Removing complaining, bashing and other negativity from the wiki

While Hobbes looks like an adult tiger, he isn't really treated like an adult as he's just about as mature as Calvin (as in... he's not). He does show attraction to Susie, but it's less of a direct crush and more that Hobbes loves attention from girls in general (he makes a lot of PG comments about "babes"), and it seems to be a stereotype of what Calvin knows about romance.

The No Yay would probably come more from him being... well, a stuffed tiger, but I don't think it's meant to be read as actual Ship Tease or anything because Susie sees Hobbes as a stuffed tiger anyway. I could go either way on it but to act like the comic is somehow deliberately sexualizing Susie because Hobbes made a parodical joke about liking "girls in swimsuits" is ridiculous.

Edited by mightymewtron on Jul 13th 2022 at 12:36:36 PM

From YMMV.Bomberman Act Zero:

• So Bad, It's Good: A charitable view of the game. It tried to appeal to Western audiences, and this is where the problems began.◊. The game is incredibly difficult since you're forced to play through all of the levels in one go with no checkpoints. Multiplayer is horribly unbalanced, but an absolute spectacle due to all the explosions going off. That one match where ProtonJon was in a crossfire between several players who had Infinite Bombs and Line Bombs is a perfect encapsulation of Act Zero bullshit.

This entry is full of complaining, and while I would like to rewrite it, I actually have a question: is this game really So Bad, It's Good? The entry describes this as a "charitable view", implying that it isn't a mainstream viewpoint, and is all complaining afterward (complete with an unnecessary reference to a Let's Player at the end). Should I still try to rewrite, or just cut?

Heads up, I had to remove yet another Scrappy trope entry from YMMV.Kamen Rider Revice because 6 months haven't passed for the final episode. I would really appreciate some help here.

1. There's a Scrappy Cleanup.

2. No Recent Examples, Please! says "The Scrappy: 6 months after the character is introduced or becomes hated, whichever comes later", not when the work has finished.

Cut the Act Zero example.

Agreed, take it to the Scrappy cleanup.

Edited by DongwaChan on Jul 14th 2022 at 1:24:15 PM

Act: Zero is on SBIH, and while there's some ways to cheese the game and have fun, the game itself is generally considered to be a miserable slog.

I've removed the Act Zero example. Thanks for the feedback all!

Some other questionable entries from YMMV.Bomberman Act Zero:

• Audience-Alienating Premise: It's a grittier, darker take on Bomberman, so it already had an uphill battle. The single-player requires you to go through 99 levels with no lives, no continues, and no way to save your game. And despite multiplayer being one of the cornerstones of Bomberman, the game has only online multiplayer with no local equivalent. Nobody thought that any of this was a good idea.

Aside from the bolded portion at the end, most of this example doesn't even describe the premise, it just complains about the gameplay. Cut, or no?

• Cliché Storm: Makes Shadow the Hedgehog look like The Stranger in regards to the writing, especially as far as existentialism is concerned.
• Narm: The game tries to be "dark" and "mature" but ends up being utterly ludicrous with its ridiculously grim setting and tone.

These two seem like complaining. Keep, rewrite, or remove?

• They Changed It, Now It Sucks!: Even before release, this was the complaint of many older Bomberman fans. However, this ended up being the least of the game's problems.

This YMMV item IMO definitely applies to the game, but as written it has little context other than complaining. Rewrite, just cut, or keep?

That Cliché Storm example doesn't even give any indication that the game has a lot of cliches, just a general comment on the writing being apparently bad; writing existentialism poorly would not be a cliche.

Also, it implies Shadow the Hedgehog tackled existentialism, which uhhhhh, no it didn't? Perhaps they were thinking of Black Knight?

Edited by Iampureevil on Jul 14th 2022 at 10:22:41 AM

Shadow's whole arc is about finding his place in the world and figuring out what to do with his life. it's very existentialist.

that doesn't make it a good example, though. comparisons to other media are virtually always an insta-cut for me.

(3x) I'd keep the Narm, though maybe I would mention a particular example to make it less "general".

However, I would cut Cliché Storm. I also agree with iampureevil and Chloe Jessica in that writing existentialism (even if it's poorly-done) isn't a cliche. Lastly, I feel the They Changed It, Now It Sucks! has zero context, so I'd comment it out.

Edited by RandomTroper123 on Jul 14th 2022 at 7:31:32 AM

I'd just cut both Cliché Storm and Narm, the examples don't explain how so.

So I should cut Cliché Storm and comment out They Changed It, Now It Sucks!. What should I do with Audience-Alienating Premise?

(I'll bring the Narm one to its dedicated cleanup for more opinions, since opinions here were split.)

On second thought, maybe you should comment out the Narm entry, though I'm not 100% sure.

The Narm entry is too general as it's written.

Yeah, it's not about a specific moment, cut it.

Edited by ArthurEld on Jul 14th 2022 at 5:07:44 AM

I agree. Cut the Narm entry.

I've made the discussed changes. I'll bring up Audience-Alienating Premise in its cleanup thread.

Ok.

Does the description for Platonic Boy/Girl Heroes look off? It spends a lot of time emphasizing that the only reason a platonic male/female duo that aren't family would only stick around each other is due to plot convenience or demographic appeal. There is a sentence that describes it more favorably (the authors just liking to see how they'd play off each other), and some of the examples outright say it's because they didn't want such a pair to automatically be seen as love interests, but the description skews more dismissive to me.

Edited by nanakiro on Jul 15th 2022 at 11:14:13 AM

Ugh, that's not only terrible but colossally insulting to any platonic friend pairs in real life. Not quite sure what to do there, because I kind of think the whole thing needs a rewrite from the ground up.

From YMMV.Pokemon Black 2 And White 2

• Hype Backlash: Having a cult fanbase that endlessly touts the games as the "gold standard" of the series can be offputting for some other fans, especially given how fractured the Pokémon fanbase is in the first place and how few people have played B2W2 compared to other games. In particular, while one of the most popular points of praise for B2W2 is their plethora of bonus features, many players are struck with this trope when they realize that many of said features became defunct due to the WFC shutdown and/or are very difficult to access. Not helping manners is that Black 2 and White 2 are loved by "Unovabortions",^note fans who overglorify Gen V and bash anything related to Gen I or the 3DS entries, who are considered to be the one of the more overzealous generational fandoms and have been likened to "Bizarro World genwunners".

This feels unnecessarily inflammatory in places. (Unovabortions?!? I've literally never heard that term before reading this.) Besides, while I'm not as in-tune with the Pokémon fanbase as I used to be, I don't think this is a particularly common sentiment in the first place. Unova fans are also very up-front about how certain features (e.g. the difficult levels) were handled terribly.

Edited by Karxrida on Jul 15th 2022 at 4:45:48 AM

I think we might need to talk to the troper who put that. Oh and burn that to the ground.

Edited by AegisP on Jul 15th 2022 at 4:46:42 AM

I think if anything the opposite is true, Unova is becoming way more popular than it used to be because the kids who have nostalgia for it are now the adults gushing about it online. But people know that they aren't perfect games.

...Well, that and the fact that Gen 6 is considered the weakest point and the modern gens are controversial in the other direction.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 15th 2022 at 7:48:23 AM

The troper who made the current writeup did so in 2017. (Tried to link to the specific edit but the site isn't cooperating.) No point in talking to them about it at this point. Also, yes. I went ahead and axed it.

Edited by Karxrida on Jul 15th 2022 at 4:59:50 AM