|
Post by schlendrian on Feb 2, 2021 18:32:02 GMT
Well, the problem with the voting is, that if you don't want to skew the ratings you have to wait until (if at all) a bracket contains only the books you possess. I did so, which means I probably voted four, five times at all. But you see the problem - if you want airtight ratings, you have to limit the voting to those who possess all the books. I doubt that'd be better.
|
|
|
Post by tyrion on Feb 2, 2021 19:36:05 GMT
Indeed, with some people voting for one book instead of another because they'd only read that one. Which is how you end up with forest of doom in the quarter finals.
Limiting it to only people who have read all the books probably ends up with the results looking like the tournament and rankings we've had on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by The Count on Feb 2, 2021 21:28:15 GMT
I think you always get certain groups within any fandom, though its usually more pronounced within music fans, especially if there was a flop period sandwiched between initial and later success - The original / early stuff was the best - The later / newer stuff is the best (usually these are newer fans who never experienced the original stuff) - The unpopular "fan favourites" that didn't sell and no one likes / artistic ones are the best - The whatever is popular / best selling is the best - The critically acclaimed stuff is the best - The this is my opinion and if you don't like it I will become more entrenched with my views each time you argue that I am wrong (I am firmly in this group)
The FB group does seem to be a mix of 1 and 4, with elements of 5.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 3, 2021 8:16:04 GMT
I think you always get certain groups within any fandom, though its usually more pronounced within music fans, especially if there was a flop period sandwiched between initial and later success - The original / early stuff was the best - The later / newer stuff is the best (usually these are newer fans who never experienced the original stuff) - The unpopular "fan favourites" that didn't sell and no one likes / artistic ones are the best - The whatever is popular / best selling is the best - The critically acclaimed stuff is the best - The this is my opinion and if you don't like it I will become more entrenched with my views each time you argue that I am wrong (I am firmly in this group) The FB group does seem to be a mix of 1 and 4, with elements of 5. Well put. This is one reason I have never opened up on my musical tastes on this forum. I firmly believe that anyone who has different opinions from me, just doesn't understand music at all.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Feb 4, 2021 3:58:12 GMT
I think you always get certain groups within any fandom, though its usually more pronounced within music fans, especially if there was a flop period sandwiched between initial and later success - The original / early stuff was the best - The later / newer stuff is the best (usually these are newer fans who never experienced the original stuff) - The unpopular "fan favourites" that didn't sell and no one likes / artistic ones are the best - The whatever is popular / best selling is the best - The critically acclaimed stuff is the best - The this is my opinion and if you don't like it I will become more entrenched with my views each time you argue that I am wrong (I am firmly in this group) The FB group does seem to be a mix of 1 and 4, with elements of 5. Writing as someone who researches fan studies, this kind of post is tremendously useful to me. With music, though, I think there are differences between the 'tribalism' that characterised the attitude towards music in my youth, and the modern eclecticism you get as a result of streaming services. This isn't an area I've examined in depth, but I have the impression that music is less important in identity-construction than it was for kids in my day (when your affiliation would be proclaimed by the names of bands meticulously written on your school bag). I don't remember ever seeing a kid with Deathtrap Dungeon scrawled on his school bag, though!
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Feb 4, 2021 22:06:20 GMT
There was also never any fighting at Brighton beach between Lone Wolf bootboys and FF gangs, thankfully.
As for some music fans, I've not forgotten one I met back in 1994 who said, 'Green Day's latest album [Dookie] is too commercial, they've sold out'. I don't know where he got that mindset, NME? Melody Maker? Other fans? I think he wanted the band all to himself and a select few others and to keep all the johnny-come-lateleys out. It was all a bit alien to me tbh.
And liking both Blur and Oasis in the mid to late 90's? I think you'll find you have to pick a side, my friend!
|
|
|
Post by tyrion on Feb 4, 2021 22:37:06 GMT
At the risk of seriously going off topic, my kids listen to anything that, to paraphrase Jayleh from star trek beyond, has 'the beats and shouting'. Whether that's stormzy or megadeth, it doesn't matter.
Not in my day. You had an iron maiden patch on your denim jacket and you did not listen to rap.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Feb 5, 2021 2:36:19 GMT
And liking both Blur and Oasis in the mid to late 90's? I think you'll find you have to pick a side, my friend! At our one-and-only gig before the Coronavirus put paid to all that, my covers band, The Mr Benns, played Acquiesce, immediately followed by Song 2. There was a riot. They both went down well. But yes, artificial conflict has been endemic to music fandom. It is not entirely absent from gamebooks, though. I was looking at a Youtube review of all the FF books yesterday and the guy was at pains to say he was only interested in FF. And I think there have been aficionados of other gamebook series who were quite snooty about FF.
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Feb 5, 2021 8:22:32 GMT
I don't have much to add to this discussion, but I have one last chance to beat SleepyScholar to Traveller status, so here I go.
Good assessments, Count. You make a lot of well-considered points. I confess that I have only skim-read a lot of this discussion, so feel free to correct me if I talk rubbish.
I have seen several people rate books by identifying different features (e.g. plot, immersion, replayability, illustrations) and give each feature a score out of 10 or 5 or something, then add them up to give a total score for the book. My concern regarding this method is that some aspects are more important than others. I can forgive a bit of proof-reading failure if the plot is good, but I don't rate a book highly if it is grammatically perfect but dull.
I believe you have accounted for this by weighting different aspects differently, so I find your rankings a lot more accurate. And you have backed up your ranking decisions with rational arguments, so I can even agree with the ones I don't agree with.
So that's it - my two cents' worth. And my one hundredth contribution. Does that make it my two dollars' worth?
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,472
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Feb 5, 2021 12:16:16 GMT
And I think there have been aficionados of other gamebook series who were quite snooty about FF. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy was incredibly sniffy about all gamebook series apart from Lone Wolf which I always found a bit odd until I realised years later that the author was the guy who wrote the Lone Wolf Legends novels.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Feb 5, 2021 12:32:34 GMT
I don't have much to add to this discussion, but I have one last chance to beat SleepyScholar to Traveller status, so here I go. Not sure I really want to be Traveller status: can't have played it more than once or twice. Being an FGU fan I think I probably played Space Opera way more than Traveller.Your critique of the Count's method is quite right: how many times do we do this sort of thing, and then scratch our heads at the result? But, my understand is that The Count was well aware of this going in, and has commented along the way on some books that he might place elsewhere in the rankings. Rather, it's an interesting way of providing an individual view of the series, playing the value judgments off against the 'analytical' flavour of the ratings system.
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Feb 5, 2021 18:49:52 GMT
And I think there have been aficionados of other gamebook series who were quite snooty about FF. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy was incredibly sniffy about all gamebook series apart from Lone Wolf which I always found a bit odd until I realised years later that the author was the guy who wrote the Lone Wolf Legends novels. What did he say in it? I've not read the book. But from what I recall of him, I very much doubt he even read the other gamebooks. Judging by what he did in the LW novels I think he barely read the LW books either. Certainly he didn't much care for the characters in them, preferring to shoehorn his own in and make them crucial to the plots.
|
|
|
Post by johnbrawn1972 on Feb 5, 2021 20:16:29 GMT
I don't have much to add to this discussion, but I have one last chance to beat SleepyScholar to Traveller status, so here I go. Not sure I really want to be Traveller status: can't have played it more than once or twice. Being an FGU fan I think I probably played Space Opera way more than Traveller.Your critique of the Count's method is quite right: how many times do we do this sort of thing, and then scratch our heads at the result? But, my understand is that The Count was well aware of this going in, and has commented along the way on some books that he might place elsewhere in the rankings. Rather, it's an interesting way of providing an individual view of the series, playing the value judgments off against the 'analytical' flavour of the ratings system. You could not make this up. You think he meant Traveller which my cousin in 1 Para introduced me to sort of slightly Space Assassin whereas he meant the post count was nearing 100 only he was one ahead.
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Feb 5, 2021 20:22:45 GMT
Or possibly he understood and chose to make a joke.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,472
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Feb 5, 2021 21:35:12 GMT
What did he say in it? I've not read the book. Unfortunately, I can't remember exactly and the book is in my dad's house so lockdown will probably prevent me checking anytime soon. But from what I recall, he considered the whole genre a waste of time, an attempt to cash in on the RPG hobby. He was particularly dismissive of Sorcery which he thought an ill-advised attempt to try to get adults interested in the genre. He said Lone Wolf was the only exception and the most like an RPG (pretty debatable that - depends what one thinks are the most important aspect of RPGs I guess).
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Feb 5, 2021 22:12:17 GMT
He must have had some pretty poor GMs if he thought Lone Wolf was much like RPGs.
|
|
|
Post by johnbrawn1972 on Feb 5, 2021 22:43:53 GMT
Or possibly he understood and chose to make a joke. Where is your evidence for that? Where is an emoticon or punchline?
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Feb 5, 2021 23:11:30 GMT
He must have had some pretty poor GMs if he thought Lone Wolf was much like RPGs. I wonder if he even played RPGs. I doubt it myself. If someone can prove me wrong and point me in the direction of evidence to the contrary (like an interview posted online or whatever) then please do so.
|
|
|
Post by The Count on Feb 5, 2021 23:27:49 GMT
I don't have much to add to this discussion, but I have one last chance to beat SleepyScholar to Traveller status, so here I go. Not sure I really want to be Traveller status: can't have played it more than once or twice. Being an FGU fan I think I probably played Space Opera way more than Traveller. Your critique of the Count's method is quite right: how many times do we do this sort of thing, and then scratch our heads at the result? But, my understand is that The Count was well aware of this going in, and has commented along the way on some books that he might place elsewhere in the rankings. Rather, it's an interesting way of providing an individual view of the series, playing the value judgments off against the 'analytical' flavour of the ratings system. Indeed. At times, I did question my own rankings and re-evaluate what I had based it on. The FF rankings in particular did have a bias towards the earlier books where I was more generous in converting my rankings to the forum vote, and a few where I was a bit harsher than I should have been. Though when I ranked each category in my own rankings, they were based on different things to get to that score. Some were marked 0-10 and others 0-20 based on what I felt was more important in making a good gamebook. And as I alluded to earlier, my favourite FF gamebook, Siege of Sardath, is not my favourite FF book, Phantoms of Fear. The latter reads like a much better story, however the gameplay is better in the former - FF is in my mind primarily a game to be played through the medium of a story and while the story is vitally important, a good story does not make up for bad gameplay (ie Spellbreaker).
|
|
|
Post by The Count on Feb 5, 2021 23:29:49 GMT
Or possibly he understood and chose to make a joke. Where is your evidence for that? Where is an emoticon or punchline? Evidence: its funny.
|
|
sylas
Baron
"Don't just adventure for treasure; treasure the adventure!"
Posts: 1,679
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy, Way of the Tiger
|
Post by sylas on Feb 5, 2021 23:54:55 GMT
The Count: 'a good story does not make up for bad gameplay'
...unless we're talking about Black Vein Prophecy.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Feb 6, 2021 1:44:58 GMT
The Count: 'a good story does not make up for bad gameplay' ...unless we're talking about Black Vein Prophecy. Who's making jokes now?
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Feb 6, 2021 1:50:27 GMT
Or possibly he understood and chose to make a joke. Where is your evidence for that? Where is an emoticon or punchline? I'm British. When I was a kid we watched M*A*SH, which was quite a funny show. But in Britain, with the exception of one stray episode, it was broadcast without a laugh track. We kind of had to make our own minds up where to laugh. And if it wasn't funny, we didn't laugh. I afford the denizens of this forum the same courtesy: if I wrote anything that couldn't be identified as humorous without flagging it with a big sign effectively saying 'THIS IS INTENDED TO BE HUMOROUS', then I wouldn't bother. I appreciate that this makes things more difficult for St Petersburg trolls (yet another reason to do it). And if you're offended by me calling you a St Petersburg troll, just imagine how offended I have a right to be at you calling me thick as two short planks.
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Feb 6, 2021 1:56:06 GMT
Where is your evidence for that? Where is an emoticon or punchline? Evidence: its funny. That (you're too kind) and the fact that it doesn't actually make any sense at all as a straight comment... In fact, I'm now wondering if John Brawn was actually doing the old 'taking a humorous comment straight, as a deliberate humorous response' routine, that I have been known to do myself. Overthinking?
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Feb 6, 2021 2:11:42 GMT
He must have had some pretty poor GMs if he thought Lone Wolf was much like RPGs. I wonder if he even played RPGs. I doubt it myself. If someone can prove me wrong and point me in the direction of evidence to the contrary (like an interview posted online or whatever) then please do so. I also doubt it, though I don't believe I've met him. He worked with Dave Langford, of course, who used to have the column in White Dwarf. But Langford didn't play role-playing games either, and I think would have been more tactful than to slag off gamebooks in comparison to RPGs. Ironically, a certain fanzine writer who shall remain nameless, but who went on to write a few FF books, did a review of Shadow in the Sand in the 12th issue of his fanzine, as a result of being sent a free copy by a kind Mr Dever. Being a typical fanzine editor, I, I mean he, slagged the thing off mercilessly, based on the argument that it was making a pretence of being role-playing while actually removing all of the important characteristics of role-playing games. However at the time there was some role-playing being done -- very literal interpretation of published modules -- that wasn't a million miles away from a group run through a gamebook. I very much doubt 'Grant' (RIP, as of February last year) read my zine, though. As you say, there's no evidence he was a role-player. Amusingly, in an interview with him, the interviewer describes him as having novelised 'a popular role-playing game' even though the novels were written 14 years before Mongoose did the Lone Wolf RPG.
|
|
|
Post by The Count on Feb 6, 2021 11:57:46 GMT
The Count: 'a good story does not make up for bad gameplay' ...unless we're talking about Black Vein Prophecy. I have no issues with the gameplay of Black Vein Prophecy. The infamous luck test is slightly unfair as it comes very early on before you have the chance to lose a few points, and you can lose without realising why, however it is much fairer than books that need a Skill 12 to complete relying on you failing a Sk test or losing a fight against a Sk 6 opponent. Besides, in the context of the book, it makes sense in the same twisted, bizarre way the overall plot does - and the idea that those who cheat their way through the book cannot win is rather satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Feb 6, 2021 12:37:46 GMT
The Count: 'a good story does not make up for bad gameplay' ...unless we're talking about Black Vein Prophecy. I have no issues with the gameplay of Black Vein Prophecy. The infamous luck test is slightly unfair as it comes very early on before you have the chance to lose a few points, and you can lose without realising why, however it is much fairer than books that need a Skill 12 to complete relying on you failing a Sk test or losing a fight against a Sk 6 opponent. Besides, in the context of the book, it makes sense in the same twisted, bizarre way the overall plot does - and the idea that those who cheat their way through the book cannot win is rather satisfying. I must have read and reread that book at the time and picked it apart until I worked out I'd been scuppered more or less from the start. Having now planned to reread it in the near to mid future I expect I'll cheat on that roll anyhow if it goes against me. Philosophical question: I'm driving from home to work in the morning but pick up a puncture just outside the house and end up delayed by an hour as i muck about putting the spare on. This delay means I avoid the fatal pile-up that happens on the motorway which, if I hadn't been delayed, I would have been involved in. Did I pass or fail a LUCK roll at some point in this little series of events? Was I lucky or unlucky picking up the flat tyre? And is this applicable to BVP? And am I making any sense at all?
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Feb 6, 2021 13:33:41 GMT
And rather more on-topic than my last comment... Yes, well the whole point of this thread is essentially about MY personal opinions, and those of those who wish to comment, discuss, debate, agree or disagree as they see fit. Which to me is far better than a collective agreement on what one is supposed to think (eg that DD is a masterpiece when it really isn't - the "community" dictates that this is the case and accepts no dissention, which is wrong)...... In groupthink, extreme viewpoints are only heard if the enforce the consensus, essentially making that viewpoint extremist as it refuses dissention, discussion, debate and disagreement. These are kids books at the end of the day... I do hope you don't feel there's an enforced consensus on these boards, or that I (championer of Deathtrap Dungeon that I am) inadvertently contributed to there being one. There's no place for orthodoxies and heresies round these parts (or more or less anywhere else actually) as far as I'm concerned. Down with groupthink! As you say, 'dissention, discussion, debate and disagreement' are the way forward. These methods can be used to form a consensus, but don't have to. I use them to help crystalise my own thoughts on these books, and of course in wider matters. I really couldn't care less what the group thinks, which is why I enjoy Sky Lord (which even I underrated!) & Chasms of Malice and loathe Sorcery! If group opinion mattered, my Top 5 would be Howl, DD, CoH, NoN and KoK. And that would be boring. If by 'the group' we mean the set of individuals here, then I do care what the group think. Not in order merely to 'fit in' [which is a powerful urge within many people and sometimes needs to be avoided] but rather to listen to and take seriously other people's opinions. You've got some thoughtful folk round here and what they say is worth knowing. I suspect that this is the same for you? Your not liking the Sorcery! books had me questioning myself why I liked them so much. Likewise you praising Chasms of Malice will get me revaluating Luke Sharp's books anew. So you've done me a favour, even if my opinions don't change. There are people complaining on the current FB "world cup" that "favourites" could be knocked out meaning something unexpected might just sneak in to the upper ranks for once - and its just an irrelevant set of polls! The tactical voting and gaming of the polls we saw in some of the earlier voting (scenting 'blood in the water' for certain books and attempting to force out others early doors) did amuse and bemuse me, I must say.
|
|
|
Post by stevendoig on Feb 6, 2021 14:23:34 GMT
I rarely understand much of what is being said on here nowadays. That's why I don't contribute much. But I really loved waiting to see which book was next on your rankings. Hope someone else does something similar soon!
|
|
|
Post by tyrion on Feb 6, 2021 14:56:33 GMT
I feel I owe the members on here who rate bvp and siege of sardath so highly a word of thanks, as I had given up on those books years ago but have re-evaluated my opinion of those books recently.
If it weren't for members (like the count, for example) giving us their own opinions, we would never have a chance to reflect on what we think of books we never really liked previously.
|
|