Talk:List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ah, what a great glow of nostalgia. And the smell of defeat. I don't think I completed one of the 10 or so I had - despite spending time drawing maps. --bodnotbod 03:23, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone who has added entries on gamebooks. Keep up the good work! Euchrid 17:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Renaming
As some might have noticed, I've (very slightly) renamed the page. "Gamebook" is one word! ;-)
I've made the appropriate edits in the individual gamebook articles and elsewhere. I've also tried to remove the obsolete wikilinks to Fighting Fantasy Game Books, so as to avoid redirects. —WebDrake 12:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Individual gamebook article revisions
Following some discussion on Talk:Fighting Fantasy, I suggest we use this page to note gamebook articles that need rewriting for reasons of style, content or whatever.
I suggest we use the following mechanism: add a paragraph to the "Requested revisions" subsection below, of the form,
- Title (with wikilink). This is what's wrong with the article. —Signature.
If you or anyone else edit the article in question and make the revisions, then edit the request by crossing it out (not deleting it) and noting what you've done.
Here's an example:
Legend of the Shadow Warriors. The article doesn't exist! —WebDrake, some time ago.
-
- Now it does! —WebDrake, not long after.
So, here goes ... —WebDrake 12:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good, I've thrown a few in as well. I think that we should nominate one of the entries as an example of a great entry that the others should be modelled on. I'd like to suggest Moonrunner, unless anyone else can think of a better one. Euchrid 15:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm flattered by your suggestion. :-) Re your comments on Masks of Mayhem below, I am also reluctant to give away "twist" endings or detailed aspects of the plot that are only revealed through successful play. In these cases hints will do much better. —WebDrake 11:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Further to the above, I note you are using a "Story" heading in articles. I don't really think this is necessary or appropriate since what follows the intro may contain both plot details and details of unusual mechanics etc. The articles are so brief that we don't really need to split them up into sections in this way. —WebDrake 18:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested revisions
Dead of Night. There is no cover image or caption. —WebDrake 12:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done, including standardising the first paragraph and tweaking the rest so tthat they flow better Euchrid 03:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
House of Hell. Overlong introduction, not enough plot, too many asides (Warlock draft, twist ending, instant deaths) make the whole thing really unfocused. Euchrid 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've sorted out all the problems that I had with this article, though others are of course free to keep on tweaking Euchrid 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Robot Commando. Stub, no infobox Euchrid 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Taken care of Euchrid 06:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Masks of Mayhem. Insufficient detail, should the twist ending be revealed? Euchrid 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Star Strider. Stub, no infobox Euchrid 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Sky Lord. Stub, no infobox Euchrid 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done, though the story could use some more detail Euchrid 09:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Creature of Havoc. FAR too long - details every encounter a successful playthrough will involve Euchrid 15:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The Crimson Tide. Overlong, too many mentions of specific events in the book Euchrid 15:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Caverns of the Snow Witch. Needs 'See Also' section Euchrid 15:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done Euchrid 15:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Talisman of Death. Needs more detail on the plot Euchrid 15:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Appointment with F.E.A.R. Lacks the standardised introduction, article is mainly lists, title lacks correct punctuation Euchrid 15:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done the title. —WebDrake 11:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just checking because it's a large change - does anyone object to removing the lists? Euchrid 16:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Midnight Rogue. Needs cover image added to infobox. —WebDrake 11:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Beneath Nightmare Castle. We need a reference for the comment that some of the artwork was banned/censored. —WebDrake 11:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Knights of Doom Needs an image and caption Euchrid 16:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Done, although I forgot to add the licensing when I uploaded the image, so it may be deleted. Battle Ape 05:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Phantoms of Fear Needs an image and caption, the standard intro paragraph, and more detail about the story and unique mechanic Euchrid 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Fan reactions"
Some of the articles have recently been edited to note fan reactions to gamebooks, but without citing information.
What do people think about this? Obviously fan reactions are relevant, but any such comments should be backed up—the editor should cite evidence. —WebDrake 15:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to cite fan opinions on forums as evidence. Certaintly I thought the addition to House of Hell was odd - I'd never seen that before.
However some things are fairly obvious - Creature of Havoc was seen as good, Sky Lord as bad for example. Perhaps linking to review archives would work? I think one is linked to on the main Fighting Fantasy page. (EvilRedEye 23:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC))
- Yes, I recognise linking to fan archives as a possibility, though it clashes with what I personally feel is good policy for the articles. I love the fan sites and think there's a lot of good work there, but I'm uncomfortable with using too much of what's there (other than material they have obtained from "official sources") as reference material. This is particularly true of reviews—some are nicely written and well considered but there's also much badly-written, opinionated nonsense whose only contribution is to let us know that some of the people who read FF are right tits (N.B. my parents considered this to be true of all people who read FF books, including me:-). I don't think referencing this kind of stuff really adds much to the article.
- I also want absolutely to stamp on the sort of "contribution" that consists of a list of "all the reasons I personally love/hate this gamebook" (cf. Eye of the Dragon, which I was pleased to see you reverted).
- Aside from anything else, the stats on fan sites tend to be too poor for us to really estimate how representative they are. Personally I'm inclined to say, "Let's have a policy of no comment on fan reactions unless they are very obvious or very necessary for some reason." I would propose giving the user(s) who added this material a few days ('til Friday?) to join this debate and add some justification and citations, and if none is forthcoming, let's just revert it. —WebDrake 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- In accordance with the above, I have reverted "fan reaction" notes on Moonrunner, House of Hell and The Crimson Tide. I note that there is also such a comment on Starship Traveller, but I'm letting it stand since it has a "citation needed" notice. I would appreciate some further dialogue on this issue and what people think about it. As I said above, I personally am reluctant to use the opinions of amateur reviewers as adequate source material. Looking at FF-related bulletin boards convinces me that the range of opinions on just about any FF book is so varied, it's not worth getting into the "how good is it" argument.
-
- It's a frustration that much of this material has been anonymously posted, so we have no way of effectively contacting the contributor for their reasoning. Post while logged in, people! —WebDrake 22:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
