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.
Ask the Tropers is for:
- General questions about the wiki, how it works, and how to do things.
- Reports of problems with wiki articles, or requests for help with wiki articles.
- Reports of misbehavior or abuse by other tropers.
Ask the Tropers is not for:
- Help identifying a trope. See TropeFinder.
- Help identifying a work. See MediaFinder.
- Asking if a trope example is valid. See the Trope Talk forum.
- Proposing new tropes. See TropeLaunchPad.
- Making bug reports. See QueryBugs.
- Asking for new wiki features. See QueryWishlist.
- Chatting with other tropers. See our forums.
- Reporting problems with advertisements. See this forum topic.
- Reporting issues on the forums. Send a Holler instead.
Ask the Tropers:
openFive Nights at Freddy's and Inconsistencies Videogame
The pages for the first six games are not consistent with eachother in terms of in-game information. Most have entries that've either been disproven within themselves- both from late-game or hidden information- or the other games. They are also riddled with fandom-based assuptions that have no basis within the given information, often conflicting with what was actually given in-game. I would like to start an effort to clean these pages up, but do I have to pitch a short-term project to do so- and how would I go about that, if yes- because of the scale, or, can I work on it myself in my spare time? I am asking primarily because I am not active frequently.
EDIT: Clean up effort is now live, here: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=16550680110A22093300&page=1#1
openAbout an Edit Reversion Videogame
I was recently sent a warning about example indentation regarding an entry
in VindicatedByHistory.Video Games. Now, I don't disagree with the warning — I actually did make a mistake regarding what I was supposed to do indenting-wise — but since the entry was deleted wholesale, I'm not sure whether re-editing it while fixing the issues would qualify as edit warring.
The edit reason also mentions that a pothole to Condemned by History was misused, which I don't particularly agree with. At the time of its release, if I'm not mistaken, Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U did have a sizable fanbase (including Tournament Play, albeit never as big of a scene as Melee had), and Brawl (which the entry was about) was forgotten by casual players for a while until the release of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate made for 3DS and Wii U's faults stand out in retrospect, rather than being "reviled from day one" like the edit reason says. Am I misremembering?
PS: I'm sorry for being a serial tweaker. I keep second-guessing myself.
Edited by LendriMujinaopenUndertale tropes minor edits Videogame
Hello! I've found a few minor mistakes in some of the trope pages for Undertale but idk how to fix them myself so (spoiler warning for anyone who hasn't finished Undertale)
-In "Tropes B/Undertale", under "Bizarre taste in food", Napstablook is accidentally referred to using 'he' pronouns -In "Tropes C To F/Undertale", under "Cue the sun", It's added at the end that Asriel's fight took the whole night due to the Asgore fight being during sunset and the sun rising in the True Pacifist Ending. However, in Asgore's battle text, it is described as being twilight, which could be either right before sunrise or right before sunset —Under "Flower Motifs", it says that in the dump, Golden Flowers are 'what Flowey uses to save the player from falling to their death after remembering the first meeting with the Fallen Human in similar circumstances'. However, this isn't ever hinted at in the game (unless I'm forgetting something). We know Flowey can summon vines, but he hasn't canonically been able to grow entirely separate flowers as Flowey. Also, here are plenty of other instances of flashbacks relating to the First Fallen
Is it alright if someone can fix these?
openUndertale tropes minor edits Videogame
Hello! I've found a few minor mistakes in some of the trope pages for Undertale but idk how to fix them myself so (spoiler warning for anyone who hasn't finished Undertale)
-In "Tropes B/Undertale", under "Bizarre taste in food", Napstablook is accidentally referred to using 'he' pronouns -In "Tropes C To F/Undertale", under "Cue the sun", It's added at the end that Asriel's fight took the whole night due to the Asgore fight being during sunset and the sun rising in the True Pacifist Ending. However, in Asgore's battle text, it is described as being twilight, which could be either right before sunrise or right before sunset —Under "Flower Motifs", it says that in the dump, Golden Flowers are 'what Flowey uses to save the player from falling to their death after remembering the first meeting with the Fallen Human in similar circumstances'. However, this isn't ever hinted at in the game (unless I'm forgetting something). We know Flowey can summon vines, but he hasn't canonically been able to grow entirely separate flowers as Flowey. Also, here are plenty of other instances of flashbacks relating to the First Fallen
Is it alright if someone can fix these?
openWhere does PlayerTic go? Videogame
This Player Tic example is in YMMV.Devil May Cry.
- Player Tic: Playing Dante in 4 and 5 and just amusing yourself by going into all of his styles one after the other quickly
to listen to Dante rapidly saying the beginnings of his declarations of the style's names is a meme.
Apart from probably needing some simple rewrite (it reads like a run-on sentence to me) or update, the example is indeed a valid Player Tic as it does happen in the fandom.
My only concern is that the lack of any banner on top of the Player Tic page makes it treated like an objective trope (meaning it shouldn't be placed on a YMMV page), so I'm not sure if the example has to remain on the YMMV page. Looking at the related pages, Player Tic is listed under Administrivia.Tropes Needing TRS, but even that Administrivia page sounds confused as to where Player Tic examples should go.
openNew Work Proposal Videogame
I would like to make a page for Disney's Hide and Sneak, a GameCube title that more or less is a spiritual sequel to Disney's Magical Mirror Starring Mickey Mouse a year prior. But I honestly don't know where to begin. I know a few tropes that'll help create the page itself, but some beginner's tips would be greatly appreciated.
Edited by HarmonyBunny2000openVideoGame/{{Diablo}} MagnificentBastard entry Videogame
Baal from the franchise was approved by the thread
. I thought I had forgotten to add him to the YMMV page so I just put him up but later noticed he was deleted here
with the edit reason citing some of the tropes should be going on individual game pages. Noticing my mistake, I've commented out the example but I don't see him being put on any particular game page. To avoid an edit war, does anyone mind pointing me to the proper YMMV page he should be on as I don't know the games myself?
Edit: Changed from a comment out to a deletion of my own addition until this gets resolved just to be on the safe side.
Edited by 43110resolved Bad Sequelitis Entry on YMMV Total War Warhammer III Videogame
A while back, there was an Edit War ATT concerning the Sequelitis entry on Total War: Warhammer III. See here
. I don't disagree that it was Edit Warring, but what got lost in that discussion is that the offending entry is genuinely bad, violates a number of rules and is very outdated compared to the current state of the game. For context here is the current entry as it stands on that page.
- Sequelitis: It was very clear that the team developing this game and the team maintaining the previous game either disagreed heavily or just weren't coordinating as much of the fixes, patches, updates, and design evolutions that made the previous game so popular were not present at the launch of this one. The game shifted back in favor of things that were either patched out of or specifically avoided in the previous game resulting in a launch that many fans agree was a major step backwards.
- "Poorly Optimized" is an understatement when you see the litany of programming errors that caused a lot of vitriol among the players
. It's widely theorized that the core of the game was forked off an older build of the previous game before the big Potion of Speed update and thus never received most of the multitude of fixes, patches, and updates present in that patch and subsequent ones.
- The skill and tech trees for many factions are poorly-executed, with many technologies or skills that range from underwhelming (+1% chance for a plague to spread for Nurgle) to completely useless (Leadership bonuses for an Unbreakable unit). Several skills and technologies also don't do what the description says they do, making it hard to know what bonus you're actually getting. On top of this, some factions have their unique bonuses and unit abilities gated behind technologies (such as Tzeentch's Teleport stance, Kislev's Ice Court mechanic, and the spellcasting abilities of every Greater Daemon, with each spell having its own technology), something that was specifically hated about the Greenskins in the first game and removed from them with a series of reworks in the second. Patch 1.2 focused heavily on beefing up factions' tech trees, mitigating this.
- While they raised the level cap for Heroes and Lords to level 50 they didn't necessarily give them any more skills, meaning some heroes can get more skill points than they can spend; Iridescent Horrors with the Lore of Tzeentch, for example, can only spend 47 due to having mutually-exclusive skills, and even if they didn't would only have 49. This was previously only a problem with mods and those modders had solved the problem early in the first game's lifecycle.
- Many players and reviewers alike agree the game's UI is both less appealing and harder to read due to the overemphasis on the color red compared to the previous game's more vibrant interface. A common source of frustration is that the colors for many different functions are effectively the same, making it impossible to quickly distinguish if a settlement is, for example, building a structure or demolishing it.
- The campaign that launched with the game, Realm of Chaos, doubled down on the elements players hated about the second game's Vortex campaign (particularly the time pressure and the random invasions) without making many improvements, ignoring well-received diversification of faction objectives and stories from the previous game's DLC packs. See Scrappy Mechanic for more details on why the Reign of Chaos campaign mechanics are especially loathed. The reception of this campaign was so bad Creative Assembly had to delay their first planned update and rush out Patch 1.1 specifically to address it.
- The series has long had a reputation for amazing mods that expand and improve on the game in a myriad of ways. This game did not launch with Steam Workshop support and went without for two months until the 1.1 update.
- "Poorly Optimized" is an understatement when you see the litany of programming errors that caused a lot of vitriol among the players
And here is my critique of this entry and its sub-bullets, breaking it down by the elements.
1. For starters this entry really shouldn't be broken down into multiple sub-bullets. They give the appearance of a Wall of Text. A single bullet that's Clear, Concise, Witty is preferable.
2. ""Poorly Optimized" is an understatement" etc.: The video link can stay but the words inside it should be rewritten and the rest of the paragraph should be cut. One half is hyperbolic Word Cruft with unnecessary italics, the other is pure speculation.
3. "The skill and tech trees for many factions" etc.: The points can stand but the bracketed text should be moved into Notes to make the paragraph more concise. Also, the text may need to be put into past tense as the subbullet itself admits CA have been working on this, though I think it should go as I would rather keep that element for last.
4. "While they raised the level cap for Heroes and Lords" etc.: The point is valid, but IMO we can reduce this to a single sentence or even a fragment of one. e.g. CA raised the level cap for Lords and Heroes to 50, but some characters don't have enough room for that many skill points.
5. "Many players and reviewers alike agree the game's UI" etc.: Can delete. The point is valid but they directly addressed it in a later patch which means it should go under Author's Saving Throw. At most a fragment of a sentence like "issues with the game's interface due to poor colour balance and excessive use of bright red".
6. "The campaign that launched with the game" etc.: Valid but needs compression and to remove the reference to Scrappy Mechanic which is considered bad form. A single sentence should do it.
7. "The series has long had a reputation" etc.: Delete. Yes it was frustrating but it's been addessed.
So with all these in mind, a revised version of the entry as I see it would go something like this:
- Sequelitis: At launch, the game was very divisively and even negatively received for feeling like a step backwards after the much-lauded final state of Total War: Warhammer II. Reasons for this include a large host of glitches, bugs and programming errors
that made it feel unpolished, complaints about poor choices for skillnote Ranging from underwhelming (+1% chance for a plague to spread for Nurgle) to completely useless (Leadership bonuses for an Unbreakable unit). and technology treesnote Some factions had their unique bonuses and unit abilities gated behind technologies, such as Tzeentch's Teleport stance, Kislev's Ice Court mechanic, and the spellcasting abilities of every Greater Daemon, with each spell having its own technology. for certain races, CA raising the level cap for Lords and Heroes to 50 but not accounting for characters who didn't have enough skills to accommodate 49 skill points, issues with the game's interface due to poor colour balance and excessive use of bright red, not launching with built-in support for Game Mods like its predecessors did, which might have mitigated some people's complaints about it, and worst of all, a base game campaign that was almost universally derided for loathsome mechanics, an irritating amount of time pressure and homogenising the storylines and campaign goals of the factions featured, making people who hated the how the Vortex campaign in the second game started out before DLC packs brought diversification of faction objectives and stories cry, "Oh, No... Not Again!" Fortunately, CA have since worked hard to address all these issues throught game patches and their first DLC pack, which has led to the game getting a much more positive reception.
Note this is not the final form I would put it in, I just needed to make something for this, but I also wanted to achieve consensus before I posted it. Thoughts?
Edited by MinisterOfSinisteropenExamples of Tropes Attempted, but Perhaps Failed Videogame
I find myself with a trope that I want to add to a page—but one in which, in my opinion, the trope was attempted but failed at. How should such a thing be approached...?
To be a little more specific:
In the game ShadowCaster, the player has access to a number of forms into which they can shapeshift, each having benefits and drawbacks. One form might be fast and strong, another slow but with ranged attacks, etc.
So, Multiform Balance has been implemented, one might note.
Except... that the forms are, in my opinion, not actually particularly balanced. For example, the above-mentioned "slow-but-ranged" character does have some good ranged abilities... but they rely on and quickly consume a somewhat-hard-(or-slow)-to-recover resource. What's more, that resource is shared between forms, so that one form consuming it means that it's less available for other forms to use. What's more, the form is, as mentioned, slow—painfully slow, I find.
But all of that is, of course, YMMV. Perhaps there are others out there who find the forms well-balanced!
So I'm not sure of how to proceed. My instinct is to note the attempt, and also note that it didn't work. But on the other hand, that's perhaps insufficiently objective for a main-page trope. On the third hand, however, to not mention it might suggest that the forms actually are balanced...
Hence my uncertainty! So: What do you advise?
open Edit to Fate/Stay Night character page constitutes vandalism? Videogame
In this edit
for the character page for Saber from Fate/stay night, user SteelDumpling replaced all instances of "Altria" (the character's official English name as of Fate/Grand Order) with "Artoria" (an alternate localization that is preferred by the fans and has been used in some localizations prior to Type-Moon coming down against it), even in instances where this is inaccurate.
I do not want to start an edit war so I have messaged the person requesting they revert the edit. In the event they do not, should I just do it myself?
Edited by Arawn999openOn Scorpider77 Videogame
Scorpider77 seems like a good troper in all respects, except one; he seems to have this wonk over Mario and Luigi: Paper Jam 2 and keeps talking about how everyone is clamoring for it and linking to its page.
There's just one problem: the game doesn't exist. While his non Mario edits are fine, anything pertaining to Mario (Bowser Jr.'s Journey, Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam and YMMV.Mario And Luigi Paper Jam, and YMMV.Mario Plus Rabbids Sparks Of Hope, among others) keeps having him throw in references to this nonexistent game, culminating in him making a since-cut page for it on the 11th of this month.
He also DMed me a link to a tweet that allegedly shows the proof of this clamoring (along with saying the game exists and Nintendo hasn't found the time to reveal it, stated with no proof whatsoever), except it's an analytics link - which can only be seen by the person who made the tweet. So he's shilling both himself and a nonexistent game to the detriment of factual information.
openGenshin Impact - major gamebreaker page renovation Videogame
Genshin Impact's gamebreaker page has become a bit bloated, so myself and another troper have been proposing ways to trim it down. But because this is going to be a very large-scale edit, I wanted more than just one other voice on this before we start pruning. My proposed changes are:
1. Gamebreakers are based on spiral abyss performance only. It's the only "endgame" content and the main-game and timed events are generally too easy to warrant a gamebreaker page. I'd also like to add a disclaimer that gamebreakers are not necessary to "win" at this game since the spiral abyss has very little rewards and this is an expensive Gacha game.
2. Character write-ups focus on their gamebreaking aspects only. Currently they seem to go over every part of their kit leading to bloated entries often getting too far into walkthrough mode or adding meaningless dribble.
3. Cut the artifacts section. It focuses on set bonuses, which while nice are not as important as the substats at the mercy of RNG (so a mixed set with great substats will beat a set bonus with meh stats). That and most characters have more than one viable set, so which is "gamebreaking" is subjective. The Emblem of Severed Fate is the only one worth keeping imo, as while others just amplify already strong characters this one actually fixes holes and makes certain playstyles viable.
4. Cut the elemental reactions section. At this time about two-thirds of all the reactions in the game are listed, making the list less novel. About every reaction has a viable team set-up, so at this point we're just saying it pays to use the game's central mechanic.
What do you think?
resolved Should we prioritize Canon Names for protagonists that can be named anything by the player? Videogame
What's the standard here? In I Was a Teenage Exocolonist, the game suggests naming your character Solane/Solana/Solanaceae, implying that either of the three's their Canon Name if you don't name them yourself. However, in all its pages, they have been referred to as either "Sol", "the protagonist", "the MC", or "you". Do we stick to one name/identifier for them, or are all of them "correct"?
openMerging Two Articles Videogame
The article for Leviathan is in a sorry state and would be difficult to repair/add content for. The work itself is a short, direct prequel to Limbus Company, whose article is in a much better state.
Would it make sense to cut Leviathan's article and simply add its tropes to Limbus Company's? There would be folders separating the two, of course.
openNeptunia Characters page Videogame
The characters page is split based on each game. The first game has its own continuity, and the third game introduces some AU Counterparts, but the Hyperdimension characters appear repeatedly throughout the series, so they're often just getting the same tropes on each game's character page. Wouldn't it be better to have Character Specific Pages like Broly's with folders for different continuities as well as one for common traits?
Edited by KOmanopenMedium question for an example. Videogame
I want to add this example to either Multi-Disc Work or its Video Games subpage. However, I'm not sure whether it could fall under "Music" (which is on a folder in the trope's main page) or "Video Games", since while the source work is a video game, the disc work in itself is a soundtrack release (which is quite common for popular video games).
- Hotline Miami:
- In 2017, game publisher Devolver Digital and record label Laced Records teamed up to release a pair of official albums for the soundtracks of the first and second games (respectively) on vinyl, with each album consisting of three LPs and featuring original artwork from El Huervo, one of the soundtracks' artists.
- The 2022 reissue album made for the first game's tenth anniversary has eight LPs (two more than the first two albums combined) alongside Feelies like a disc slipmat, art prints and stickers.
Should I put on "Music", "Video Games" or the "Other" folder?
Edited by Inky100openMetagaming tropes in CCG pages Videogame
Hi, everyone.
Just today I was taking a glance at the Marvel Snap page, and an issue that has frequently popped up in my searches through this site's CCG pages came to my attention.
Metagaming tropes (or using tropes for metagaming). Now, I'm personally a person that loves playing meta decks and the aspect of competition, but I have always felt that this kind of entries doesn't belong in most main work pages (barring stuff like Smogon which main point is the competitive aspect). After a few months working on the Character pages for Yu-Gi-Oh, I found out that these tropes led themselves to constant shoehorning, general examples (like putting Achilles' Heel for every kind of a weakness a deck has) and overly specific entries that are more akin to walkthrough mode. To not mention the fact that the metagame constantly evolves, which means that the entries suffer from a lot from Examples Are Not Recent syndrome, and a few years down the line the entries become outdated.
Inserting a few examples to prove my point (from Hearthstone, the Marvel Snap page itself, and then Yu-Gi-Oh).
- Attack! Attack! Attack!: The general strategy of an aggro deck or a rush deck is to hit the enemy hero relentlessly with charge minions and spells, pausing only to get rid of any Taunt minions that get in the way. The Hunter is particularly good at this, as his hero power lets him keep shooting the enemy hero for 2 damage and can't be mitigated by taunts. The Warlock Zoo Deck is pretty much this taken to the extreme: it consist mostly of cheap creatures, small buffs, and a lot of burst damage. Abusing the Warlock card draw hero power, this deck usually forgoes all non-essential board control and just seeks to absolutely steamroll opponents with tons of small, annoying, efficient minions and burst damage before they can control the board, stabilize and restore Health.
- Exaggerated by the popular (and also much-despised) 'Face Hunter' deck, a deck so mindlessly aggressive (even Zoo Warlock uses its rush advantage to secure board control) that a bot could play it and is regularly able to secure a turn 5 or 6 kill by simply ignoring EVEYRTHING except the opponent. EVERYTHING GOES TO THE FACE!
- Difficult, but Awesome: As explained under All or Nothing, Galactus is normally a very risky card to play, given that he downsizes the game to a single location and he only brings a Power of 3 to win said location. However, if you can get extra Energy (from Psilocke, Electro or locations) and play Galactus early, on a location where your opponent is weaker, you can dominate the game by playing strong cards in subsequent turns. This is still a pretty risky move, since your opponent can have stronger cards in their hands, but it can also totally surprise them. Not to mention, you get to see Galactus' world-destroying animation, which is pure Awesome.
- Achilles' Heel: Some cards have deliberate weaknesses to keep things interesting and keep them from becoming too powerful:
- The Earthbound Immortals
are all very strong, unable to be attacked, and can attack the opponent directly. But, they automatically destroy themselves if there's no Field Spell card on the field. Also, there can only be one Earthbound Immortal on the field.
- Cloudians
must remain in Attack Position or they will destroy themselves.
- In the metagame, this trope is present through deck match-ups and side decking. The most prominent example of this trope the in the competitive scene are, perhaps, the Dark World cards— A deck that is extremely fast, powerful, and can utterly wreck the first duel of the match. However, after said first duel, side in Consecrated Light
or Shadow-Imprisoning Mirror
and watch as they struggle against it.
- Pendulum Summoning is a very powerful summoning type, allowing you to summon multiple high-level monsters at once. However, Pendulum Cards can easily be gotten rid of with backrow removal cards like Twin Twisters and Cosmic Cyclone, cards that nearly every deck runs in some capacity. In addition, cards that immediately destroy or negate summons, such as Bottomless Trap Hole and Solemn Warning, shut it down hard as, thanks to the wording, it destroys/negates all the monsters summoned this way, since they were treated as one summon, which results in you losing a lot of your best cards in a single move as a result. Also, Pendulum Monsters whose Summons got negated and destroyed this way go to the Graveyard instead of back into the Extra Deck so they cannot be easily reclaimed.
- Any archetype that relies on specific spell cards (Gishki, Shaddoll, Masked HEROs, just to name a few) will struggle if said spell is negated by Cursed Seal of the Forbidden Spell
.
- The Earthbound Immortals
I bring this up because pages like Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft have a massive number of metagaming entries, and I would like to open up this issue to debate for the community. To know if it's actually perceived as a problem or I'm just overblowing this situation.
Edited by Edgar81539openHandling Spoiler-y Tropes Videogame
So, myself and Umbrellas Were Awesome are disagreeing about including tropes that could spoil a part of a work by their very inclusion as examples (ie. by having the trope listed as such, it spoils part of the work).
However, Umbrellas wants to add the trope Boss Subtitles to the characters page for the three. By the nature of that trope, listing it as an example that they have — even if the text after is entirely spoiled out — it would inherently spoil that those characters are boss fights, which the Splatoon pages have otherwise spoilered out.
The reason they cite is that it's because they remember that "being at least slightly spoiled is kind of inherant to the process, and one shouldn't delete or comment out entries simply out of a desire to avoid spoiling literally everything", as listed in their edit reason. Which I agree with, but that the Splatoon 3 pages otherwise always treat the identity of the bosses as a spoiler makes this seem to me like it's just inconsistent.
What would be the correct way to treat that trope in this case? I did consult the spoiler policy, but it doesn't clarify for these kinds of situations where the inclusion of a trope causes a spoiler itself.

The YMMV page for The Legend of Zelda has Contested Sequel with the following argument.
"Between the near-universally agreed-upon golden age of A Link to the Past to Majora's Masknote and the renaissance in the eyes of previously disgruntled fans with A Link Between Worlds and Breath of the Wild, many of the games released in the time between those periods became this (at least in the eyes of fans; critics largely consider the series consistently good). By far the most divisive period among fans is the DS/Wii era (Twilight Princess, Phantom Hourglass, Spirit Tracks, Skyward Sword), which has many fans decrying it as the low point of the series due to issues such as increased linearity, overly long intro sections and pre-dungeon quests that drag down the pacing, and decreased difficulty; however, just as many fans find the DS/Wii era on par with the rest of the series, if not the high point, thanks to their more focused gameplay, more substantial main quests, more accessible difficulty with potential for Self-Imposed Challenge. This era's greater focus on storytelling is also divisive, with many fans debating on whether the games' stories work with or make up for the increased linearity or were the cause of its problems with handholding and pacing and/or weren't good enough to make up for the linearity."
Is this entry even valid? Most of the games described in the entry were commercial and critical successes back when they were first released and even when people find flaws in those games in hindsight, they otherwise have positive opinions about this game. I already posted this question in the discussion page
and Is this an example
, just in case.
So, what do you say?
Edited by MasterHero