Walkthrough Mode Cleanup

G/S/C is known for having really difficult Pokemon, though I think D/P/PT tops it with things like Feebas and Tree Munchlax... Yeah, we can probably chop it down. Maybe into categories of why the pokemon is hard to get.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

.

Edited by AGuy on May 14th 2021 at 6:52:02 AM

I'm just.. a guy....

But you're the only one who thinks it does contradict the policy. That's what we're trying to say.

Trust me, I'm extremely strict when it comes to how I define ZCEs, and even I think it has enough context.

Like, I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong or even to stop. I said no such thing. All I said was that people's minds probably won't change since you're honestly interpreting the situation and example differently, and that's just something that you might have to accept if you don't want another massive debate with you fighting the rest of the thread. You can't change minds if the issue is based on a fundamental difference in personal interpretation. It's just not possible. There's zero way I can probably convince you the example is fine, and I'm okay with that, but you also need to be okay with the fact that you can't change our minds either. I'm willing to just drop the debate and move on, and I think everyone else is willing to do the same.

If you think me trying to just mediate things and point out the consensus is rude, then IDK what to really tell you. I was as polite as I could be.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 13th 2021 at 8:31:20 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

.

Edited by AGuy on May 14th 2021 at 6:52:12 AM

I'm just.. a guy....

I've already explained how it's not a ZCE. It has enough context for me to understand what the achievement is and why players might find it hard. I don't need to know the nitty-gritty. In fact, in my experience, the more info I have the more confused I get, because if there's too many details I can lose track of what's what. So personally speaking I think this example does all that it needs to do. We don't need to go in-depth about exactly why the achievement is hard.

I think the fundamental difference is that the rest of us are willing to just take the example at it's word with the information given, and you're not. And that's okay, but it doesn't make it a ZCE, because there is context.

My rule of thumb is that if it's a ZCE, you could replace the trope with a different one and nobody would be able to know it was swapped. You can't do that here. Thus, it has enough context.

In essence, I don't think it being a ZCE is the problem. If there is a problem, it's not with a lack of context, but a lack of evidence, which is a different issue, and one I don't personally think is that big of a deal.

But if you're really convinced it's a ZCE, try asking here or maybe at ATT.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 13th 2021 at 8:36:41 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Having never played that game and knowing nothing about it, I can read the compressed example and understand why it's a difficult achievement.

Like, you keep saying the new one is just informed, but what's just informed about "several steps of manual manoeuvring against challenging orbital mechanics" that isn't just informed about "First, you need to achieve a stable orbit around the sun. This requires hitting the sweet spot between slingshotting yourself out of orbit and a fiery death."?

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

.

Edited by AGuy on May 14th 2021 at 6:52:24 AM

I'm just.. a guy....

I really don't want to get involved in any big arguments, so this is probably my only post, but um... I kind of agree with A Guy here?

The proposed rewrite is more concise, but it also feels like it doesn't really say much. "Challenging orbital mechanics" kinda just sounds like the game's physics are bad in general, and the rest just says you have to take some difficult steps.

More generally, I kind of worry that removing too much detail would make it really easy to add shoehorns where one troper thought something was hard even if it wasn't really.

As a hypothetical example, something like... "The achievement 'Perfect Maze Room' requires you to navigate through a long and difficult maze full of enemies that are incredibly hard to kill or avoid, all without taking any damage or going over the (highly unforgiving) time limit."

An example like that does sound pretty hard. It could fit a really horrible maze level that's full of dead ends, where the layout changes between attempts, and where Demonic Spiders spawn randomly from the ceiling, and you have half a minute to get through.

But it could also fit a regular, pre-made maze level with some Annoying Bats and a fairly generous time limit, written by a troper who just has trouble with mazes in general. So specifying what makes the maze so difficult helps avoid that kind of thing.

For Hotshot, there are a lot of details that can be trimmed down, but I don't think you have to make it vague to make it readable. Maybe something like this?

"That One Achievement: "Hotshot" is by far the most frustrating achievement in the game. To get it, you need to manually "land" on the Sun Station rather than enter it from a warp tower. To do so you need to achieve a stable orbit around the sun, without slingshotting yourself out of orbit or into the sun. You also have to match the Sun Station's extremely fast orbit by locking onto debris that only spawns when you've come within 100 meters of it, after which you can do the last steps to complete the achievement. Also, you only have the first 11 minutes of the loop to do all this before the Station crashes into the Sun."

And now to have anxiety over having said anything.

"several steps of manual maneuvering" is vague and can apply to many games.

"several steps of manual maneuvering against challenging orbital mechanics" is much more specific and paints a clearer picture of what type of maneuvering the player is expected to attempt since 'orbital mechanics' isn't a thing you see in many games.

That said, I don't think it's a terribly useful exercise to dissect one example to this extent and coming at it with this attitude of "I'm more familiar with video games than most people so I just understand this stuff better" doesn't help to convince anyone of your position.

There's going to be some interpretation where one specific troper had a frustrating experience with a game that most other people didn't, but then that's what clean-up threads and sufficient editing comments are for. This isn't a problem specific to any particular trope and with something like That One Achievement, a quick google search like 'Fun Game Perfect Maze Room' and finding that there's not a lot of buzz about this challenge is enough evidence to remove an example that doesn't fit.

Edited by YourIdeas on May 13th 2021 at 8:17:39 AM

I mean, that version's also good. I wouldn't have a problem with using it. It's a nice compromise.

Like, sure. The first suggestion wasn't perfect. I can see how some parts might've been vague. I just didn't think it was worse than the original example, which was way too wordy, and in general I think examples should be written with the laymen in mind, not the experts.

As in, even if people who really know the genre might be skeptical, if the general reader can read the example and get the gist and not feel the need for more information, then the example works. I also don't think that's a double-standard; I'd say the same for any example in any genre. This one just happens to be a That One Achievement example.

Basically, I think that rewrite is pretty good, but I also didn't think the other suggestion was bad or unclear at all.

Edited by WarJay77 on May 13th 2021 at 9:19:48 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Damn... I already made the revision. I should've waited a while longer to see what other suggestions come up. Sorry.

Edited by DivineFlame100 on May 13th 2021 at 6:22:53 AM

It's fine, we need to see what others think first anyway.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

.

Edited by AGuy on May 14th 2021 at 6:52:38 AM

I'm just.. a guy....

I mean, you're not wrong that the "right words" can make any example sound legit, but that could apply to any example, and I don't think the key here is to make the examples overstuffed with information- I think the fix is just to be diligent and to fact-check everything, which we try to do on these threads anyway.

Obviously if an example is that misleading, it should be cut, but I hope most examples of these tropes aren't that manipulative.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

.

Edited by AGuy on May 14th 2021 at 6:52:56 AM

I'm just.. a guy....

This is starting to feel like a red paint argument.

Trouble Cube continues to be a general-purpose forum for those who desire such a thing.

For context, a "Red Paint" argument is a term from Image Pickin', born when someone claimed the blood in an image could be interpreted as red paint. It's basically trying to find holes in an example (or image) where none exist.

And before you get mad at me, I'm just defining the term since it's not a widely-known one.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

.

Edited by AGuy on May 14th 2021 at 6:53:08 AM

I'm just.. a guy....

.

Edited by AGuy on May 14th 2021 at 6:53:18 AM

I'm just.. a guy....

Um... A Guy, I sort of suspect that you're doing that sort of thing where people not quite seeming to agree with you makes you feel like they didn't understand you properly and that you should explain your point with more clarity, but that isn't really necessary. (Plus, a wall of text makes you less clear, not more.)

I think, instead of just saying they're going about it wrong, or detailing a hypothetical upcoming issue their actions may cause, it'd be a lot better for everyone if you framed your thoughts a bit more helpfully? Say, suggesting improvements or doing your own take on a write-up? It'd be a bit more show-don't-tell, so that even if they don't quite get your explanations, they'd be able to understand the changes. This isn't a debate, after all, it's meant to be teamwork!

(I hope that makes sense?)

I think everything that can be said about that one example has been said by now, anyway... Continuing to poke at it's not gonna help anyone. Are there any other iffy ones? Someone mentioned Pokemon?

And now to have anxiety over having said anything.

.

Edited by AGuy on May 14th 2021 at 6:53:28 AM

I'm just.. a guy....

Skipping about half of this thread to say

• Articles such as That One X need to be pretty walkthrough-y so the reader understands what about X makes it "That One", but I have no opinion as to how much text is too long.

• Would it help for certain entries to contrast other achievements/bosses/etc. to pare down lengthy explanations? "This is a really difficult thing that requires these steps [...] compared to the majority of achievements that can be reached via playing normally" etc.

• IMO, cleanup is most useful on pages where walkthrough mode is irrelevant. Trademark Favorite Food: Timbits, which he goes great lengths in Chapter 5 to acquire. Here's how to find them all!! (Then again, these are the easiest to zap so maybe not worth tackling on-thread) Edit: this point is made in the post right above.

Edited by Tabs on May 13th 2021 at 11:55:02 AM

A few quick points, if I may:

As someone who's played an awful lot of games, I really don't think that that's where the discrepancy lies.

Regarding that one just has to "take the author's word" for such an entry, well... yes. To some degree that is generally required, I think.

And I think that the same is true even of the Walkthrough Mode version. What's involved in "hitting the sweet spot between slingshotting yourself out of orbit and a fiery death"? Is it hard to do? Is matching an "extremely fast orbit" without lock-on something that requires much skill in this particular game?

Now, we could bulk up the description even more, describe the flight mechanics in detail—but that just makes the entry longer and more tedious to read.

Ultimately, I think that this comes down to a clash of perception: what is clear enough for one isn't for another; what is obvious to one is obscure to another. That doesn't make either perspective wrong or right; rather, different people simple perceive differently.

My Games & Writing

I'm just.. a guy....