Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Review Game of Thrones RPG Review at Gamebanshee

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Tags: Cyanide; Game of Thrones

Gamebanshee's Steven Carter has written a review of Cyanide's Game of Thrones, and found the game a mixed bag. Have a snippet:

The story in Game of Thrones is its main strength and weakness. It's a strength because with fixed characters, Cyanide was able to link the past and present together to give events more depth, and they also did an excellent job of giving you motivation to kill the bad guys. I can't remember the last time I played an RPG and wanted to kill the last boss so much. But in order to present the story coherently, the campaign is completely linear, your actions don't change much, and Cyanide tried to keep things realistic. For example, you never go into a basement to defeat rats, and when you enter a town, you don't meet two shopkeepers, five peasants and 4,862 bandits. You only encounter enemies that make sense, but as a result, unlike most RPGs where the ratio of battles to dialogue is at least 2:1, in Game of Thrones it's just the opposite, and the script and acting aren't good enough to support that kind of focus. And because of the frequent conversations and your only minor impact on them, it often feels like you're watching a game rather than playing one.

[...] Finally, Game of Thrones doesn't rate highly in the bells and whistles department, either. The graphics are mediocre at best, and there is too much repetition. You visit the same maps over and over again rather than getting to explore new places, and way too often NPCs wear the same clothes or have the same faces, or both. The acting is also subpar. The actors all read their lines clearly, but they rarely act them or seem to know what the context is. But on a positive note, Game of Thrones didn't crash on me even once during the 30+ hours I spent playing it, which has to rate somewhere around "minor miracle."

When I started playing Game of Thrones, I disliked it considerably. It starts out slowly (it takes about a half hour to wade through the initial conversations and tutorials to begin playing), it has a clunky interface, and it's lacking in polish and charm. But then the more time I spent with it, the more I got used to the game mechanics, and the more I got interested in how the story was going to turn out. And so now it's a tough call for me whether I'd recommend the game or not. If you just want to play an RPG where you kill stuff and the cut scenes are minimal, then Game of Thrones definitely isn't for you. But if you're like me and you're a fan of the Martin books and the HBO series, and you don't mind a game with a slower pace, then Game of Thrones might have just enough going for it to make it a worthwhile purchase.​

You can read the review in full by clicking here.
 

Malpercio

Arcane
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
1,534
The interface as a whole is underwhelming, at least on the PC which is how I played the game. You use the WASD keys to move around, the left mouse button to interact with objects and attack people, and the right mouse button to control the camera. There isn't any sort of mouselook mode, and the camera is fixed on the active character's shoulder with no way to zoom in (for a first person perspective) or out (so you can get a better look at what's going on). Clearly the interface was designed for consoles and then minimally changed for the PC. That means you get clunky menus, no tool tips, an awkward inventory system (it took me a while to figure out how to equip a weapon), minimal hotkeys, no scrollbars, and no way to name your saved games. Unfortunately, as all of us PC gamers know, this is more the rule than the exception any more. If you have a gamepad, then you can also use that to control the game, but I didn't try it.

Oh, for fuck sake.
 

Black

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,872,658
The interface as a whole is underwhelming, at least on the PC which is how I played the game. You use the WASD keys to move around, the left mouse button to interact with objects and attack people, and the right mouse button to control the camera. There isn't any sort of mouselook mode, and the camera is fixed on the active character's shoulder with no way to zoom in (for a first person perspective) or out (so you can get a better look at what's going on). Clearly the interface was designed for consoles and then minimally changed for the PC. That means you get clunky menus, no tool tips, an awkward inventory system (it took me a while to figure out how to equip a weapon), minimal hotkeys, no scrollbars, and no way to name your saved games. Unfortunately, as all of us PC gamers know, this is more the rule than the exception any more. If you have a gamepad, then you can also use that to control the game, but I didn't try it.

Oh, for fuck sake.
I thought Dark Souls PC port wasn't out yet?
 

Forest Dweller

Smoking Dicks
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
12,210
The interface as a whole is underwhelming, at least on the PC which is how I played the game. You use the WASD keys to move around, the left mouse button to interact with objects and attack people, and the right mouse button to control the camera. There isn't any sort of mouselook mode, and the camera is fixed on the active character's shoulder with no way to zoom in (for a first person perspective) or out (so you can get a better look at what's going on). Clearly the interface was designed for consoles and then minimally changed for the PC. That means you get clunky menus, no tool tips, an awkward inventory system (it took me a while to figure out how to equip a weapon), minimal hotkeys, no scrollbars, and no way to name your saved games. Unfortunately, as all of us PC gamers know, this is more the rule than the exception any more. If you have a gamepad, then you can also use that to control the game, but I didn't try it.

Oh, for fuck sake.
Yeah, now I'm wondering if I should just play the console version.
 

Black

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,872,658
The interface as a whole is underwhelming, at least on the PC which is how I played the game. You use the WASD keys to move around, the left mouse button to interact with objects and attack people, and the right mouse button to control the camera. There isn't any sort of mouselook mode, and the camera is fixed on the active character's shoulder with no way to zoom in (for a first person perspective) or out (so you can get a better look at what's going on). Clearly the interface was designed for consoles and then minimally changed for the PC. That means you get clunky menus, no tool tips, an awkward inventory system (it took me a while to figure out how to equip a weapon), minimal hotkeys, no scrollbars, and no way to name your saved games. Unfortunately, as all of us PC gamers know, this is more the rule than the exception any more. If you have a gamepad, then you can also use that to control the game, but I didn't try it.

Oh, for fuck sake.
Yeah, now I'm wondering if I should just play the console version.
Maybe neither.
 

Malpercio

Arcane
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
1,534
I wonder, is the GoT license forever tied to Cyanide now?

I'm trying to image a rpg set in the asoiaf world developed by Obsidian with Avellone writing, hmm.
 

UnknownBro

Savant
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
373
I can see this game as a little incline in terms of gameplay in comparison with previous aRPGs, actually it felt strategic enough for me but the fucking camera was atrocious, it felt like watching a movie from a bad angle.
 

sigma1932

Augur
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
119
Yeah, now I'm wondering if I should just play the console version.

Rule of thumb: If you must play a game and are given a choice of platforms, go with the PC version if it doesn't require hardware upgrades you can't afford/don't want to make.

Mods + cheat console to fix bugs are the reasons why.
 

sea

inXile Entertainment
Developer
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
5,698
Yeah, now I'm wondering if I should just play the console version.

Rule of thumb: If you must play a game and are given a choice of platforms, go with the PC version if it doesn't require hardware upgrades you can't afford/don't want to make.

Mods + cheat console to fix bugs are the reasons why.
You assume that this game is moddable and has a console. Most modern games aren't/don't. :troll:
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom