We expected this to be cheap and nasty, but actually it turns out it's just cheap. If you're able to forgive the shortcomings, it's not a bad game, but it's hard to wholeheartedly recommend. Blurry textures and rough edges make everything look dreadful, while woeful animations fan the flames of the car-crash.
Menus don't feel like they were designed to be used, and the lack of clarity about how the game works makes the first hour feel extremely muddled. The character creation system asks you to permanently invest in a large chunk of stats before you know anything about the game, which then turns out to be unexpectedly complex.
Jumping between the intertwining tales of a Southron Lord and a Black Brother, the story being told is surprisingly compelling. Avoiding constant cameos and winter-is-coming quotes, the reverence to the source material gradually builds a sense of place that transcends the poor presentation. Fans of the novels will find much to love.
Well-developed characters are held together with patchy but generally acceptable voice acting, adding depth to the focused and interesting story. Personal gain is the backbone of everything in Game of Thrones, and it's something that the game manages to capture well. One of the two protagonists is a textbook goody-two-shoes, and quickly learns that honour won't get you far. Making a stand against evil is an Auto-RPG-staple, but here it isn't always a good idea. Loudly expressing your opinions is dangerous, and some conversation options can get you killed.
Aspects like this make it feel fresh, but can't stop the rest of the game feeling stagnant; a throwback to the RPG genre's stumbling first steps into 3D. If you remain nostalgic about this strange era, love the books, and don't mind turn-based combat, this is surprisingly compelling stuff. Everyone else should approach with caution: don't expect an awesome dwarf to give you the cash back if you hate it.
11 comments so far...
Grummy on 7 Jun '12 said:
This is now firmly on my avoid list, cheers old chap.
CunningSmile on 7 Jun '12 said:
Hardly surprising. I remember reading somewhere (possibly the Xbox World review) that the game has been in development on and off for 7 years which means in all probability it was only about six months ago, after the TV show, someone realised it was a franchise worth throwing some money at.
OXM JamSponge on 7 Jun '12 said:
As rubbish as it is, I really enjoyed it. Massively ambitious in terms of the story it wants to tell and how it wants to tell it, and genuinely compelling in the latter half.
The finale I got was ridiculously bleak, but overall I really enjoyed the story. If you really love the books, it's well worth a look.
pop and fresh on 7 Jun '12 said:
You have actually made me rather interested in this, presentation is a shame but I'm a sucka for good story and, believe it or not, turn based combat!!! I'll be giving this a better look when it becomes cheeper.
matteehr on 7 Jun '12 said:
What exactly does "turn-based" mean? Because the combat looks a lot like that in Dragon Age: Origins, is it anything like that? If so i am definitely getting this game
OXM JamSponge on 7 Jun '12 said:
It's a bit like the combat in Dragon Age, except without the same tactical aspects when it comes to making use of space. AoE attacks are short-range and simple, and the strategies rely more on careful crowd control. Battles pan out in real-time, but you have to tap LB or RB to slow things down to a near-pause crawl to give orders to your team, or you're pretty much guaranteed to die.
There's enough complexity to make it interesting though - you can knock foes down or pull their shields away, and different types of weapons work best against different types of armour. The brutal difficulty ties it all together - go into a fight without a plan, and it's easy to die very quickly.
CunningSmile on 7 Jun '12 said:
The best example of Turn Based combat would be something like Final Fantasy or older role play games. Basically you take a turn to attack or defend using either default attack or a list of special attacks, then the AI attacks you and then its your turn again, in between turns the whole game pauses while you decide what to do next. Dragon Age: Origins did used turn based combat sped up so it looked more fluid and didn't pause but you were still choosing from a set list. You'll have to ask the nice folks at OXM which version GoT uses.
A lot of people really like the tactical aspects of Turn Based whilst others prefer the greater control of pressing a button and the game doing exactly what you asked when you asked. I don't personally have a preference but think it depends on the game.
Clanger67 on 7 Jun '12 said:
The new Xcom is turn based,like chess,and all the better for it i reckon.I tried both of their attempts when they tried real time and just didn't work for me.But hey i like chess,so could be biased.
Alaric14 on 7 Jun '12 said:
I rather liked the combat in this one, it was very focused on getting you to make the most of your often solo controlled character against a shitstorm of enemies with different attributes. The slow-down pause was great, but then I have no idea how this functioned with a controller as opposed to a mouse and keyboard.
The presentation (not just textures) was shitty enough to bring down the entire feel of the game, definitely. Against Martin's work this game would piss its breeches and rightly so, but it beats a lot of movie tie-in games by miles for trying hard.
dazvader on 7 Jun '12 said:
Hrmm, not sure about this. I love Game of Thrones so in all probability I'll pick it up when it's a bit cheaper. For now the books will need to do since the excellent show is between series
Kettch on 7 Jun '12 said:
The books are better than the series. By far. Alot more visceral.
I've been put off this game and back on, all in the space of the page. I hate turn based in the Final Fantasy mode. The only game with turn based combat I liked was KoTOR, until DA:O. I liked the style in that, so I'm looking forward to this now