Consensus has arrived at four criteria for Broken Base:
- A sustained conflict: short-term conflicts that are quickly forgotten don't count.
- Corollary: Conflicts about upcoming works based on previews, trailers, and speculation are short-term by definition and should be cut on sight.
- An exceptionally vicious conflict: a simple disagreement where the various factions have little problem co-existing doesn't count.
- Two or more large, vocal, and entrenched factions within the fanbase: a tiny Vocal Minority that won't shut up about their pet peeve but is vastly outnumbered by more reasonable fans doesn't count. Nor does a silent majority that likes what they like (or hates what they hate) but doesn't make a big deal about it.
- Corollary: the fanbase must itself be large enough to support two or more large and entrenched factions. This is more likely to be the case with broad fandoms (e.g. "Star Wars fans" or "anime fans") as opposed to narrow ones (fans of one particular work such as a single film or video game with no sequels, adaptations, or spinoffs).
- Little to no middle ground: Cases in which the vast majority of the fandom just plain doesn't care too much about the disagreements of a few fringe elements don't count.
- A sustained conflict: short-term conflicts that are quickly forgotten don't count.
- Corollary: Conflicts about upcoming works based on previews, trailers, and speculation are short-term by definition and should be cut on sight.
- An exceptionally vicious conflict: a simple disagreement where the various factions have little problem co-existing doesn't count.
- Two or more large, vocal, and entrenched factions within the fanbase: a tiny Vocal Minority that won't shut up about their pet peeve but is vastly outnumbered by more reasonable fans doesn't count. Nor does a silent majority that likes what they like (or hates what they hate) but doesn't make a big deal about it.
- Corollary: the fanbase must itself be large enough to support two or more large and entrenched factions. This is more likely to be the case with broad fandoms (e.g. "Star Wars fans" or "anime fans") as opposed to narrow ones (fans of one particular work such as a single film or video game with no sequels, adaptations, or spinoffs).
- Little to no middle ground: Cases in which the vast majority of the fandom just plain doesn't care too much about the disagreements of a few fringe elements don't count.
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.
(Mod edited to streamline, previous text in folder)
Edited by Mrph1 on Aug 19th 2025 at 9:31:48 AM
Yeah, I think the main criticism of the movie is that it didn't have enough time. That's not specifically to do with Abuela though, as people also wanted more time to spend with characters like Camillo.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallI think the focus of this conversation should be on whether the issue about Abuela really qualifies as a Broken Base or Base-Breaking Character.
Both tropes deal with an issue that has caused a civil war among the fan-base, not just some spirited disagreements. As such both tropes have some specific criteria to meet to be considered "base-breakers":
1) It is a sustained conflict. This is something that has fans debating a work or subject for a long time after release. This is why there's a 6-month waiting period before considering an issue as a "base-breaker" as most issues flame-out a few months after release.
2) It is a vicious conflict. Bringing up the subject will likely result in a huge debate among fans, if not an outright Flame War.
3) It has at least two large factions. It cannot merely be a Vocal Minority against a Silent Majority; each side must have a noticeable number of supporters.
4) It is divisive. To qualify, most fans must hold a strong opinion on the subject, with very little middle ground, staying neutral or trying to Take a Third Option in regards to the conflict.
The example as posted, describes what the conflict is about but doesn't include anything to justify it's at civil-war level intensity. It just reads as "some fans say this, some fans say that", but there are always fan disagreements about any work.
I think that to keep discussing this as a possible "base-breaker" I'd like to see some references that show that it's still an on-going issue (ie 1) and it's not an issue that's been taken up by a group of the same vocal posters (ie 3).
Otherwise the example just becomes "what does the tvtropes community think about this issue", which isn't exactly the point of the trope.
Edited by rva98014 on Jun 14th 2022 at 9:46:48 AM
Also, I noted that the same troper who put in the Base Breaker example about Abuela, added this as well:
- Base-Breaking Character: Antonio is rather evenly split between those who thought he was a sweet child character who shined with his commonality and strong relationship with Mirabel, along with having a cool power that allowed for some of the film’s most colorful visuals, and those who thought he was underdeveloped and then became a non-presence in the second half, feeling as that consequentially made seem like he didn’t truly care about Mirabel’s feelings and anguish.
Saying that a character is "evenly split between those who thought..." suggests a possible civil-war split but is too vague and unreferenced to firmly prove it.
I'd say the same criteria for Abuela's Broken Base example needs to apply to justify this example as a true "base-breaker". The example raises some fair points about Antonio's character development in the film, but I have a hard time seeing this as something that spins up to Flame War level of disagreement.
Edited by rva98014 on Jun 14th 2022 at 9:45:48 AM
It doesn’t have to be a Flame War level topic to be a valid example, it just has to be a subject that spurns large debates among fans, which I feel the Alba conflict does more than anything else about that movie. Someone else has deleted the Antonio example saying there actually isn’t much disagreement about him, which I suppose is fair enough.
Also, as the person who bit the bullet and wrote the examples, I’d like to clarify that I actually think the film did enough to redeem her and justify her forgiveness. The negative side might sound a bit more forceful just because I think It sometimes takes a bit more to justify something being wrong with a movie than agreeing with its intentions. However, if someone thinks they can rewrite to make it even more neutral, then I’m obviously not opposed.
I'm saying that an issue has to meet the requirements of being sustained, vicious, large, and divisive in order to be elevated to the level of being a base-breaker instead of simply being an issue that sparks disagreement amongst fans.
When Encanto first came out, I saw my share of spirited debate around the issue of Alma and how she treated her family. Some was in reddit, a lot was in the comments section of various Youtube videos that took a position (pro or con) on her behavior.
While those discussions were certainly animated, to me they never reached an intensity level that I would call vicious and divisive. Over time, I saw the arguments die back except for a few vocal diehards that were willing to die on that mountain, but I considered them more a Vocal Minority than seeing large factions constantly thrashing the issue.
Now, I admit, it's been months since I've taken a deep dive into this issue. Mostly because real life has been enough of a shit-show recently.
So when you say "it just has to be a subject that spurns large debates among fans, which I feel the Alba conflict does more than anything else about that movie", that is a fair point and I'd ask you to elaborate on where you are seeing this debate consistently occurring with noticeable degree of intensity that you'd call vicious or divisive.
I'd like to visit those sites and see a bit for myself.
Edited by rva98014 on Jun 15th 2022 at 2:53:40 AM
Berserk Button: misusing Nightmare Fuel
BrokenBase.Warframe has a lot of complaining about balance and other issues that don't feel long-term. I only started playing this year so I can't be certain, but I think that all of the things on that page have died down quickly and I haven't seen anyone bring up these things.
This was on Danganronpa regarding the character Shuichi:
- Shuichi Saihara became this after he turned out to be the real protagonist of the story. It didn't help that, without his hat, he has easily one of the most generic designs in the series, on top of having a personality that's similar to both former protagonists of main series; being relatively passive. Some were willing to reserve judgement on his personality and development until release, while others want his head on a skewer and feel like his role as the protagonist is an abhorrent example of Lying Creator and Very False Advertising, even for a promotional campaign that outright admitted to being misleading. Many believe that the false advertising the series is known for has gotten to the point where it's just too expected, and has long overstayed its welcome. He is also seen by some as a Replacement Scrappy for Kyoko Kirigiri, due to his talent.
Looking at it now, I don't see anything in this example that's saying how fans would like Shuichi, when that's supposed to be required. I do see how he is an example though, with some fans finding him to be a good and sympathetic protagonist while others dislike that he replaced Kaede and/or find him too depressed. How can this be rewritten?
Edited by ejmenendez on Jul 1st 2022 at 10:17:01 AM
Batman: The Telltale Series has this entry:
- Broken Base: Whether or not the Joker should be in the game. Some think the character is too integral to the franchise to be excluded and want to see Telltale's interpretation of the Clown Prince of Crime, and some feel that he's overexposed between the heavy focus on him in the Arkham series and the game being released concurrently with his appearance in Suicide Squad (2016). These fans would also prefer to see some of Bruce's other villains emphasized after Arkham Origins teased a story about Batman fighting the mob in his early days, only for the story to be hijacked by Joker.
Don't think this qualifies, given that this was mostly speculative in nature and because when the second season came out with Joker in it, most people considered it to be a pretty good take on him after all.
![]()
I didn’t save them. I considered doing so and posting them here for future reference but I figured that was considered a no-go. If you want I can recreate them and post them here. Thread advice might be very helpful since I am one of those people that thinks the remake is an unnecessary cash grab and I don’t want it to be too skewed towards one side (though to be fair I know much more about the arguments against its existence than for it). There were three entries. One on the remake as a whole (some were happy it exists why others believed it was unnecessary, pointless, overpriced, and were worried that it would retroactively change the original’s story to be more like the second game’s), the graphical upgrade (many considered it a massive improvement while others thought it was unneeded due to the original still holding up and some thought it was worse due to removing much of the emotion on the character’s faces and looked more generic), and the gameplay being more like the second game (many were happy that it had the sequel’s combat while many people thought that the second game was practically identical to the first gameplay-wise and were unimpressed).
Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Jul 11th 2022 at 1:36:21 PM
Once Upon A Time.You can leave out the mention of people's fears of Orwellian Retcon as a form of speculative troping.
- Broken Base: Happens quite often. Some recent examples:
- Maddie leaving LA at the beginning of season 5 due to her postpartum depression was a subject of debate, with some fans believing this was out of character and a poor decision on the part of the writers. Further controversy ensued after 5x04, where Chim punches Buck in a fit of anger after discovering that he's been in contact with Maddie all along.
- The ending of 5x08, which effectively wrote Michael and David out of the show. This was controversial mainly due to the fact that they were one of only two canon LGBT couples on the show. However, it was later revealed that the decision was spurred by Rockmund Dunbar, Michael's actor, refusing to comply with COVID-19 vaccination policies.
- Eddie's decision in 5x10 to leave the 118 after discovering that Chris's fear for his father's safety is causing him to have nightmares. Some fans believed that this decision came out of nowhere and was an example of poor planning and plot development by the writers, while some maintained that it made sense given his recent panic attacks and lingering trauma from the shooting.
- Buck's relationship with Taylor Kelly in general is a fairly divisive issue. Taylor is generally disliked by much of the fanbase, but views on her relationship with Buck range from sympathetic (that she is an okay person, just not right for Buck) to extremely hostile.
- Buck kissing Lucy back is an extremely touchy subject among fans. Some people claim that the writers are throwing years of Buck's character development to create cheap drama by making Buck do what he wouldn't do as demonstrated by how he had been loyal to Abby despite her basically breaking up with him without saying the word, some view it makes sense to show how bad Buck's mental space has been (without condoning the cheating Buck did) considering they're drawing parallel to Buck and Eddie's conflict in early Season 3note , while some others say that Buck's bigger sin is not telling Taylor about the cheating right away and instead asking her to move in with him. Another subsectiom of fans instead gives more focus on Lucy's pickup line "I just wanna see you squirm" and her keeping ordering drinks after their first kiss, adding herself to the long list of dubious consent surrounding Buck's love life. As time passes people's stance becomes more of understanding that it was a very obvious way to show Buck is unhappy with the relationship, but wishing the show had found another way to get the point across.
It looks like, those were added immediatly after the airing of the repective episode (season 5 is the most recent season that ended in May). Entries #1 and #2 are one sided criticism. #4 amounts to "Fans either dislike the relationship or hate it with passion" and for #5, the kiss occured in episode 5x11 that aired in March. May I trimm all that and add a note about waiting for six months?
From YMMV.Gravity Falls Lost Legends:
- Broken Base: Was "Don't Dimension It" enough focus and attention to save Mabel's character?
- A good portion of the fanbase was very happy with the comic and argue that it was a nice addition to canon and great to see Mabel facing her flaws and their consequences, taking accountability, apologizing for the effects they've had on others, and beginning to take steps to correct for them, and that this was a sign of slow but definite maturation from the flaws that had riddled her throughout the series.
- Others argue that the comic is basically an admission of how badly Mabel's character was handled in the actual show and a continuation of that poor handling, claiming that the premise of the comic fails to add sincerity to Mabel's promises and character conclusion because it actually seems to accidentally confirm the accusations of Weirdmageddon's worst critics: Mabel didn't learn her lessons in the actual show proper, because if she had, she wouldn't have needed to re-learn the same lessons for the nth time after it ended, so why should the audience believe she's learned this time? These fans instead seem to generally argue that Mabel's arc would have been stronger if Mabel's comic had functioned on the premise that she did learn from Weirdmageddon and focused on her efforts to be better, rather than her re-learning what she was already supposed to have learned.
- A similarly critical but different-minded group to the above feel the comic brushed aside the biggest issue with Mabel and Weirdmageddon: Mabel's status as a Karma Houdini. Many of the criticism against Mabel weren't about her liking the spotlight—some even argued that Mabel should have been given more attention and better-quality writing, not less—nor were they merely about the fact that no one in the show found out about Mabel's selfish deal with "Blendin Blandin." The criticisms of Mabel's character are more often about how the writing of the show bends over backwards to avoid giving Mabel the same kinds of serious consequences it gives Dipper for similar mistakes and how, when paired with Mabel often being used to instigate others' conflicts and refusing to learn from her own, this makes her scenes frustrating for them to watch. While selfishness and Aesop Amnesia can be compelling character flaws when well-written, the writers, in this view, continuously had the other characters and the world of the show in general accept Mabel's behavior completely with no expectations for her to try and behave better and little to no consequences when she didn't, thus giving Mabel seemingly no reason to actually be better. Dipper was constantly held to behavioral standards that Mabel wasn't, both by the rest of the cast and by the writers. Weirdmageddon, for these critics, is the apotheosis of this flaw, with Mabel ignoring all previous lessons and walking out of the situation having both made Dipper do all the work for her own character resolution and objectively benefitted from the suffering she put him through, with the "Mabel's Fault" joke as her only consequence. Many after the finale's release, far from being convinced Mabel had grown as a person, expressed concern that the outcome actually incentivized Mabel to continue being selfish and emotionally manipulative since it got her what she wanted with no negative consequences for herself. Those who hold this opinion share many ideas with those detailed above but disagree on what should have been done, believing the repeat lesson was very necessary but that it didn't address enough of the series' writing issues regarding what they perceive as Mabel's special treatment to save their opinion of Mabel's character.
- The two above groups have also floated the idea that the structure of the story does more work to convince the reader of Mabel's "goodness" than Mabel's own actions do, such as downplaying the conceptual horror of Mabel's actual deal with "Blendin Blandin" by retroactively specifying she only wanted a day (and ignoring how much of an autonomy and control violation that is against her brother and the town) and making all the alternates of Mabel even more flawed by comparison (with her opposite being the "evilest" Mabel) in order to narratively position Mabel Prime as the most good one. Despite seemingly trying to demonstrate Mabel's development, all Mabel actually does in terms of this development is repeat a mistake she supposedly already developed out of, manage to focus on saving herself, give her brother a book as a present, and make promises about being better, but she's done that before and rarely lives up to them. Since the comic does more telling than showing when it comes to Mabel's growth and seems, intentionally or not, structured to subliminally position her as better while actually undermining the growth she allegedly gained in Weirdmageddon, cynical critics have actually accused this of feeling a bit unintentionally manipulative, as if the comic was more focused on convincing critical fans to like Mabel again than on addressing the actual problems with her character.
- A third group just seem flat-out annoyed at the comic, interpreting it and its plot as implying that the character development of Mabel Pines, the second protagonist of the series, was so unimportant in the show compared to Dipper's that no one made time for the actual peak of her character arc in the show proper and it was instead tagged on to the franchise in a post-series comic.
God, people go crazy over Mabel, there is no way this needs 5 bullet points.
"Let’s see who’s stronger: someone that has something to protect, or someone that has nothing to lose."Is there even a Broken Base in there, or is it just five different ways of complaining about a fictional child not being treated as an irredeemable, gaslighting abuser
Edited by Libraryseraph on Jul 22nd 2022 at 4:51:24 AM
HAPPY HALLOWEEN FOR MARIAI don't think that's the takeaway to have there? Nobody wants Mabel to be seen as a gaslighting abuser, people just think she's a selfish character that the show doesn't try and hold accountable as often as they'd hold other characters accountable. So the debate is whether or not this comic did a good, did a bad, focused on the wrong thing, or should've focused on it in the show in the first place.
Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallMy main issue with the entry is that it's waaaaaay too long. Like, this is just one hug Wall of Text. And I'm not even sure how to fix it if there's apparently 5 different perspectives (heck, 6 if you count another that's not in the entry that I've admittedly seen of people who felt her character was fine as is and that the whole story was unnecessary).
"Let’s see who’s stronger: someone that has something to protect, or someone that has nothing to lose."Aren't Broken Base's just meant to be 2 or 3 opinions. I think 5-6 is way too much as that's veryinf into general Divisivness.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."Okaaaay, so reading over the entry more closely, some of these don't actually seem to even be separate points and are just overstating the problems people had with her in the show. So my suggestion is that we narrow it down by picking the three most common opinions I've seen: that the story was good and acknowledged her flaws in a satisfying way, that the idea behind the story was good but the execution missed the mark since it didn't properly acknowledge certain issues (e.i. that her admitting to giving the rift to a possessed Blendin happens offscreen before the events of the story so we never see the other character's reactions), or that the story was broken in concept because addressing her issues in a side story book outside of the main show isn't satisfying enough for such a major character. Thoughts?
Edited by Oshawott337 on Jul 22nd 2022 at 5:19:44 AM
"Let’s see who’s stronger: someone that has something to protect, or someone that has nothing to lose."

I think Abuela herself is a base breaking character but the ending on its own may qualify as broken base — even some of those who don't hate Abuela think the film could have been less rushed, though I don't know as many people who disagree with that point.
I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.