Since I may have misread how the entry was written, allow my to clarify what I meant.
The entry talks about DK 64 but uses Banjo-Kazooie as the game that it is saying was the "Original Sin" of. Now I may be taking the title of the trope too seriously, but FOS has always read to me as discussing issues with a franchise and why the issue is now worse. Other pages use genre or even similar ideas about it to discuss the problem, but usually those are discussing things like "The Summer Blockbuster problem", or talking about things like developers.
The entry is discussing a specific game that is part of its own franchise, the Donkey Kong series, but it uses another franchise entirely, the Banjo-Kazooie series, to discuss why there is a problem. I don't agree that this works as a FOS because it implies the two are part of the same series. They are the same genre but the entry isn't discussing the genre. Plus it last minute talks about the SNES DK games, so the entry is not really focused on one subject.
Also, I don't know if the creators of either game were the same but as far as I know they weren't so it wasn't even the same franchise in that sense either. I could be wrong but I don't imagine they would be.
Like I said, this may be me taking the title too literally but the entry doesn't make sense and I don't think it really fits.
Edited by keyblade333 Muramasa got.
Oh, then we both missed the actual problem; your reason says they were made by different developers, but that's only technically true.
They were all developed (or produced) by Rare. FOS also seems to apply to creators, even across different franchises. Such as Bioware getting its own entry.
That being said, whether or not FOS should apply both to the same works developed by completely different creators, and the same creators developing completely different works, is another conversation.
Edited by NubianSatyress
Yeah, that's why I wanted to clarify what I meant.
I wasn't aware Rare did both, but I do know that FOS covers developers. Since I didn't know they both were done by Rare, it seemed out of place.
I think the issue is that the entry felt disconnected in that aspect.
Muramasa got.
Curly Goddess
This entry was removed:
- Also, as the series went on, it began attracting more and more criticism for its increasingly Stripperiffic female character designs and focus on Jiggle Physics (particularly for Ivy and Taki) reducing what had been a serious historical fantasy to borderline sleaze like Dead or Alive, without the benefit of that series' tongue-in-cheek self-acknowlegement. However even as far back as the original Soul Blade there was an Easter Egg you could employ to cause Sophitia's skirt to disappear, or even have her fight in an actual swimsuit.
The edit reason put forth by the remover was that fanservice in the Soul Series has been there since day one, there's nothing wrong with that, and that the example may cause problems.
There are three issues with this removal reason:
1) Yes, something being part of the franchise from the beginning is specifically what makes something a Franchise Original Sin. That statement actually gives more credibility to the example, not less. 2) The example states why it became a problem. That the fanservice became more and more blatant over time, which caused criticism. This is not a fringe opinion—it's true that this has been a criticism. 3) Franchise Original Sin is YMMV by nature, and this isn't a topic that is so sensitive that we really need to worry about Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgment.
I'm somwhat indifferent to the entry as it stands, but the reasons for its removal leave me raising an eyebrow.
Edited by NubianSatyress Hide / Show Replies
This is a very shaky argument because sex appeal isn't inherently wrong, and the Soul Series has been pretty equal in terms of giving it both women and men. Also, I do believe it's a fringe opinion on the account that the ones who tried to make a big deal out of it (I'm assuming that infamous Kotaku article comes to mind) were widely mocked across the internet for trying to make it a thing. Furthermore, Soulcalibur VI also outperformed Dead or Alive 6 by a very wide margin, despite the latter trying to take this into account, if that means anything.
A "sin" is an inarguable flaw. I don't see the use of sex appeal as a flaw, and many others won't either. It's just appealing to aesthetic. That, and many fighting games use it, as well as many games in general. That's why I removed it.
No one said sex appeal is wrong. It is, however, a distinct costuming decision that can make characters look ridiculous to the layman. Also, the series does NOT use equal amounts of fanservice between men and women; Hilde was created specifically as the Token Wholesome because even the developers were aware of how the public felt about the female designs.
That aside, this seems to be coming down to your personal opinion, rather than whether or not the example fits the trope. Bringing up Kotaku and whatnot only makes it lean more towards this being a personal issue.
Edited by NubianSatyress
My point is that I don't think it's a "sin", because it's not inarguable flaw. I've been part of the community for a long time, and generally fans of the series like the use of sex appeal. It's considered a hallmark of the series as a whole and what makes it, well, appealing to the audience. I just feel like calling it a "sin" is stretching it way too much, as those complaining about it are essentially a vocal minority.
"Sin" is simply the name of the trope and has nothing to do with it. Again, how long it's been part of the series only proves that the example applies. There isn't even any complaining about it in the exmaple—it simply states WHY it began to gain negative attention. How you personally feel about the criticism and negative attention doesn't change the fact that it existed.
It feels like it's complaining — the point of the trope is to highlight what is considered an inarguable flaw. Sex appeal being a "flaw" is something that is extremely arguable by the public, which is why I don't considered it an example and I feel is dangerous to have as one.
You have the wrong idea of how YMMV tropes work—the entire reason they're YMMV is because mileage varies. What isn't a flaw to you may be flaws to other people. "It does/doesnt feel like it to me" is not a good reason to remove an example.
Right, except this particular trope says in Laconic:
"A problem with the franchise that was there before it became 'bad', but now lacks what first balanced it out."
and up front:
"A Franchise Original Sin is a flaw that in earlier, good installments was kept under control to the point of not really being a flaw, but goes out of hand and becomes apparent in later installments."
The devil here is that it's a flaw, and one that has a universal consensus. The backlash towards Tira being Day 1 DLC is an example, not the use of sex appeal. I don't think it fits.
There is no trope that has "Universal Consensus". There is no such thing. What you're saying completely perverts the principles of both Your Mileage May Vary and Tropes Are Tools.
You are creating an arbitrary number of impossible standards for this example based largely on the argument that you, personally, don't feel like it qualifies.
The reasoning just feels so weak to me and I found the example to be very badly written with huge bias, one that can lead to flame wars down the line if someone else sees it. Hence I practiced good judgement and removed it before that could happen.
Since we're going nowhere, so I've brought the matter up in Ask The Tropers.
Edited by NubianSatyress
See, if the sex appeal bit is creating complaints it might be a valid example. Sex appeal can be a problem for a work, especially if it leads to complaints.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
My question is what made the sex appeal not a problem in the past.
That said, whether or not something is a problem is subjective, hence why it's YMMV. I don't see eye-to-eye on every YMMV item I come across, I can recognize their merits... mostly.
Contains 20% less fat than the leading value brand!
As the example says, the common complaint is that the outfits have become increasingly Stripperiffic over time. The most frequent examples used are Sophitia
◊ and Ivy
◊.
It just feels so cheap to call sex appeal a problem, because it goes back to a wider Double Standard of "violence = good, sex = bad". Is it a problem in The Witcher?
Just wondering.
Absolutely no one said violence is good. Just because people complain about something specific doesn't mean they accept all other parts of a work unconditionally.
And yes, it's a common criticism for the Witcher, not that it has anything to do with this, either.
Well it simply isn't fair. I just don't see it as a flaw, and certainly not on the level this entry is trying to paint it as. Soulcalibur never had any pretense of being wholesome and kid-friendly, and I think if they tried backing out by removing sex appeal, they'd lose the respect of a lot of people. But that's another story.
To me, I don't see sex appeal to be as big of a problem is Replacement Scrappies or Day 1 DLC. If this were to be added, it would have to heavily rewritten from it's current state to make it sound less objective in condemning it.
Question, is it okay to make a Franchise Original Sin page for Fire Emblem?
Hide / Show Replies
Would it make more sense to create a Franchise Original Sin page for the Mario series as whole and just move the Mario Kart examples over to that page?
Okay, something about that BioWare-paragraph irks me.
I agree that this page was too bloated, and it's good we split the bigger sections off, but the BioWare-section made great sense as a block but now is terribly disjointed.
I'd propose we just give BioWare itself an entire subpage to a) have the entire paragraph make sense again with minimal rewrites required (yes, I'm lazy) and b) to just have it all in one place and show how almost every BioWare-series suffers from one or more "sins" (something that is inevitable with such an old studio and their multiple long-running franchises).
If noone disagrees until then, I'll create that BioWare-subpage at the end of this week.
Hide / Show Replies
So this example:
- Nintendo's seventh and eighth-generation consoles were heavily criticized for being underpowered in comparison to what competing consoles had to offer when that same flaw could be traced way back to the original Gameboy. It was designed with Gunpei Yokoi's philosophy of "lateral thinking with withered technology" which refers to using technology that is older, cheaper and well understood while using it in a new and innovative way (in this case, a handheld gaming console) along with being cost-effiecient and using as little power as possible in spite of more advanced technology being available at the time, this resulted in the Gameboy having a low price point and long battery life that gave it an edge over more powerful handhelds that came out around the same time, the Atari Lynx and Sega Game Gear to name a couple. Nowadays, however, the trade-offs for a less powerful system are largely seen as impractical. While the Wii's motion controls were initially well-received, they were only practical for specific types of games. For example, Fighting Games require such intricate controls that only buttons really work for it. The Wii U, likewise, featured a touch screen that no one wanted, and forced players to hold a behemoth of a controller to contain it. Conventional controllers were available, but at a hefty cost which forced Third-Party developers (already stymied by the less-powerful system) to opt out because there was no guarantee which controllers players may possess.
Was edited into this one:
- Nintendo's recent consoles were heavily criticised for being underpowered in comparison to what competing consoles had to offer when that same flaw could be traced back to the original Game Boy. It was designed with Gunpei Yokoi's philosophy of "lateral thinking with withered technology" which refers to using technology that is older, cheaper and well understood while using it in a new and innovative way (in this case, a handheld gaming console) along with being cost-effiecient and using as little power as possible in spite of more advanced technology being avaliable at the time, this resulted in the Game Boy having a low price point and long battery life that gave it an edge over more powerful handhelds that came out around the same time, the Atari Lynx and Game Gear to name a couple. It wouldn't be until that same philosophy got applied to their home consoles, starting with the Useful Notes/Wii (which innovated with the use of motion controls) did people start to notice the problem and then the Wii U happened and ended up as Nintendo's worst selling home console which made some people blame the "lateral thinking" design philosophy for causing its failure, considering that it competed with consoles that sold a lot better while being more powerful and more expensive.
Which has a few problems to me.
- The first sentence violates Examples Are Not Recent.
- The edit does not cover WHY Nintendo's underpowered consoles are not seen as more practical than the more powerful ones, which negates the point of talking about how the Gameboy was less powerful but more practical.
- It's also flat out wrong. The Wii was one of the best-selling consoles ever, and that isn't when people started "noticing a problem" with Nintendo's less powerful systems. The problem was with the unorthodox controls, which was compounded the next generation into the Wii U, which was not only less powerful but now had an even LESS appealing control scheme.
The original version was too bloated anyway, by virtue of focusing too much on specific parts. If it should be there at all, then it needs some heavy trimming, only focusing in what truly provides the "original sin" aspect. Stuff like "for example, Fighting Games require such intricate controls that only buttons really work for it" and especially ""he Wii U, likewise, featured a touch screen that no one wanted, and forced players to hold a behemoth of a controller to contain it" (this one doubling as hyperbolic and incendiary) are simply unnecessary.
135 - 169 - 273 - 191 - 188 - 230 - 300
I don't particularly agree with those examples, although I agree that the original example could be trimmed.
The reason I disagree is because the confusion over what to do with the touch screen is a major factor in the Wii U's failure. That point has been stated many times by analysts on the subject. Also, the Wii was also criticized for being unfeasable for certain game genres—fighting games being one of the major ones (except fir Smash).
The following example was removed:
For the following edit reason:
I'm pretty sure that's not how franchises, nor this trope, works.
Franchises change writers, creative teams, and sometimes even ownership, all the time. That doesn't stop it from being part of the franchise.
Hide / Show Replies