Vindicated by History cleanup thread

I also brought up Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island for the same reason that you did, so I can definitely second cutting that.

Paper Mario 64 is a well-known Acclaimed Flop at least, so it could go either way on VBH. i think i would just move it there

I mean, I guess the CD-i games were "vindicated" in one sense of the word, but that would be a stretch.

Yeah the Zelda CDI games are still called trash repeatedly, even by so called "fans" of the games. I assume that they already have a "So Bad, It's Good" entry so that should be enough, anyway, I second cutting those and most of the examples because the Zelda fanbase being finnicky as fuck is already well known.

This trope's just been added to the TRS Queue and been given a wick check here. I can tell Prettycoolguy's been watching this thread carefully, and I appreciate that he brought up all the issues we've noticed in his post.

For me the benchmark of what should count as Vindicated by History is The Thing (1982), which is even the trope's page image: That film was trashed by critics, didn't make its money back at all, and then over the next few decades saw a genuinely massive turnaround as audiences and critics came to see it as a masterpiece. That's a good one keep in mind when deciding if an example counts or not.

Yeah that sounds good. Part of the reason I started this thread is because I saw Condemned by History's guidelines were pretty strict, so why isn't this trope held to the same standard?

For me the benchmark of what counts as Vindicated by History is Pinkerton by Weezer. It was destroyed by critics upon release and sold very poorly, but then in the 2000s people were hailing it as one of the best albums of the 90s, many Emo bands cite it as an influence, in 2016 it went platinum, and it was big enough of a deal to get a Deluxe edition alongside The Blue Album.

Honestly many of these entries use mental gymnastics to try and defend works that are still hated by the public but what small fanbase the work has insists that "it was misunderstood, give it a chance " or trying to crap on other works ("at least it wasn't [insert later, crappier work here]"), or mistaking an ironic fanbase for an unironic one in the case of Zelda CD-I, or just plain gushing ("Super Mario World was critically acclaimed and sold boatloads, and it's still critically acclaimed and is now considered a classic. Look at how amazing it is! Also some Sega kids were trashing on it at the time so that means it qualifies. Did I mention how awesome this game is?") This page is in desperate need of some quality control.

By the way Toonyloon I was told once that YMMV can't be Played With so I agree with cutting Mulan and Pocahontas.

Edited by supernintendo128 on Jul 28th 2022 at 9:39:39 AM

great thread. this set of page always bugged me.

Re Paper Mario: The narrative that the OG Paper Mario flopped and got popular over time is something I've only really seen claimed on TVT just doesn't line up with the data we have on the game. It sold 1.37 million copies WW (enough to be the 36th best-selling N64 game). In Japan, it sold more than 425k (a very good performance considering how low the N64's install base was there). It sold a bit less than SMRPG but PM was one of the last ever release for a much less popular console.

Now it's possible there was some backlash from the early online fandom over its departures from SMRPG, but I've not seen enough to believe it was a major sustained thing (if you look at the 2001 and 2002 Gamefaqs reader review, there's some "SMRPG was better" stuff but the majority of the reviews in that time are very positive) and it's certainly not reflected in contemporary proffesional reviews either (Metacritic gives it an aggregate of 93%). So yeah, I'm not at all convinced it was ever an example.

Edited by Glowsquid on Jul 28th 2022 at 11:12:05 AM

So it's settled, will cut Paper Mario.

Also, reading the Super Paper Mario entry again I see that the author couldn't pass up an opportunity to bash the newer games. I still think it counts since it does state that it did achieve a following on its own merits, but the "New Paper Mario" bashing should go.

Edited by supernintendo128 on Jul 28th 2022 at 10:53:36 AM

Thing is, I think that's one case where the unpopularity of newer entries was a major contributing factor to the effect.

Yeah, from what I could glean, it was an unusual case in that the divisiveness of the post-Super Paper Mario games actually aided Super Paper Mario's later reception. Maybe the post-SPM bashing could probably readjusted to more neutrally describe the matter?

Edited by bowserbros on Jul 28th 2022 at 9:33:54 AM

Going back @

... is a weidly common type of entry. I remember cutting something that went "Norm of the North was considered the worst thing since cancer, but then The Emoji Movie came out so Norm of the North is no longer the worst thing since cancer. Vindicated by History!"

It's especially common when a bad entry in a big franchises comes out and almost reflexively the previous "bad" entry in that franchise gets tagged "Vindicated by History: Movie B was the worst-received entry in the Movie franchise, but since Movie Z came out people are more forigiving of it". Stuff like "With Fant4stic, people now think the Roger Corman and the 2000s movies aren't so bad now". Which yeah, maybe they do, but do people like those movies now?

Edited by Glowsquid on Jul 28th 2022 at 1:04:31 PM

I get what you're saying. I could rewrite it to say the shortcomings of the subsequent games ended up highlighting the positives of SPM.

lmao yeah I saw an entry for Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel that amounts to "Fallout Brotherhood of Steel sucks but then Fallout 76 came out and it sucks more so therefore BoS is vindicated."

First the notion that 76 is worse than BoS, especially after the numerous fixes Bethesda introduced to the game post-launch, is debatable. While 76 was panned at launch, these days it falls more under Broken Base. Personally I'll take 76 over BoS any day and I'm convinced that most people who say otherwise haven't actually played BoS.

Second it doesn't highlight any redeeming qualities BoS had instead of bashing 76.

Edited by supernintendo128 on Jul 28th 2022 at 12:38:51 PM

Decided to take a look at Live-Action Films for that kind of "later entries were worse, so it's better by comparison" entries. For the most part, it's fine until you get to the 2000s folder:

I do think people reassessing the merits of a work after a latter entry has more prominent flaws does happen and are worth documenting, but if it's the bulk of the entry, that's a bit of a problem. I think Spider-Man 3 and possibly the Fantastic Four and Terminator sequels can stay, but the others listed are either contentious or still considered bad.

Any thoughts or suggestions to rewrite?

I think the entry on the Corman FF movie could potentially be salvaged. Maybe it's just my personal experience, but I've seen plenty of people unironically call it the best FF movie.

On a more general note, I'm starting to think we might be missing a "reception evolution" supertrope, but that might be a concern for a future TRS thread.

This is on YMMV.Yo Kai Watch:

• Vindicated by History: On the Western side, the franchise has always struggled with being compared to Pokémon ever since the beginning, and was scrutinized for it as a result. Then one day on Twitter, a hashtag for #SaveYoKaiWatch popped up, as a way to keep awareness for the franchise alive due to popularity waning at the time. Suddenly, a bunch of Western fans made themselves known talking about how much they love the series and don't want it to fade away, to the point where it was trending.

That's not how VBH works. Although I do think this is just barely hitting the 5 year threshold, this is just an example of a series' small western fanbase trying to band together to save it from turning into No Export for You. Yo Kai Watch has always been mostly in the Americans Hate Tingle range (with a bit of Hype Backlash, as a lot of people fought back against the claim that YKW was going to be a "Pokemon killer"), yeah it's got a couple of stans, most things do, but they loved the series right on through. The western fanbase hasn't really expanded at all in the past four or so years - I wouldn't call it Condemned By History or anything but VBH it is not.

Calling it the "Best Fantastic Four movie" comes across as Damning With Faint Praise.

Edited by VampireBuddha on Jul 28th 2022 at 7:30:07 PM

...Well, yeah, but I've also heard the same thing. That is, that the Corman movie is the only one with actual heart, with the characters not all being dicks to each other, and stuff like that.

That said, the Corman version was also never officially released... so IDK if it even counts.

Edited by WarJay77 on Jul 28th 2022 at 2:32:36 PM

If Yo-Kai Watch always had a small but devoted fanbase it's a Cult Classic.

Edited by supernintendo128 on Jul 28th 2022 at 2:47:21 PM

Regarding the Black Christmas 2006 entry, I believe it can be salvaged. Channels like Dead Meat have covered both remakes and this has allowed for a fair re-assessment of both remakes by their own merits, and I have seen the 2006 movie being praised for its good cast choices (making everyone a mean, attractive girl to throw scent off from who would be the final girl), schlock value (the movie has a kind of feeling similar to a Rob Zombie movie, just without hillbillies) and for its good gore/practical effects. Critics have similarly agreed that it's a fine horror movie, just not a Black Christmas remake, and the more distance you put between the two movies, the better it reflects for the 2006 version.

Copypasting from wikipedia

"Horror-review website Bloody Disgusting gave the film three out of five stars and wrote that the film should not be compared to the original. The site concluded that the film is "a pretty good modern slasher" "In a retrospective by Fangoria, Ken Hanley said the film "benefits from solid and focused direction" and "wears its cringeworthy elements as a badge of honor". Film scholar Jessica Robinson also praised the film's depiction of its female characters: "The sorority sisters in Black Christmas are set up to be ideal females. They all have long hair, they are concerned with how they look, and they sit on the couch and file their nails. However, unlike stereotypical females, they also drink, cuss, and talk badly about their families"

Edited by Edgar81539 on Jul 28th 2022 at 2:55:15 PM

Yeah, but I don't think the Cult Classic fanbase has grown enough to really call it VBH, and one supportive Twitter thread does not VBH make, especially since it's clearly a case of the cult fanbase trying to prevent the series from no longer getting imported. Permission to cut?

Here's my write up of the Video Games "In General" folder:

• RPGs from the pre-Play Station era went through this. The genre was vastly less popular than it is today probably because the price tag for said games ranged from $70-90 due to the painstaking translation work compared to the contemporary games that feature little to no text. Now, titles like Final Fantasy IV, Final Fantasy VI, and Chrono Trigger, to name a few, enjoy recognition as some of the finest games ever created. Except weren't those games Acclaimed Flops? I feel like cutting this, maybe moving it to Acclaimed Flop if it isn't there already.
• For the longest time, Howard Scott Warshaw was often blamed, singlehandedly, for nearly destroying an entire industry for his creation of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, which is still widely considered to be the worst video game of all time. In the following years, however, many gamers have at least admitted that Warshaw was the victim of an impossible schedule of doing the game in six weeks, and have acknowledged Warshaw for the feats he did achieve. However, Warshaw still has yet to receive recognition for his work with any awards. In the documentary Atari: Game Over he admitted to having been "overflowing with hubris" thinking that six weeks was plenty of time, not realizing he'd bitten off more than he could chew. While some gamers have come to realize that the game itself was simply scapegoated by the media past and present, many of the panelists in the film go as far to make an argument that the game wasn't all that terrible, pointing out that Steven Spielberg played the game, loved it, and approved it before release. It is also worth mentioning that, while the game is still seen as a repetitive, boring experience, it has been noted for not suffering from any major glitches or crashes like a lot of other rushed games do. Even when the The Angry Video Game Nerd finally reviewed it in his movie, he said it wasn't that bad and he said the Raiders of the Lost Ark game for the Atari was more cryptic than E.T. I'm really not sure about him. Warshaw did design some 2600 Killer Apps like Yars' Revenge and the aformentioned Raiders of the Lost Ark but he's more appreciated by video game historians, most people still know him as (as unfair and undeserving as it may be) the guy who almost killed the video game industry, and even still he's not held in the same regard as someone like Miyamoto. I'm leaning on cutting.
• In a meta-example, Satoru Iwata probably wins an award for the quickest turnaround. People's reaction to Nintendo's showing at E3 2015 was... less than positive, and for years people had been calling for his replacement and declaring every setback as Nintendo's death knell, particularly since the Wii was released and became popular among casual players, but not "hardcore" gamers. After his sudden death two months later, the tone concerning Iwata and Nintendo did a total 180, as people learnt or realized how much Iwata had given the industry and that there were a many beloved games that simply would not exist (or would, but in an inferior state) if it weren't either for his Genius Programming or managerial oversight. An article like this, written 6 days after his death, would never have been written beforehand. I remember Iwata being well-liked before his death, and if this is true it's more of a case of Dead Artists Are Better.
• Video game genres are not immune: I'm not even going to bother listing them. None of these fit. They all fall under Popularity Polynomial. I say we move them all there.
• Technology Marches On causes this in general with PC games. Oftentimes, a game will be released but will have extremely high system requirements only achievable through current top-of-the-line equipment. As years pass on, the technology once considered expensive and power-hungry becomes the norm in low-end machines, and soon enough the game that was once complained about for being too resource heavy becomes looked back on as a fantastic game. Crysis is a good example. This doesn't really fit into the archetype of "X was shat on by critics and audiences upon release. 20 years later, everyone loves it." I don't think we should keep it, what do you guys think?
• While PC gaming has been popular in most parts of Asia, as well as the West, they're on the resurgence in Japan in late 2010s, nearly three decades after being ignored due to impracticality at the time, ironically because of the increasing practicality of using PC itself. This was helped by the advent of E-Sports and Virtual Youtubers there. Especially for the latter, as setting up a streaming interface with the avatar must be done with a PC. Popularity Polynomial
• Steam. When it released it was seen as a very intrusive addition to Half-Life 2. When it became more widespread, people actually complained when physical copies of games like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim would install Steam on your computer. Topics on forum where people wanted to get the game installed from the disc itself and not via steam as well as tutorials were not uncommon. Steam is now held up as a Sacred Cow, with people now bashing Epic game exclusives or other games that installed third party verification when Steam did the exact same thing and with people pointing this out being dismissed as conspiracy nuts. Does it really count if a work is on-going?
• An example that is unfortunately a bit mirred with Americans Hate Tingle: At the height of their controversy, the CEO of Konami made a statement of "Mobile gaming is the future of gaming.", inspired by the success of Puzzle & Dragons^note And also their own losses caused by the slump of Japanese developers around the 2000's-2010's, failing to appease the Western audience with some of their attempts at Darker and Edgier things, starting an Audience-Alienating Era that would get worse later.. The gaming community laughed and ridiculed that statement, and at worst, they use that statement as a proof that Konami has truly burned the bridges with the console gaming community, which was not helped with their other actions (controversy with Hideo Kojima, an interview that portrayed them in an extremely bad light), all of them contributing with their fall from grace and they're seen as nothing more as an example of greedy, abusive company. However, as years go by, mobile gaming really did improve, producing high quality games that goes beyond minigame fest and Shovelware and generating their own stable community (despite having to endure ridicules and accusations from the PC/Console gamers), looking like it's posing to take the world by storm (But for now, success are mostly contained in the Eastern region of the world). Ever since then, Konami has retreated back to Japan where it continued to have a modest success in a region that moved past the controversy and even became selected as the manager of the e-sport scene in Japan, and maintained good relationship with China's Tencent Games (which has a lot of mobile games). In a way, if you're on the camp that tolerates or embraces mobile gaming, Konami could look a bit prophetic in envisioning the success of mobile gaming, and their exodus from console gaming that end up being either too expensive or mirred with controversies after controversies might have a point for their own survival, but unfortunately, Americans Hate Tingle is still on full effect on them and they might not be able vindicate that one in the area. We discussed this before and agreed to cut, but here's my two cents on why it doesn't count: Not only has mobile gaming not improved beyond graphics (with some exceptions, it's mostly soulless cashgrabs trying to get you to spend as much money as possible on microtransactions (I'm looking at YOU, Shaid: Ladow Regends)), but this is localized to a specific group and Tencent is pretty hated by not just the video game community, but the tech community at large.

• RPGs: Cut. I don't think genres can even count, and in any case, you're right that those are more Acclaimed Flops.
• Warshaw: Isn't this trope supposed to be about works and not people? I would say cut Warshaw on that grounds. ET also shouldn't be there, since the example is just "Turns out this game isn't as bad as is commonly made out to be."
• Iwata: Same.
• Genres: You are correct.
• Technology Marches On: Examples Are Not General, plus those games do tend to be enjoyed by people with super-high-end machines. General opinion seems to be "This game is really good but you need a beast of a PC to play it."
• PCs in Japan: Yeah, popularity polynomial.
• Steam: Not sure. People did definitely complain about it in ye olden dayes, but nowadays people complain if a game isn't on Steam.
• Konami: Yeah, cut. Mobile games are popular, but not exactly liked.

Do Dark Souls 2 and Bioshock 2 count? Both have VBH entries. Both games were well reviewed and sold quite a few copies but were vilified by fans. Bioshock 2 is a game I see more people defend nowadays when I remember back a few years hearing about the game being a bad sequel. Dark Souls 2 probably doesn’t since I still see people (mainly on Twitter to be fair) trash that game whenever it’s brought up, even on This Very Wiki. I do see people defending it more and more however.

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on Jul 28th 2022 at 1:24:55 PM

I don't think something that won Game of the Year at a publicly voted event (Dark Souls II) can be considered Vindicated by History, no.

Bioshock 2 has a stronger case, but not much of one. Most of the criticism when it came out was that it wasn't as good as the first one, and not necessarily needed. It didn't really earn seething hatred, and it sold millions of copies and was well received. Most people actually liked the gameplay of 2 more.

People bashing something online doesn't really make it this trope alone, because anyone can bash anything-including something they haven't actually bought or played. The simple fact is that most people who buy games or watch movies do not then go online to register their opinions about them, positive or negative. So, sales are much bigger indicator than "people bash it on twitter and their posts gets lots of likes."

huh, didn't know that paper mario was actually a sales success; i was going off of other entries that claimed it was a flop. i guess that's this trope in a nutshell; people will avoid actual numbers in favor of giving things this designation as a "badge of honor".