Too many tropes being labeled "Medium-specific"?

While I am generally against medium specific tropes, Video Game levels are an exception. They tend to be formulaic in ways that other mediums just don't copy.

Eternal Engine isn't just about the world being a big machine. That's misuse of the trope.

It's about the stock obstacles, the stock enemies, the stock level mechanics, all of which are used in those levels. Outside of video games, those things aren't used. That's why they don't fit into the trope. Not because they aren't video games, but because they don't actually use the whole trope.

edited 15th Aug '11 11:52:24 AM by shimaspawn

Eternal Engine also has nothing to do with being "Endless". It's called "Eternal" Engine because it's following the pattern set by Lethal Lava Land/Shifting Sand Land/Green Hill Zone/Hailfire Peaks/Big Boo's Haunt/etc. of being named after a famous example of the trope.

We really need to split off the Machine City or Machine Planet examples off that one.

Fair enough. I'll quit my whining on the matter. However, if that's the case, then there are a number of other video game level tropes that need to be split for same misuse as Eternal Engine. Am I correct in assuming that justifies a new "Special Effort"?

edited 18th Aug '11 4:42:20 PM by frodobatmanvader

We've been trying to do them as they come up, but you're right there are a lot of them that are being misused for something broader than the trope is. That said, it depends on the level setting. Some of them aren't used much differently in other mediums. Some are.

Not all level types have such a stock portrayal in games with set enemy types. Big Fancy Castle probably doesn't need to be split because it's just a place with an absurd number of rooms no matter what the medium is. It doesn't have stock enemies. Most of the current level tropes that are medium specific have been split.

For example, Gingerbread House is separate from Level Ate.

edited 18th Aug '11 4:48:43 PM by shimaspawn

Well so many of the video game level specific tropes have misleading names that people think its a broader trope which I think is the issue with them. Slippy-Slidey Ice World for one gets mistaken for real iceworlds like Hoth or when someone freezes say a lake for a battlefield complete with Ice Caves and such.

There is a problem with some of the video game only tropes: Namely, other media will reference or lampshade a video game trope (Star Wars Attack Of The Clones and Darths And Droids comic strip based on the droid factory in that.)
They are not as medium specific as people would have us believe. Western Animation and Anime & Manga both have examples of video games being played, VR games being played, etc. I don't believe the tropes can be video game only when other media are lampshading the hell out of things like common enemies found in video game levels. Also, they seem to be serving as catch alls for things we don't have tropes for.

Just because a trope is medium specific (and a lot of Videogame tropes are), doesn't mean it can't be referenced in other media, in the context of a videogame

This doesn't strike me as a complicated concept.

Yes, any kind of Show Within a Show shoots any specifications like that in the foot. However, I believe I mentioned parodies specifically for that reason (line four).

One example that comes to my mind is Combination Attack — it was started as a videogame-exclusive trope, but the underlying concept (two characters combining separate attacks into something more than the mere sum of its parts) is not exclusive to the medium.

edited 20th Aug '11 10:01:35 AM by Stratadrake

Sorry, I'm on an Wayback Machine kick right now.

I think this look at how things used to be organized is a good explanation of why we have so many legacy "Medium Specific" tropes.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060428215556/https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/

Anyway, I'm okay with a cleanup, but as long as we aren't being overly dogmatic about things. There can be legitimate examples of things that really are medium, genre or culturally specific. Granted, most tropes probably are not.

Genre isn't a problem in the least, provided it's actually from it. Same with culture (these tend to be more "stereotype" and "stock" type tropes). Mechanics are far from having this problem. The main issue is with things like Saving the World where it's written like videogames are the only things that use this type of plot structure.

YKTTW for media mechanics tropes.

Just stumbled across Guest-Star Party Member while cleaning up a Sgt. Rock example (a troper used "Superman" as a trope, which he isn't.)

Guest-Star Party Member is one of those tropes that might be mostly a video game thing, but also happens to perfectly fit "Hey, did you know Superman was once a member of Sgt. Rock's Easy Company?"

The Superman example isn't really the trope though. It's not just having been a part of another group for a short period of time. Perhaps you could make a supertrope for that, but that example seems to just misuse the trope.

edited 24th Sep '11 9:42:03 AM by shimaspawn

How isn't it the trope, though? What may need to be clarified in the description is that Superman has amnesia and doesn't know he has super powers until near the end of the story. Rock and the others just think he's a shell-shocked American soldier (i.e., a regular "party member").

None of that has anything to do with the trope though. The trope is being able to mechanically control someone for a short period of time but not wanting to give them your resources because you know that they're not a permanent fixture in your party.

It's not just about someone adventuring with you for a short time.

edited 24th Sep '11 1:21:48 PM by shimaspawn

Guest-Star Party Member is most certainly videogame specific. There may be a missing supertrope, but we shouldn't shoehorn non-VG examples into tropes that are gameplay dependent.

Like Noir Grimoir said, we should be more interested in broadening trope descriptions where the trope is actually used in multiple media; actual usage, not potential.

If trope A is being used millions of times in medium B, just because medium C and D have about half a dozen examples each that doesn't mean we need to purge the description from any leaning towards medium B.

Outside of Shout-Out s there is no way Guest-Star Party Member is more than a Video Game trope... No other medium gives the ability to have a Temporarily Playable Character.

But what harm will come from removing the medium specific parts? And when there are proper examples from other media, then the trope is not as medium specific as the creator thought it to be. Maybe there are less examples of other media because a unnecessary media specific description prevented people from adding other examples.

I think even when a trope is specific to a medium a description focusing on this medium is not necessary. I some cases it is even damaging. Instead of clearly describing the trope, pointing out the borders and specific parts people just mention the medium and the rough idea . Thinking that everybody knowing the medium in question will understand what this trope is about. While that is often the case, people not knowing this medium as well don't unserstand the reasons why some examples of other media don't fit.

If the description of a medium specific trope focuses on giving a proper explanation of the trope and not the medium, all proper examples will be from the medium in question. Nothing is lost by not mentioning the medium.

Is someone creates a trope he thinks to be medium specific and writes a proper well defined description without focusing on a medium and good examples of other media are added something is gained by being not medium specific.

Well, if some tropes are exceedingly popular in a given medium and not so much in others, removing references to its prominence in that medium can give a false impression of wide usage.

Obviously descriptions that begin with "if you are an anime/comic book/sitcom character who..." would be bad writing, but there's no harm in dedicating one or two paragraph to give credit to the medium that nurtures the trope, all while noting that the trope is used in a limited dose elsewhere and technically can involve all sorts of media.

Of course, at times a single sentence saying "Primarily seen in webcomics" is all that's needed.

edited 25th Sep '11 4:19:54 AM by Catalogue

Maybe, but this mentioning of a medium should be more like a afterthought in the description somewere in the third paragraph after defining the trope. However, it is often not really necessary and people tend to consume just specific kinds of media and are not really aware of the way other media deals with certain tropes.

Unless this medium is important to the way the trope is played (e.g. eye color tropes are just important in media where the eye color is not dictated by an actors eyes), just not mentioning it is the safest way to avoid an unnecessary medium bias.

Yes, I meant it solely as an afterthought, something you put in just before the compare/contrast bits. I just don't think we should excise them altogether; not making it specific is one thing and making it seem widespread while it is a largely insular trope is another.

Yes, but more often when someone only think that a trope isn't used outside of a specific area, they're wrong and it's widely used outside of an area that they pay attention to.

That false sense of wide use generally isn't false, and it encourages people who are familiar with that other medium to list examples from it.

Even in the compare and contrast bits we have proof that it stunts trope growth. It's bad for the wiki.

edited 25th Sep '11 8:20:48 AM by shimaspawn