Follow TV Tropes
Another "is this Fake Difficulty" post: if a game required you to destroy a wall to get through a level or otherwise progress but gave no indication (in-game or in the manual) that it was even possible to destroy walls or other pieces of architecture would this count?
Reposting from the previous page:
Is the following example from YMMV.Dumbledores Army And The Year Of Darkness being used correctly?:
Should note that the troper who added the example also added a third-level bulletpoint natter to the Ron the Death Eater Example:
Guide Dang It!?
Edited by Tabs on Aug 21st 2019 at 2:41:08 AM
It probably probably closer to Guide Dang It!.
re: Vindicated by History: ... ... ... No. No. I'm calling a big no.
Yeah, I've unfortunately read DAYD, and it portraying Snape as irredeemably evil for no reason is different from people going "Snape was kind of a creep" now
It's blatant complaining, as well.
In the game Castlevania: Lament of Innocence, the Big Bad as an immensely powerful vampire lord named Walter Bernhard, who ultimately is revealed to be the Predecessor Villain to the birth of Dracula. Could Walter be considered an example of Tom the Dark Lord? It's an incredibly unimpressive name today, but the game did take place in the Eleventh Century, so I'm not sure if the standards were different then.
I think unless someone on the dev team has said that they chose the name because it doesn't sound menacing, it's not an example of Tom the Dark Lord.
Edit: "they" as in the writers. "Ruler of the army" sounds like a pretty great name to me.
Edited by Tabs on Aug 22nd 2019 at 9:36:36 AM
By "them", do we mean the characters or the authors/writers?
Wow, in that case the name is actually rather fitting. Thanks!
From Winds of Destiny, Change. Should this be in Tabletop Games? It doesn't state a specific game, and Examples Are Not General.
According to some supplemental material the Lovecraftian god Nyarlathotep seems to have the ability to tweak probabilities to go to his favor, although it only seems to apply to small-scale stuff. His real power is being a Shapeshifter Chessmaster (and, you know, a god).
Edited by pikachu17 on Aug 22nd 2019 at 4:42:29 AM
From So Bad, It's Good
The butchered versions of The Thief and the Cobbler, specifically the Miramax version. Half-hearted attempts at Disneyfication, dated Award-Bait Song-ridden musical numbers, dialogue dubbed over characters intended to be silent, and sloppy filler animation interlaced with Richard Williams' much more fluid and detailed original work. Yeah.
Does this count? I haven't seen it, but from the way the example is written, and what I've heard, it leans more towards So Bad Its Horrible
I mean, maybe it's an example, but the example text as written doesn't make a good case for it.
From CriticalRole's Ho Yay page. Isn't actually having two characters kiss not an example?
Edited by pikachu17 on Aug 23rd 2019 at 10:17:09 AM
Ho Yay is dependent on subtext. If it becomes a textual relationship, the trope does not apply.
^ Okay, I'm going to use that as the edit reason. Hope you don't mind.
Could you do Nice, Mean, and In-Between for the three female characters on the good side in Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus? (Sigrun would be the nice, Grace would be the mean, and Anya in between. I'll explain more if I make an entry on it.)
i asked in Trope Finder, but to get more eyes on it, ill ask here as well: we have Unusable Enemy Equipment for when enemies have weapons that the player can't use. can this stretch to cover character classes that only enemies have access to? the specific ones im thinking of are from Fire Emblem: Three Houses, where Thales has the unique Agastya class, and the Death Knight is a... Death Knight.
I think based on existing examples on Nice, Mean, and In-Between that those three fit.
From Audience-Coloring Adaptation:
Is this accurate? I've never seen any parodies, comics, or whatever that depict Fred as a jerk. He's always a bumbling moron or a Nice Guy,
So, I recently removed a bunch of examples from Star Control page for a variety of reasons. One of them, describing an alien race known as Xraki reads as follows:
I do not think the aliens in question qualify as omnicidal maniacs, as they have no desire to actually destroy the universe, just to murder and eat everyone who disagrees with their religious views. A troper has messaged me arguing that this does count as an example of the trope since Xraki ultimately wish to devour pretty much everyone. I have my doubts now, so I'm asking here.
im not familiar with the work, but if they're the only race that worships the Forerunners, and thus functionally do want to kill everyone else in the universe, then i think it qualifies. that should be noted in the example, though; as written it implies there are other races that worship the Forerunners which they would leave alone, in which case it doesn't apply.
It is also to be noted it's not so much worship as it is being brainwashed by an extradimensional entity, which I think are actually called "The Gluttonous Eyes" Forerunners are what the Xraki call what they sent ahead to scout stuff in our dimension out, it's hard to figure out exactly what they are talking about since their speech patterns are very esoteric. So that I would change. Also there is no dialogue that implies that any other races were effected. I would definetly consider them omnicidal maniacs.
Edited by tarponpet on Aug 24th 2019 at 12:23:09 PM
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?