Unwinnable by Insanity should not be a YMMV trope.

Redacted.

Edited by AGuy on Mar 9th 2021 at 12:11:29 PM

...Those people are still stupid to risk their lives like that, you know. Just because there's a chance it might be okay doesn't make the risk worth it. Google dictionary defines "Stupid" as:

"having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense"

Which I think applies to all of those. And let's say this trope is actually subjective. Let's say you're right. It still doesn't really work as a comparison, and that's all I was saying.

And I never once said those players wouldn't be stupid. Don't put words in my mouth. All I said was that comparing fictional characters written to be stupid, and players who may or may not be stupid, or game mechanics, or what have you- comparing those things, fiction and reality, simply doesn't work. I just don't know why you're so angry at me for responding to the hypothetical you created without accounting for it apparently being misuse of the trope. I'm sorry I didn't reply the way you wanted me to, I guess? I'm not really sure what you want from me.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 6th 2021 at 3:38:01 PM

Redacted.

Edited by AGuy on Mar 9th 2021 at 12:11:36 PM

...Look. If you're in a potentially life-threatening situation or in a situation that could otherwise end very badly and you ignore a very common sense option in favor of doing the most dangerous thing you could do in that scenario, well...you're lacking in common-sense, like the description says. It's not a mistake if, say, that gun specialist decides to start flipping his guns like crazy- he's being stupid since he should know better. He should have no reason to think it wouldn't backfire- literally.

Missed one.

Edited by AGuy on Apr 7th 2021 at 1:16:48 PM

Not if you know you're in a dangerous position, which those characters typically do. (Besides, going into a dark alley alone seems to be kinda stupid in and of itself.)

But we're getting off track here. This has nothing to do with Unwinnable by Insanity. Like I keep saying, even if it does qualify as a subjective trope, there's no reason to compare it to a trope that's completely different.

Redacted.

Edited by AGuy on Mar 9th 2021 at 12:11:42 PM

...But if the trope is actually about the game allowing players to do crazy things and soft-lock themselves...where's the judgement call?

In how crazy it is?

At this point it seems more like you're trying to argue against your actual thesis.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 6th 2021 at 3:51:07 PM

Redacted.

Edited by AGuy on Mar 9th 2021 at 12:11:48 PM

Well...what's an example where the player would reasonably be expected to fall into these situations by mistake, rather than because they want to mess with the game?

Again, what's the actual point you're making here? Because now you seem to be arguing that it is subjective.

Redacted.

Edited by AGuy on Mar 9th 2021 at 12:11:54 PM

I was asking for an actual example somewhere on the wiki. Not a hypothetical. And which post did you want me to read exactly, because I've read all the ones you've made since we've started this discussion.

And I sincerely wasn't trying to ignore your point. Rather, I kept asking you what point you were trying to make and you wouldn't answer me. You just kept repeating that it's a judgement call, which is an argument for YMMV.

I don't even think we disagree here. We're just not communicating well for some reason.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 6th 2021 at 4:01:11 AM

Redacted.

Edited by AGuy on Mar 9th 2021 at 12:12:00 PM

I did read the OP. But in a conversation like this, one shouldn't have to read and remember every detail of every post. We were specifically debating the link between this trope and Too Dumb to Live. I've read every post you've made on that subject. And again, I was asking about on-page or on-work-page examples. Which the OP doesn't contain.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 6th 2021 at 4:02:45 AM

Redacted.

Edited by AGuy on Mar 9th 2021 at 12:12:06 PM

Wow, this thread has been active while I was away!

For my part, I very much read the original post, as I recall—I just didn't agree with the reasoning in it.

No. I don't think that it's because games are terribly arcane, or players stupid. I think that it's because what constitutes "self-destructive" in the context of a game is subjective.

It's very possible, I argue, for a given action—let's say dropping a key in a certain spot—to seem perfectly reasonable to one person, and quite silly to another.

I don't think UWI is YMMV, since the logic of "developers didn't foresee it and it's the player's fault" has the following flaw: See, Unwinnable by Mistake isn't foreseen by developers either, and the presence of progress-breaking glitches overlooked by them is objective. The situation a player gets into by making something not intended is, by itself, objective, it's not something up to interpretation nor tied by a reaction or judgement value. You dug all the sand in that level from Super Mario Bros. 2 and got stuck in the cave's bottom? You're objectively unable to progress further in the game. How is this different from, say, being stuck in that room from Metroid Prime by not having collected the Chozo Artifact right after defeating the Pirate Elite in Phazon Mines (Unwinnable By M Istake)? It isn't. The only YMMV thing about the subject is whether the developers' oversight makes the game functionally worse (a human can only playtest so much when developing a game), and how mad the player will react when struck by softlocking (only dead people fail to react over anything).

Unfortunately, with tropers like WarJay irrationally shooting down any argument against making this YMMV, I deem this discussion a lost cause, so this is the only post I'll submit here.

That's true, but, for my part, that's not the element that I'm arguing is subjective. Rather, I'm arguing that what is considered to be "insanity" within the context of this trope is subjective.

In that case, the page should be taken to TRS for a rename. The means of triggering the Unwinnable scenario aren't subjective either — if it's doable, it's objectively plausible. If the only subjective part is whether that means is "insane" or not, then the problem lies in the name of the trope.

Hmm... I don't see a problem with the name myself: it describes a case in which the player does something "insane", and thus makes the game unwinnable.

However, a wick-check can determine whether it's being misused, and thus that the name is problematic.

What would you suggest as a new name, out of curiosity?

> "Unfortunately, with tropers like WarJay irrationally shooting down any argument against making this YMMV, I deem this discussion a lost cause, so this is the only post I'll submit here."

I would refrain from taking potshots at other tropers just because they disagree with you. The point of this discussion is for us to come to an understanding on the status of the trope, and all of us are presenting our counterpoints in a civil and concise manner. Mudslinging will literally get us nowhere.

Probably change the last word for one that emphazises the Unwinnable scenario being triggered willingly by the player. Probably something like "Unwinnable By Player Intent". I wouldn't rule out a less snowcloned whole name, either.

I wasn't meant to potshot, but express how preemptively discouraged I am from participating in a thread where the chances of an agreement between the parts is unlikely. If it seemed like a potshot, then I will refrain from saying it that way again.

Edited by MyFinalEdits on Mar 6th 2021 at 12:53:04 PM

"Unwinnable by Player Intent" sounds good to me.

...I just want to know what part of my argument was so irrational. Thus far all I've argued is:

• That comparing "players do things" and "characters do things" doesn't really make sense
• That people who do dangerous things knowing they're dangerous are kinda stupid
• That if an example like the hypothetical existed, I wanted to know about it for the sake of the discussion.

In fact I don't even really recall arguing against it being YMMV. I just personally don't disagree with the points against it being YMMV.

In any case, the reason I wanted to see an example was that it would help support the statement that the trope relied on a judgement call and that it's possible to have ambiguity between simple gameplay mistakes and doing something you clearly shouldn't be.

Edited by WarJay77 on Mar 6th 2021 at 12:02:18 PM

Fine, it wasn't "irrational" arguing (I have to say that there are Confusing Multiple Negatives in a part of your post, though).

Here are some examples of UWI and why they make the trope objective. Bolded text is the example's location as well as the explanation:

• From the Zelda subpage: You can glitch your way out of the final battle — but once out, you can't teleport or save. The way to fix that is to go to Lurelin Village and play the gambling minigame, which will reactivate teleporting and saving — and will allow you to save in more places you couldn't before, like inside a Divine Beast or outside the game world itself (if you've glitched your way there). But if you save in those places, you're now completely stuck, because you can't warp from there back to Lurelin Village. Here, the player does something that clearly shouldn't do. But an event doesn't become subjective or subject to ambiguity just because it wasn't intended by the developers, and I'm pretty sure you all know that 95% of filmmakers, writers, game developers and musicians don't even know what a trope IS, so all the conventions and patterns WE see in fiction are used by them without THEM knowing the concept of "trope", as that's not really a thing actually taught in school or universities. Thus, this Unwinnable scenario, however unlikely or obscure, is plausible by all objective means and thus can be documented by doing an objective description of its means of happening. As I was commenting with Ars, the actual problem arises by us viewing those means as "insanity". Yes, it's a pretty dumb thing to do things that shouldn't be done, but if they can be done, then there's no subjectivity to speak of.
• From the Mario subpage: As shown in the main page's picture, one level (World 2-2) features two pits, one of which becomes a trap, but only if you're patient enough to dig up all the dirt in it. And unlike most other games in the Super Mario Bros. series, there's no time limit to wait out, although there is a suicide code to restart the level at the cost of a life. This was fixed in the GBA port Super Mario Advance, which added a vase at the bottom of the pit. Entering and leaving the vase causes the dirt blocks to reset, allowing you to escape if you manage to get yourself stuck. Anyone who digs ALL the sand deserves a medal for a hard-earned softlock, that we can agree with. And while we're at it, Kensuke Tanabe should have been fired from Nintendo for not having playtested this part of the game when he was designing the levels (and thus he wouldn't have made the awful stuff he did with the Paper Mario games from Sticker Star onward). But the outcome of this action, however "insane", is objectively bound to happen if you got rid of all the sand. As mentioned before, we can throw in the veredict that doing that is pretty stupid (especially because the screen can clearly tell you what will happen if you get rid of all the sand), but this shouldn't compromise the trope's status as objective, because the game itself has nothing to do with how badly this softlock will be viewed by us.
• From the Elder Scrolls subpage: Series wide, it's possible to quicksave right next to enemies about to kill you. If don't have any other save files with this character, you've effectively blocked any further progress. Another thing no one with two neurones in their brain should do. But... that doesn't change the fact (yes, fact, not opinion) that such a thing can be done no matter how wrong it'd be.

Edited by MyFinalEdits on Mar 6th 2021 at 1:35:27 PM