote ATT, and put the parts relevant to my thinking in bold.

---

Ask the Tropers is for:

• General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
• Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
• Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.

Ask the Tropers is not for:

• Help identifying a trope. See Trope Finder.
• Help identifying a work. See You Know That Show.
• Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
• Proposing new tropes. See Trope Launch Pad.
• Making bug reports. See Query Bugs.
• Asking for new wiki features. See Query Wishlist.
• Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
• Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
• Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.

---

I am asking if there is a particular reason Unwinnable by Insanity is on the YMMV namespace. The various namespaces relate to the wiki as a whole, not an individual trope. As this relates to my understanding of the criterion for a particular namespace, this is related to the wiki, not just one particular trope. I am not trying to find if an example fits - this has nothing to do with whether a particular example is appropriate for a particular trope. The one example I broke down was to explain that there shouldn't be any reasonable subjectivity, to preempt those who would claim that a bad player might not see those things as insanity (and this is necessary because they might have failed to consider the scenario I'm currently asking about before giving their answer.) I am not arguing about how a trope works - how the trope works is, or should be, pretty clear.

There is nothing in the latter section - what ATT is not for - that this topic would fall under, and I am very annoyed that people keep telling me this isn't the place as if I didn't think to look at the requirements before posting. Judging by your comment, it seems you're the second person who didn't actually read what I've typed.

TL;DR This involved none of those things you said, does not fall under anything explicitly rejected by the guidelines and what you see written in the OP is an attempt to preempt those who would discard or fail to consider the context that prompted my question. If I can get an answer that yes, my understanding of things is correct, and Unwinnable by Insanity is there because it was deemed to fit the criterion I've mentioned, then I can have a discussion about this in Trope Talk - me just asking the question without context means I get an answer from someone who thought just like I did before the context that made me ask the question, and just just asking "Does Unwinnable by Insanity fit the YMMV namespace?" means that not only do I not get an answer to my question about YMMV entails, but people are more likely just say "yes" and justify the current status rather than coming to an objective conclusion by looking at reasoning to the contrary (i.e. status quo bias.) Explaining my thought process doesn't eliminate status quo bias, but it does help mitigate it by potentially challenging things people just assumed.

Edited by AGuy I'm just.. a guy....

I have thought long and hard about this and I agree now. But you need more than one example of this to show the trope is objective.

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.

Tuvok: Not quite right. Seeing if an example fits is for the Is This An Example thread.

^^Fortunately we have the trope page, Unwinnable by Insanity, that has those things. My breakdown of that particular example was to show the idea - that examples are (or should be) scenarios that are impossible for any reasonable person playing the game to get into even by lack of skill. This was to preempt the inevitable assertion that it's YMMV because not everyone is good at games - the trope isn't about getting stuck because you're not a skilled player, it's about being able to make the game unwinnable because the developers either didn't consider or didn't care to account for players who go out of their way to get themselves stuck.

I think I'm just better off assuming my initial idea was right at this point and pushing the discussion about the trope's subjectivity to the Trope Talk forum. I haven't actually gotten the answer I was looking for (whether my initial understanding of YMMV was correct or not). This was no doubt facilitated by my unideal presentation for that particular purpose.

Edited by AGuy I'm just.. a guy....

" that no one who is not deliberately looking to get themselves stuck somehow will ever have a problem with that specific thing."

Honestly, this whole part of the definition is problematic. It definitely is a thing, yet it's not exactly quantifiable to record on sight in all cases.

SoundCloud

^That's the thing, though - can you quantify something like Obviously Evil or Too Dumb to Live? Not really, but they're not YMMV. Not being quantifiable doesn't make something a YMMV.

We don't argue that Obviously Evil is YMMV because someone who has never read or watched a work of fiction in their life might not be able to read the most anvilicious tells the work presents. We don't argue that Too Dumb to Live is YMMV because some person might not see why someone jumping into a lake full of voracious sharks to get the dollar store necklace they dropped in it is an inherently dumb thing to do. To say that it's impossible to be able to identify what can reasonably be understood as pointless, nonsensical, counter-intuitive, and/or self-sabotaging behavior in a game is to set the bar of expected intelligence for gamers much lower than we do for consumers of most other media.

Edited by AGuy I'm just.. a guy....

This discussion is better suited for Trope Talk.

Yeah, it's getting annoying scrolling down this Wall of Text on ATT.

I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.

I agree. As much as I'd like to take your points into consideration...I don't really do well when reading long posts.

(Don't) take me home.

I might also point out that...

Can really help cut down and organize the multiple walls of text. Especially in the OP since anyone who comes to ATT is going to have to scroll through that whether they're interested or not.

Edited by sgamer82

A general question would be "How/where do I argue that a trope should be YMMV?" Making the argument is much more specific.

Edited by crazysamaritan Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I'll comment out the OP. I still have not received an answer to what I have asked - whether my understanding of YMMV is correct, in that the mere possibility that someone can draw an opposite conclusion to some subjective concept in the trope, such as "obvious" or "dumb", does not, by itself, make a trope YMMV.

I'm just.. a guy....

Yes, you are correct. See Obviously Evil and Most Writers Are Human as case studies. Both are talking about a subjective concept (what it means to be evil, what experiences humans have), but they are considered objective because of how they manifest.

OE uses a number of negative tropes designed to demonstrate how bad behaviour has negative outcomes. It also uses a number of visual clues to indicate that the character is not to be taken heroically. It doesn't actually matter if the character is evil, just that the work portrays them in the role of a black-and-white villain.

MWAH is based on the fact that we only have the subjective experience of humanity to draw upon. We can speculate, but cannot know, how a race of space-travelling porpoises or Puppeteers would actually think. It probably won't change even after we meet/uplift nonhumans of equal intelligence.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

OK, closing this in favour of Trope Talk.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman