Don't know what work that's attached to, but is there any reason that it would be expected this wouldn't work? Because I find things like Reality Ensues and this trope tend to fall under Like Reality, Unless Noted and honestly, I'd expect most games to default to pushing a car with another car rather than a dedicated mechanic to move them.
Not to mention it seems like the entry is taking liberties that while this would usually move a car, it would also damage both of them which is why tow trucks... exist.
I just don't have enough context to make a judgement call one way or the other.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
It's from Grand Theft Auto.
The thing is, videogame objectives/missions usually require that the player do exactly what the game tells them to do. In this case, the game tells and expects the player to hitch the stalled car onto tow cable and pull the car away before the train arrives. That is, in fact, the entire tension and challenge of the mission — not exactly *hard*, but in-context, it's a step up from just hitching parked cars like in previous missions.
Imagine, if you will, a Stealth Mission where the game tells the player "You can use tall bushes or grass for cover. Sneak past the enemy guards to the objective", but then the player finds out that if they use a nearby switch to turn off the outdoor lights, the guards won't be able to see them even without hiding in the grass.
Because usually, in games (especially in early missions, which the GTA Towing mission is), players usually expect there only to be one programmed solution until they learn more mechanics. Programming extra solutions (especially so early) just normally isn't done.
Honestly it doesn't sound like the case because it sounds like what's "unexpectedly realistic" here is that you don't fail the mission and the thing is there aren't missions in real life. You know in GTA you can move cars with other cars. The only difference here is that doing so doesn't fail the mission as you would assume and there's just... not really a real-life equivalent for that.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
That...doesn't make a whole lot of sense. What you're describing is literally the trope.
When programming game objectives, you have two options:
1) Player successfully performs Mechanic A, which completes the objective. 2) Player performs Mechanic B, which fails the objective.
If the game tells you that Mechanic A completes the objective, but you perform Mechanic B which makes logical sense from a common sense/real life perspective and it completes the objective (or makes it easier to complete the objective), then that is this trope. Real life (usually) not having a fail mechanic is...kind of what the trope is about.
Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Unclear Description
, started by BreadBull on Mar 5th 2018 at 7:57:56 AM
Crime Against Fabulosity
"Unexpectedly sophisticated given that the wooden boat is floating on lava."
But most things float on lava!
Perky Goth
... The video game of Hunter: The Reckoning isn't an RPG, but I'm not sure what genre heading to put it under. It's most similar to the more modern Gauntlet games like Legends and Dark Legacy, but Hack and Slash doesn't seem quite right in this case.
"That's ridiculous. What would a walrus do with a magic bag?" Pokeamida
"In A Link to the Past the entrance to the dungeon in the Village of Outcasts is blocked by a trident held by a statue. There are no switches to open it and none of your items can break it, so how do you get past it? Just pull it off."
Very debatable as to how realistic or commonsensical this approach actually is. One doesn't generally assume the entrance to a vital enemy area to be that easily overcome without a very good reason, either in video games or reality.
Edited by 174.49.249.222
Does the way to open the gate near the beginning of Brutal Legend (stand between the counterweights and use the Earthshaker ability) count for an example? Or did that method occur to everyone else?
Hide / Show Replies
The description for the page is a wall of waffle and blather. In three days I will remove the waffle and blather. If you find this objectionable, speak now or forever hold your peace.
Hide / Show Replies
Kinda need to know what you have a problem with. You're the one who basically showed up waving a chainsaw.
Excellent! Let's go over the changes one paragraph at a time:
Paragraph 1: Looks a lot like the kind of sentence people write in order to show off their mastery of tvtropes-speak, rather than to communicate an idea. It's also a really really run-on sentence.
Solution: Rewrite with less jargon.
Paragraph 2: Last sentence of paragraph is a sudden digression about a different example ('alternatively...')
Solution: Could be moved off into a separate paragraph, but 'deliberately let yourself be captured' is a pretty orthodox trick in stealth games, and is unlikely to be 'unexpected' to anybody. Remove that sentence instead.
Paragraph 3: 'Bashing down doors' is a pretty orthodox part of the RPG genre (you can bash doors in Nethack, Baldurs Gate and Ultima, just off the top of my head.) It's just not very unexpected. And we got the point from the FPS example already.
Solution: Remove that paragraph.
Paragraph 4: Minor neatening.
Paragraph 5: Talking about how videogame physics is unlike real life physics. Using many more words than it needs. And despite this page being about ways videogames are like real life. Also, very few of the examples in the example section are concerned with physics; while a physics engine could make a game 'unexpectedly realistic', it doesn't seem a be major or even significant cause.
Solution: Remove that paragraph.
Paragraph 6: Still talking about how videogames are unlike real life, even though that is the opposite of what this page is about. Mostly seems to be an excuse to gush about Red Faction Guerilla.
Solution: Rewrite, move to examples section.
Taken together, these changes make the description cleaner, easier to read and less prone to odd digressions. No relevant information is lost.
Edited by 69.172.221.4
Excellent! Let's go over the changes one paragraph at a time:
Paragraph 1: Looks a lot like the kind of sentence people write in order to show off their mastery of tvtropes-speak, rather than to communicate an idea. It's also a really really run-on sentence.
Solution: Rewrite with less jargon.
Paragraph 2: Last sentence of paragraph is a sudden digression about a different example ('alternatively...')
Solution: Could be moved off into a separate paragraph, but 'deliberately let yourself be captured' is a pretty orthodox trick in stealth games, and is unlikely to be 'unexpected' to anybody. Remove that sentence instead.
Paragraph 3: 'Bashing down doors' is a pretty orthodox part of the RPG genre (you can bash doors in Nethack, Baldurs Gate and Ultima, just off the top of my head.) It's just not very unexpected. And we got the point from the FPS example already.
Solution: Remove that paragraph.
Paragraph 4: Minor neatening.
Paragraph 5: Talking about how videogame physics is unlike real life physics. Using many more words than it needs. And despite this page being about ways videogames are like real life. Also, very few of the examples in the example section are concerned with physics; while a physics engine could make a game 'unexpectedly realistic', it doesn't seem a be major or even significant cause.
Solution: Remove that paragraph.
Paragraph 6: Still talking about how videogames are unlike real life, even though that is the opposite of what this page is about. Mostly seems to be an excuse to gush about Red Faction Guerilla.
Solution: Rewrite, move to examples section.
Taken together, these changes make the description cleaner, easier to read and less prone to odd digressions. No relevant information is lost.
Edited by 69.172.221.4
Excellent! Let's go over the changes one paragraph at a time:
Paragraph 1: Looks a lot like the kind of sentence people write in order to show off their mastery of tvtropes-speak, rather than to communicate an idea. It's also a really really run-on sentence.
Solution: Rewrite with less jargon.
Paragraph 2: Last sentence of paragraph is a sudden digression about a different example ('alternatively...')
Solution: Could be moved off into a separate paragraph, but 'deliberately let yourself be captured' is a pretty orthodox trick in stealth games, and is unlikely to be 'unexpected' to anybody. Remove that sentence instead.
Paragraph 3: 'Bashing down doors' is a pretty orthodox part of the RPG genre (you can bash doors in Nethack, Baldurs Gate and Ultima, just off the top of my head.) It's just not very unexpected. And we got the point from the FPS example already.
Solution: Remove that paragraph.
Paragraph 4: Minor neatening.
Paragraph 5: Talking about how videogame physics is unlike real life physics. Using many more words than it needs. And despite this page being about ways videogames are like real life. Also, very few of the examples in the example section are concerned with physics; while a physics engine could make a game 'unexpectedly realistic', it doesn't seem a be major or even significant cause.
Solution: Remove that paragraph.
Paragraph 6: Still talking about how videogames are unlike real life, even though that is the opposite of what this page is about. Mostly seems to be an excuse to gush about Red Faction Guerilla.
Solution: Rewrite, move to examples section.
Taken together, these changes make the description cleaner, easier to read and less prone to odd digressions. No relevant information is lost.
Edited by 69.172.221.4
- I don't see the problem.
- The paragraph was intended to give two examples from different genres.
- The name of the trope is "unexpectedly" realistic gameplay, not "uncommonly" realistic gameplay. Something can be somewhat common and still unexpected, which also ties into the issue with he second paragraph.
- I don't see a problem.
- I don't see a problem. The point of the trope is that no matter how realistic a game tries to be, it will NOT be completely so. Which is what this paragraph states.
- I don't see problem. A physics engine is just ONE example of how the trope can happen.
I don't see a problem with most of the issues presented, although I'm the one who wrote most of it in the YKTTW. No issues were raised there, but if you really want another opinion, I'd bring it up in a TRS topic.
That aside, you're behavior is a bit smug and condescending, especially when you assume the opinions of the writer. Or just show up and announce what you're going to do.
Edited by 216.99.32.42
YKTTW is not gospel. A lot of tropes get fixed after they make it live, simply by having a larger audience. I would probably have cut down a lot of the description myself or shoved it into Analysis.
If you can't work it out between yourselves, use this forum thread.
While I think Ninja was a bit... rude about it, he's essentially right. The description needs some trimming. Interestingly, I believe the best solution is to yank the second and fourth paragraphs. We don't need a ton of examples in the description, that's precisely what the examples section is for. And the fourth paragraph is just fluff.
Just my two cents. Basically, I'm somewhere between you two. This is definitely not something for TRS though. The base trope is fine, and the description is essentially good, but could just use some tightening.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.
[edit: Whoops! I didn't refresh this page before replying, and got ... ninja'd ... by two other guys. Irony!
But thanks for the support, Fighteer and Larkmarn.]
You wrote it, and also you don't see any problems with it? No shit. :p Why would anybody deliberately write something with problems in it?
When you're editing a wiki, leave your ego at the door. Vigilantly defending your deathless prose against the philistines doesn't do anybody any favours.
Edited by 69.172.221.8
[edit: Whoops! I didn't refresh this page before replying, and got ... ninja'd ... by two other guys. Irony!
But thanks for the support, Fighteer and Larkmarn.]
You wrote it, and also you don't see any problems with it? No shit. :p Why would anybody deliberately write something with problems in it?
When you're editing a wiki, leave your ego at the door. Vigilantly defending your deathless prose against the philistines doesn't do anybody any favours.
Edited by 69.172.221.8
[edit: Whoops! I didn't refresh this page before replying, and got ... ninja'd ... by two other guys. Irony!
But thanks for the support, Fighteer and Larkmarn.]
You wrote it, and also you don't see any problems with it? No shit. :p Why would anybody deliberately write something with problems in it?
When you're editing a wiki, leave your ego at the door. Vigilantly defending your deathless prose against the philistines doesn't do anybody any favours.
Edited by 69.172.221.8
These examples were removed:
With the edit reason: "How is that "unexpectedly realistic"? Doing that in Real Life is going to (at best) get you a chewing out from the driver."
The trope is about solutions which are possible (or at least, plausible) based on conventional real world logic. In RL, supposing that your truck is hardy enough, you can definitely push a stalled car out of the way of a train.
Hide / Show Replies