The Scrappy Cleanup

I'm not familiar with the franchise, so I can't offer any opinions on anything not written there. That said...

The first two examples basically start with, "While it's not really an example..." Delete. If there are fanbases for the characters, they don't count.

That said, Rhajat and Kana does seem like examples. Could be rewritten, though.

Yukimura seems maybe correct. Can't tell.

Mikoto seems like a proper example.

Iago and Hans don't have any context.

Garon is a bit complicated. Yes, he's a villain. However, the complaints aren't about him doing hateful things as a Hate Sink, but rather about him having a negative effect on the story as a whole. More that his characterisation plain sucks than that he's a despicable person. I think it's a proper example. The sub bullet is irrelevant, as it's about another character from what I can make of it.

Overall, I don't really like using character polls as justifications, but they do add to it. Reason being, bland characters who people don't really care about often fall below actual scrappies. Okay characters in series with many colourful characters can also fall deceptively low on those lists.

The changes have been made. I linked to this thread as part of the edit reason.

edited 1st May '16 8:00:12 PM by Karxrida

...There's a specific subpage for Pokemon??? Says quite a lot about the fanbase...

Pokemon Sun and Moon was announced recently and the starters were revealed. People loved Rowlet and Litten...but Popplio not so much. The poor pup gets hate.

There's over 700 Pokemon. There's bound to be a bad one here or there.

That said, it's way too early to add anything from Sun & Moon to the Scrappy subpage. There's little information besides a name and at least one type revealed.

Didn't we decide that Pokemon species cannot be Scrappies, only specific individuals?

I don't remember that myself, but I entirely agree regardless. That makes a lot more sense.

I don't remember exactly what it was, but something about them not being actual characters if it's just about their species. I could maybe accept them if it's about their appearance in one of the shows where they ruin the episode, but in the games, they're most likely just enemies. If anything they would fall under a game mechanic trope like Goddamn Bats or something.

Most of the Pokemon of the Scrappy subpage are hated by the fanbase for a variety of reasons. For some examples:

Mr. Mime is unpopular because it's creepy looking.

Delibird is unpopular because it has bad stats and only learns one (awful) attack naturally.

Luvdisc is unpopular for being virtually useless in battle and having only one use (collecting Heart Scales) that became obsolete in later generations thanks to more efficient methods of doing so.

Feebas is hated for how ridiculously difficult they were to catch and how much of a hassle they were to evolve it into a Milotic in its debut generation. Although this is admittedly lessened by the fact that Game Freak has been actively making them easier to find and evolve as of late.

Unown is widely hated for being completely unviable in combat as well as being nothing more than a gimmick.

Those are the ones that I could come up with off the top of my head.

Jynx is hated for its unfortunate blackface design.

Alomoha is hated for being an Expy of Luvdisc, being similarly useless, and being a Memetic Molester. Pokemon species can definitely count, people treat them all as one entity.

edited 17th May '16 11:51:33 AM by PhiSat

Uh, no, any species should not count. That's shoehorned-in complaining. Something that needs to be avoided. The reason for specific individuals is so they can be hated on their literal merits, not cause the species wasn't that good.

I'm sure there's a proper tropes for species, and Goddamned Bats come close. Also, there are specific Pikachu and Pichu that get hate. Sometimes Ash's is hated a little for being op(but still immensely popular, so he can't qualify for this trope). And the Spiky-Eared Pichu, a DLC option, was hated for being completely terrible in more than one way. She can't evolve. She can't learn new moves. Her stats are bad. But she's a specific individual, which is why she can qualify for the trope. And it's pretty justified to dislike her too, since she has no good points(besides at best her character design).

Goddamned Bats is too narrow for the reasons people hate a lot of these Scrappies though. A lot of people hate them for reasons completely unrelated to gameplay. Some could fall under Junk Rare maybe but there's just too wide a variety of reasons these Pokemon are disliked to classify them all under one banner.

That just means some should not be listed, if they don't fit under a proper trope. That's fine. Not everything needs to be complained about.

But they do fall under a trope, The Scrappy. That's what we're arguing about.

Species aren't really "characters" whatsoever. They are just game options more or less. Characters are individuals with specific traits. They need to have some form of characterization. None of the Pokemon bar specific ones have literal characterization. The Spiky-Eared Pichu does, but only because of the movie. That's kind of shoehorned into the game examples, but it's still a specific individual. It would be the same thing as many DLC Pokemon that have extremely specific traits, like some of Ash's Pokemon available for download.

Jynx in the game is not really a character. It's just a gameplay option and nothing more. Nothing makes her stand out from any other species that has any form of a personality. The only ones that do in general have outright personalities. This can include some Legendaries who have lines, but being they're one per game, they're treated as individual characters. You can find any random Jynx. It doesn't make it stand out.

Also, there is a trope for stuff like that; Unfortunate Implications fits far better for Jynx due to the blackface issue. Hating her because of her design alone does not make her a Scrappy at all. It just is complaining for the sake of complaining. That's what is needed to be outright avoided with this trope. I do think we need to bring it through Trope Repair Shop, but that's only to make sure it specifies individual characters. To note, the only way a species could at best work is if they have specific characterization that people hate. For instance, like the game has extremely racist elves, and people hate that. That's a personality, so it may be allowed. But if there's no personality, there's no characterization to hate.

I see no issue with listing certain Pokemon species, and I definitely don't buy the idea that it violates any rules.

The Pokemon species have always been treated like characters. I agree, I don't think it breaks the rules.

Ah, I forgot the consensus was that races were allowed. That said, that doesn't really matter for the Scrappy trope as that is about hating a particular "character". Groups and races aren't literally characters.

That said, this may be best to ask in a Mod to weigh in on this, since characterization is kind of required for a Character Trope like The Scrappy to exist. Albeit, it's a variation of a Character Trope.

I personally think if the species can have Pokedex entries they have enough character to qualify, but that's just me.

I have always been strongly against the conflation of races with characters for trope purposes. Speaking to the Pokémon example specifically, Pikachu is both the name of a type of Pokémon and a specific member of that group who has distinct characterization. There may be many Pikachus around the world, but only a few of them are actually characters in the franchise.

I firmly believe that only characters can be Scrappies, not species, character archetypes, races, groups, organizations, etc.

This entire line of thought about characterization seems perilously close (to me) to requiring that people have substantial reasons for hating a Scrappy, which seems like it could devolve into a real mess.

Oh, what, we want people to have reasons for things now? Damn, we are slipping.

The Pokedex entries only talk about the species, it does not give any legitimate characterization to an individual member. They also aren't always true and just flavor text at best. They don't really give enough information to be useful.

And I did ask a Mod to weigh in, to clarify. I am aware that species are allowed subpages, which is the official wiki statement(I personally disagree, but as long as there's no zero-context examples, it shouldn't be an issue). Scrappies however are for those with enough characterization, otherwise it's just complaining at best. It's easy to hate on something cause their gameplay is bad, but that should be a different trope.

Likewise, maybe it would be best that species that have hated parts be given more proper tropes instead of throwing it into the Scrappy section. Jynx is one example as said before, as she's Unfortunate Implications, not a real Scrappy. That's all they hate, is her design, but nothing that has anything to do with how she acts.

In addition, what I'm thinking is that as a trope, the actual hatred of the character themselves should be for actual real traits, and more than a simple one. That is, characterization traits, since the trope is entirely about disliking a specific character, and was named after an individual with more than one problemsome trait. I do not know if the best way is through Trope Repair Shop, to make sure this trope is more specific and useful. As of now, it's being used to shoehorn in complaining, which is too easy when you can apply to those who aren't even real characters, but literally the same thing as a character class at best(which is what all species are by default. There's is no tangible difference. They don't have ltieral characterization traits, just stats and powers. There's no personality, and no, the Pokedex is an observation in-game from actual characters, not a literal case of characterization. We never see the characterization from the Pokedex entries, thus, they're technically more of a trivia or a possible by not official explanation of how they will act).

Even some races, like Orks, have more characterization, since they actually do something. Not just make a sound and be animated sprites/models doing an attack. Most of those games have them talking, or something to show them being literal characters. I apologize for saying a lot, but there's little use for a Scrappy being used on species that have zero characterization. You're only hating gameplay features or physical appearances, which is pretty big Trope Decay for how exclusive a trope like this should be. It also avoids it being a pure complaining Trope, and actually make it an understanding why people dislike a full out character, whether they're kind of flat(which still is a real character) or otherwise.

This is also why I believe it's gone under some major Trope Decay.

edited 17th May '16 2:36:59 PM by Irene

The point of the scrappy trope isn't about people needing to write dissertations on why they hate something. It's about a majority of a fandom hating a character/race/group to a surprisingly universal degree.

I think that these Pokemon examples are valid because, for the most part, players treat the Pokemon like they would party members in any other RPG, and lots of party members from other RPGs have been classified as scrappies for being weak, annoying, and having bad designs. All of these are reasons that the Pokemon we have previously mentioned are listed.

So from where I stand, Pokemon are fair game for scrappydom.

edited 17th May '16 2:39:04 PM by TheFox

Pokémon from the video games are fair game, sure. Just like a Marine in Starcraft is characterized enough to be a Scrappy, should someone so insist. But a line must be drawn between gameplay-related dissatisfaction and characterization-related dissatisfaction. The former is Tier Induced Scrappy or one of its relatives.

If you (hypothetically) don't like Pikachu in the video game, is it because it's annoying as a character or because its moveset is not balanced correctly?

Tropes are not broad brushes; they have specific criteria. Pick the one that is most applicable to the situation you're describing. Put another way, Tropes Are Tools, so pick the right one for the right job.

edited 17th May '16 3:11:17 PM by Fighteer