Kitchen Sink Design

No, I'm not talking about how to design kitchen sinks. If you're here because of that, you've got the wrong blog. I'm talking about game design and how more ideas don't make for a better game.
This is one of these posts where I'm going to use a specific example, but won't use its name. Mostly because you people out there in the world a) have never heard of it or b) recognize it from the things I say about it.

Why are you doing this again?

I'm a hobby game designer and have spent a fair amount of time thinking about what makes a game good, fun and playable. I don't want to bash the game I'll be talking about here, or its creator. I'll just use it as an example of why Kitchen Sink Design is bad.

What's Kitchen Sink Design anyways?

Ever heard of the phrase everything but the kitchen sink? Kitchen Sink Design is, surprise, when you apply this to game design.  What I'll do here is that I'll pick apart the countless features/gimmicks/details the example game has and point out if/why they could have been cut and what makes them clash with the rest.

The Game¹⁾

The Game itself is set in a dystopian future where the vast majority of the world is either dead or crawling with demons. A chosen few people get to live in the last safe havens, while the rest has to live on the outside world, fighting for their lives everyday. You get to play as one of these outside worlders, and things get really complicated and Final Fantasy like. But keep in mind, this is a dystopian future where everything is grim, gritty and crawling with demons.

Features, Features, Features

Combat

Combat is handled in a turn-based system, with up to three party members and, from what I saw so far, five enemies. Each character is limited to nine actions they can choose from, three of which are passive, such as item usage, fleeing or defending themselves. Additionally, there's a time limit for entering these commands, as shown by a bar at the bottom of the screen.
Another core part of combat is the elemental system. There's six elements (the classic four plus light and darkness), and each starts off at a certain percentage, depending on the terrain. This percentage value runs from 0 to 200 and defines how effective your skill is. Whenever you use a skill with an element, its element gets stronger, while the opposite element gets weaker. There's also items that influence these values.
Oh, and somewhere along the way each character gets a limit break (aka you get a bar that fills whenever the character's hit and lets them use the skill when it's full).
...and sometimes, when you use a very effective attack or make a critical hit, you'll get a bonus on the percentage to get loot, experience points and health/ability point regeneration.

What I don't like about it
Complexity: Read this and try to make sense of it. Sure, you will, but it isn't really intuitive.
Balancing: This runs hand in hand with complexity, because the more things you throw into a system, the harder it is to balance it properly.
Exploitability: Once you do figure it out, you realize that all you need to do is spam the current area's very effective attack and wait for the boni to stack up. That way you can easily level up in an area that's designed for a lower level. Oh, and did I mention that you can buy these bonuses at the churches?
Input: I didn't mention this before, but the input runs via the number keys. No, you can't use your numpad. The whole rest of the game is controlled via arrow keys and Esc/Space.

What were they thinking?
I kind of get what the developer was going for. Combat should be strategic and different from all that other stuff out there, hence the elemental influence and the number keys. I appreciate the idea, but this is not going to work.
I have nothing against elemental weaknesses, but the way they are implemented here is too easy to exploit. The same goes for the bonuses. I like the idea that the player is rewarded when they use a strong element, but as it is now, the player is essentially rewarded for grinding. I doubt this was intended.
Another thing that really rubs me the wrong way is the input. Sure, it's different, and it might have sounded like a good idea, but what this method of input does is rip me out of the flow because I need to reposition my hands on the keyboard. What's wrong with choosing attacks from a list, especially if that list is only nine elements long? And what's with that bar at the bottom? Stress + different method of input = mistype.
In general, this combat system gives up balancing and usability in favor of being innovative. And despite that, it feels like an ordinary turn-based combat system where I need to move my hand across the keyboard.

Quests

Throughout the game, the party takes up quests from the government, represented by guys in black cowls and red sunglasses (SYMBOLISM!!!1!1). These quests are listed in a quest log and can, upon completion, be handed in at every government post across the world. With each quest you complete, you get points that let you level up in rank and eventually buy better equipment.

What I don't like about it
These quests split up in "kill target demon" and "collect resources."
The first kind usually means that you have to go back to an area you already visited and kill something. Something that, before you took up that quest, wasn't even there, despite them saying that it was roaming the area for a while. The worst of these quests goes as far: A village has been attacked by spiders and you should go and find their nest. Said nest is a cave in the forest you had to cross in order to reach the village. I went into said cave. The only thing I found were a few webs and an item. As soon as I get the quest, there's two ginormous spiders in there. This is their nest. They should have been there before. GAH!
The resource quests aren't much better. Most of them require some kind of loot you get from the demons, which I get. But most of them also require you to get a certain weapon, or other items that can be bought at the shop a few houses away. What are they paying you for, cowl guys? Oh, and of course you barely get enough money for the quests.
Special mention goes to one of the most requested item in the whole quest system: Crystals. The base crystals can be bought at the shop, but for most quests you have to fuse them. Because you don't get recipes, you end up wasting half of them before you find out how to make the crystals they need.

What were they thinking?
Again, I see where the developer came from. Quests are nice. Still, the variety of quests isn't particularly great. That makes the fact that you actually have to do them worse. Because if you don't do the quests, you don't get your equipment. I see that this was supposed to be another reward system, but it comes off the other way round. While it's useful that you can buy weaker versions of these items (for quests, again), you can just as well go to an earlier city. You have a quick travel world map, so where's the problem? This feature, too, feels like it's there to make the game innovative.

Leveling up

Leveling up is a bit different in this game. Instead of reaching a new level at a set point of experience points, you get nine elements to level up (the six real elements, two kinds of physical attack and defense). With a certain amount of levels in certain elements, you can unlock new skills. Additionally, every element rises stats differently.

What I don't like about it
Actually, this isn't that bad. It's still trying too hard with what it does. While you do see what level you need for skills to unlock, you don't see what these skills actually do. I get that this system is supposed to give you the chance of diversifying your characters, but there's a few problems with this.
1. Your party changes: You have a maximum amount of six characters, and you'll never know who will leave or join after the next cutscene. Good luck without your healer, or without the guy who's got the death ray that will help you kill the next enemy. Unless you overlevel massively, you can't get all the elements to a feasible level.
2. Different enemies have different weaknesses: You'd think that, in order to get through, three of your characters (mind you, six is the maximum party size) should know an AoE attack of that type. Then comes the next area and your AoE of that type is useless. So you can't really level up until you see what your next enemy is like.

What were they thinking?
Actually, the idea for this is good. Yes, this is a feature that does not clog up the system, it's just not implemented that well.

Arena

Somewhere on the second continent, there's an arena where you can fight against enemies. You earn points, and depending on how far you get, you can buy equipment you don't get anywhere else.

What I don't like about it
It's a pure gameplay element, with next to no roots in the world itself. Thing is, an arena would make sense in this world. The world sucks, and people need to be entertained. But the way the game handles this is just... ugh. This feature is well-thought out, but doesn't fit into this game.
1. The characters are on an urgent mission. There's no time to go into an arena and beat shit up when the big bad is on his way to take over the world. (No, literally.)
2. The enemies make no sense. Sure, there are the basic ones you can scoop up somewhere, but can someone please explain me how a government-controlled one of a kind mecha spider gets into that arena? Also, if you're overleveled enough, these fights are ginormous spoilers, as there are countless boss fights among them.
3. The mechanics make no sense. I'll take the mecha spider as an example. In the story, when you get to fight against it, the strategy is to destroy its legs. With each leg, it crashes onto the ground and takes damage. But in the arena, you have to fight all parts of a boss in order to defeat it. This leads to hilarious fights like a bunch of legs that do nothing, or just the body that's lying there and deathlasering you or, one of the most failsome examples: A pair of tentacles without the kraken head to support them. Not to mention the fact that the arena is filled with sand, so it's tentacles sticking out of the ground.
I have nothing against arenas in general, or this particular one (except for the enemy choice), but it doesn't fit into this game. The fact that it's playable doesn't fit into this game.

What were they thinking?
"My game needs an arena! Arenas are cool!" I'll say it again. An arena makes sense in this setting, the fact that it's playable does not.

Mini Games

At several occasions, the game switches into mini game mode. You get to collect stars and balls, which give you points, which in turn give you items.

Why I don't like it (!)
I should remind you that this is a dystopian future where the vast majority of the world is dead and the rest is crawling with demons. This is not the right place for a mini game where you collect stars and balls. One moment I'm walking through the snow, followed by ice wolves, when, suddenly, there's this rumbling sound. That comes from an avalanche. That's right behind me. Cue the timer and point-giving objects everywhere! The only thing that could ruin the mood more is this.
But hey, this is not the most inappropriate mini-game you get. There's still the Torture Resistance Mini-Game. And I am completely serious. This exists.

What were they thinking?
This time, I don't get it. These mini-games make no sense. They completely ruin any mood/immersion because they're not even trying to be in-universe. And for the Torture Resistance Mini-Game: What the hell, developer?!

The Point

Most features in this list boiled down to the rule of cool. They didn't really add anything to the game, except for mass. Most of them might also have sounded better in theory. But fact is that, just because something might sound interesting, that doesn't meant hat it will add anything solid. Having many ideas is good, but you should be able to discard some of them. Otherwise you end up with everything but the kitchen sink in your game, and that's never good.


¹⁾You just lost it.

Demo Reel

Since this blog is me writing about things that wander into my head, here's my two cents on Demo Reel. If you don't know That Guy With The Glasses (TGWTG, for short), have a look, they have lots of awesome review shows. </ad>

If you do know TGWTG and Demo Reel, read on.

OMG TEH SUX!!1!1

Full stop here. I don't hate Demo Reel. That said, I don't like it either. And what I'm doing now is kind of an experiment. This post will consist of two parts. The first part is what I write now, having only watched the first episode some time ago. That doesn't mean that I'll disregard the second one, especially since Doug realized that things weren't working out (and made a rambly video about that fact). Kudos for that, by the way.

Part one: The Thing That was

First, I'll talk about what the hell I still remember about the first Demo Reel episode, aside from that feeling of general unpleasantness. But more on that one later.
The characters: There's three four characters. Actually, it's three cardboards and Carl, who is made of awesome. He didn't do much, and most of what he does is classified anyways.
The others are Donnie, the black dude and the squeaky chick. I'm sorry, but I literally can't remember the names of these two, and it took me some time to remember Donnie's. The fact that this happens says a lot already. These characters are not memorable, but I'll try to get my details together anyways.

• Donnie's a douchebag. He thinks he's a great filmmaker, but he just sucks. My main problem with him is that he has no redeeming qualities. And no, that supposed charisma everyone keeps mentioning does not count. To those who compare him to the Nostalgia Critic: The NC wasn't a character. He was a persona. Except for what happened in the specials, his actions didn't have consequences. We didn't need to sympathize with him. Donnie, on the other hand, is supposed to be a full-fledged and fleshed out character. He needs a good side.
• Black dude, aka writer, is, as the alternate nickname says, a frustrated writer/actor. The sheer fact that he's working for Donnie for more than one episode of this is baffling and hitting my suspension of disbelief with a sledgehammer. I'm sure that working in accounting and sending scripts to random directors would be more satisfying than working for that guy.
• Squeaky chick is... oh god. Memory, don't fail me now. I remember that she was squeaky and mainly did some acting. I don't remember any behind the scenes scene with her. Or, more exactly, I don't remember her doing anything. At least black writer dude had his conflict with Donnie.
• Carl is an awesome ex-Gestapo/Stasi dude who operates the camera. He hardly did anything, but I still felt like there was something to him.

The plot:
The Dark Knight Begins Rising... yeah. There isn't really much plot in that episode. I don't know, but for a pilot episode, there should have been more plot, maybe some backstory that's not just every cast member standing in front of the camera and talking about themselves. Most of the episode is really just them making their moive with tons of green screen.

The gags:
And most of that moive, in turn, consists of gags. And here's another major problem of that episode. Demo Reel tries to parody the movies, as well as bad parodies of them. Like the Seltzer and Friedberg (Seltzerberg) approach. The problem with that is that, instead of making fun of Seltzerberg, Demo Reel ends up falling into the same traps.One of the scenes I remember is the clothing change gag, where Bruce changes into various costumes, including a Mario one. Which he takes twice. And oh my god, this scene is so drawn-out it's not even unfunny any more. It's just tedious. I don't remember much else, but that scene is representative of what doesn't work about the approach Demo Reel takes here. You can't pull that many gags out of just one movie, or even a movie series. There's only so much you can say about this Batman trilogy. And most of the gags were just meh.

Part two: The Thing That is

So I just watched the second episode. And hey, I now know that black writer guy is Tacoma and squeaky chick is Quinn. And I took notes. Note that this episode has been remade after they noticed that the first one wasn't really what they expected.

The main difference is that it's way less focused on the movie. It's barely about Wreck-It-Ralph at all. And that's good, since the movie scenes are still not really funny. Instead, we get more backstory, mostly in the form of Quinn and Tacoma trying to talk to their relatives, who turn out to not like them very much. I have to say, the actors aren't that bad, and we finally got some chemistry. But the thing that, in my opinion, lifted this episode up was the presence of Carl. The only scenes that caused me to actually laugh had Carl in them.

The rest of the humor is still... eh. Theoretically amusing. I can see what's supposed to be funny, and I appreciate the effort, but it still doesn't work out like that. And the ending scene where Donnie gives his in movie ending speech with somewhat ironic cuts to what's happening is not funny either. It's just a practice that hasn't aged all too well.

The Bottom Line

Demo Reel got better, but that doesn't mean it's good now. I feel like shifting the focus to Carl is merely a temporary solution. The acting was better than the script that was acted out and the parody is still not funny. I'm not looking at the third episode now, since I feel like the biggest change was between the first and second one.

The Below the Bottom Line

The thing that made me write this post was a discussion I had with a friend lately. We were mostly talking about what Demo Reel did wrong and, actually, some of the things I already mentioned came up. The other thing we thought about was how Demo Reel could be better.

Clearly, the main thing to fix is the parody segments. They aren't funny and fall into the same traps as the things they want to parody. The reason why is that, as we figured, the parody focuses on the wrong aspect. As I wrote above, you can't really get many good gags out of one movie (series). Our solution was to shift the whole thing to a genre parody, to turn Demo Reel into a bunch of people who want to cash in on general popular fads instead of specific movies. Now that The Hobbit came out, they could go and try to make a fantasy movie. It wouldn't need to draw its jokes from The Hobbit itself, but from the genre and its tropes. It would try to subvert them and utterly fail because Donnie was being stupid about it. Or he didn't get the genre. So many things to do there.

The second thing, which has already been improved in the second episode, was the behind the scenes part. The characters feel a bit more like characters, even if they have a long way to go. But hey, at the end of that way, Carl is waiting with a cup of coffee.

Right now, Demo Reel is in no shape to take the NC's place as the site's flagship show, but I really hope that this changes, or that there's another format that will do so.

Dark and Edgy

Okay, this is going to be difficult. First of all, the reason I'm ranting about this is that I'm on Twitter. I follow comic fans on Twitter. I see these comic fans talk about how various companies turn their beloved heroes into grim and gritty versions of themselves. And that makes me want to punch a wall, presumably while stating that I am a man (which I'm not). Also, keep your rotten tomatoes ready, because I'm gonna talk about things as I see them and may spout some BS

Dark? Edgy? What?

First, what's dark and edgy? There's not a fine line between dark and edgy and... bright and round? Dunno, but it's more of a scale of idealism versus cynicism. And I get why not everything needs to be sugar and sunshine. A well-written anti-hero in a dystopian city can be fun to read too.
But on the other hand, dark and edgy is a dangerous tool of storytelling.

The Dangers of Dark and Edgy

There's a few many misconceptions and dangers with dark and edgy settings/versions of things. Most of the times, it's what good dark and edgy writing is or isn't.
Dark and edgy is...

• ...always relative. When you darken and edgify (?) a setting, be aware of the initial brightness. I think that, for example, it's perfectly possible to write a dark and edgy My Little Pony story. The thing is that, since it's f-ing My Little Pony, it will still be lighter than, for example, dark and edgy Power Rangers. Or really, pretty much any other dark and edgy thing. It's talking ponies, ffs!
• ...not guaranteeing that it's cool. Yeah, we all love these people in black longcoats shooting each other in a city that doesn't seem to pay its electricity bills. But just because something's dark and edgy, it doesn't mean that it has that cool feeling. Badly-done dark and edgy settings are often just drab and unpleasant. They make you cringe and throw the medium of choice onto the ground in disgust. Sure, there's a market for that, too. On the other hand, cool things can also be light-hearted and funny.
• ...not necessarily realistic. To hell with you, generic first person shooters! Reality is not brown. Or gray. It's green, blue, sometimes beige or maybe hot pink. Sure, brown and gray do exist, but damn, don't overdo it with the gray. And like that, while dark and edgy exist in our world, there's also idealism. Not everything sucks. So, if you're writing dark and edgy, you might end up being worse than the world as it is. That's okay, if it benefits the story. Just... please, be aware of it.
• ...not about gore. Urgh. Also, no Al Gore joke here, sorry. I just hate it how, very often, darker and edgier settings are also bloodier. No. No no no. You can be dark and edgy without throwing blood like it's going out of style. (Which I hope it does.) Blood is like f-bombs. You're not looking more mature or more edgy just because your characters' vocabulary consists of (m)f, a, s, c and similar things. The same goes for dismembering characters. Just because Tarantino could make it look cool, that doesn't mean you can.
• ...full of clichés. That's true for original settings as well as... well, non-original ones. There's tons of pits you can fall into when writing dark and edgy. For an original setting, there's enough stock characters to fill a city with. For dark and edgy versions of existing settings, people either follow common stereotypes for the characters and environment (how often have we seen mushroom-abusing Mario now?!), or, in an attempt to defy that path, derail the setting until it's barely recognizable any more. Do I even have to say why that's bad?
• ...difficult. Hell yes. Writing an independent dark and edgy setting is hard enough. Too less and it's not convincing, too much and it's ridiculous. But darkening and edgifying (!) an existent setting is hard. Even when sticking to the aforementioned things, you can end up messing it up because you started from the wrong end.

The Obligatory Paragraph Where I tell you that I don't hate Dark and Edgy

Because that's always there. And no, I don't hate good dark and edgy. If well done, it's an interesting take on existing settings. As for original ones, Cyberpunk is mostly dystopian, and I like it. Fun fact, even Cyberpunk has undergone a certain darkening and edgifying (!!!) process. I read William Gibson's Neuromancer trilogy (it's awesome), and it wasn't nearly as dark and edgy as I would have expected. Sure, it was, but damn, that shows that even things that are already dark and edgy can become even darker and edgier.

Last but not Least

What do I want to say with this? Simple: Don't think that dark and edgy is generally more awesome/mature because it's dark and edgy. You still need to write things well, and there are things that just don't work when they're darkened and edgified (:D) beyond a certain point. And I'm sure we all have someone to death glare at right now.

Ar(t)chitecture

*siiiiiiiiiiiiiigh*
Architecture and art. Art and architecture. First of all, I don't have anything against either. When I was in high school, I wanted to become an architect, and even if I don't get some of it, I can appreciate art.

But that doesn't mean that these two go together especially well!

Why I'm writing this

I think I need to go into details here. The reason I'm ranting about this now is that, a few days ago, I saw an article in our local newspaper. It was about an architecture prize for either the whole country or just our state, I don't know any more.
The point is that it had a category for public buildings, which I was curious about since the newest additions to our university's campus are the second reason for this rant. While the architects for these things were nominated, they didn't win.

First thought: Phew, there's some common sense left in this world.
Second thought: Why the hell were they nominated in the first place?

Art vs Architecture

While they go together, that doesn't mean they should. Thing is that art and buildings are... kind of different. And if this were You Don't Know Jack, I'd be playing DisOrDat with you now.

For one, there's the main purpose for both. Art is there to be, in one way or the other, experienced. That could mean looking at it, smelling it, licking it... I don't know, art is weird. Buildings, on the other hand, are mainly there to be used. People live in them, work in them, visit them... they should be, in some way, practical.

I'm not saying that these two don't go together, but, and that's a big but, you have to have your priorities set straight. I'm perfectly okay with buildings that are also art. What I don't ever want to see is art that is also a building.

Case study: These accursed university buildings

I'm not going to use names, but those who are familiar with this unholy trinity of design are going to know anyways.

These buildings aren't practical. I feel like the architect(s) in question didn't think about the fact that, yes, there are going to be people who are going to work in these buildings. Each has their own oh so specific flaws, which I will list in the order they pop up in my head now:

• Colors: I know, white walls are boring. Gray walls are boring too. You know what isn't boring? Green. Green like this! A list of things that are green in this building: The walls. The doors. The floor, even though they had mercy on us and put some gray fibers in there. The toilets. Yes, you read that right. The whole toilet room (except for the bowls, most likely because they couldn't find any that weren't white) is in this damn green tone.
  The good thing is that people complained and the architect(s) listened. The second building got white walls. Too bad that the rest was still yellow! And yes, there was more complaining.
  So the third building got its main color changed from orange to a really unhealthy shade of brown. And beige for the most part. Congratulations, it only took you three buildings to start using a decent color scheme! Oh, and guess which one of these three colors was used for the toilets...
• Layout: You know you're doing it wrong when you look at an M. C. Escher painting and think "I want to build that." For reference:
  

  

  Hey, it's perfectly reasonable design!

  This point actually managed to get worse over the course of three buildings. The first one, which I will call the green house from now on, has a reasonable layout. It's got four floors wherever you look, the stairs, while aligned in this fancy non-rectangular way that screams "look at me, I'm art," are actually gathered in one part of the building, and they had the foresight to put some tables in there for students who are waiting for their lectures. Or typing rants. The second one, yellow house, starts out with having the ground floor split in two, with one entrance on each side. The stairs kind of look like the architect(s) forgot about them and just put them in wherever there was space left and we get some glorious things like three elevators, not all of whom reach all the floors. When I last tried to describe my way to get to a specific part of a specific floor to someone, that person lost me after the first time I had to use an elevator because there were no stairs. I think that the most reasonable part of this building is the emergency exits.
  As for part three, (I'm so tempted to just call it shit house), I haven't looked into this one that much, but I'm sure there's some madness in it too. But mostly there's holes in the floor where space for additional tables could have been.
• Impractical artsy things: The layout at large is bad enough, but there are so many things that would have been better if they had gone for practical use instead of being artsy. Like the aforementioned holes in the floor. Because yeah, whenever there's space that's not needed for closets or fuse boxes or the occasional bridge, there's holes. And, for additional artsiness, there's neon tubes hanging from the ceiling on wires. So yeah, if you have vertigo, these are not your buildings. Oh, and yellow as well as brown house have elevators encased in glass, which leads to a nice "aah, hole in the floor" effect. Would it be that bad to just simulate railings with sandblasted glass? And again, if you have vertigo, these are not your buildings. Not to mention that these holes are huge wastes of space.
  Talking about huge wastes of space: Someone really loved slanted things. If a wall doesn't need to contain a door, chances are it's not straight. And again, I get that straight things are boring. But walls that have, like a 30° angle, are just dumb. They cut down the usable space of a room and most of the time, you can't even place shelves at them. And let's not even talk about the random slanted pillars in some of the rooms. I mean, I'm no engineer, but I don't think they're carrying anything. Again, giant waste of space.
  And then there's stuff that just raises my eyebrows, like the freight elevator in the yellow house. You know, a big potentially people-squishing platform. It the danger zone marked with a tiny yellow house yellow line on the ground. Well, it must be legit because they got through with it, but still, what? I mean, I'd be okay with it if it was in an area you don't really come to as an ordinary student, but it's directly on the way to the toilets and one of the elevators for that floor. You can't do stuff like that, it's kind of stupid!

tl;dr: These buildings suck, and if this design won a competition, I'd like to see the others. And to architects out there: I don't care if your art gets rejected by everyone, but that's not an excuse to put artsiness before practical use when you're designing a f'ing building!

Mary Sues

I'm going to admit, this one isn't as uneducated as the others, but I do have my opinions on Mary Sues as characters, the term itself and its (ab)use.

Mary Sue, who are you?

I'm pretty sure someone else used that one before.

Mary Sue is, essentially, a term for a certain kind of badly written character. And while it is female (as it was named after a female parody character), I'll apply it to characters of all genders. Because, surprise surprise, male Sues do exist. They're also called Gary Stu, Marty Stu or whatever pun on Mary Sue you can find.

The Mary Sue is, shortly, too perfect. They can do anything. Everybody likes them, except for the bad guys, who want to tie them to a railroad track. But they won't succeed, because the Mary Sue is their opponent, and Mary Sue has to win. They're also good lucking and going to get their love interest of choice, after some painfully contrived misunderstandings and drama.

Okay, I may have exaggerated that, and not each of these elements always happens, but as said, they come in all varieties.

Sues and Gender

The term Mary Sue is female. This could lead to the conclusion that all Sues are female, which is just not true. Characters of all genders can be Sues.

That whole female thing also leads to people calling the term sexist. And people to use it in a way that's really sexist. So before I start rambling on about this, one thing: Just because a character is female, that doesn't make her a Sue.

Another point, where people actually have a point, is a certain double standard. Before I get to that, however, let me introduce to the number one killer argument:

So, there’s this girl. She’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every guy she meets falls in love with her, but in between torrid romances she rejects them all because she dedicated to what is Pure and Good. She has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. She is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes guys want her more. She has no superhuman abilities, yet she is more competent than her superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. She has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact she treats them pretty badly.  They fear and respect her, and defer to her orders. Everyone is obsessed with her, even her enemies are attracted to her. She can plan ahead for anything and she’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy her are inevitably wrong.

This paragraph is then followed by a statement like "what a Sue, right," only to reveal that it's a description of genderflipped Batman. Okay, yes, this sounds like a pretty huge Sue. Now let's "re-genderflip" it and read it again.

So, there’s this guy. He’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet. Every girl he meets falls in love with him, but in between torrid romances he rejects them all because he dedicated to what is Pure and Good. He has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks. He is consumed by terrible angst, but this only makes girls want him more. He has no superhuman abilities, yet he is more competent than his superhuman friends and defeats superhumans with ease. He has unshakably loyal friends and allies, despite the fact he treats them pretty badly.  They fear and respect him, and defer to his orders. Everyone is obsessed with him, even him enemies are attracted to him. He can plan ahead for anything and he’s generally right with any conclusion she makes. People who defy him are inevitably wrong.

It still sounds like a pretty huge Sue. You know, the thing that keeps characters like Batman or Sherlock Holmes from being blatant Sues is the fact that they have depth and are well-written. Sure, their characters include many things that are also classic Sue traits, but they use them better than your average Sue. You know, I'll go on a tangent here and explain why Batman works, based on this.

Why Batman works

Batman has gathered a fair amount of Sue traits. I admit that. But the above paragraph isn't really Batman. It's Batman, as seen by someone who either does not care about the inner workings of Batman, or someone who wants Batman to be zomfgawesome. Let's pick this apart, and please don't whack me with rolled-up comic books if I get something wrong.

He’s tragically orphaned and richer than anyone on the planet.

Ah, yeah, a tragic backstory. Sue trait number one.

How is this a Sue trait? Tragic backstories in Sues basically spit in the face of everyone who has been through similar events. The two main reactions Sues show to traumatic events are to either shrug it off or to shove it in everyone's face.
Why does it work here? Traumatic events like, in this case, the murder of Bruce's parents by a criminal, change people. They have to learn how to cope with these things. Bruce Wayne coped with it by being Batman. He did a lot to become Batman, and even now, that event is influencing him. The fact that he doesn't use guns is one of these influences.

Being rich can also be seen as a Sue trait, but I'll let it slip because it makes sense with the rest of his character, including all the nice toys.

How is this a Sue trait? As seen here, being rich is an enabler. A rich character already has the money and doesn't need to work for it, hence they have more free time on their hands for wacky antics.
Why does it work here? Okay, Batman's totally guilty of that. He inherited his money/company from his father. Still, in this case it's kind of a necessary trait, and makes the tons of gadgets more plausible. It's kind of neutral here.

He has genius level intellect, Olympic-athelete level athletic ability and incredible good looks.

Ah, yeah. A classic super genius.
How is this a Sue trait? Being a genius is often used as an excuse to have a teenager do what adults do, and shove them into a group they're too young for, just because they're smart. Not to mention that it's not enough to have your super brain, you also need to fill it. There's no super physics without knowing physics first.
Why does it work here? While technically also a Sue trait, I'll shove that one into the same category as the money: It justifies some other aspects, like how he could learn all that stuff and come up with his plans. Also, Batman's intellect is basically his superpower. If we can believe that a man can fly, we can believe that a man can be really smart.

Of course, Batman's super fit.
How is this a Sue trait? Similar to above average mental abilities, being harder better faster stronger than others is used to get the character in question where they really shouldn't be. And of course, Sues hardly train for their abilities. They just got them.

Why does it work here? It's not like he was born super strong. Batman worked for what he can do. Sure, it's a biiit much, but he has some sort of justification for being able to do all that stuff. Also, he has this goal of stopping crime and his parents' death probably gave him the determination to go through with it. Don't think he didn't do anything for it.

Okay, I think I've made my point. I'll stop here because every other trait I'd be picking apart would look like this:

Batman has a Sue trait.
How is this a Sue trait? Most Sues have this trait without really exploring the consequences.
Why does it work here? Batman explores the consequences and has it in a context that makes sense.

And that would be boring. In the hands of a competent writer, Batman's a deep and interesting character with his edges and flaws. If done wrong, however, he sparkles like a Twipire in sunlight.

The Mary Sue Litmus Test

If you google Mary Sue Litmus Test, you'll find a quiz with a whole bunch of checkboxes, asking you stuff about the character in question. You do the quiz, click the button and it tells you how much of a Sue the character is. Theoretically. However, the symptoms are not the illness. As I pointed out with Batman, Sue traits don't necessarily mean that a character is a Sue. I could probably go and tell you to which Sue traits all these questions allude. Most of these things are often carelessly applied to characters, without thinking them through. If you invest some time in thinking about the consequences of a character being like they are, you'll find out that these traits aren't inherently bad. So don't blindly trust the tests, and ask other people what they think of your characters... okay, don't blindly trust them either, but you get the point. Still, the litmus test is a good tool for outlining what has been accumulated in your character and how well thought out they are.

Personal Opinions on Sues

No, I'm not going to rant about how people dare to like Sues, or how people dare to criticize other people's power fantasies. If you want to write your personal power fantasy, remember that it's yours, and not everyone else's. While you might find it cool, special and interesting, other people might find it ugh, lame and boring. That's called opinion. If someone calls you out on your character being flat, and that someone actually gives constructive criticism, listen. Even if it's your personal fantasy, it can be written in a way that's interesting for other people.

The point

There was a point in there, right? Ah, yeah. The point is that Sue traits don't make the Sue, the writing does. Also, Sues are not automatically female. And, more important, female characters aren't automatically Sues. Same goes for characters who're somewhat outstanding. So, please think first before you call a character a Sue.

You may now throw the rotten tomatoes.