Broken Base Cleanup

YMMV.The Crystal Gems Say Be Anti Racist: Fans as a whole seem very divisive about these shorts. Part of the fanbase finds them too heavy-handed to be showing to children, while another part criticizes that they aren't explicit enough. In particular the Pearl short, which they argue doesn't go into enough detail with the other black historical figures Pearl mentions. And ironically enough, people supportive of Garnet's short claim people complaining about it are proving her short right.

I wanna know if these entries from YMMV.Dream are true, and the contents on why and how they're divisive:

• The shipping of the Dream Team. Some argue that people shouldn't be shipping real-life people despite whatever chemistry they may have, while others don't see a problem with doing so. For the record, Dream & George themselves have stated that they don't mind it.
• Reuploading clips of Dream's content has become one. In the wake of several channels reuploading clips of Dream (most infamously the "Dream [insert number here] IQ Compilation" videos or a fan-channel called "Dream's Mom" uploading stream highlights), fans have come to argue over whether or not they're within their right to. Some fans believe that so long as they're not monetizing the content it's alright, stating that said compilations are how they found Dream in the first place. Others believe that, monetized or not, it's still immoral to reupload content about someone else and potentially luring away viewers who'd otherwise go to Dream's channel. Not helping is that Dream himself, as well as TommyInnit, Tubbo, and Jschlatt, discussed such a topic on the SMP—and even they couldn't come to a general consensus. Though, for the record, Dream stated that he's of the "fine if not monetized" mindset and says that he likely wouldn't have uploaded his own stream highlights anyways. The group also decided that reuploading would be fine so long as something unique and original was done with the clips, something Tommy praises a creator known as Mugo for.

The debate over the ethics of Actor Shipping is a fairly universal one that is far from unique to Dream. Remove it.

Reuploading content is also a widespread debate, but the details around it and the Dream Team's opinions of it are more specific and nuanced and thus I think it's worth keeping in some form.

Does the idea behind a Broken Base have to be unique to the fandom? Some fandoms are less intense about Actor Shipping that others, and the Dream fandom seems really intense about it, like "put your stances in your Twitter bio ASAP" intense.

I've only heard weird anti-SJW Youtubers who already hate the show complain about those shorts. Most other fans seem to appreciate them. Also, is that the official title of the shorts? I don't think it is. (Especially because there were shorts about subjects besides racism in the same series a few years ago.)

Not unless it has some specific flavor to it that makes it distinct from all the other billion fandoms who have those same arguments. Perhaps there is, but based on the entry as written, it doesn't offer any particular details for why it's so acerbic within this fandom versus any other.

Some videos on Youtube highlight what and how ugly the stuff that comes forth from the less savory side of the fandom (more specifically around the sexualisation), which may have come/been driven from Dream expressing okayness with such stuff... and possibly him pandering (maybe pampering) to a part of the base... too much.

Like if you look up "Dream Stans" there'll be some videos on how nasty that section of the base can get.

So that's the element that describes the shipping between the Dream Team members.

EDIT: I don't know if there are other cases where said sexualisation issue has been as prominent as Dream, with the same circumstances as him (the creator okaying said fan content and such)

Edited by SomeLibre on Jan 16th 2021 at 5:34:16 PM

From YMMV.Bloons Tower Defense:

• Broken Base: Comanche Commander in Bloons TD 6's popularity has been split between "okay with supports that can affect its Comanche entourage" and "avoid like the plague, Apache Prime is superior in every way". Part of the division is fueled by Comanche Defense, the stepping-stone tier 4 upgrade, being often reviled for its unreliability of the Comanche summons being tied to RBE and a long sitting-duck cooldown. Due to Comanche Defense's poor repuation, the Commander gets tarnished as well. Additionally, whenever a support buff was nerfed, both Commander and Defense (which relied on them for usefulness) were often hit four times as hard. On the other hand, a few buffs (like Gwendolin's Heat it up) still remain useful for assisting the summoned Comanches.

I don't think "is this unit okay or underpowered?" is an acceptable Broken Base example. MAYBE if one side viewed it as a Game-Breaker (and even then, probably not, since BTD is a mostly single-player game).

Found this on YMMV.Final Fantasy XII, because of the non-typical formatting and bashing nature, I decided to look into who added it and it turns out it was from ban evader burgerants/worldbeater so this is more of a formal check to see if there's anything worth bothering with before removing for being content from a ban evader

I... don't actually understand that entry at all. I can't identify what exactly the sides in the Broken Base are supposed to be beyond "is this game good or bad?", which is useless, and the follow-up to "some of the main characters let the side down" being listing all of the main characters is just bizarre. I'd cut it even if it wasn't the product of a ban evader.

It's just ranting. Delete it.

The last of US 2 has a huge page. While it's true that the game is controversal, there's still lots of stuff that could be deleted or trimmed.

TIL that the Broken Base section of YMMV.Scooby Doo And The Curse Of The13th Ghost first appeared when the movie was four months old; now that the movie is over a year old, how much of the section can stay?

• Broken Base:
  • Word of God confirming that the movie canonically takes place after Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island has been taken as this. On one hand, it confirms there's a Shared Universe between the newer animated movies, the first four animated movies, and the pre-A Pup Named Scooby-Doo shows. Plus, most people can justify any continuity snarls with the idea of Hanna Barbera continuity and the floating timeline ^note Hanna Barbera projects generally don't have much in the way of continuity , and operate in a floating timeline where the world changes but the characters don't. . On the other hand, it doesn't fit considering the number of Continuity Snarls it would entail, including the implication that the Gang returned to status quo despite the first four movies being about them as adults, and think that even with Hanna Barbera continuity, this is a stretch..
  • This film's writing of Velma also seems to have caused a split even more so than the info from Word of God intended. As it seems clear the film did aim to end with two scenarios in terms of explanations (even if the writer slipped in an open interpretation to one) but in reality obviously only one can still be accurate. But this has resulted in some fans just taking Velma as the annoying character who everyone else didn't share opinions with and the others now assuming through Velma WB has retconned the entirety of The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo into being All Just a Dream.
  • Scrappy being nowhere to be found in the film; was it a blessing in disguise or did the cast of characters feel incomplete without him?

Well shit, that's expected of an extremely controversial work, but is there anything that seems like simply complaining or not?

My knowledge of the game is limited to YouTube reviews and a few portions of a livestream, but I'll do my best with my limited knowledge.

General

• Is this game an Even Better Sequel by taking a bold risk and improving on what made the predecessor so special while improving on the gameplay to make it feel fresh? Or is this game one of the biggest examples of video game Sequelitis, betraying everything that made the original special with a plot-hole ridden storyline and no coherence whatsoever? There is no middle ground for this debate. Contested Sequel, not BB. Cut.
  • Speaking of taking risks as mentioned above, was it successful or was it a failure? Pretty sure this isn't vicious or sustained enough to qualify. Cut.
• Did the game really deserve all the praise from critics or did the critics exaggerate their praise while ignoring the flaws that should've been addressed critically? Detractors believe the latter so much that some actually assumed Naughty Dog bribed the mainstream gaming journalists into giving astoundingly high scores. Supporters, however, believe that the game absolutely deserved all the high praise coming from critics and it is a clear indication that they actually played the game and analyzed all the positives successfully. The people at the center, which are quite rare, actually agree with both sides and claim that opinions are subjective and that a critic's review naturally won't apply to everyone. Critical Dissonance, not BB. Cut.
• The game's tone. While most agree that it's incredibly dark and oppressive, supporters believe that the tone is fitting and like that it took a more serious and realistic route, while detractors argue that the game became too dark to the point of causing Darkness-Induced Audience Apathy. Haven't played either game, but didn't the first one also have a dark tone? If so, fans should have a problem with the execution, not the dark tone's mere existence. Cut. However, the point about the tone's execution might be salvageable.
• Is Ellie being LGBT shoehorned in order to pander to the currently trending LGBT inclusion in media, or was it a necessary step in the gaming department in order to celebrate diversity? Not helping this debate is that, currently, political agenda inclusion in media is extremely controversial. Rule of Cautious Editing Judgment. Cut.
• Was an aesop about loss, vengeance, and mercy really needed for the sequel? People who defend this say that it was necessary considering that the first game was about love, so it should come full circle. In addition, they claimed that this also allowed Naughty Dog to take more risks with the storyline. Others believe that the theme of Roaring Rampage of Revenge was done so many times in other media that it's too generic, and that other video games and movies have done it way better. Further, is a theme of revenge really an appropriate choice for a story with two playable characters where the plotline is each character taking revenge on the other? Supporters argue that this is the point: Seeing both characters fleshed out supports the theme of how bad revenge is. Detractors argue that trying to humanize the target of a revenge story makes the player uninterested in the protagonist getting revenge. Pretty sure people didn't complain about the aesop's existence, just its Anvilicious execution—but I think its execution might be a valid entry. Cut "Further," and everything before it. Keep the rest.
• Was the infected taking a backseat in the narrative necessary? Supporters claim that focusing on the infected was unnecessary as it would have put less focus on the theme of revenge and that it already has enough infected shown to the point that they really weren't taking a backseat. Detractors believe that a lot of opportunities for the infected could have been shown, as shown by the Rat King, and thought that the infected should've had more importance in order to learn more about them and expand on the lore. I lack the necessary knowledge to make a judgement on this.
• The game sweeping the Game of the Year Awards and winning nine out of ten of the categories it was nominated in. Did it truly deserve the wins? The only thing that's certain is that it reignited the debates over the game for supporters and detractors alike. I think the Award Snub entry on the YMMV page covers the point sufficiently. Cut.
• The deceptive nature of the trailers. While some accepted it was done to preserve the surprise, others felt it was extremely manipulative to the point of being borderline false advertising. I don't think bringing this up is likely to start a Flame War, which is one of the 4 criteria for Broken Base. Cut.
• A praising and memetic review from Jeff Cannata on Twitter gained a lot of criticism for mentioning and comparing Schindler's List to The Last of Us Part II. The people who defend his tweet believe that he was trying to make a comparison in tone in general, which they found fitting, while the people who slammed his tweet stated that not only was it tone-deaf to compare a game to the Holocaust, but also that it doesn't really make sense because the game is more like an action game like John Wick (Also mentioned in his tweet) in the first place, where both protagonists have lost their loved ones and are going through a Roaring Rampage of Revenge. About someone who reviewed the game, not the game itself. Cut.

Cleansed.

BrokenBase.The Last Of Us Part II: Round 2.

Gameplay

• Has the gameplay advanced to the point that it feels fresh or is it too repetitive and boring due to bearing an extreme similarity to the first game? Not vicious enough. Cut.
• Does the implementation of dogs actually enhance the game or does it actually hurt the game and make it extremely annoying? Not likely to start a huge debate or Flame War. Cut.
• Is an enemy screaming their dead foe's name actually thought-provoking or is it another one of the hollow attempts to humanize the NPCs considering that they all look the same and are voiced by the same people? It might be possible to convince me that this is valid, but to my knowledge, the supporting faction isn't large or vocal enough. Cut.
• Is Abby's arsenal more powerful to the point it actually makes Ellie's look pale in comparison, or is it actually balanced? Not vicious enough. Cut.
• Does the gameplay contradict the theme of the game? Due to Ellie/Abby's option to kill everyone in the vicinity in such a gruesome and awesome way, gamers may forget about the consequences of killing due to being desensitized from all the violence. In addition, considering that Ellie gets literally no consequences whatsoever from killing all the NPC's, many people thought that the gameplay felt like an afterthought and that the potential risk they had to take was wasted. YouTuber NakeyJakey also tried to cover this in his video. Only explains one 1 side. Cut.

From Vinesauce:

I think with one exception or two, most of these can go.

Edited by AlleyOop on Feb 4th 2021 at 6:35:32 AM

~Crossover-Enthusiast: Is your post on YMMV.The Crystal Gems Say Be Anti Racist supposed to be bringing up the entry, or adding comments on another post with the entry? If it's the former: I'd say cut if the sentence about the Pearl short is about something that both sides agree on.

Hasn't it not yet been six months since the first of those shorts were released? I think the entries can be cut entirely, unless I'm wrong about when they came out.

Okay, it's gone, along with a Captain Obvious Aesop entry that was presumptive misuse.

It was supposed to be bringing up the entry.

BrokenBase.The Last Of Us Part II: Round 3.

Story

• The game's early plot twist: Joel's death at the hands of Abby.
  • Supporters commended Naughty Dog and Neil for making an incredibly bold decision, felt it was necessary for Joel to die as a consequence for his actions and felt it fit perfectly with the theme of revenge, loss, and mercy. Detractors went ballistic, saying that not only did the scene betray what made the predecessor so special, but Joel was killed in such a contrived and anticlimactic way that it was unemotional and rather laughable at best. A third group confesses that they were okay with the plot point in theory considering many had guessed it would happen before the leaks went public, but felt that the execution was poor and ultimately why many were upset about it. Keep.
  • As evidenced by him letting his guard down constantly and even giving out his name unlike the cautious and Properly Paranoid man he was in previous game, Joel's overall behavior was also extremely debated by fans and detractors. For defenders, they claim that since Joel lived in Jackson for four years, it was only natural that his survival instinct had begun to dull. Detractors believed that living in Jackson for four years doesn't eliminate the fact that Joel is an experienced survivor and he wouldn't have let total strangers know so much about him or his brother and get the drop on him so easily. Even further, the complete lack of foreshadowing of Joel losing his survival edge makes the assertion feel forced. Keep.
  • Many people believe that Abby should have felt at least a bit of reluctance before killing Joel. Considering he and Tommy saved her life, they felt she should've at least some internal conflict over whether to kill Joel or spare him before doing it. However, people against this case believe that Abby was supposed to be depicted as a woman who was so consumed by hatred that it wouldn't have mattered to her. Really an example of They Wasted a Perfectly Good Plot that explains why people might disagree, not BB. Cut.
• The Anachronic Order of the story^note We get to play as Ellie first, get to the flashback, play as Ellie again, flashback again, Ellie yet again, play as Abby just when the ultimate battle was about to happen, play her flashbacks, play her again, flashbacks again, and so on. People were extremely divided on this and felt it was one of the major slip-ups by Naughty Dog as it prevents gamers from having emotional connections with the characters and story and instead annoys players because of how bad the pacing can be. However, supporters say that the slow-pacing was necessary in order to fit the dark and exhausting mood. I'm pretty sure that even those who like the game think the Anachronic Order is a problem, and the people who do support this are a Vocal Minority at best. Cut.
• Whether Abby's sections and her development could have been excluded. Supporters believe that not only does it allow two different perspectives and allow players to make a connection to Abby and empathize with despite her actions, while others argued that her sections were poorly paced and too outside of the overarching plot, feeling more like a string of random side quests. In addition, they believed Abby's section should have been DLC as it would have made Abby a more compelling enigmatic figure in the base game. Keep. But "could" should be changed to "should" in the first sentence.
• The theater fight. Many felt it was extremely uncomfortable and hard to watch, while others believed that watching Ellie and Abby rip each other to see who emerges victorious was awesome and exhilarating. Not vicious enough. Cut.
• The climactic battle between Ellie and Abby is the second most controversial part of the story. The fact that Ellie spared Abby as a sign of mercy was baffling to many fans. Detractors saw this as an extreme Ass Pull as Ellie had no thoughts about sparing Abby beforehand and that it would have been better if Ellie killed Abby as a sign of her making a terrible mistake and having to live with it, which would have been a bold choice. Supporters argued back that Ellie sparing Abby was actually a bold choice for Ellie because it ultimately breaks the cycle of revenge. In addition, the fact that she thought about Joel before murdering Abby makes it look more like that Joel wouldn't want her to throw everything away just to avenge him. Keep.
• The ending is also hotly debated among many people. Ellie loses two of her fingers and is visibly scarred from her fight with Abby. After entering her abandoned farmhouse, she then attempts to play guitar and reminisce about her last conversation with Joel, where she voices her desire to forgive him one day. Then, visibly upset, Ellie walks away from her house and into the wilderness on her own, leaving the guitar behind. People have been extremely conflicted about the nature of this Ambiguous Ending. On one side, they see it as a Downer Ending considering that an empty farmhouse shows that Dina left Ellie out of disappointment and Ellie failing to properly play Joel's guitar without her fingers and leaving it inside the house is a sign of all the things Ellie lost throughout her revenge. However, others believe that with enough evidence to refute the argument, (Ellie wearing Dina's bracelet, wearing boots instead of sneakers and shown much fuller, etc.) it's actually a Bittersweet Ending and a sign that Ellie may have reunited with Dina, forgiven Joel for his lie, and become ready to repair her life. However, since nothing is confirmed by Naughty Dog (Which is their stance), it is left up to the player's interpretation. Alternate Ending Interpretation regarding the Ambiguous Ending, not BB. Cut.

I'm not surprised this game has a broken base, considering all the awards it won despite the general panning I've heard about it.

Since all that's left to clean on BrokenBase.The Last Of Us Part II are Base-Breaking Character entries, I've moved that discussion to the sister thread.