Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
I was concerned about some of their edits as well. I've removed the Playing With entries (YMMV can't be played with), and the above complaints about Coco from Character Rerailment as sneaking in a Broken Base (the trope was potholed in) before the 6 month waiting period.
- Cliché Storm: Not that the Crash series didn't thrive on the trope before, but while the later games leaned further and further into becoming a Bizarro Fiction, It's About Time is generally far more by-the-numbers with its plot and characterisation handling. Not only does it play to the multiverse plot that was raging in media at the time, but most of the cast have been diluted to a more predictable archetype they either played more shrewdly or deconstructed altogether beforehand. Crash is the idiotic comic relief void of any of his previous crafty Hidden Depths, Coco is now a straight up Positive Discrimination counterpart that outshines him in every way and acts beleaguered to his antics, Tawna is an Aloof Ally with a Dark and Troubled Past that must learn teamwork, Tropy is a more outwardly sinister Knight of Cerebus, etc. Slapstick Knows no Gender is also completely abolished outside gameplay, with only the expected archetypes having any comedic flaws. About the only character that retains a lot of his previous depth and agency is Cortex, and even then it is pretty obvious a mile away that he will form an Enemy Mine with the bandicoots when Tropy proves Eviler than Thou and then betray them afterwards.
I say delete as most of this is about character handling. not cliches. "(M)ost of the cast have been diluted to a more predictable archetype they either played more shrewdly or deconstructed altogether beforehand" implies the character had much depth to them prior, which from what I know about the games, is incorrect. They were always simple plots and simple characters, and what I see about overall fan consensus is that this games narrative is liked as a step up from prior games.
UPDATE: Psi001 just deleted Character Rerailment without edit reason. I'm restoring citing this thread. If problems persist...
Any objection to removing the Cliché Storm entry because the story is widely seen as a step up form the bare-bones prior ones?
I just PM'd them about this thread.
Edited by Ferot_Dreadnaught^I wouldn't say the story is "widely seen as a step up" since I've seen plenty of detractors of it on the subreddit, but the Cliché Storm entry should still probably be deleted on the basis it's just complaining about characterization rather than actually pointing out cliches.
Edited by N8han11Look I only took it out because you claimed YMMV doesn't work for the YMMV page. I'm not the only one who complained about Coco's characterisation in IAT, so if Cortex's example was too subjective to count then so is she.
Coco was somewhat bland and lacking in flaws in the original trilogy, but her whole chemistry with Crash wasn't outright as an Always Someone Better who does things hyper competently while he simultaneously screws up. It went too far in the opposite direction with her, Flanderizing her competency instead of her flaws, which isn't what Rerailment is.
I'm sorry I've gotten excessive about this and I'll cool down with the edits if they are against the rules (Cliche Storm admittedly just ended up a rant, though I think some bits like Tawna and Cortex's roles were definitely predictable plot ideas worthy of that trope if explained better than I did), though truth be told I find a lot of the positive feedback on the YMMV page to be just as subjective (not just the characters either, the level design was tedious for me and did not feel like a return to the fluency of the originals at all, and I'm not the only one who thinks so). Just because an entry is positive doesn't mean it isn't subjective. I've seen the main YMMV page even say the game is only true subversion of a Contested Sequel in the series as it reaches the same quality as the Naughty Dog games, that is DEFINITELY subjective.
Edited by Psi001^ Yeah I mean I get if some people hated a Flanderization of a character and love it when they bring back a discarded trait, even if they maybe overdo it the other way, it's cathartic to see it again, but again that's not Rerailment, that's just Derailment the opposite way around. Rerailment is when they get that happy balance back to where it was before (I consider the remakes more the perfect middle ground, with both Crash and Coco being a mix of competent but still comically flawed, but I get that's still not quite what the actual original trilogy was proper so I don't really count that as an example of the trope either).
Anyway sorry for the issue and thanx for understanding my case.
Edited by Psi001

Psi001
has been constantly adding entries complaining about characterization in YMMV.Crash Bandicoot 4 Its About Time. Among their entries include a Cliché Storm entry ranting about flanderization of the characters, They Wasted a Perfectly Good Character and Badass Decay complaining about Crash being stupid compared to Coco despite it always been part of his character, and an Audience-Alienating Premise entry that reads more like a general rant about the game (while the game itself definitely has flaws, Psi spends more time ranting about Positive Discrimination like his other entries). Also, a Badass Decay entry on YMMV.Crash Bandicoot is a huge Wall of Text complaining about Coco suffering Positive Discrimination which misuses Drama-Preserving Handicap and outright states We Want Our Jerk Back!.
I'd send them a PM, but I've already had several arguments with them about their Single-Issue Wonk on other sites that inevitably go nowhere, so I don't want to talk with them again lest we have another argument.