Misused: Easy Logistics

We need to do something about Easy Logistics. Something like 60+ of the examples are aversions or subversions. That's about double the number of actual examples.

Can we have a "Logistics In Fiction" trope for this? Should we purge all the times it doesn't come up?

Link

Arrrrgghhh.... delete all the aversions, of course!

And, yes, there's currently an entry under "real life" that begins "Averted for most of human history." It is the longest example on the page.

I'm actually wondering if we should make this aversions/subversions only - it seems like one of those tropes that's more notable when it's absent then when it's present.

Although that ridiculous real life "example" should certainly go. It's not like the description doesn't mention that this is usually unrealistic.

Thing is, if there are more cases of the trope not being used, is it tropable?

It's not that there's more cases of the trope not being used. It's that, like other extremely common if-not-quite Omnipresent Tropes, it's more noteworthy when it isn't used.

That could be a good point. But we should make tropes about video game logistics then, not list them as aversions in Easy Logistics. In fact, we probably already have tropes about logistics.

Of course it's noteworthy when it's used. No Trope Is Too Common. It's used frequently, so it deserves to have a very long list of examples. Examples, not aversions.

Averting this trope generally results in something very different that we usually call a Simulation Game, a genre that has its own tropes.

edited 9th Jul '12 2:45:55 PM by troacctid

For games, it's usually one of those Rule of Fun details. Considering the number of aversions, I don't think they're notable just because they avert the trope. I could see aversions notable in game genres where you don't expect it. Strategy or simulations are not it.

Partial aversions and such, no. They're less notable than either, and probably not even examples.

Would it help to break up the page into varying levels of how the matter is approached? We could have: 1) Done straight, no battlefield supplies of any sort needed. 2) Present, but a minor concern (In Civilisation and Total War, you have to commit resources to keep up armies, but supply chains never come up). 3) An important part of gameplay, but only in some aspects (in Blitzkrieg, an RTS by Nival Interactive, you have to keep everyone supplied with ammunition, but not fuel, and there are strange rules with the limitless depots and personnel). 4) Simulation Game, with a real effort to be true to history.

In any case, this really is an Omnipresent Trope and only noticeable when it's averted. It is defined as something (logistics) being absent from gameplay, so there is little that can be said about most straight examples. It is as common as Units Not to Scale, yet there you can at least talk about what is going wrong. Here you can only comment that nothing's there.

Breaking it up seems the best strategy. Otherwise, people would just try and toot their favorite video game's horn by saying that a handwave is a full aversion and we'd end up in the same place.

Clocking.

I actually think that that hideous aversion in the Real Life section should either be merged with the description or moved to Analysis - it blatantly doesn't belong where it is, but it's actually pretty fascinating (especially the final notes about the war will feed itself, but not pay for itself). And, if we do make this Aversions Only, the Real Life section at least should remain No Aversions simply because of how uncommon our expectations about stories are.

For the rest of the page, I think Savoy's proposal may make the most sense so far.

Can we at least agree to remove the bit that says "Aversions Only"?

I'm not opposed to additional sorting if someone is willing to do that legwork.

I cut that hideous aversion in the Real Life section, because it was hideous.I also trimmed out most of the military theory essays, and the chunks about the effect on the civilians as irrelevant to the trope.

On the Aversions Only thing: is this really so nearly universally used that games where it doesn't come into play are harder to find than games where it does? Because that's the criteria that should be used to determine whether it deserves an Aversions Only tag. I don't play games much, so I honestly don't know the answer to that question.

It really depends on the genre. Lots of games are about logistics, or where it plays a large part. In those games, there's often a more realistic take on it than in games that are meant to be fun in other ways. However, it's very rarely completely realistic, including many examples listed as aversions. Most of them just speak about how they handle logistics, which isn't really a trope.

I'd say that the only notable examples are the ones on the extreme ends. The half-aversions and stuff are generally about the overall standard. Sure, that's also part of the trope, but probably universal enough that examples aren't interesting. In this case, a half-aversion is still a straight example, though perhaps toned down. If we keep it aversion-only, I think the half ones should go.

Yes. "Gold-Firewood-Stone"...

What? How does that answer the question I asked?

• Averted in Super Mario Bros.
• Averted in Sonic The Hedgehog.
• Averted in The Legend Of Zelda.
• Averted in Donkey Kong.
• Averted in Pac Man.
• Averted in Tetris.

...etc. Clearly not a universal trope in video games.

It's not averted in those games, it's ignored. It's irrelevant. Are those actually on the page? Because I can't see how they'd fit.

'S like the definition of averted.

The examples I gave would be non-notable aversions.

edited 13th Oct '12 1:52:57 PM by troacctid

I wouldn't call those examples of aversions, but just not examples at all. Aversions, yes, but not examples. If that makes sense.

That's the thing about aversions. "Not used" isn't necessarily "averted". "Averted" means that the trope is so commonly used that its non-presence is noticeable or striking. Game genres that don't concern themselves with logistics at all aren't aversions.

edited 14th Oct '12 6:04:36 PM by Madrugada

Definitions of aversions aside, I don't think there's a point to listing aversions in games that don't involve logistics at all, nor games that simulate something real-ish (like many RTS games) that don't avert it completely. It's a part of the natural gameplay for those games, so having more realism than usual with regards to logistics isn't notable or interesting.

If there's significantly more logistics than you can reasonably expect from the game, then it would be okay to list.

I'm not sure I see the need for straight examples, though. Perhaps if it's glaring enough to break Suspension of Disbelief (Godzilla level breaking), but otherwise no.

edited 14th Oct '12 7:33:14 PM by AnotherDuck

Might want to take a look at how Easy Communication is organised.

EDIT: Eeesh, this was dropped in October?

edited 27th Nov '12 5:56:58 PM by GameChainsaw

@2,3: I wonder if we need a page called Not An Aversion for stuff like that, because I totally concur.

edited 27th Nov '12 9:15:46 PM by Stratadrake