[003]
JBK405
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
The note covering the repeated appearances of some characters in the background should not be listed under the CastOfSnowflakes trope. If it turns out that these are the same characters appearing over and over again then it\'s simply irrelevent to the trope, because the trope is about drawing characters to be distinguishable to one another, and has no bearing on their role in the series, number of appearances, etc. If it turns out that these aren\'t actually the same character, and are just the same models being used over and over again, then it actually [[AvertedTrope disproves]] the trope, since that\'s the very essence of what the trope \'\'isn\'t\'\'.
to:
The note covering the repeated appearances of some characters in the background should not be listed under the CastOfSnowflakes trope. If it turns out that these are the same characters appearing over and over again then it\\\'s simply irrelevent to the trope, because the trope is about drawing characters to be distinguishable from one another, and has no bearing on their role in the series, number of appearances, etc. If it turns out that these aren\\\'t actually the same character, and are just the same models being used over and over again, then it actually [[AvertedTrope disproves]] the trope, since that\\\'s the very essence of what the trope \\\'\\\'isn\\\'t\\\'\\\'.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
YMMV is YMMV for a reason. Simply removing the trope is not a mature response, and reeks of favoritism without acknowledging that there are some legitimate grievances leveled against the game. Naturally any finger pointing of Unfortunate Implications is going to be controversial, and some may even be FlameBait. But the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement can applied here and hopefully invoking it will avoid edit wars.
to:
YMMV is YMMV for a reason. Simply removing the trope is not a mature response, and reeks of favoritism without acknowledging that there are some legitimate grievances leveled against the game. Naturally any finger pointing of Unfortunate Implications is going to be controversial, and some may even be FlameBait. But the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement can applied here and hopefully invoking it will avoid edit wars.
With that said, people also have grievances with EDI\\\'s body being sex appeal taken to a blatant extreme, in addition to Tali\\\'s face being a simple photomanip, though the latter is already covered by TheyJustDidntCare. Still there\\\'s something to be said that one of the biggest fan mysteries of the series was given a token nod at best.
With that said, people also have grievances with EDI\\\'s body being sex appeal taken to a blatant extreme, in addition to Tali\\\'s face being a simple photomanip, though the latter is already covered by TheyJustDidntCare. Still there\\\'s something to be said that one of the biggest fan mysteries of the series was given a token nod at best.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
YMMV is YMMV for a reason. Simply removing the trope is not a mature response, and simply reeks of favoritism without acknowledging that there are some legitimate grievances leveled against the game. Naturally any finger pointing of Unfortunate Implications is going to be controversial, and some may even be FlameBait. But the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement can applied here and hopefully invoking it will avoid edit wars.
to:
YMMV is YMMV for a reason. Simply removing the trope is not a mature response, and reeks of favoritism without acknowledging that there are some legitimate grievances leveled against the game. Naturally any finger pointing of Unfortunate Implications is going to be controversial, and some may even be FlameBait. But the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement can applied here and hopefully invoking it will avoid edit wars.
