|
Post by CharlesX on Oct 14, 2021 21:00:08 GMT
A sister thread to thealmightymudworm's How's your chances? For me, these books fall into two distinct categories, gamebooks which have redeeming features but just aren't in the top half of FF gamebooks, perhaps because they aren't particularly creative or exciting (Space Assassin, Star Strider) and books which feel like both the author didn't put effort in (Deathmoor, Legend Of Zagor) and worse, don't feel fun to play (Gates Of Death, I. Livingstone's later books). It's saddening I. Livingstone's later books have been some of the lowest-ranked (worst) in the series. Assassins Of Allansia had a good premise, but seemed linear and uninspired in its execution, and had the common Livingstone problem half the items you found were cursed.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Oct 15, 2021 21:52:59 GMT
I wonder whether the reason this thread hasn't received replies is because we're such FF enthusiasts we're unwilling to look like moderates by mentioning FF we dislike. Given some of the colourful language used referencing Eye Of The Dragon and Gates Of Death, I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Wilf on Oct 15, 2021 22:02:05 GMT
What makes a bad FF book?
Well, judging by last year's poll, Scholastic do.
|
|
|
Post by johnbrawn1972 on Oct 15, 2021 22:17:06 GMT
A sister thread to thealmightymudworm's How's your chances? For me, these books fall into two distinct categories, gamebooks which have redeeming features but just aren't in the top half of FF gamebooks, perhaps because they aren't particularly creative or exciting (Space Assassin, Star Strider) and books which feel like both the author didn't put effort in (Deathmoor, Legend Of Zagor) and worse, don't feel fun to play (Gates Of Death, I. Livingstone's later books). It's saddening I. Livingstone's later books have been some of the lowest-ranked (worst) in the series. Assassins Of Allansia had a good premise, but seemed linear and uninspired in its execution, and had the common Livingstone problem half the items you found were cursed. My honest opinion is Space Assassin is too memorable to be boring. Maybe the most serious mistake is either to be too boring or make the book so difficult, if played in the spirit we seem to care about, it makes the book into a repetitive chore so all in all it amounts to the same thing. Even if a book if very linear it can be quite charming if the book is written with some degree of passion. My example here would be Caverns of the Snow Witch where it is very linear but there is some care taken with both the way you can recover skill and also the way the prose is designed to draw you into the story. Maybe the most serious error is if the writer cannot care less or if with age they could not care less. The poll seemed to suggest the genesis of all this really mattered but later masterpieces required fresh blood as evidenced by the poll results.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,458
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Oct 15, 2021 22:35:17 GMT
perhaps because they aren't particularly creative or exciting (Space Assassin, Star Strider) Both books are quite quirky though. Star Strider in particular has so many little details. Its flaws are more to do with gameplay imo. Deathmoor is quite cleverly designed in some respects and it's pretty well balanced. Waterfield just forgot to include a climax. And I feel a lot of effort went into Legend of Zagor - it's very complex. It's just not very fun!
|
|
|
Post by thealmightymudworm on Oct 16, 2021 3:12:19 GMT
I don't have an example of a book in mind, but probably the worst sin for a gamebook is requiring you to make decisions that fly in the face of logic. No one who plays a gamebook wants to treat it as though all the options might be equally worth going for – we want to feel a person playing intelligently has a better chance of winning than a moron, even if the difference isn't huge.
I'm reminded of the Richie Benaud saying about cricket captaincy: "Captaincy is 90 per cent luck and 10 per cent skill. But don't try it without that 10 per cent."
|
|
|
Post by pip on Oct 16, 2021 15:50:54 GMT
Feeling run of the mill and forgettable is probably the worst thing for an FF book. A lot of the later entries unfortunately felt that way for me (with some exceptions). I feel like the more the series went on, the fewer "benchmark" books there were.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Oct 16, 2021 16:22:07 GMT
Feeling run of the mill and forgettable is probably the worst thing for an FF book. A lot of the later entries unfortunately felt that way for me (with some exceptions). I feel like the more the series went on, the fewer "benchmark" books there were. What I wrote earlier about Deathmoor and Legend Of Zagor was untrue and harsh - Kieran was right, the writers tried hard, but the two didn't light my sense of wonder the way the better FF did. Curse Of The Mummy was an original, interesting and well-written book, but aside from having too many combats it had a grey feel rather than an RPG feel, and wasn't so amazing because of its very limited replay value.
|
|
|
Post by tyrion on Oct 16, 2021 16:50:39 GMT
I think the only truly bad ff book is gates of death. It is boring, the prose is silly and the illustrations are appalling. Even eye of the dragon, sky lord and chasms of malice have some saving graces.
|
|
|
Post by The Count on Oct 16, 2021 20:49:26 GMT
It can be a number of things: Bad prose (Gates of Death) Excessive use of skills / special rules / other complications for the sale of complexity (Green efforts, Sorcery) Too many fights / excessive difficulty (Crypt, Spellbreaker, Knights of Doom, Curse of the Mummy, Blood) A perception that the author hates the reader (see above) Poorly planned / executed adventure (see above, Gates) Stupid concept (Gates, Scholastic era Livingstone, Appointment, Freeway) Ignoring existing canon / story (Scholastic era books) Cheap, unsubtle references to other books in the series (most Livingstone books since Caverns) Nonsensical events (Sorcery, Gates of Death, Assassins, Appointment, Freeway, Eye) Too easy making the fighting and adventure aspects pointless / reset buttons (Gates, Forest, Necromancer) Being forced to take useless companions (Caverns, Deathtrap, Lizard King, Battleblade) Repugnant illustrations (Assassins) Silly Names (Anal, and from Sorcery)
|
|
|
Post by johnbrawn1972 on Oct 16, 2021 21:30:41 GMT
It can be a number of things: Bad prose (Gates of Death) Excessive use of skills / special rules / other complications for the sale of complexity (Green efforts, Sorcery) Too many fights / excessive difficulty (Crypt, Spellbreaker, Knights of Doom, Curse of the Mummy, Blood) A perception that the author hates the reader (see above) Poorly planned / executed adventure (see above, Gates) Stupid concept (Gates, Scholastic era Livingstone, Appointment, Freeway) Ignoring existing canon / story (Scholastic era books) Cheap, unsubtle references to other books in the series (most Livingstone books since Caverns) Nonsensical events (Sorcery, Gates of Death, Assassins, Appointment, Freeway, Eye) Too easy making the fighting and adventure aspects pointless / reset buttons (Gates, Forest, Necromancer) Being forced to take useless companions (Caverns, Deathtrap, Lizard King, Battleblade) Repugnant illustrations (Assassins) Silly Names (Anal, and from Sorcery) I can sort of see this. Maybe Trial of Champions as well where there is no effort to evoke any kind of atmosphere or immersion in a world. The unplayable Green books especially. Sorcery is a hard one as it is exceptional. There is an argument Appointment is trying to engage at a fun level rather than a spirit of seriousness. I am not sure about Sorcery being nonsensical but it does try to shoehorn in everything over 4 books. At least the 4 books try to evoke different worlds to explore(bucolic, city, desert and finally kingdom of a sort I suppose). Whether a book is to easy depends on the prior commitment made. Forest does allow a modest adventurer a strong chance of success rendering the bizarre circle to the beginning redundant. Is Forest worse than Crypt? I am not sure it is as it commits to the cover blurb so to speak. Necromancer is easy according to the percentages but you need a good knowledge of the book to take advantage. I would suggest this is closer to the original spirit of the books. I am not sure what I think of companions but they seem like red shirts in Star Trek. I agree on Assassins. I think I will give the spelling the benefit of the doubt as it is Analand and not Analland.
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Oct 17, 2021 8:32:41 GMT
I like a book where a bit of thought on the part of the reader goes a long way. I don't like completely random or illogical choices forcing you down hopeless paths with no chance of getting back on track. It does have its place, and could be argued to be realistic [how many people have simply been in the 'wrong place at the wrong time' in real life?] I just think it should be sparingly used. And to my mind, poor illustrations are worse than no illustrations. The Scholastic era books suffer most from this. There is a trend these days [not just FF] of crap book covers too. Illustrations should be far more widespread in books in general, but they aren't. Too easy making the fighting and adventure aspects pointless / reset buttons (Gates, Forest, Necromancer) You've come up with a good list there, Count. But on this one you'd have to include Talisman of Death for the 'reset' too.. And to be fair to Forest of Doom, maybe Ian was still aware of the bit in the intro where it says 'any player, no matter how weak on initial dice rolls, should be able to get trough fairly easily'. Same for Necromancer which I liked. Ignoring existing canon / story (Scholastic era books) Yep. That too. It irritates me. This doesn't just happen in FF but all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by petch on Oct 17, 2021 9:11:26 GMT
As Charles X alludes to in his opening post, the cardinal sin for me is a lack of authorial effort...I'm very much of the opinion that if a book's creator can't demonstrate sufficient care for their work, then why should the reader care? The two books that fall most into this category IMO are Starship Traveller and Eye of the Dragon, which come across as having a very rattled-off feel to them, to me at least. I can forgive more or less anything else as long as I'm enjoying myself, and sometimes those little foibles actually add to a book's charm. Consequently I pretty much like, or at least hold some kind of affection for, all of the others (yep, that includes Gates of Death, which I found quirky, funny and engaging).
|
|
|
Post by petch on Oct 17, 2021 11:17:10 GMT
Actually, now that I come to think about it, I think that one of the reasons I like Crypt so much is precisely because it takes all of Ian's existing foibles and magnifies them, inflates them like a zeppelin, pumps them full of steroids until they've gone all puffy like an 80s wrestler:
- A needlessly extensive required shopping list of illogically placed tat? Boom!
- The necessity to collect a number of pieces of absurdly, almost comedically esoteric pieces of information? Kaboom!
- A deranged difficulty curve exemplified by an outrageously overpowered final boss that almost displays a lack of understanding of a set of combat rules that he himself helped design? KABLAMMO!!! *splays arms as wide as possible to demonstrate size of explosion*
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Oct 17, 2021 11:31:50 GMT
The two books that fall most into this category IMO are Starship Traveller and Eye of the Dragon, which come across as having a very rattled-off feel to them, to me at least. Yes, good points petch. Sky Lord has a rattled off feel to it, of a ladle of pap served up to the kids who are reading it. (The same kids who read Talisman of Death, Slaves of the Abyss, House of Hell, Creature of Havoc etc.) A procession of disjointed encounters with no continuity between them plus a humour that [to me] is out of place in the books. All served up with lashings and lashings of random choices and sudden death. And this being book number 33 in the series (six years in from FF1). Nope, not my cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by philsadler on Oct 17, 2021 12:27:39 GMT
Actually, now that I come to think about it, I think that one of the reasons I like Crypt so much is precisely because it takes all of Ian's existing foibles and magnifies them, inflates them like a zeppelin, pumps them full of steroids until they've gone all puffy like an 80s wrestler: - A needlessly extensive required shopping list of illogically placed tat? Boom!- The necessity to collect a number of pieces of absurdly, almost comedically esoteric pieces of information? Kaboom!- A deranged difficulty curve exemplified by an outrageously overpowered final boss that almost displays a lack of understanding of a set of combat rules that he himself helped design? KABLAMMO!!! *splays arms as wide as possible to demonstrate size of explosion*
This is the best description of Crypt that I have ever heard. It's just a pity that the poster known as Vag is no longer here to 'defend' the book.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Oct 17, 2021 14:35:08 GMT
Actually, now that I come to think about it, I think that one of the reasons I like Crypt so much is precisely because it takes all of Ian's existing foibles and magnifies them, inflates them like a zeppelin, pumps them full of steroids until they've gone all puffy like an 80s wrestler: - A needlessly extensive required shopping list of illogically placed tat? Boom!- The necessity to collect a number of pieces of absurdly, almost comedically esoteric pieces of information? Kaboom!- A deranged difficulty curve exemplified by an outrageously overpowered final boss that almost displays a lack of understanding of a set of combat rules that he himself helped design? KABLAMMO!!! *splays arms as wide as possible to demonstrate size of explosion*
This is the best description of Crypt that I have ever heard. It's just a pity that the poster known as Vag is no longer here to 'defend' the book. I thought Vagsancho made a dramatic and unexpected return when he created and posted in Most satisfying FF endings thread?
|
|
|
Post by The Count on Oct 17, 2021 16:04:54 GMT
Too easy making the fighting and adventure aspects pointless / reset buttons (Gates, Forest, Necromancer) You've come up with a good list there, Count. But on this one you'd have to include Talisman of Death for the 'reset' too.. And to be fair to Forest of Doom, maybe Ian was still aware of the bit in the intro where it says 'any player, no matter how weak on initial dice rolls, should be able to get trough fairly easily'. Same for Necromancer which I liked. The reset is more forgivable in Talisman. However the reset in Midnight Rogue is not but you only encounter it if you go against every single sign suggesting where the best place to go first is so I've never actually played it.
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Oct 17, 2021 16:10:39 GMT
This is the best description of Crypt that I have ever heard. It's just a pity that the poster known as Vag is no longer here to 'defend' the book. I thought Vagsancho made a dramatic and unexpected return when he created and posted in Most satisfying FF endings thread? That thread is over a year old. It got bumped after petch's more recent thread on the same topic was merged with it.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,458
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Oct 18, 2021 13:54:37 GMT
Feeling run of the mill and forgettable is probably the worst thing for an FF book. A lot of the later entries unfortunately felt that way for me (with some exceptions). I feel like the more the series went on, the fewer "benchmark" books there were. I suppose quite a few later books suffer in fans' estimation not because they are bad but because they don't do anything that hasn't already been done. I think I've made this point before here, but fan consensus on Stealer of Souls is that it was generic and by-the-numbers but since it was only my second book, it seemed original to me and I rate it pretty highly.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Oct 18, 2021 14:50:37 GMT
Feeling run of the mill and forgettable is probably the worst thing for an FF book. A lot of the later entries unfortunately felt that way for me (with some exceptions). I feel like the more the series went on, the fewer "benchmark" books there were. I suppose quite a few later books suffer in fans' estimation not because they are bad but because they don't do anything that hasn't already been done. I think I've made this point before here, but fan consensus on Stealer of Souls is that it was generic and by-the-numbers but since it was only my second book, it seemed original to me and I rate it pretty highly. I like Stealer Of Souls. It has a good difficulty curve, an RPG feel (without the weird near-sadism of some FF), a good magic system, good description, good illustrations, a good length. No, it didn't break records in terms of originality, but then Tower Of Destruction was often original but turned out to be below-average.
|
|
|
Post by nathanh on Oct 22, 2021 19:44:15 GMT
I interact with gamebooks in three different ways: i) Play them properly by the rules ii) Explore them, trying to work out the best approach, but not following any rules and jumping around as I see fit iii) Explore them, just for fun, without caring about rules or winning.
In that framework, there aren't very many features of a book that are bad for all three. Some typical offenders: a) Lots of short paragraphs without much description. I don't have high standards for gamebook writing, but give me something. I prefer shlock to nothing at all. b) Mazes c) More "keys with 100 carved into them" than I can remember. Names are fine, as long as they're easy to remember (stares angrily at the High Priest of Carnex). d) Hidden options that you don't know are there. "When you reach a paragraph that mentions a butterfly, subtract 50 from the reference". Don't do this. e) Generally linear. Those that have lots of options but only one very narrow successful path are fine. I also don't mind ones where you have many options but generally can do them all, although I prefer a setup where you can only choose say 3 from 5 doors and then something moves you on. f) Lots of unconnected encounters without a plot or thematic link. g) Trying to be funny but not being funny. On the other hand, being accidentally funny is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by tyrion on Oct 22, 2021 21:33:19 GMT
a) Lots of short paragraphs without much description. I don't have high standards for gamebook writing, but give me something. I prefer shlock to nothing at all. c) More "keys with 100 carved into them" than I can remember. Names are fine, as long as they're easy to remember (stares angrily at the High Priest of Carnex). d) Hidden options that you don't know are there. "When you reach a paragraph that mentions a butterfly, subtract 50 from the reference". Don't do this. A) I couldn't agree more. Also, paragraphs that have no choices in them and just direct you to the next paragraph. Fine for splitting up big chunks of text or pulling together divergent paths, but otherwise no. Curse of the pharaoh has one section that is a single sentence, then shunts you to the next section. Also it is an ocd inducing 301 paragraphs long. Could that one paragraph not have been cut? C) i don't mind this, but prefer a hidden number, such as cix. D) i take it you don't like house of hell, creature of havoc or siege of sardath?
|
|
|
Post by thealmightymudworm on Oct 23, 2021 0:19:54 GMT
I interact with gamebooks in three different ways: i) Play them properly by the rules ii) Explore them, trying to work out the best approach, but not following any rules and jumping around as I see fit iii) Explore them, just for fun, without caring about rules or winning. In that framework, there aren't very many features of a book that are bad for all three. Some typical offenders: a) Lots of short paragraphs without much description. I don't have high standards for gamebook writing, but give me something. I prefer shlock to nothing at all. b) Mazes c) More "keys with 100 carved into them" than I can remember. Names are fine, as long as they're easy to remember (stares angrily at the High Priest of Carnex). d) Hidden options that you don't know are there. "When you reach a paragraph that mentions a butterfly, subtract 50 from the reference". Don't do this. e) Generally linear. Those that have lots of options but only one very narrow successful path are fine. I also don't mind ones where you have many options but generally can do them all, although I prefer a setup where you can only choose say 3 from 5 doors and then something moves you on. f) Lots of unconnected encounters without a plot or thematic link. g) Trying to be funny but not being funny. On the other hand, being accidentally funny is a good thing. Interesting – I can nod along quite easily with most of that, but d) I'd see as a definite plus point. Why do you dislike the mechanism so much?
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Oct 23, 2021 6:46:12 GMT
A) I couldn't agree more. Also, paragraphs that have no choices in them and just direct you to the next paragraph. Fine for splitting up big chunks of text or pulling together divergent paths, but otherwise no. Curse of the pharaoh has one section that is a single sentence, then shunts you to the next section. Also it is an ocd inducing 301 paragraphs long. Could that one paragraph not have been cut? I used to think this, but there are justifications for such paragraphs. It was only when I'd written a few books that it struck me hard that while the divergence element of gamebooks is really obvious, the convergence element is also interesting and useful. In other words, you have multiple routes into the same paragraph. And if you think about about it a bit, you can actually make that paragraph do a lot of work (and have various meanings) depending on the setup the different routes in create. The reason Magehunter was my favourite of my books was that I made at least some conscious effort at the convergence points, and when I subsequently played it, I found there seemed to be stories and events that surprised me: that I didn't remember consciously planning. Anyway, to make this work, sometimes you have to jiggle things around a bit by doing a 'pipeline' paragraph to feed into the convergence paragraph. Having said all that, I'm not suggesting that this is the case with Curse of the Pharaoh. And 30 1 paras is just taking the piss, isn't it?
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,458
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Oct 23, 2021 9:47:54 GMT
Hidden options that you don't know are there. "When you reach a paragraph that mentions a butterfly, subtract 50 from the reference". Don't do this. Oh I quite like this technique. It can be quite rewarding figuring out when to activate them so long as the trigger to do so isn't too obscure. It also allows the reader a new appreciation of what seemed a hopeless scenario. Everything else on your list I completely agree with.
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Oct 23, 2021 12:02:03 GMT
Hidden options that you don't know are there. "When you reach a paragraph that mentions a butterfly, subtract 50 from the reference". Don't do this. Oh I quite like this technique. It can be quite rewarding figuring out when to activate them so long as the trigger to do so isn't too obscure. It also allows the reader a new appreciation of what seemed a hopeless scenario. Everything else on your list I completely agree with. Or like when you hold up the serpent ring in the Seven Serpents and get some precious information. It's so well done and far better than 'Do you hold up the serpent ring if you have it - go to paragraph 123'
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Oct 23, 2021 12:20:59 GMT
While this technique can work well in the whole, it works poorly in the Cretan Chronicles 'taking a hint'. I think I get what nathanh means, I remember playing Curse Of The Mummy and getting asked more than once to convert the name of an obscure shopkeeper or something into letters, which felt a bit out-of-the-blue and unnecessary.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,458
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Oct 23, 2021 12:25:57 GMT
While this technique can work well in the whole, it works poorly in the Cretan Chronicles 'taking a hint'. Taking a Hint fails because it gives the reader zero hint what the hidden choice is until they've picked it. Like you visit a shrine, take a hint, then find yourself robbing it.
|
|
|
Post by pip on Oct 23, 2021 19:36:36 GMT
d) Hidden options that you don't know are there. "When you reach a paragraph that mentions a butterfly, subtract 50 from the reference". Don't do this. I actually love it when books do this. It increases the challenge in a good way. Instead of blatantly telling you that you've missed an item, and telling you what that item is, it makes the correct path harder to figure out and gives you that fun "aha!" moment when you do figure it out.
|
|