Both games look great and have lot's of potential. Can you ask me again in a year?

I disagree. I would say relatively few people have played the Hobbit. How have "most" played it extensively when they only get a game or two in at shows and the code isn't even at 1.0 yet? We tend to think Pinside is the center of the pinball world, but I don't think it is. The majority of people I play in league with don't regularly follow pinside if at all, and they're really into pinball.

In the end, I think the machines will speak for themselves, as they always do. I'm excited about both machines and really hope gameplay and code turn out to be excellent because they've got the "looks" aspect covered. More great pinball is a good thing!

I guess my point is that it's too early to pass final judgement on games based on initial show experience with very early code. Especially with JJP games that always seem to be set up slow and floaty at shows.

It actually surprises me that people on this forum, of all places, still do this. How many times have we heard "XXXX" game is bad followed by "XXXX" game is now fantastic after a code update?

I disagree.

Some people say that the shot's aren't satisfying, the pop-ups are used too much, there isn't a lot to shoot at and they can't understand what to do. To me, these things are mostly code related, as I find that shot satisfaction is largely due to sound, display, lighting effects and point reward, in addition to the physical feel of the shot.

People also criticize it because it plays slow and floaty. I suspect this is mostly set-up.

I don't see any obvious showstoppers in the layout, but I must admit it looks kind of empty. The one unique thing Hobbit brings to the table gameplay wise are the individually controlled drop targets (with stand-ups behind them). I think these can be used to create some new and fun pinball play. But, I like drop targets, YMMV. I don't expect we'll see them put to full use until the code is further along.

I have a few concerns. One is that although all the drop targets and pop-ups give you a lot of things to shoot at, it may not feel like enough variety. Two, is how they will find a way to make 31 modes fun and engaging, though if anyone can do it it's Keith. Three, the reliability of the pop-ups with all the close range hits.

I contend that all the things I listed are what most people complain about and are all code related. Ie, they can be improved with code.

GB also looks very good. The slimer toy looks like a fun target to hit. I really like the art and sound integration. The game looks full featured and fun.

My concerns with GB have more to do with Stern's track record of not fully flushing out issues with the mechs in their rush to get games to market. You know Lyman will go the extra mile to see a game through. Don't know yet if Dwight is the same way (hope so).

I have it on order, so I'm certainly biased. But, you have shown a pretty consistent negative bias for all things JJP as well, so your comments could also be taken with a grain of salt.

I have seen a couple videos where the game wasn't set up slow and floaty and it looked pretty fast. I'm sure it can be cranked up even faster but as other's have mentioned, don't know if you'll start damaging things. I'll soon find out.

Funny thing, I can't vote yet. Still too many unknowns.

I understand cranking out machines is great for Stern (if they are selling), but I don't quite understand why buyers think this is a good thing in and of itself. I would rather have one amazing game that I think is worth the money every three to four years, than three games a year that I won't buy because I think they have bad art, bad layout, lack of toys, poor code, poor dmd animations, poor sound and or theme integration, design flaws, etc...

It's great to see Stern put out a game like GB that at first blush seems to have the entire package and polish that in my opinion other recent titles have lacked. Not only is the art good but it's loaded with features, has good sound and theme integration and nice dot animations (areas that often seem to be neglected).

It takes a lot to pry $5k to $8k out of my wallet, but GB might succeed. Code and gameplay will be the deciding factors. Looking forward to playing the pro and the premium.

Edit: On the other hand, even if a game has one or more fatal flaws that prevent me from purchasing. I still enjoy playing it on location or at friends' houses. So rock on Stern.

I wouldn't either because of their track record in producing games I consider worth buying. That's why I always take a "wait and see" approach when they announce a new title. The only reason I pre-ordered Hobbit was because of my excellent experience with WOZ, to get a discount and to lock in a price (I thought this important knowing the game would take years to complete).

But consider, I've been collecting long enough that I've gotten to the point where a game has to have the entire package for me to purchase at today's prices. Being "fun" is not enough. It has to have enough toys or special features, good fit and finish, art, sound, theme integration and be "fun". That's a pretty tall order.

I'll admit Hobbit is a risk. I definitely think it has enough in the theme integration, sound, display, fit and finish and art departments to make it special in my collection. Question is, will I think it's fun enough? I'm hopeful as I like drop targets and Keith has been the programmer on some of my favorite games. As you can tell, I lean towards the past history as an indication of future performance philosophy.

I'm only speaking personally here. We all have different criteria that must be met to purchase a game.

In the past 8 years, Stern has produced 0/22 games I would purchase, regardless of pro, premium or LE at the respective price points. Most of these games I consider fun but wouldn't purchase for one reason or another, though a couple have gotten pretty close. I own LOTR and TSPP but they are outside this time frame.

JJP has produced 1/1 game I considered worth buying. So to me, even though JJP has a very short track record, it's 100% positive. Although I pre-ordered Hobbit, I won't know if I think it's worth the purchase price for a while yet. Stern's long but extremely poor track record with me makes me reluctant to buy a game until it's been out a while.

I have nothing against Stern as a company and maybe GB will be my first NIB Stern. I really like the theme and art, and all the other things I look for show lots of promise. No fatal flaws yet.

Are you kidding? Anyone who prefers full color high resolution images over red dots is no fan of real pinball.

From all the reviews I've read and from what I've seen, the Hobbit has very high marks in the art, sound, lighting, display effects and theme integration departments.

Those are not the most important aspects of a game to me but can prevent me purchasing if done badly. Also, if those aspects are excellent, the gameplay and code don't have to be as stellar to make up for their weaknesses and still be an overall great game.

At this point, unlike GB premium, we've seen plenty of Hobbit videos on early code. I think it's going to take a while for owners to discover if there are any super annoying shots, playfield design flaws or reliability issues that cripple the game. And yes, for the code to grow.

I certainly wouldn't want to put out some negative review until I really gave the game a chance. Especially knowing how some Pinside members are always looking to fan the flames with JJP (though this seems to have improved some).

I've got to question the "so little code" comment. The game might not have the polish it needs yet, like Jackpot callouts and more Smaug speech, etc...but it has 31 modes, all with accompanying HD display animations and sounds for every shot hit. A secondary LCD that describes the rules for each mode and additional animations. All the scoring displays and tracking system for the modes.

I would argue that there may already be more code in the Hobbit than any other game to date. And yes, it still needs more to tie everything together and make a fun, cohesive game.

I know David Theil said he had completed the sound stingers to accompany the animations for all the modes a while ago. I don't know if they are all active in the game yet. I doubt that what we see at this point is all that is done.

You know this isn't true. Why exaggerate? When was the D&B rating thing, a year ago? If you really believe the software version is the same, you haven't been keeping up.

Like 31 modes with accompanying animations and sounds of "micro difference"?
2 years ago we had a basic framework (that has changed) and an animation of Bilbo running from the shire.
2 years ago we had a white wood and Smaug was not revealed.
2 years ago there was no book lcd.
Much has changed since then.

Endeavors often look easy until you try to do them yourself.

Some respect for Captainneo lost.

I find that all games have some redeeming qualities. Even games I really dislike for one reason or another score in the sixes.

If my count is correct, you have 23 shots available to each flipper; includes pop-ups and LOCK rollovers, does not include the yellow stand-up targets behind the drop targets and the left VUK. All but the mystery shot are important to progress in the game.

I wonder why most people don't count all available targets as shots. I always count every individual target, ramp, orbit etc.. that is available to each flipper and in a unique position as a shot. How important the shot is with regards to game progress or score is up to the programmer.

Hobbit is somewhat different in that it has the yellow stand-ups behind all the drops. This allows for some interesting play modes. For example, one goal is to collect all the dwarves by hitting the yellow standups. First you have to knock down the drops. But, if you knock down all the drops they reset. So, you really have to shoot accurately.

By my count, AC/DC has 15 unique shots available to the right flipper and 14 unique shots available to the left flipper. I think they're all important to scoring well. I also think the cannon can hit most of those shots but probably only the jackpot shot (or avoiding it) is important to scoring, but I'm not as familiar with the game.

To me, pinball is basically a "shooting gallery" type of game, so the number of unique shots you have to shoot at, how they feel and how they're used is an important part of the game. YMMV.

True, add four shots to the lower left and four shots to the lower right flippers.

Funny, I generally only count up the main flipper shots when looking at a game, which doesn't make a lot of sense, as additional playfields and flippers can add to the fun. My only excuse is that I'm too lazy to break things out that far (ie. upper right flipper on upper playfield, etc...) and in general, the additional flippers and playfields play a much smaller role.

So you're saying unless a shot passes through or drops into an area it isn't satisfying to hit or very meaningful. You really don't consider the ram shot on GOT or the captive balls on GB as shots? What about hitting the correct stand up on HS to light the kickback, or the individual targets to advance from green to yellow to red?

I guess I'll agree to disagree. Satisfying and meaningful are very subjective.

How did it play?

I consider STTNG a masterpiece and Dwight is listed as the lead programmer on IPDB.

One thing I don't quite understand, a game with typically long ball times can usually be made more difficult. On Hobbit, I expect removing the center post, outlane posts and increasing the sling shot power would greatly decrease the ball times.

As long as the game still offers satisfaction in mode completions, multiballs and mini-wizard modes, wouldn't it still be fun and similar to a game like IM that has a simpler rule set?

Take a game like LOTR. If you make it more brutal like IM, you may not get to Valinor, but I think you would still be able to complete modes, play the multiballs and get to Destroy the Ring, which is more than some games have to offer.

But is there really much of a difference between not getting to some of the cool modes because the game is set up hard, or the cool modes not being there like in IM?

I think you can get to Destroy the Ring in 15 to 20 minutes if you concentrate on it.

I'm finding it difficult to put what I'm thinking into words.

It seems like there are people who only like short games. Some games come that way from the factory, like IM and it's sounding like GB too.

But I think some games that people dislike solely due to the long ball times can be set-up for short ball times and still be very fun.

If you think of DTR as the ultimate objective on LOTR and remove the outlane posts to toughen it up, ball times should be short with the occasional break through game, providing a similar experience as other short ball time games.

This strikes me as a good thing as game set-up can satisfy both "short ball time" and "explore everything the machine has to offer" type players.

How so?

To me, someone who points out the 3rd flipper as being a big negative in the game comes across as someone just looking to find fault and that's the best they could come up with.

How do you relight the kickback?

They can use the spinners to detect left orbit to upper flipper shots as well as pop bumper exit to upper flipper shots, so I expect this will be put to use.

I can understand being let down that the upper flipper doesn't have a physically dedicated shot, but would you rather not have it then?

Some people act as if the game is ruined because of it and that is what I have a hard time understanding.

There are plenty of things I like but don't need and also find useful.

Edit: I expect there will be some dedicated shots via the software, but if all it does is add variety to the gameplay, it's serving a purpose.

I really enjoy upper flippers on EMs, even though most don't have any dedicated shots.

Thanks! I've been wondering how to relight it.

Yes, needs to be fixed, especially on location games but I think I've had the ball get stuck three times in the pop-ups thus far. Had a tournament at my house a couple weeks ago and the Hobbit was played for about 8 hours straight. Had to remove the glass once due to a ball getting stuck in a pop-up.

I was the same way with Spiderman. Think it looks good and Spiderman is my favorite Marvel character. Even like the way it shoots, but the rules are a show-stopper for me. I so want to like that game that I keep giving it another try at friends' houses and still a no go. Not every game is for everybody.

Math is hard. Stop it.

Mikey says, "Try it, you'll like it."

I wouldn't buy a pin just because it was built well. I have to think it's fun too.

On the other hand, I might think a game is the funnest game I'd ever played and still not want to buy it because it was too cheaply made or just didn't have enough in it to make it worth the money to me (I'm looking at you RZ). But...that's just me.