Fun Use of the Term 'Broken'

K_la

Aspiring Trainer
Member
Perhaps I am being a grouchy old pedant, but the use of the term 'broken' appears to be thrown around ad nauseam, and with little substance! Does anyone else get perturbed when a strong card is called 'broken'? To me, broken implies meta defining and unstoppable, whereas what I read from others they label good cards (Buzzwole, Shrine, Erika's Hospitality...) as broken. Anecdotally it appears that the younger generation is using the word differently, much like the term theory has been bastardized from its scientific meaning. I am the only one that is thoroughly enjoying this stable and healthy format, but getting irritated by those perpetually calling it broken?

~End of rant~
 

Otaku

The wise fool?
Member
My turn. XP

To me, broken implies meta defining and unstoppable...

...when it is just supposed to mean a card, combo or that is improperly balanced in the card, combo, or deck user's favor. ;)

Sorry, K_la, but your definition does not seem to be the oldest one. I mean, I think; I don't think the exact origin of the expression is known, but I suspect it derives from the old "I lost because my controller's broken!" excuse. Just take the concept and go from blaming the controller in your hand to the code or design of the game and then have it transition from video games to other games. Or maybe I'm totally wrong. XP

Your definition is one of the more common ones, though. I'm not denying that. I don't know if it is the most common one, but a good definition isn't always the most common anyway. I tend to favor going with the most useful definition, which gets to why I define it differently and encourage others to adopt a similar approach. When broken basically equals "banned" or "ban worthy", there is not much use for it that isn't covered by those terms. Getting into some of your additional descriptions, even some banned cards can be countered or fail... just not enough to keep them from being banned.

I don't require something be banned or ban-worthy to be broken. I do not require a card define the metagame either. Why? I have put forth that broken cards come in "ranges". "More broken" cards can hide "less broken" cards. I like to use mountains as an analogy; they all come in varying sizes, but even a small mountain is still a mountain. Whether it is the largest or the smallest, one mountain can hide several others, especially when you're at the foot of the mountain. Think of Ace Spec cards. Even if you think all of them were well balanced, just imagine one broken one. Now imagine one more broken. Tah-dah; now we have one broken card that isn't being used because there is another more broken card and you have to pick one or the other! Ban the first one while ignoring the other though, and the second starts causing problems.

The main criticism I can think of for how I define "broken" is that it allows for an entire metagame to develop around broken cards. Then again, that is what I believe has happened in many TCG's, including Pokémon. We're so used to things like Double Colorless Energy and counters that supposedly "balance it out" that it can be easy to see how it warped the metagame... especially because it isn't always central to it. Not because it suddenly becomes truly balanced, but because we get something even crazier doing well for a while. @_@

There, that is my rant. XP If you disagree... you're entitled to and could be absolutely correct! XD Next time, we need to do "TecH" (technical advantage).

Note: Edited the post because I could tell I wrote it really fast and so there were a lot of sentences that went no where, confusing ideas, etc. Apologies!
 
Last edited:
Top