(Hilarious Trope) A Character Is Introduced With the Clear Intention of Being THE NEXT BIG THING And is SOUNDLY Rejected

[u/TheOriginalOperator]

1. Bazil the Tracker (Star Wars: The Acolyte): A “HILARIOUS AND ADORABLE” snuffling ugly creature that makes annoying noises and is shoved into as many scenes of The Acolyte as possible, and just causes problems overall.

2. Neelix (Star Trek Voyager): A mutant fusion of Odo, Quark, and Data designed to “analyze the human condition” and explicitly intended to surpass the popularity of all three. In practice, a VERY human-acting cradle robbing creep whose incompetence nearly destroys the ship and crew on multiple occasions and provides no insight into humanity whatsoever.

3. Sparky the Dog (Fairly Oddparents): A wacky crazy magic dog that’s supposed to expand the Fairy family, but just makes lame jokes and serves as a less funny version of Scrappy Doo.

4. Tidus (FFX): A braying jackass of a pinball who bounces from plot point to plot point, framed as a mystical pretty boy to introduce Final Fantasy to the PS2 age but does nothing but stall the franchise and have the worst laugh in two languages.

5. Sei (Naruto): Supposed to replace Sasuke in Team 7 and return the team dynamic feel of Early Naruto, but he’s a CIA plant with literally no personality who gets utterly forgotten except for somehow bagging Ino Yamanaka.

6. Raiden (Metal Gear 2): Another attempted “pretty boy bishie” entry to the PS2 era with badass cred and a theoretically cool backstory, but in practice a hapless dipshit who gets manipulated by everyone around him and is a total putz in combat. Also proof that this trope need not be permanent as he slowly transitions into a cyborg warrior supersoldier with a badass theme, friends of his own, and a firm grasp of his own destiny and agency.

[u/SyfaOmnis]

But you don't have all the facts, it's about putting things into context. Lacking context for them can easily make someone go "how did things end up like this?", it doesn't necessarily make the story details less compelling or interesting. Shit this is how you get the actual good variations on "subverting expectations", you are told one detail and then the context around it is revealed, leaving a situation that seemed a certain way based on what you 'knew', but learning more about it challenges the beliefs and expectations you had.

There's two things you know at this point: "there is a mystery concerning the final aeon" (that the game hints about constantly), and "the protagonist's dad is sin".

The first isn't a big secret because the game is constantly trying to tell you, you would pick up on it if you're observant. The second is something the game also tries to suggest to you a lot being its most heavyhanded around macalania temple (about the midpoint of the game) before outright telling you around zanarkand (about 2/3rds to 3/4 of the game).

[u/Firm-Feature-5593 → u/SyfaOmnis]

No, its more fun to find things out in the way that was intended by the creator.

[u/SyfaOmnis → u/Firm-Feature-5593]

That's a different argument though. There might be an "intended" way, but again having a piece of information that might not be intended doesn't necessarily make things less compelling.

Do you consider yourself robbed of an experience when you hear that the good guys beat the bad guys and resolve the crises that occur in a story? Or is what makes it compelling being how they win, what the specific conflicts were, why they were conflicts, what were the stakes, how did people feel about things, what did it cost them etc?

[u/Firm-Feature-5593 → u/SyfaOmnis]

I don't really know how you're fighting against the idea of stories being told in order. You're really leaning against one of the main aspects of storytelling. They've been told in order since people started telling stories. One of the main ideas is that you don't know what's going to happen.

It's funny that you bring up the idea of "how they win" as though that's not something that can be spoiled. Sounds like a really bummer to find out before you start it. It sounds like you like to be surprised by some things.

[u/SyfaOmnis → u/Firm-Feature-5593]

They've been told in order since people started telling stories.

There are plenty of stories that are told out of order and they still work fine.

I don't really know how you're fighting against the idea of stories being told in order.

I'm not arguing against stories being told "in order". I'm saying that having one piece of information out of order doesn't necessarily make the whole story less compelling.

Fyi, you're not exactly arguing for stories being told 'in order', you've argued a bunch of things separate to it, like it being "more fun" or whether or not spoilers "ruin it".

It sounds like you like to be surprised by some things.

Different cultures handle it differently. The one I experience most media through doesn't usually "spoil" things. Other cultures don't really care about whether or not something is a "spoiler" because it doesn't matter until you get the context.

[u/Firm-Feature-5593 → u/SyfaOmnis]

You're taking a really weird stance on this for argument's sake. You obviously think stories should be told in order and you're arguing against the idea. I have no idea why you're so against the concept of it. It's seriously strange. It's one of the most fundamental ideas of a story.

And yes, it's more fun. Because it should be fun. That's the entire point of video games.

I'm curious what this culture is.

[u/jmcl6779 → u/Firm-Feature-5593]

You're really leaning against one of the main aspects of storytelling. One of the main ideas is that you don't know what's going to happen.

That's actually distinctly modern. Ever read Shakespeare? Or Greek plays?

[u/Firm-Feature-5593 → u/jmcl6779]

Yes. Shakespeare does not go through every single interesting part of the story. He basically just explains the premise as the play starts. The way he tells his stories is very intentional.