A GAME OF THRONES gets a video game...

Yep, they're doing a George Martin video game. Ironically, it sounds a lot closer to the themes of the books than BATTLES OF WESTEROS-

However, victory does not necessarily result from brute force. The innovative game mechanics provide players with numerous paths to success: will you opt for a military, economic or diplomatic approach? Trickery, treachery and deceit are widespread and you will constantly have to watch your back if you want to avoid a bitter defeat!

And since this is such a valuable, highline license beloved by all as demonstrated by the bestseller list, it's been given to a two-bit, cut rate developer. Cyanide Studios, who did the BLOOD BOWL game. One of the worst pieces of video game presentation in recent years.

Cyanide was a crap choice. At the time they signed the deal with Martin, the only thing they were known for was their Pro Cycling Manager series. Yes, you too can experience the thrill of managing a professional cyclist.

I wish Martin took better care with his IP.

I wish Martin would focus on finishing the series and let his agent handle the licensing deals.

Martin will probably do his own programming on it, just to find another way not to finish the series.

Shellhead wrote:

I wish Martin would focus on finishing the series and let his agent handle the licensing deals.

Amen brother, amen.

It's actually quite easy to finish a series. He should take some hints from BSG or Lost.

You mean let the story get ridiculously out of control and then tie it up awkwardly with some horrible ending?

Michael Barnes wrote:

And since this is such a valuable, highline license beloved by all as demonstrated by the bestseller list, it's been given to a two-bit, cut rate developer.

Oh, do stop being silly about GRRM's writing. How many valuable, highline licenses are given to shitty developers to produce games every year? Dozens, maybe hundreds, which is why video game players freak out a little when their latest beloved property actually produces a good game (Arkham Asylum) instead of schlock (99% of all comic games ever made). HBO is making a series from Game of Thrones. It's huge. The philistines have won this round.

Michael Barnes wrote:

Ironically, it sounds a lot closer to the themes of the books than BATTLES OF WESTEROS-

Which is why we call it *Battles* of Westeros.

So that you are no longer misinformed, yes, there are *many* battles in those books, some described directly (kings crossing, battle of kings landing, the wall, the northland battle for "the mound", siege of Storms End, Whispering Woods, Danery's battles of conquest, Ironmen raids on Tyrell lands, Cleganes raid in the riverlands, siege of Riverrun, etc)) and many battles described "off stage" (Battles of winterfell, Balon's rebellion, sacking of Winterfell, Robb's long campaign in Lannister lands, Ruby Ford, etc).

Your bias against this property does you disservice, especially when you haven't read the books. Read the books, Barnes, fight through them if you don't like them (as I just did with "New Sun".) Then you'll be able to have a credible opinion. If you don't want to, just recuse your opinon of the setting, and focus on what you can credibly critique (I.e. The Game).

I've been publishing AGOT material since '03, and I can assure you it is an excellent worthwhile license (and equally excellent books). It may be that you don't like that fact, but that makes no less a fact.

I can't speak for the developer of this software game, never heard of them, but it looks pretty awesome, and I'll give them the benefit of doubt until we know more.

How about just backing down on this one? You'd do yourself a service. There more strength in admitting you're wrong than petulantly, passively aggresively, barking against this property which seemingly has pissed on your corn flakes, but which tons of people enjoy -- despite your dislike of that fact.

CP
FFG

I did manage to read all the way through the first book and tossed it in the garbage where it belongs afterwards. Barnes' description of harlequin romance for fantasy nerds is pretty much spot on. I'm also going to speculate that Martin will one day be discovered to have a closet child porn collection so large it makes Danny Choo blush.

Mad Dog wrote:

Barnes' description of harlequin romance for fantasy nerds is pretty much spot on.

In your opinion, of course.

In my opinion, such a description is complete bullshit. While you may not like the books (or for you, book) they've garnered a huge following, many rewards, impressive number of international editions, and acclaim from many readers and critics (not to speak of the people/companies that have found it good enough to make board games, card games, not-one-but-two RPG's, miniatures, and an upcoming HBO TV show, etc)

I don't know why it is so important to crap over an obviously great (in the sense that clearly it one of significant presence and clout) IP, which many people enjoy. You don't like it, fine. Why the vehemence? It doesn't make sense.

It's been mentioned that a property like "Conan" is a more popular, or commercially viable IP than AGOT, which is a laughable statement. I can speak from a position of fact in this matter (and not merely due to the fact that we've published Conan products). I know (I'm even friends with a number of these people) the license holders of Conan, LOTR, and AGOT (or AsoIaF, if you prefer) and a substantial number of others. Currently AGOT is more commercially viable than Conan (by far) and LOTR (which is a grea license, but slowly recovering license from overexposure during the movies, this will probably regain heat with the upcoming HOBBIT movies.)

Don't like it, fine. There are plenty of popular things that I don't like (such as swiss cheese, peppermint, and "Firefly"), but I don't feel entitled to, or have any emotional need to, try and throw shit all over them with the single intent of making other people feel bad (then disguising it as "I must use hyperbole to improve things in the future, I see this as a sort of higher calling".)

If you don't like something, it's as valid to ask "what is wrong with you" as it is to assert that "all these other people are wrong" (perhaps more valid in most cases). It's fine to state opinion, but rarely as fact, and certainly not in a fashion that is rude or belittling to those of opposing view.

All the above, is, of course IMO.

cP

Mr. Petersen,

I'm not quite sure how I, as a lifelong reader of genre fiction and as someone who's read the first book and didn't like it, have less credibility in discussing the license than does the CEO of a publishing company that has a vested business interest in maintaining the viability of a a product line. Further, you have a contractual obligation to support the continued sale of games bearing said license, therefore I'm not really clear on how my experential opinion as a consumer and reader of literature carries less weight on the matter than does yours. And beyond that, FFG has a standing, benefitial relationship with George R. R. Martin so again, I'm not sure how I'm not entitled to have an opinion on it that is any less valid than yours.

Clearly, the license is successful and is very valuable to FFG, and I'm glad that it is because it's certainly a contributing factor in FFG's ability to procure great licenses and quality games. It's also a great license for certain kinds of titles- your own A GAME OF THRONES: THE BOARD GAME for example as well as the LCG where the subject matter is not simply applied as a marketing bullet point onto an existing game. In fact, great games have come out of the license on the table and in the hands of a better developer I wouldn't be surprised if this video game turned out to be something very cool given the properly thematic focus on diplomacy, negotiation, relationships, and intrigue.

Of course I'm biased against this property, because I don't like it. And of course you're biased for this property because you sell it. There's a lot more at stake for you to support it than there is for me to dismiss it, so please do explain how my credibility is in question here.

It's insane to pretend that there isn't anyone out there who doesn't like these books or this license. It's also ignorant to pretend that there aren't already a number of gamers who have played BATTLES OF WESTEROS and noted that the Martin license is not a good fit for the BATTLELORE system or its concept. I've played the game with no less than three big fans of the books specifically to get their reactions. Every one of them agreed that the theme was light at best, and one commented that it didn't have anything to do with the books other than the character names and some of the other "fluff". This has been echoed online by other people who have played the game. It's not a rogue opinion, and it is not unfounded.

Wolvendancer had a much better point, that many licenses wind up in the hands of crap developers. That's absolutely true, and Cyanide is a step up from a lot of companies working on licenses. My point was that in the last Barnes vs. F:AT argument about these books, the fact that the games have sold a lot was used as a barometer of their quality.

But anyway, thanks for stopping by, best wishes to you and for BoW's success.

MB

Michael Barnes wrote:

Mr. Petersen,
... less credibility in discussing the license than does the CEO of a publishing company that has a vested business interest in maintaining the viability of a a product line.

MB

Fair point. Doesn't mean that this is not my personal opinion, but a fair point.

cP

We need a TWILIGHT adventure game!

Michael Barnes wrote:

Mr. Petersen,

It's insane to pretend that there isn't anyone out there who doesn't like these books or this license. It's also ignorant to pretend that there aren't already a number of gamers who have played BATTLES OF WESTEROS and noted that the Martin license is not a good fit for the BATTLELORE system or its concept. I've played the game with no less than three big fans of the books specifically to get their reactions. Every one of them agreed that the theme was light at best, and one commented that it didn't have anything to do with the books other than the character names and some of the other "fluff". This has been echoed online by other people who have played the game. It's not a rogue opinion, and it is not unfounded.

MB

You're putting words in my mouth. There is no pretense that these fine opinions don't exist. Yet, "it's insane" (using your words) to pretend that the opposite is true. Clearly -- as per "reading message boards and playing the game" the opposing opinion (that it works great as an AGOT themed game) is significant, and seems prevalent. Ergo, stating your opinion as fact is what I object to.

It's a tactical battles game *about battles, duh* obviously it will not delve into the character intrigue, plots, and individual exploits (outside the battlefield) of the theme. If you make a similar game about LOTR, (or Conan, or whatever) the exact same would hold true. LOTR has three main battles, AGOT has more, it's not like the theme is shoe-horned in as you imply.

cP