|
Post by paperexplorer on Jul 28, 2022 23:49:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by philsadler on Jul 29, 2022 6:46:41 GMT
When was the last time he wrote a good un?
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Jul 29, 2022 8:11:42 GMT
When was the last time he wrote a good un? Has he ever? After The Warlock Of Firetop Mountain, which was definitely good, Ian wrote a few half-good FFs such as Island Of The Lizard King, a string of average ones such as Return To Firetop Mountain & his newer stuff has been poor.
|
|
|
Post by terrysalt on Jul 29, 2022 9:35:08 GMT
When was the last time he wrote a good un? My nostalgia goggles say Temple of Terror.
|
|
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 Jul 29, 2022 13:49:10 GMT
When was the last time he wrote a good un? I enjoyed reading Blood of the Zombies and the art is excellent. Too bad the gameplay was broken. Ian should've got me to fix that one:)
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Jul 29, 2022 13:58:02 GMT
When was the last time he wrote a good un? I enjoyed reading Blood of the Zombies and the art is excellent. Too bad the gameplay was broken. Ian should've got me to fix that one:) Or anyone, or no one, because it isn't difficult to tell books like his Crypt and Blood are broken. This is a personal and rhetorical question, and one that shouldn't get an answer, but I wonder whether his Shadow Of The Giants was as broken as those two before you playtested it?
|
|
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 Jul 29, 2022 14:02:57 GMT
I enjoyed reading Blood of the Zombies and the art is excellent. Too bad the gameplay was broken. Ian should've got me to fix that one:) Or anyone, or no one, because it isn't difficult to tell books like his Crypt and Blood are broken. This is a personal and rhetorical question, and one that shouldn't get an answer, but I wonder whether his Shadow Of The Giants was as broken as those two before you playtested it? It definitely wasn't broken before playtesting. Strangely enough, Steve's was. But that was due to numbering errors and missing vital items.
|
|
|
Post by johnbrawn1972 on Jul 29, 2022 15:05:57 GMT
Or anyone, or no one, because it isn't difficult to tell books like his Crypt and Blood are broken. This is a personal and rhetorical question, and one that shouldn't get an answer, but I wonder whether his Shadow Of The Giants was as broken as those two before you playtested it? It definitely wasn't broken before playtesting. Strangely enough, Steve's was. But that was due to numbering errors and missing vital items. Wow. Are you a product tester or is this some sort of joke?
|
|
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 Jul 29, 2022 15:58:40 GMT
It definitely wasn't broken before playtesting. Strangely enough, Steve's was. But that was due to numbering errors and missing vital items. Wow. Are you a product tester or is this some sort of joke? It was mentioned in a different thread here and on Facebook. I did the playtesting for Shadow of the Giants and Secrets of Salamonis. Can't divulge any details though I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by slloyd14 on Jul 29, 2022 16:40:51 GMT
When was the last time he wrote a good un? Ian Livingstone's books are very consistent and have a simple plan - wander a random area to collect random items and use them against the problems you come across. As to whether that is good or bad is up to the reader. The one thing Ian Livingstone could do to make his books easier is to make sure the skill values of some opponents aren't impossible. And to be fair to Ian, most of his encounters are quite easy. He tends to start easy and ramp up the difficulty (the problem is, he doesn't usually ramp up the bonuses to match them). As noted in this forum, there are several people who have crunched the numbers on this and all that is required is to use them as a guide (or, if you are too lazy to do that, follow the rule that you shouldn't have an unavoidable fight where the opponent's skill is 3 or more higher than yours). As long as the numbers are OK, I find Ian's books to be quite entertaining romps.
|
|
|
Post by petch on Jul 29, 2022 18:23:36 GMT
When was the last time he wrote a good un? Has he ever? Yes. Lots. Am looking forward to this one!
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Jul 29, 2022 18:35:54 GMT
Yes. Lots. Am looking forward to this one! Sorry, I'm such a cynic, you're right. I'm also one of the few people on this messageboard who isn't into his Deathtrap Dungeon, which has to be his best FF and one of the best in the series (the difficulty level is just a bit high, which is a common problem with Ian). But then I like his Trial Of Champions. Looking forward to his new one, as well!
|
|
|
Post by paperexplorer on Jul 29, 2022 20:58:34 GMT
Okay so I have explored the forum a little more and I'm surprised at the level of IL dislike here. Admittedly I haven't opened a FF book in over 20 years, but the news of these 40th anniversary editions have really opened up that nostalgia for me and igniting my interest in ff again. I always liked Ian's books as a kid. They were tough, but Steve Jackson's were tougher for me. I spent more time with Ian's books than any others. I had to replace my copy of Trial of Champions because the pages were falling out.
I've seen multiple opinions that all Ian's books since the original series aren't too good, but I am still looking forward to this and sharing the adventure with my kids (now they are old enough for FF)
|
|
|
Post by vastariner on Jul 29, 2022 21:14:04 GMT
I would rate him the second-best writer, behind Waterfield; he is excellent at creating atmosphere, firing the imagination, hinting at or around intriguing issues and traps.
Problem was he stuck to the same design format, getting from A to B with occasional side-issues, when other writers were pushing boundaries a lot more. The nadir being a pie-eating contest in Armies of Death. If anything they seemed to get more linear as time went on. The most sandboxy one he did was Forest of Doom and even that had a narrow path to completion. Trial of Champions shows up the problem. Deathtrap Dungeon had 400 references and three McGuffins so there was quite a bit of room to breathe. Trial of Champions lost maybe a quarter of the book to getting into the dungeon in the first place, and, in that limited space, had 12 McGuffins. It had gone from intriguing scary puzzling exploration to accountancy.
|
|
|
Post by nathanh on Jul 30, 2022 8:58:05 GMT
We have gone a bit off topic here, but I think the deterioration in Livingstone quality for me was when he started requiring you to go absolutely everywhere on a long path to win. In the earlier adventures there are a few necessary places you have to go, and hence some areas where you mustn't go, but still a healthy dose of areas where you could go. In contrast, books such as Armies of Death and Assassins of Allansia are completely acceptable FFs apart from the fact you have to follow a path that is both very strict and very long. I don't really enjoy that style. This is probably why I like Eye of the Dragon because it's not like this at all (also, the background section is hilarious).
There are a couple of books that are excessively difficult (Crypt and Zombies excessively; Trial pretty bad too), but this isn't a consistent issue. If you interpret many SKILL bonuses as Attack Strength bonuses, the rest of his offerings are reasonable in that regard.
His writing style is perhaps a bit simple for some tastes but I think it evokes a good atmosphere for FF.
|
|
|
Post by misomiso on Jul 30, 2022 13:37:03 GMT
Ian Livingstone is a bit of a conundrum in gamebook design, as he practically invented the genre and wrote perhaps it's best ever book (Deathtrap Dungeon), but has also caused a lot of frustration among his fans by his adventures becoming more and more impossible.
I personally think that DD is perhaps the perfect level of difficulty, with the caveat being maybe slightly easier opponents. If it was balanced around a skill 11 stamina 22 luck 10 hero that would be acceptable, but needing skill 12 to beat it consistantly is too much imo.
As to the design, as other people have said the macguffin hunting has became too much, and as a result you lose a lot of the fun of the adventure. It may be a bit against the grain of this sub but 'one true path' gamebook design is very good as the book is a kind of puzzle to solve, it's just the degree of one true pathiness that is the issue.
I'm very glad these books have been playtested though. Playtesting makes everything better, and I'm really hoping that both of these gamebooks are much better as a result.
|
|
|
Post by soulreaver on Aug 5, 2022 2:50:05 GMT
It definitely wasn't broken before playtesting. Strangely enough, Steve's was. But that was due to numbering errors and missing vital items. If you try to play/read a gamebook that isn't playtested correctly, well... "You reach a dead end."
|
|
|
Post by time4tea on Sept 3, 2022 12:01:05 GMT
I definitely agree that it's good to hear that both of the new upcoming books have been playtested. I think that's really important and it's pretty clear some of the older ones weren't (or at least, not enough).
About IL: I have enjoyed some of his books, but he isn't one of my favorite FF writers, unfortunately. Focusing on a high combat difficulty is imo a mistake, given the combat is really the weak point of the FF format. Making a book so you have no chance with a skill under 11 doesn't make much sense to me - it's like saying to the reader: "roll a dice at the start of the book, and if you get a 5 or 6, you'll have a chance to beat it."
Anyway, I'll be hoping this one is a good one and if so I'll be willing to give it a chance.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Sept 3, 2022 18:38:09 GMT
I definitely agree that it's good to hear that both of the new upcoming books have been playtested. I think that's really important and it's pretty clear some of the older ones weren't (or at least, not enough).
About IL: I have enjoyed some of his books, but he isn't one of my favorite FF writers, unfortunately. Focusing on a high combat difficulty is imo a mistake, given the combat is really the weak point of the FF format. Making a book so you have no chance with a skill under 11 doesn't make much sense to me - it's like saying to the reader: "roll a dice at the start of the book, and if you get a 5 or 6, you'll have a chance to beat it."
Anyway, I'll be hoping this one is a good one and if so I'll be willing to give it a chance.
One big problem with Ian, leaving aside the rule inconsistencies in Port Of Peril, is he just doesn't try to make his FF playable because he imagines most players choose to cheat. And that might be partially true (although like you and others here, I personally dislike it), but the extent Livingstone goes all in with FF like City Of Thieves, Caverns Of The Show Witch and Crypt Of The Sorceror, not to mention his Sinclair C5 of an FF Blood Of The Zombies, just destroys the gameplay experience. If he's suddenly changing his mind and accepting some playtesting, he might get back to writing better FF such as Island Of The Lizard King and Temple Of Terror - Livingstone has a number of strengths as a writer, particularly old-fashioned 'tale-telling\enemies\boss' gamebooks. I get the feeling Livingstone was knocking off copy from his word processor very much trying to make money and hit deadlines rather than mixing his game with research, tribute, and some RPG world-building as the better FF writers do. Eye Of The Dragon - a padded out version of a simplistic mini-adventure from the early eighties. Port Of Peril - several big rule inconsistencies. Assassins Of Allansia - unclear, but seemingly you can't keep the anti-poison earring without cheating (noted in the solution thread), forces you to have a weird, pointless conversation with Lord Azzur, likewise jams in a continuity error just to make a reference to Throm. His later works feel more like three-star video games than the vivid world of City Of Thieves or Deathtrap Dungeon. And Blood Of The Zombies .
|
|
|
Post by vastariner on Sept 3, 2022 21:20:52 GMT
One big problem with Ian, leaving aside the rule inconsistencies in Port Of Peril, is he just doesn't try to make his FF playable because he imagines most players choose to cheat. One little insight from today was - at least in the early days - they were not playtested, which Ian suggested gave rise to the difficulties (surely he was thinking Crypt) as he just kept putting in ideas.
|
|
|
Post by time4tea on Sept 4, 2022 1:47:48 GMT
I haven't tried to write a FF book, but I can imagine if it weren't properly playtested, that it would be quite hard to get the balance right in terms of difficulty.
As far as trying to counter cheating, I hope that wasn't part of Ian's design philosophy. A player that is going to cheat is going to cheat - I don't see how there is any way you could prevent someone doing that in the FF combat. No matter how 'hard' you make an enemy, the player will always have the option to just skip it, if they want to. Inserting highly difficult combats will do nothing to prevent cheating and is only going to punish those who do want to play the books fairly.
|
|
|
Post by nathanh on Sept 4, 2022 7:36:00 GMT
I suspect the difficult fights were put in without worrying about balance because in the target audience there were a lot more people who would say "omg look this monster has skill 12 that's cool!" than would say "this is a poorly balanced book".
When I was in the target audience for FF, I definitely spent little of my time interacting with FF actually playing properly by the rules. Even today, I'm sure I spend more time reading the books for fun without rolling dice rather than actually playing them.
|
|
|
Post by slloyd14 on Sept 4, 2022 18:43:00 GMT
I've had a quick read through and here are my preliminary thoughts:
It's classic Livingstone. There are call backs, lots of items to get, a companion and the occasional schmuck bait.
It's more forgiving than before. If there is a situation where you might get an Instadeath, you have to have 1 of 2 required items to survive rather than just a particular item. Also in one point, if you fail a luck test, you can then make a skill test to make it right. Even with skill 7, luck 7, failing both is a mere 16%.
There are some Instadeath choices but, at the very least, they make sense once you read the consequences of your actions.
Combats are easier. You start with a choice of swords. Each sword gives a bonus (an attack strength bonus, not a skill bonus!) against certain opponents. In addition, I found 1 item that gave an attack strength bonus. The monster stats are not horrible so even a skill 7 character can win with some correct choices.
So in summary, classic Livingstone but a lot fairer.
Also, well done Sylas for keeping Ian on the straight and narrow!
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Sept 4, 2022 21:47:00 GMT
I suspect the difficult fights were put in without worrying about balance because in the target audience there were a lot more people who would say "omg look this monster has skill 12 that's cool!" than would say "this is a poorly balanced book". When I was in the target audience for FF, I definitely spent little of my time interacting with FF actually playing properly by the rules. Even today, I'm sure I spend more time reading the books for fun without rolling dice rather than actually playing them. As you say that was in the '80s, a different time and place when seatbelts were still chiefly for kids, D & D had real demons, and Thatcher was winning easy victories. I always had a mixed opinion of Livingstone - I thought he wrote maybe three very good FFs and lots of average or below-average ones - but with his 2010s releases I thought he'd dropped the ball. I'd rather be surprised by new takes on the rules, better illustrations and a sophisticated plot than a heavily dry work like Crypt or Assassins.
|
|
|
Post by time4tea on Sept 5, 2022 1:59:43 GMT
Combats are easier. You start with a choice of swords. Each sword gives a bonus (an attack strength bonus, not a skill bonus!) against certain opponents. In addition, I found 1 item that gave an attack strength bonus. The monster stats are not horrible so even a skill 7 character can win with some correct choices.
I don't really get the thing with not being able to exceed your initial skill score in the first place. It makes more sense for stamina and luck, but for skill, it's like saying your character starts out being the best they can possibly be in combat. If my character finds a magic sword or a really cool suit of armor whilst exploring a dungeon, why wouldn't that boost my combat ability? It doesn't make a lot of sense for it to only give a boost if I have somehow lost some ability, but not otherwise. It's a bit counter-intuitive, from the point-of-view of character progression.
|
|
|
Post by paperexplorer on Sept 5, 2022 2:29:12 GMT
When skill evolved beyond just combat (eg test your skill when climbing for example) then it makes sense to impact attack strength and not skill. A magic sword and shield may help you in battle, but not climbing
But I agree with your point you should be able to increase it above initial levels
|
|
|
Post by terrysalt on Sept 5, 2022 6:26:46 GMT
I'm fine with initial stats being immutable, they represent your character's physical limits. But that just makes it all the more important that weapons give attack strength bonuses not skill bonuses. A magic sword isn't improving your character on a fundamental level, it's just a better tool for the job so you get a bonus when engaging in that activity.
|
|
|
Post by slloyd14 on Sept 5, 2022 13:01:58 GMT
I'm fine with initial stats being immutable, they represent your character's physical limits. But that just makes it all the more important that weapons give attack strength bonuses not skill bonuses. A magic sword isn't improving your character on a fundamental level, it's just a better tool for the job so you get a bonus when engaging in that activity. I agree. Some items should increase skill beyond your initial level but don't. In Talisman of Death, you can get a magical helm that increases your speed of thought and gives you a skill bonus. That should go above your initial level as it actually increases your abilities beyond what they were. Weapons and armour can be attack strength bonuses.
|
|
|
Post by nathanh on Sept 5, 2022 14:09:38 GMT
My impression from my first play is that this is a standard Livingstone book but executed fine. It even has "randomly attack a shopkeeper" as an option on reference 1 which I appreciated a lot. I think it's going to be fairly predictable whether you like this one or not.
The art is a massive improvement over the previous Scholastic efforts. True of both new books, but this one in particular I enjoyed a lot.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Sept 5, 2022 14:52:48 GMT
My impression from my first play is that this is a standard Livingstone book but executed fine. It even has "randomly attack a shopkeeper" as an option on reference 1 which I appreciated a lot. I think it's going to be fairly predictable whether you like this one or not. The art is a massive improvement over the previous Scholastic efforts. True of both new books, but this one in particular I enjoyed a lot. This is a facetious criticism but - would this be a random instant death rather than an IL randomly-strike-the-good-guy and get something essential (the Bonekeeper in Crypt) or something useful (the Trialmaster's armour in Deathtrap Dungeon)? I don't think I need a spoiler to guess in this case.
|
|