Follow TV Tropes
Edit: Thread consensus has arrived at four criteria for Broken Base, which I will copy-paste here so that they're always easily visible in the first post:
The original first post follows:
Broken Base is ostensibly about deep-seated arguments within a fanbase. Okay, fine. That's a thing that happens. The problem is that many entries are written in such a way as to side firmly with one side over the other, to the point where it's a thinly-veiled excuse for complaining. They tend to spend the majority of space laying out one side's argument for why a particular entry or element in a franchise is the Worst Thing Ever(TM), and then wrap up saying something like, "...but there are some people who like it."
Example: In YMMV.Mass Effect 2:
That's... just plain not the case. Broad consensus is that ME2 is the high point of the series. There are certainly folks who prefer ME1, some vociferously, but it's only a very vocal minority who tear into 2 the way the writer of this entry does.
edited 27th Nov '17 8:52:27 AM by HighCrate
This is from to YMMV.Cinderella 2015:
Bear in my mind it also had this sentence at the end, before I trimmed it down as Natter:
Nostalgia Critic summed up the debate by saying Ever After is better than both anyway.
Also someone else added this underneath it:
So, what's the point of this thread exactly.?
To clean up the complaining by saving those examples that can be saved, and cutting what must be cut. Another thing I'm noticing is that a lot of the example subpages are cluttered with Natter, Thread Mode, and examples that more properly belong under Base-Breaking Character (which is No Examples Please and so examples should be cut on sight) or Contested Sequel.
I went through BrokenBase.Anime And Manga and culled a whole lot of misuse.
edited 27th Nov '17 8:53:06 AM by HighCrate
Alirght then. Here's what I submit from Dragon Ball Super:
As you can see, it's pretty long and could stand to be trimmed down.
Jeez, no kidding. Let me give it a look-through:
Sounds like something left over from when folks only had pre-release materials to go off of. (One more reason why I don't think we should trope unreleased work, but that's neither here nor there.) Delete it.
This is 95% natter, 5% substance. Delete.
Looks valid enough.
This seems a little narrow for a series page if it's only referring to a handful of episodes. Could belong in recap pages for the episodes in question (if there are any). Otherwise, delete.
Broken Base tends to involve Love It or Hate It disputes, not "hate it or don't really care." Delete.
Valid enough, although it should be moved to the Franchise page as opposed to the Super page, since it's a matter of the factions within the greater Dragon Ball fandom as opposed to Super's specifically.
Valid, but wordy. Can we condense these two bullet points into one much shorter one?
Sounds more like Wild Mass Guessing than Broken Base.
Valid enough, but full of cruft that could be deleted. Also probably belongs under Base-Breaking Character since it revolved around a single character.
Sounds valid enough, although that last sentence sounds like natter and can probably be removed.
Looks valid enough to me.
More complaining than not. Delete.
This doesn't really describe the base being bitterly divided, just that there's a plot point that is open to interpretation. Delete.
I suppose this is valid, although power-level arguments make my head hurt. I'd delete it if I were allowed to have my way about everything, but I won't argue too hard for it.
This sounds like another case that's more "vocal minority are pissed about something, most don't care" than a truly divided base. Delete.
Base-Breaking Character. Delete.
edited 23rd Jun '16 5:56:52 PM by HighCrate
I took care of those changes you suggested.
Uh, quick word here. Base Breaker is allowed to have examples on the YMMV sections of works pages.
Thanks for the heads up. I was going to asked about that.
No, it's not. Base Breaker is a redirect to Base-Breaking Character. (or will be)
edited 24th Jun '16 12:34:19 PM by war877
Alright then, I'll just change the wick.
So, is anyone gonna take a look at the example I brought up here .
Probably fits better under Base-Breaking Character.
This is an example from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver:
While this is seems to be a valid Broken Base, the first point is basically "some people liked it". The second argument is the most detailed by far and makes it look heavily skewed towards the view.
Also, I personally strongly disagree with the last three arguments (since they don't take away from the fact that people are being harassed online), but as long as there are enough people holding those opinions, they make for a valid positions for a Broken Base example. However, I'd be surprised if most people in the fourth camp were part of the shows fanbase.
edited 25th Jun '16 5:34:21 PM by supergod
Something that bothers me a lot is that Broken Base is often used for the overall reception of a work rather than contentions in the work's fandom.
Mighty No. 9
"Troubled Production and Hype Backlash aside, is the game still worth playing? Some think it's just an uninspired Mega Man clone that forgets what made the series so popular and has too many issues to enjoy. Others think that it's perfectly fine for a 20-30 dollar game, and it can be a good experience if you can ignore some of the more glaring problems. The only thing people can agree on is that game would've been significantly better received if the hype had been lower and the development had been smoother."
Yeah, that doesn't sound like an example. It's not like they're fighting over if the game is crap or not. It's just about people having different opinions, which is People Sit On Chairs.
Most of the sub-bullets on that page are of roughly the same (lack of) quality. I did some pruning and left the link to here in the edit history.
From YMMV.Deadpool 2016, underneath Broken Base:
The change to his origin story is the big one for three reasons. 1.) The project that made him what he was is no longer (at least stated to be) attached to the weapon X program. 2.) Deadpool's Healing Factor is his own mutation that was activated through torture instead of being implanted with Wolverine's DNA. 3.) The origin of his name "Deadpool" was changed slightly; instead of being a betting pool among the experiments as to who would get killed next time they were tested on, it's the betting pool at the Bad-Guy Bar Wade frequented.
Does anyone else think this entry doesn't do a very good job explaining, to someone who either didn't notice or didn't mind those changes, why they would break the base? I already tried hiding this entry, but someone else later un-hid it, without attempting to revise it first.
edited 12th Jul '16 11:28:32 AM by dsneybuf
I'm with you. As written, that does not describe a Broken Base, just a list of changes in the latest adaptation.
edited 12th Jul '16 1:24:05 PM by HighCrate
"The show itself among comic fans: Either the show's decision to go no-superpowers route and many other changes (especially the changes made to Huntress and Deathstroke) mean it's an insult to the comics, or the no-powers thing makes it approachable and, in spite of those changes, it is still a decent show."
It looks like Broken Base used as "overal reception". I think "among comic fans" is too general.
The Loud House
"Chris Savino himself, apparently. Some are happy he's getting his own show because of his work on Kick Buttowski and My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Others aren't as optimistic, because he was a part of the Seasonal Rot for Dexter's Laboratory and Powerpuff Girls."
"To this day, the Cycle fanbase is polarized into two parts: one part that thinks that the series is an unoriginal ripoff of much better series, and one part that thinks that it's a good story despite these influences."
I'm not defending the series but people who think "that the series is an unoriginal ripoff of much better series" don't look like fans in the first place.
edited 19th Jul '16 12:51:58 AM by Silverblade2
I think these examples need a lookin' at:
Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius:
Power Rangers (2017):
Pretty much all those sound like they're rather more slanted towards the negative view.
From the Mary Poppins Returns section of YMMV.Mary Poppins: Time will tell if this remains so but the casting of Lin-Manuel Miranda in the 2018 sequel Mary Poppins Returns is a point of contention among fans. While there are many who are happy about this (mostly fans of Hamilton), others feel that he's only been cast just because of the former and feel that the character of Jack is unneeded, especially since he's a Canon Foreigner who wasn't present in Travers' books and who many are fearing is a Suspiciously Similar Substitute for Bert. That's all we'll say on the matter. Does it seem necessary to explain why casting the star of a musical as popular as Hamilton sounds like a bad idea to some, even when considering the fact that Julie Andrews became Disney's original Mary Poppins just because of her performances in some of the most popular Broadway musicals of that time?
For Broken Base? Yes, explaining what is causing the breakage is context. In this case it's a concern that it's Stunt Casting because a whole new Canon Foreigner character is being created for him. The sinkhole to Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement needs to go, though. It's really serving as a Take That!.
edited 22nd Dec '16 8:36:40 AM by Madrugada
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?