|
|
Post by yvoire on Jan 13, 2014 15:22:50 GMT
...and I had to give up.
the book is set in a Romania that for some reason uses american dollars as currency.
You are a student of mythology who has traveled through Europe in search of evidence of the existence of mythological creatures like the Minotaur, werewolves and vampires. I love how Ian Livingstone is so good at smashing my suspension of disbelief into tiny shreds with so little effort. Anyways.
You've been trapped in a jail and tortured, until one day you decide that it's finally time to try and rebel. You easily overpower your jailer, whose previous favorite pastime was kicking you in the ribs and watching you sruggle to reach the disgusting food he left for you almost out of reach of your shackles.
But when you finally overpower this awfully evil guy, he turns into a docile lamb who only did it because it's his job and he had no other choice, and besides his master is a madman. Whatever.
Next you encounter two other guys who work in this dungeon. Fighting them doesn't seem to be an available option (you only end up falling from a trapdoor in the middle of the storeroom as you try approaching one of them and he pulls a lever... no words to describe how dumb that sounds), but you can bribe them to give you information. With ten dollars, it has to be the cheapest bribe in history, and when they tell you that your capturer is a mad scientist who wants to turn everyone into zombies and conquer the world, you are left wondering why the heck is there anybody still working for him. I know that Romania is not the wealthiest country in the world, but do come on... This evil scientist seems to have reached such a level of sociopathic lunacy that he barely suffers his scientists' staff to be alive around him, and he is surely planning to become a zombie himself soon enough.
But lo, once these two guys -who look like they're more than capable of fighting- finally tell you about all this, you suddenly become for some reason their hero and saviour, the only one who can defeat these zobies. They literally tell you "you must kill them all". So... can I have my ten bucks back? No eh? How about some equipment? Oh there is some equipment, but each item costs 1$ as they need to keep record of the storage, and they don't want any trouble (wha? not even for your zombie-killing hero?)
I'm kinda baffled at the value of the american dollar in this story.
The castle of the evil mad scientist is your typical deathtrap dungeon style location, only with hordes of zombies. You get the numbered keys, lock combinations, traps and complete lack of anything resembling a story plot. There is even a gaming room that serves the sole purpose of some shameless self-celebration as it contains a row of Puffin edition Fighting Fantasy gamebooks, or, as the book describes them, "books with green spines and grandiose titles like The Warlock of Firetop Mountain". Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe it.
After a while wandering through corridors, rooms and collecting stuff that either will aid me in combat or will serve the purpose of finding key elements or is a mere red herring, I gave up reading out of sheer boredom.
Waste of money, will be very careful not to buy anything with the "written by Ian Livingstone" indication. Caverns of the Snow Witch, Freeway Fighter and Forest of Doom were boring enough, but Blood of the Zombie sets a new standard for bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsadler on Mar 2, 2016 21:00:31 GMT
Resurrecting an old thread ...
It's a terrible book that's for sure, maybe almost as bad as Eye of the Dragon. I'm disappointed though that you didn't mention the very worst thing about it at all: the fact that Ian Livingstone has managed to dumb down Fighting Fantasy! Now, instead of Skill, Stamina and Luck, we have ... Stamina.
What a joke!
Also, there's a zombie Elvis for crying out loud! Yet apart from him almost every enemy in the book is just a normal zombie. What about mutant ones, giant ones, two-headed variants, or zombified animals or other creatures?
Such a crushing disappointment and it's not even as unintentionally funny or groan-inducing as Eye of the Dragon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Mar 2, 2016 22:20:30 GMT
Resurrecting an old thread ... It's a terrible book that's for sure, maybe almost as bad as Eye of the Dragon. I'm disappointed though that you didn't mention the very worst thing about it at all: the fact that Ian Livingstone has managed to dumb down Fighting Fantasy! Now, instead of Skill, Stamina and Luck, we have ... Stamina. What a joke! Also, there's a zombie Elvis for crying out loud! Yet apart from him almost every enemy in the book is just a normal zombie. What about mutant ones, giant ones, two-headed variants, or zombified animals or other creatures? Such a crushing disappointment and it's not even as unintentionally funny or groan-inducing as Eye of the Dragon. The new system devised by Livingstone in this book prohibits variations on zombies, since all opponents require only one characteristic, STAMINA, and its value is always 1. I can see that he was trying to create a faster paced, shoot 'em up type of system. It was a brave move, but it's what we play video games for, not what we play gamebooks for. Add to that the resulting gamebook (I've actually only played it as an app from Tin Man Games) was dull and unengrossing. I don't know whether Blood of the Zombies was intended to revive Fighting Fantasy, but I suspect it hammered the last nail in its coffin as far as traditional books is concerned. I don't mind only having STAMINA. Luck is a ridiculous anyway; good riddance! SKILL, as I've mentioned elsewhere on this message board recently, is too variable ranging from 7 to 12. If SKILL is essentially assigned a single value, you don't really need it to have a recorded value, and you don't really need an opponent's SKILL. You only need to know how hard your opponent will be to defeat, which could just be a modified dice roll or a number of rolls depending on the toughness of you opponent or whatever. But you do need variability in your opponents, not just wave upon wave of zombies with 1 STAMINA point apiece. |
|
|
|
Post by hynreck on Mar 3, 2016 13:36:13 GMT
You also forgot unplayable. But it's got atmosphere, mainly due to the drawings. And Zombie Kong. But of course the cons outweight the pros by a large margin. The best way to play this book, if you can blackout the stupid plot, is to do it with your own custom rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Editor (Alex B) on Mar 6, 2016 0:37:07 GMT
The new system devised by Livingstone in this book prohibits variations on zombies, since all opponents require only one characteristic, STAMINA, and its value is always 1. Perhaps I should dig out my Zombie mini FF I'd planned for the magazine but abandoned when BotZ was announced? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Mar 6, 2016 0:52:09 GMT
The new system devised by Livingstone in this book prohibits variations on zombies, since all opponents require only one characteristic, STAMINA, and its value is always 1. Perhaps I should dig out my Zombie mini FF I'd planned for the magazine but abandoned when BotZ was announced? I don't think you should be discouraged from releasing an adventure because it shares a theme with a book most people probably don't consider a proper Fighting Fantasy book. Your approach might well be the superior one. |
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Mar 6, 2016 17:52:39 GMT
Agree with everything that has been said. It really should have been set in Allansia with the traditional Fighting Fantasy rules. Livingstone isn't very good at writing adventures set on Earth.
In Allansia, the basic premise would actually have been consistent with the harsh and bleak fantasy setting and the packs of prowling zombies could have been treated as single opponents as was sometimes done in Fighting Fantasy. So e.g. a zombie pack of ten zombie minions could have the attributes Skill 6 stamina 20 and it could be an objective to count all zombies killed in total.
The question of how zombies are animated could have been answered simply with "magic" and the gold piece is apparently ubiquitous across all of Titan - even in non-human realms such as Firetop Mountain. No Earthly currency, not even the US dollar, has ever achieved that level of ubiquity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Mar 6, 2016 19:20:48 GMT
Agree with everything that has been said. It really should have been set in Allansia with the traditional Fighting Fantasy rules. Livingstone isn't very good at writing adventures set on Earth. In Allansia, the basic premise would actually have been consistent with the harsh and bleak fantasy setting and the packs of prowling zombies could have been treated as single opponents as was sometimes done in Fighting Fantasy. So e.g. a zombie pack of ten zombie minions could have the attributes Skill 6 stamina 20 and it could be an objective to count all zombies killed in total. The question of how zombies are animated could have been answered simply with "magic" and the gold piece is apparently ubiquitous across all of Titan - even in non-human realms such as Firetop Mountain. No Earthly currency, not even the US dollar, has ever achieved that level of ubiquity. Not sure I could be bothered fighting ten zombies at a time. But a better, quicker system could have been made that would still allow variability. |
|
|
|
Post by Jon on Mar 6, 2016 19:33:21 GMT
I meant like with the gutterlags in Deathmoor or the servants in Midnight Rogue - there were a pack of them, but they were fought as one creature.
So a pack of zombies could have the attributes: ZOMBIES - Skill 6 Stamina 20. And that could account for a total of ten zombies all fought at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Mar 6, 2016 19:41:45 GMT
I meant like with the gutterlags in Deathmoor or the servants in Midnight Rogue - there were a pack of them, but they were fought as one creature. So a pack of zombies could have the attributes: ZOMBIES - Skill 6 Stamina 20. And that could account for a total of ten zombies all fought at the same time. Gotcha! Yes, that would be much better. |
|
|
|
Post by thealmightymudworm on Mar 7, 2016 2:21:27 GMT
(Disclaimer: I've never played BotZ - it's not really at the top of my priority list based on what I've read) It's a terrible book that's for sure, maybe almost as bad as Eye of the Dragon. I'm disappointed though that you didn't mention the very worst thing about it at all: the fact that Ian Livingstone has managed to dumb down Fighting Fantasy! Now, instead of Skill, Stamina and Luck, we have ... Stamina. What a joke! Also, there's a zombie Elvis for crying out loud! Yet apart from him almost every enemy in the book is just a normal zombie. What about mutant ones, giant ones, two-headed variants, or zombified animals or other creatures? Well, one of them is the UK Labour party's deputy leader.  The new system devised by Livingstone in this book prohibits variations on zombies, since all opponents require only one characteristic, STAMINA, and its value is always 1. I can see that he was trying to create a faster paced, shoot 'em up type of system. It was a brave move, but it's what we play video games for, not what we play gamebooks for. Add to that the resulting gamebook (I've actually only played it as an app from Tin Man Games) was dull and unengrossing. I don't know whether Blood of the Zombies was intended to revive Fighting Fantasy, but I suspect it hammered the last nail in its coffin as far as traditional books is concerned. I don't mind only having STAMINA. Luck is a ridiculous anyway; good riddance! SKILL, as I've mentioned elsewhere on this message board recently, is too variable ranging from 7 to 12. If SKILL is essentially assigned a single value, you don't really need it to have a recorded value, and you don't really need an opponent's SKILL. You only need to know how hard your opponent will be to defeat, which could just be a modified dice roll or a number of rolls depending on the toughness of you opponent or whatever. But you do need variability in your opponents, not just wave upon wave of zombies with 1 STAMINA point apiece. Making all the combats identical is a fairly rubbish idea regardless of paring down stats. It will inevitably become monotonous and is so unnecessary. Even without 'special' zombies, additional monsters (mad scientists are available) and henchmen, zombies needn't be identical because they can be in differing states of deterioration. I'm no expert on the genre but surely zombies with a missing arm, or even scrabbling along the floor with no lower half whatsoever, are pretty standard? I don't think a single stat can do the job either. The combats and stat tests in gamebooks are supposed to allow a tiny suspension of disbelief that the player is actually battling a zombie or whatever. The FF system is pretty stripped down anyway, it doesn't need any more moves in that direction. The more uniform it is the more the player is reminded that it's an exercise in monotonous cube-tossing. In much the same way under-descriptive prose reminds you that you're not creeping through a dungeon brandishing a heavy blade at the shadows lest a foul creature lunge out of them, but sitting on a sofa feverishly strumming a clump of papers. You also forgot unplayable. But it's got atmosphere, mainly due to the drawings. And Zombie Kong. But of course the cons outweight the pros by a large margin. The best way to play this book, if you can blackout the stupid plot, is to do it with your own custom rules. The cons outweigh the Kong then?  Yes, was it Sylas who came up with a set of rules called Escape from Zombie Castle (after the alternative title for the book)? I've been thinking of starting a thread asking how people would tweak all the unfair books in the series to make them, well, fair. |
|
|
|
Post by philsadler on Mar 7, 2016 8:29:51 GMT
Mar 7, 2016 2:21:27 GMT thealmightymudworm said: The cons outweigh the Kong then? Yes, was it Sylas who came up with a set of rules called Escape from Zombie Castle (after the alternative title for the book)? I've been thinking of starting a thread asking how people would tweak all the unfair books in the series to make them, well, fair. I once tried that with the awful Crypt of the Sorcerer on some old webpage somewhere. I came up with a list of about 24 things until I realised that the book was basically broken and a waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Mar 7, 2016 11:31:18 GMT
The new system devised by Livingstone in this book prohibits variations on zombies, since all opponents require only one characteristic, STAMINA, and its value is always 1. I can see that he was trying to create a faster paced, shoot 'em up type of system. It was a brave move, but it's what we play video games for, not what we play gamebooks for. Add to that the resulting gamebook (I've actually only played it as an app from Tin Man Games) was dull and unengrossing. I don't know whether Blood of the Zombies was intended to revive Fighting Fantasy, but I suspect it hammered the last nail in its coffin as far as traditional books is concerned. I don't mind only having STAMINA. Luck is a ridiculous anyway; good riddance! SKILL, as I've mentioned elsewhere on this message board recently, is too variable ranging from 7 to 12. If SKILL is essentially assigned a single value, you don't really need it to have a recorded value, and you don't really need an opponent's SKILL. You only need to know how hard your opponent will be to defeat, which could just be a modified dice roll or a number of rolls depending on the toughness of you opponent or whatever. But you do need variability in your opponents, not just wave upon wave of zombies with 1 STAMINA point apiece. Making all the combats identical is a fairly rubbish idea regardless of paring down stats. It will inevitably become monotonous and is so unnecessary. Even without 'special' zombies, additional monsters (mad scientists are available) and henchmen, zombies needn't be identical because they can be in differing states of deterioration. I'm no expert on the genre but surely zombies with a missing arm, or even scrabbling along the floor with no lower half whatsoever, are pretty standard? I don't think a single stat can do the job either. The combats and stat tests in gamebooks are supposed to allow a tiny suspension of disbelief that the player is actually battling a zombie or whatever. The FF system is pretty stripped down anyway, it doesn't need any more moves in that direction. The more uniform it is the more the player is reminded that it's an exercise in monotonous cube-tossing. In much the same way under-descriptive prose reminds you that you're not creeping through a dungeon brandishing a heavy blade at the shadows lest a foul creature lunge out of them, but sitting on a sofa feverishly strumming a clump of papers. I've only played the book as an app, but as I remember, the combats varied because you fought different numbers of zombies and got different weapons, and each weapon killed different numbers of zombies in each round. That was about the extent of the variation. I've got a more powerful weapon, but oh, here come twenty zombies. I'll see how many I can blast away in this round in one go. Quite right, the illusion of battle requires stats. If we assume the player has a decent, specific SKILL instead of rolling a random number (i.e. assume he's a powerful hero who actually has any business going adventuring) the SKILL scores of both player and opponent and the opponent's STAMINA are all just modifications to dice rolls to see how much STAMINA the player loses in the battle. The same could be achieved by simply telling the payer how many dice to roll to subtract from his STAMINA during the battle (although a much larger initial STAMINA score would be required). But that wouldn't create the illusion of a two-and-fro battle, and wouldn't create the tension gained from rolling a mediocre or poor Attack Strength and then nervously rolling your opponent's. And it would give the impression that you could kill any opponent if you only have enough STAMINA to reach the end of the battle. This is true anyway, of course. You could probably slay Razaak with a STAMINA of 1000. But it's important to get the impression that the outcome of the battle relies on more than just the player's STAMINA holding out. The problem I found with Fighting Fantasy battles was that, once I'd realised it was just an unnecessarily complexed method of depleting my STAMINA over which I had no control, I found battles tedious and would rather have just rolled a few dice, subtracted the result from my STAMINA, and carried on with the actual adventure, assuming I was still alive. I was no longer invested in the idea I was involved in a desperate battle. Perhaps that's just age. It made it especially annoying when someone like Mr Livingstone threw in an unavoidable opponent that was clearly too tough. Not only has it been decided that my character is going to die whatever, it's being done through a circuitous method. |
|
|
|
Post by philsadler on Mar 8, 2016 8:19:25 GMT
You could probably slay Razaak with a STAMINA of 1000. No you couldn't because his ridiculous special ability would kill you every time! |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Mar 8, 2016 9:11:54 GMT
You could probably slay Razaak with a STAMINA of 1000. No you couldn't because his ridiculous special ability would kill you every time! That book's shocking! |
|
|
|
Post by thealmightymudworm on Mar 8, 2016 16:26:45 GMT
I once tried that with the awful Crypt of the Sorcerer on some old webpage somewhere. I came up with a list of about 24 things until I realised that the book was basically broken and a waste of time. That would be a pretty difficult one to start with! I imagine you've seen Champskees's calculator for surviving that with, eg, max stats? I've only played the book as an app, but as I remember, the combats varied because you fought different numbers of zombies and got different weapons, and each weapon killed different numbers of zombies in each round. That was about the extent of the variation. I've got a more powerful weapon, but oh, here come twenty zombies. I'll see how many I can blast away in this round in one go. Quite right, the illusion of battle requires stats. If we assume the player has a decent, specific SKILL instead of rolling a random number (i.e. assume he's a powerful hero who actually has any business going adventuring) the SKILL scores of both player and opponent and the opponent's STAMINA are all just modifications to dice rolls to see how much STAMINA the player loses in the battle. The same could be achieved by simply telling the payer how many dice to roll to subtract from his STAMINA during the battle (although a much larger initial STAMINA score would be required). But that wouldn't create the illusion of a two-and-fro battle, and wouldn't create the tension gained from rolling a mediocre or poor Attack Strength and then nervously rolling your opponent's. And it would give the impression that you could kill any opponent if you only have enough STAMINA to reach the end of the battle. This is true anyway, of course. You could probably slay Razaak with a STAMINA of 1000. But it's important to get the impression that the outcome of the battle relies on more than just the player's STAMINA holding out. The problem I found with Fighting Fantasy battles was that, once I'd realised it was just an unnecessarily complexed method of depleting my STAMINA over which I had no control, I found battles tedious and would rather have just rolled a few dice, subtracted the result from my STAMINA, and carried on with the actual adventure, assuming I was still alive. I was no longer invested in the idea I was involved in a desperate battle. Perhaps that's just age. It made it especially annoying when someone like Mr Livingstone threw in an unavoidable opponent that was clearly too tough. Not only has it been decided that my character is going to die whatever, it's being done through a circuitous method. I might reply a bit to this in the 'three of the worst' thread. |
|
|
|
Post by philsadler on Mar 8, 2016 21:57:22 GMT
I once tried that with the awful Crypt of the Sorcerer on some old webpage somewhere. I came up with a list of about 24 things until I realised that the book was basically broken and a waste of time. That would be a pretty difficult one to start with! I imagine you've seen Champskees's calculator for surviving that with, eg, max stats? weapon, but oh, here come twenty zombies. I'll see how many I can blast away in this round in one go. No. I never saw that, but those odds are staggering! I wonder what on earth was going through Ian's mind? Anyway, from that, it's clear that you should get rid of the 'Roll a dice and maybe die' options (Cave Golem, Giant, Harpoon Flies ... maybe others). Of course you should lower Razaak's skill to 8 or 9 and get rid of his special ability. |
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,458
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Mar 9, 2016 17:28:36 GMT
Yeah, I actually think the concept of the battle system was pretty good. Being able to blast 6 zombies into dust with a shotgun is pretty cool. The problem is there are just too many zombies to have a realistic chance of surviving.
|
|
vagsancho
Knight
Posts: 809 
Favourite Gamebook Series: CRYPT OF THE SORCERER
|
Post by vagsancho on Aug 5, 2019 2:21:25 GMT
Is there anyone who have really liked Blood of the Zombies?
|
|
|
|
Post by philsadler on Aug 5, 2019 6:56:16 GMT
Is there anyone who have really liked Blood of the Zombies?
Of course there is. There's always someone ready to defend the indefensible or to suck up to someone they've never met. Rarely will these people ever acknowledge that sometimes something is just crap.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,458
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Aug 5, 2019 8:40:34 GMT
Is there anyone who have really liked Blood of the Zombies?
Of course there is. There's always someone ready to defend the indefensible or to suck up to someone they've never met. Rarely will these people ever acknowledge that sometimes something is just crap.
Haha no mincing of words there! Well, some of the encounters with the zombies are kinda creative: I like the zombie who blows himself up and the guy holding his own hand which in turn is holding an axe. The illustrations are top notch too (though limited to being mostly zombies). The combat system while completely different to every other FF book does actually work quite well for fighting hordes of enemies whilst being fun and fast. But yeah apart from that, it's waaaaay too linear, incredibly repetitive, has no real feeling of horror, seems to have inconsistent rules (do you have to keep track of bullets or not?) and makes Crypt of the Sorcerer and Spellbreaker seem fair. |
|
sylas
Baron
"Don't just adventure for treasure; treasure the adventure!"
Posts: 1,678
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy, Way of the Tiger
|
Post by sylas on Aug 5, 2019 17:48:26 GMT
Okay, I'll be that one person. I kinda like Blood of the Zombies...as long as I'm not playing through it.
Gameplay is unplayable, that we can all agree on. But storywise, it's decent. Do these things: Ignore the intro, it adds nothing to the plot; ignore the end, it backs the pointless intro. If you escape you win, end of story - ignore the 'gotta get them all' task. By clipping away all these minor areas, you are left with a fairly good story. You get a companion that isn't annoying and even survives. It features a good villain too, and I like that you get to encounter him more than once. He actively tries to kill by blasting you with a rocket launcher or running you over in his car instead of waiting for you to find and murder him. He's not all powerful like your regular villain, but only a crazed evil megalomaniac with very limited abilities, and you can kill him normally. Can't remember the last time when that happened without having to carry a truckload of items or wear a Skill 12 T-shirt.
|
|
vagsancho
Knight
Posts: 809
Favourite Gamebook Series: CRYPT OF THE SORCERER
|
Post by vagsancho on Aug 6, 2019 9:48:12 GMT
From these gamebooks which one is the best?
Return to Firetop Mountain
Armies of Death
Eye of the Dragon
Blood of the Zombies
Port of Peril.
I ask for an answer WITHOUT the consideration of the playability of the gamebook.
|
|
|
|
Post by dragonwarrior8 on Aug 6, 2019 11:59:26 GMT
I havent gotten to it in my playthroughs yet but after reading about it in here I was pretty surprised that there are some reviews online that like Blood of the Zombies. This guy gives it a 9 out of 10! www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-09-fighting-fantasy-blood-of-the-zombies-reviewYou can really take any book, movie, song whatever you think is terrible and sure enough you can find someone who loves it. I thought Rings of Kether was an absolute piece of garbage for example but apparently some people like it. Go figure. |
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,458
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Aug 6, 2019 12:01:23 GMT
From these gamebooks which one is the best? Return to Firetop Mountain Armies of Death Eye of the Dragon Blood of the Zombies Port of Peril. I ask for an answer WITHOUT the consideration of the playability of the gamebook. So you mean just evaluating them on the writing, characters, plot, illustrations etc and ignoring things like fairness and linearity? I'd probably go for Return to Firetop Mountain - atmospheric dungeon crawl without the randomness of Eye of the Dragon. By contrast Blood of the Zombies is too repetitive and Armies of Death is just plain bland. Port of Peril isn't bad though once it gets going. |
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,458
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Aug 6, 2019 12:16:03 GMT
I thought Rings of Kether was an absolute piece of garbage for example but apparently some people like it. Go figure. I like the sheer variety of approaches you can take in Rings of Kether - actually fairly unusual for the series. But it is a bit corny in places. |
|
|
|
Post by dragonwarrior8 on Aug 6, 2019 13:07:36 GMT
Well its playable at least I can give it that. I just found the story incredibly boring (trying to stop a drug ring? who cares!), combined with really bad writing and the ability to blunder your way to the end almost immediately to not be a good combination. Maybe Im in the minority though I realize that. I mean, you can even find negative reviews of House of Hell on gamebooks.org lol.
Getting back to Blood of the Zombies, the aggregate scores on Goodreads dont even have it close to the bottom of FF books. Its ranked ahead of Robot Commando, Spellbreaker, Masks of Mayhem, Rebel Planet, Space Assassin, and Battleblade Warrior to name a few.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilf on Aug 7, 2019 21:58:09 GMT
From these gamebooks which one is the best? Return to Firetop Mountain Armies of Death Eye of the Dragon Blood of the Zombies Port of Peril. I ask for an answer WITHOUT the consideration of the playability of the gamebook. Return To Firetop Mountain is a bit poor.
The others are all abysmal.
|
|
sylas
Baron
"Don't just adventure for treasure; treasure the adventure!"
Posts: 1,678
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy, Way of the Tiger
|
Post by sylas on Aug 7, 2019 22:54:25 GMT
From best to worst: Return, Armies, Blood, Port, Eye
|
|
|
|
Post by firebead on Sept 8, 2021 11:04:26 GMT
Making all the combats identical is a fairly rubbish idea regardless of paring down stats. It will inevitably become monotonous and is so unnecessary. Even without 'special' zombies, additional monsters (mad scientists are available) and henchmen, zombies needn't be identical because they can be in differing states of deterioration. I'm no expert on the genre but surely zombies with a missing arm, or even scrabbling along the floor with no lower half whatsoever, are pretty standard? I don't think a single stat can do the job either. The combats and stat tests in gamebooks are supposed to allow a tiny suspension of disbelief that the player is actually battling a zombie or whatever. The FF system is pretty stripped down anyway, it doesn't need any more moves in that direction. The more uniform it is the more the player is reminded that it's an exercise in monotonous cube-tossing. In much the same way under-descriptive prose reminds you that you're not creeping through a dungeon brandishing a heavy blade at the shadows lest a foul creature lunge out of them, but sitting on a sofa feverishly strumming a clump of papers. I've only played the book as an app, but as I remember, the combats varied because you fought different numbers of zombies and got different weapons, and each weapon killed different numbers of zombies in each round. That was about the extent of the variation. I've got a more powerful weapon, but oh, here come twenty zombies. I'll see how many I can blast away in this round in one go. Quite right, the illusion of battle requires stats. If we assume the player has a decent, specific SKILL instead of rolling a random number (i.e. assume he's a powerful hero who actually has any business going adventuring) the SKILL scores of both player and opponent and the opponent's STAMINA are all just modifications to dice rolls to see how much STAMINA the player loses in the battle. The same could be achieved by simply telling the payer how many dice to roll to subtract from his STAMINA during the battle (although a much larger initial STAMINA score would be required). But that wouldn't create the illusion of a two-and-fro battle, and wouldn't create the tension gained from rolling a mediocre or poor Attack Strength and then nervously rolling your opponent's. And it would give the impression that you could kill any opponent if you only have enough STAMINA to reach the end of the battle. This is true anyway, of course. You could probably slay Razaak with a STAMINA of 1000. But it's important to get the impression that the outcome of the battle relies on more than just the player's STAMINA holding out. The problem I found with Fighting Fantasy battles was that, once I'd realised it was just an unnecessarily complexed method of depleting my STAMINA over which I had no control, I found battles tedious and would rather have just rolled a few dice, subtracted the result from my STAMINA, and carried on with the actual adventure, assuming I was still alive. I was no longer invested in the idea I was involved in a desperate battle. Perhaps that's just age. It made it especially annoying when someone like Mr Livingstone threw in an unavoidable opponent that was clearly too tough. Not only has it been decided that my character is going to die whatever, it's being done through a circuitous method. The combat in the Golden Dragon series of gamebook is similar to what you are describing that. In combat, only "stamina" is necessary. You simply roll 2 dice: if you score, let's say, 2-4 your enemy "wins" the round and you lose a predetermined amount of Stamina; if you score higher, the enemy loses a predetermined amount of Stamina. Fights against more powerful enemies changes the number required to roll in order to win and the damage done and subjected by the enemy. |
|
