A Song of Ice and Fire video game.

[The_JJ]

No, I have not heard about this happening, I'm just speculating here.

Now, most games based off of fantasy books tend to be RPGs. I don't know why, but heros hitting each other with sword and magic has indelibly linked the fantasy genre to RPGs.

I don't see this working with a the SoIaF. The number of charactors, the realism of the combat, and the very nature of the books (very little one on one combat compared to coniving, diplomacy, marching, running, etc.) would make for a bad RPG.

So I think that the best way to do this would be via a modified Total War engine. It's already got almost all the things feature prominently in the books: spies, assasins, princesses as barter chips, mercenaries, more realistic recruiting (out of cities in the turn based mode, in the real time you get what you have on the field), et all.

Some slight mods for the 'special' units (dragons, dire wolves, and the Others) are all that is really needed.

Thoughts?

[Occasional Sage]

No, I have not heard about this happening, I'm just speculating here.

Now, most games based off of fantasy books tend to be RPGs. I don't know why, but heros hitting each other with sword and magic has indelibly linked the fantasy genre to RPGs.

I don't see this working with a the SoIaF. The number of charactors, the realism of the combat, and the very nature of the books (very little one on one combat compared to coniving, diplomacy, marching, running, etc.) would make for a bad RPG.

So I think that the best way to do this would be via a modified Total War engine. It's already got almost all the things feature prominently in the books: spies, assasins, princesses as barter chips, mercenaries, more realistic recruiting (out of cities in the turn based mode, in the real time you get what you have on the field), et all.

Some slight mods for the 'special' units (dragons, dire wolves, and the Others) are all that is really needed.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

1. I'd play it, but likely only a time or two, then I'd go back to the board game.

2. RTS will never, in my mind, be as good as TBS. Let's go with one of those.

3. I want lavender ice cream, and a fresh-baked brownie. Right now.

[TheEmerged]

Actually, I could see a TBS/RTT hybrid like Lords of Magic working well. Turn Based Strategy but Real Time Tactics - combat is RTS style but unit are produced/moved on the world map TBS style.

[Prophaniti]

Yeah, like the Total War series. Hell, someone should just make a mod for M2 that's A Song of Ice and Fire. That would rock... Dammit, why don't I know more about game modding?!:smallmad:

[Mr. Scaly]

I'm thinking it would play more like the later versions of Romance of the Three Kingdoms for the army combat systems. No level ups as it were, but with a lot of talking involved out of battle...huh. Now I'm curious. Who'd be the player character? Or would it switch around to different povs?

[The_JJ]

umm... quote "Actually, I could see a TBS/RTT hybrid like Lords of Magic working well. Turn Based Strategy but Real Time Tactics - combat is RTS style but unit are produced/moved on the world map TBS style." quote

Total War is an TBS, where all the battles can be played as an RTS, or simulated based on all troops etc. All the units are pruduced in the TBS zone.

I think you'd get saddled to a faction rather than charactors.

And I can't say I've ever played Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

[valadil]

Honestly I don't see it working. ASoIaF is about people plotting against each other. War happens, but it's not the focus of the game.

Now I would pay for an online version of that AGoT board game. It's freakin awesome.

[Geddoe]

I can see it already:

You do a level, then the character you are playing dies tragically. You are given a new character, you play through 2 levels then he dies after his family is slain in a cutscene. You are given a character that is a horrible human being, he gets married to a beautiful woman and retires rich for selling out his best friend after 3 levels. Then in the final level you play a decent human being, who, of course, dies. Then you get a cutscene of a boot stepping somebody's face for an hour. Using the Eye Toy, you gradually realize it is you.

Then you turn the game off and call all your friends shallow for playing games where heroes win.

[BRC]

I can see it already:

You do a level, then the character you are playing dies tragically. You are given a new character, you play through 2 levels then he dies after his family is slain in a cutscene. You are given a character that is a horrible human being, he gets married to a beautiful woman and retires rich for selling out his best friend after 3 levels. Then in the final level you play a decent human being, who, of course, dies. Then you get a cutscene of a boot stepping somebody's face for an hour. Using the Eye Toy, you gradually realize it is you.

Then you turn the game off and call all your friends shallow for playing games where heroes win.
That line is one word away from being the ending for 1984 The Video Game.

[SurlySeraph]

I can see it already:

You do a level, then the character you are playing dies tragically. You are given a new character, you play through 2 levels then he dies after his family is slain in a cutscene. You are given a character that is a horrible human being, he gets married to a beautiful woman and retires rich for selling out his best friend after 3 levels. Then in the final level you play a decent human being, who, of course, dies. Then you get a cutscene of a boot stepping somebody's face for an hour. Using the Eye Toy, you gradually realize it is you.

Then you turn the game off and call all your friends shallow for playing games where heroes win.

Agreed. ASoIaF is a bit GRIMDARK to make an enjoyable video game. Something like the Total War series would be a decent approximation, but it wouldn't quite capture the level of individual misery in the series.

[The_JJ]

You make me laugh. But you miss the point. I'm proposing using the Total War engine, not a RPG type level/charactor thing.

And yeah, I don't think any type of game could really work with TSoIaF. I just think a Total War type engine would both match and work reasonably.

[warty goblin]

I can see it already:

You do a level, then the character you are playing dies tragically. You are given a new character, you play through 2 levels then he dies after his family is slain in a cutscene. You are given a character that is a horrible human being, he gets married to a beautiful woman and retires rich for selling out his best friend after 3 levels. Then in the final level you play a decent human being, who, of course, dies. Then you get a cutscene of a boot stepping somebody's face for an hour. Using the Eye Toy, you gradually realize it is you.

Then you turn the game off and call all your friends shallow for playing games where heroes win.

Are you crazy? I would line up around the block for a game like that! I'm not even kidding, it would add some real risk and moral indicision, unlike most games, where if they even have moral choice it is of the "Give the needy NPC a small fortune, Ignore the NPC, or Eat their baby" variety, not the "do the right thing but risk being brutally murdered for it" sort that actually makes choices interesting. Remember, choices are only interesting when they actually have different consequences (at least for some of us) and getting beheaded is a rather interesting outcome for a game, particularly if it used a first person view for it. Also it would make surviving the game a real challenge, since unlike most titles anymore a Song of Ice and Fire game done right wouldn't want the player to suceed, and in fact would not give a crap about the player.

The game I'm really thinking of here as being perfect is Mount and Blade (http://www.taleworlds.com/), which manages to be open world/RPG/totally awesome realtime combat in a war torn land, medieval, and pretty much not give a crap about the player. You can succeed quite handsomely, but doing so can be pretty seriously difficult, since there's no friendly random starter quests generally available, your beginning items range from decent to things that the dogs wouldn't use as bedding, and the entire gameworld marches to its own drum- events transpire according to the AI of the people who lead armies, not how far along the scripted main storyline you have gotten, since there in fact istn't a main storyline.
I'm just truly tired of games where whomever I control seems to stroll down Success Lane on boots made of pure Phlebontinum, simply because I control them, even when they exhibit the intelligence of three week old Macaroni and Cheese. Charging head long into a vastly superior force is no longer an interesting experience in most games, because I know I'm supposed to prevail, that sufficient Deus ex Machina will occur, and that all of my enemies are idiots. A game where my character was occasionally brutally murdered, beaten up, and generally gets their ass handed to them when they screw up would be an amazing experience.

[Tengu_temp]

"Extreme cynicism is smart, awesome and realistic! Silly rabbit, idealism is for kids!"

I think Geddoe hit the spot. Maybe not with SoFaI alone (because from what I've heard from a friend, it's actually not THAT cynical), but surely with its fandom.

Also, it's sooo fun to play a game where you can die/lose not because you made a mistake, but because of some arbitrary choice. Sierra would approve.

[warty goblin]

"Extreme cynicism is smart, awesome and realistic! Silly rabbit, idealism is for kids!"

I think Geddoe hit the spot. Maybe not with SoFaI alone (because from what I've heard from a friend, it's actually not THAT cynical), but surely with its fandom.

Also, it's sooo fun to play a game where you can die/lose not because you made a mistake, but because of some arbitrary choice. Sierra would approve.

I would define any choice that lead to your character's death as a mistake, the only thing I'm advocating in this instance is refraining from hanging a billboard on the choice saying "Caution: If you choose this, you will die!" Hell, I can't think I ever played a game where it was even possible to die outside of combat/falling damage or similar. This leads at least me to somewhat snooze through dialog scenes, because there's no risk, no tension. Any decision I make will at worst be a minor inconvenience at some later point, and at best a minor aid.

What I want from a dialog system is one where the choices you make are every bit as dangerous as those in combat. Iritate somebody and they might try to have you killed if they don't think it too risky. Walk into the throne room and accuse the King's mother of being... well, whatever words one would use for Cercei are probably not allowed on this forum, and your head's gonna be parting company from your shoulders before the end of your sentence. On the other hand gain somebody's trust and they'll work to assist you as long as it meshs with their own ends, lend material support and so forth.

[Terraoblivion]

You clearly have never heard about old Sierra adventure games then, Warty_Goblin. They positively thrived on killing you for actions you could not positively predict would be dangerous. One of the most ludicrous of them, i sadly cannot remember which game it is from, has you killed if you didn't save a rat a few hours of play earlier. In order to save the rat, however, you need to throw an unremarkable boot you found in an entirely different place at the cat that eats the rat. None of this is in any way remarked upon or called attention to anywhere in the game, nothing suggests that the boot or the rat is important and the message when you die mentions nothing about it either. Literally the only ways to avoid dying there is manic trial and error, which is hard given the amount of time between when you need to do the different things and the consequences manifests, and using a guide of some kind.

How exactly would you advocate that killing people off like this is punishing them for mistakes? I fail to see how any person could possibly arrive at the solution to this puzzle solely through deductive reasoning.

[Cubey]

The game you're describing, warty_goblin, is a different kind of animal than the one of Geddoe's description. There is a difference between having your character suffer because it did something stupid and having it suffer because the game hates you.

Also, I take it you never played Fallout 1 or 2, because these games are exactly like what you described. For example, don't ever expect to grievely offend the local figure of power and leave without a fight.

[SmartAlec]

The game I'm really thinking of here as being perfect is Mount and Blade (http://www.taleworlds.com/)

You know there is actually an ASoIaF mod for Mount'n'Blade, right? A bit out-of-date now, but it had a Westeros map, five main factions, heraldry straight out of the books et cetera.

Supposedly, it'll be updated when M&B's version 1.00 is released.

[Turcano]

You clearly have never heard about old Sierra adventure games then, Warty_Goblin. They positively thrived on killing you for actions you could not positively predict would be dangerous. One of the most ludicrous of them, i sadly cannot remember which game it is from, has you killed if you didn't save a rat a few hours of play earlier. In order to save the rat, however, you need to throw an unremarkable boot you found in an entirely different place at the cat that eats the rat. None of this is in any way remarked upon or called attention to anywhere in the game, nothing suggests that the boot or the rat is important and the message when you die mentions nothing about it either. Literally the only ways to avoid dying there is manic trial and error, which is hard given the amount of time between when you need to do the different things and the consequences manifests, and using a guide of some kind.

How exactly would you advocate that killing people off like this is punishing them for mistakes? I fail to see how any person could possibly arrive at the solution to this puzzle solely through deductive reasoning.

You're thinking of King's Quest V. As I've said before, Roberta Williams' method of puzzle design is to make it as arbitrary and unintuitive as possible.

[Geddoe]

The game you're describing, warty_goblin, is a different kind of animal than the one of Geddoe's description. There is a difference between having your character suffer because it did something stupid and having it suffer because the game hates you.

Also, I take it you never played Fallout 1 or 2, because these games are exactly like what you described. For example, don't ever expect to grievely offend the local figure of power and leave without a fight.

Nail on the head. I'm not talking about the characters dying because you made a mistake.

If a Mario platformer was like the SoIaF game/book. You negotiate all the hurdles beat all the enemies, get to the flag at the end, then your character is killed in a cutscene afterward for opposing Bowser and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Then you play as Luigi in the next 2 levels until he suffers a similar fate for daring to oppose Bowser/trying to get revenge. Then the next stage has you playing as Bowser, all enemies are replaced with the mushroom people, and you get triple points and coins for stomping them out. He ends his stage, rapes Princess Peach in a cs and lives as king till he dies of old age.

Then all the SoIaF fans praise it as being so much better than other Mario games because it is Darker and Edgier.

[The_JJ]

Wow, I think you missed the point of the SoIaF. Really.

I know that it's a dark seiries, but it's less about bad stuff happening to the charactors, and more about the choices and mistakes they have to make according to thier morality, even if it's 'me first.' Or 'let the psycos kill me because I'm more moral then them.' I'd like to play an RPG where I'm not god omnicient, and where certain decisions really have a profound effect on everything.

That Mount and Blade thing sounds like it could really work. I'd like to finally play a game where the game world doesn't revolve around me.

Also, Bowser would get shot on the toilet.

[kamikasei]

Geddoe, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the "bad guys" in SoIaF get off scott free and live free of worry or pain. They get killed off at a startling rate, too, you know.

Nor do I recall a real pattern of characters dying for no reason. Sympathetic characters have been killed off because they were betrayed or politically outmaneuvered, but that's not quite the same thing.

[Geddoe]

But which koopling would pull it off? Larry? Iggy?

I don't see it the same way as you, I see it as more death for shock value. It is like a Cthulu campaign, you don't want to get attached to a character because you know he isn't long for this world. So when he bites it, you bring out one of the backup characters and eventually stop really caring about the story or characters. The characters don't just die to mistakes, they die simply because they are not omniscient(which I guess could be a mistake on their part).

Also, I know the bad guys don't get off scott free, but hyperbole helps drive the point home.

[The_JJ]

Eh, there I think we have a irreconsilable difference I care about the SoIaF charactors, even Jaime damn it. That's kind of why I love the seires. He keeps on killing my favorite charactors, but then he makes more, or more often brings up a secondary one. It's an abusive relationship, I know. But I can't seem to quit. :smallbiggrin:

[Prophaniti]

But which koopling would pull it off? Larry? Iggy?

I don't see it the same way as you, I see it as more death for shock value. It is like a Cthulu campaign, you don't want to get attached to a character because you know he isn't long for this world. So when he bites it, you bring out one of the backup characters and eventually stop really caring about the story or characters. The characters don't just die to mistakes, they die simply because they are not omniscient(which I guess could be a mistake on their part).

Also, I know the bad guys don't get off scott free, but hyperbole helps drive the point home.
I've never stopped carring about the characters I like in ASoIaF. The fact that they keep getting killed only makes me care more about them, as I'm filled with a desperate hope and mounting dread when things turn against them. Really, this series is the most emotionally draining I recall reading, ever, and I think that's a good thing. Sure, I like reading about Drizzt and his adventures, or other such action heroes, but in the end, I don't worry about them, because I know they'll triumph. Maybe pick up a few scars and suffer through a few tradgedies, but at the end of the day, they've won.

The same is true in nearly every CRPG game I've ever played. There's never a real sense of danger from my actions, only from the difficulty of the fights I get in.

I'm not saying that right. What I mean is, when dialogue is up, I often don't seriously consider my words and overall course of action, because I know even if I insult this guy to the point of violence, I'll be able to win. The few games that break from this have been a welcome relief and usually very gripping. The only one that springs to mind immediately is Ultima Underworld, where if you managed to piss of the leader of the lizard-people, or whoever, they'd all chase you down and kill you. There wasn't really a decent chance that you'd be able to slaughter their whole village, nor should there have been. That's a game where actions and words matter, and where you actually have to pay attention to what you're doing, because victory is not a certainty, and the day may not end well if you're flippant or impulsive.

In ASoIaF you find the same, victory for good is not guaranteed, and being right does not make you mighty. Darker and Edgier? Only so much as reality is. Bad things happen, and sometimes bad people win. The best part about it is the absolute humanity in most of the characters. Few of them are universally, irredeemably bad people, just as few are unequivocally good. They're just people, trying to make their way and reach their goals in a world where everyone else is trying the same.

I am not a fan of non-fiction, and prefer a good fantasy book to anything else any day. The fact that an author can write a fantasy story that so closely models reality and yet still draw me in and have me like and hate the characters and suffer and triumph with them is certainly remarkable. Martin is not the only author to do so for me, but he's one of the better ones. I look forward to the next book with great anticipation and trepidation, that strange and compelling mixture of hope and dread rising in my heart once more.

If anyone can make a game that truly captures that in its dialogue and play, I will most certainly play it, and love every tortuous second of it.

Ok, longwinded prose aside, if all they do is make a Total War port or something like the mod for Mount and Blade, I'll play that too, and have plenty of fun.

[warty goblin]

Wow, I think you missed the point of the SoIaF. Really.

I know that it's a dark seiries, but it's less about bad stuff happening to the charactors, and more about the choices and mistakes they have to make according to thier morality, even if it's 'me first.' Or 'let the psycos kill me because I'm more moral then them.' I'd like to play an RPG where I'm not god omnicient, and where certain decisions really have a profound effect on everything.

That Mount and Blade thing sounds like it could really work. I'd like to finally play a game where the game world doesn't revolve around me.

Also, Bowser would get shot on the toilet.

Exactly. It operates on the thesis that all actions (even inaction) have consequences, and these can be good or bad, depending on the action, not the actor. Most games seem to make some actions have consequences, depending on who takes the action. If it's the protagonist, it's gonna be at worst OK,and probably good, if it's somebody else, well, we'll see.

And seriously, go download the M&B demo, then bask in the wonderful sense of freedom wash over you as you realize that nobody in the entire freaking world starts out even knowing your name, let alone caring about you. The good news, it can only improve from there. The bad news, that doesn't mean it will, or that doing so is easy.

[DomaDoma]

Darker and Edgier? Only so much as reality is. Bad things happen, and sometimes bad people win.

Sometimes? Pshaw. Sure, the villains die horribly nearly as much as the rest of 'em, but when they do, it still doesn't do the good guys any favors. If didn't screw over Tyrion so badly and give such massive props to Littlefinger, I guess I'd count that as a win, but even then, it'd be the [i]only one. No, that duel at the end of book three doesn't count either; I quit halfway through book four when Arya's character took a dive for the completely unrecognizable, but I've been spoiled on that nonetheless.

But all the deaths of decent people, save the one at the end of the first book that just screwed everyone over, definitely do help the villains along.

[warty goblin]

Sometimes? Pshaw. Sure, the villains die horribly nearly as much as the rest of 'em, but when they do, it still doesn't do the good guys any favors. If didn't screw over Tyrion so badly and give such massive props to Littlefinger, I guess I'd count that as a win, but even then, it'd be the [i]only one. No, that duel at the end of book three doesn't count either; I quit halfway through book four when Arya's character took a dive for the completely unrecognizable, but I've been spoiled on that nonetheless.

But all the deaths of decent people, save the one at the end of the first book that just screwed everyone over, definitely do help the villains along.

Honestly at this point in the series I'm not sure I even think of things in terms of heroes and villians anymore. I mean the Starks' were maybe nicer people than the Lannisters, but their armies were just as ruthless and did as much damage to the smallfolk. They also started a war that led to massive carnage because one man was wrongfully executed, which strikes me as a bit dubious. The Baratheons' aren't exactly kinglike material, at least those left alive.

In fact I'm about to start rooting for the Lannisters in general, because they've won, another rebellion won't work, and far far too many people will die. I don't like some of them, but the reality of the book is that they won.

[Prophaniti]

I would agree with warty on that. As I said, they're not Heroes and Villians, they're just people. People with kind hearts or cruel ones, admirable goals or despicable ones, they're all very human at the core. I'm usually one who despises efforts to find 'meanings' in novels, but it's pretty clear that in ASoIaF, he's made a world where idealism and honor do not always lead to posotive outcomes, and a good heart does not mean a happy ending. This is not a typical fantasy novel, eshewing such themes of fairy-tale and the triumph of good over evil.

The thing is, I usually hate that kind of book. I'm a fan of Tolkien and Weiss and Hickman. I enjoy seeing good triumph over evil, though without the effort of a struggle it feels flat and pointless, I still want to see Aragorn getting crowned at the end of the day.

Yet for some reason, I thoroughly enjoy Martin's books, despite the absence of such themes. That's why I give him so much praise, because he writes such a realistic setting and yet can still capture my imagination.

I would definitely not classify his works as GRIMDARK. That requires the level of horror and despair that is found in the Warhammer universe. Rather, it's like someone went back and witnessed the actual events of the Hundred Years war, or the War of the Roses, then wrote a novel about the people, instead of the dry histories we have about the armies and factions. Then added myth and legend to spice it up a bit.

Maybe that's why I like it so much, because it's like a novel of what would really happen if the real world had dragons and undead and a bit of magic still.

[DomaDoma]

Honestly, none of the Baratheons were kinglike material, alive or dead. Robert is a stupid wastrel, obviously - Stannis (pre-Melisandre, so I'm absolutely fair) has everything but inspiring loyalty - and Renly has nothing but inspiring loyalty. As for the people who are - Tywin (too bad he's a treacherous despot), Dany (too bad it, yes, involves yet another war), and Tyrion (too bad he wasn't omniscient enough not to sit next to his wife at a feast). Anybody currently in power as of the middle of A Feast For Crows clearly doesn't have a good grasp on things, except Littlefinger, who I can't quite credit on account of starting this **** in the first place.

It was clearly the wrong call, but I'd certainly get behind a war of secession if the alternative was King Joffrey.

Er, back to the whole video game thing?

[SmartAlec]

I would have thought the Others qualified as ASoIaF's villains. By that thinking, I guess that makes the Night's Watch the 'heroes' in the story, even if the vast majority of the world is mostly unaware of it. Really, the issue of who becomes King of Westeros is a side-issue compared to the threat of the imminent Winter, which makes the squabbling and backstabbing of all the political players all the more frustrating.

Referring back to that Mount and Blade Song of Ice and Fire mod, there were practically two ways to play the game; either go south and take part in the War of Five Kings, or go North and fight against the Others.

[Mr. Scaly]

Doma, people who aren't really kinglike material can still be pretty good kings in their own right. Joffrey, he would have made a hash of everything. Heck, he DID make a hash of everything starting with what he did to Ned that caused the North to break away. But I don't remember anyone saying that Robert was a bad king...just that he hated being one. Nitpicking, I know, but whatever brings peace to the realms is aces with me, even though I secretly have dreams of justice for all the good people who died.

[EvilElitest]

No, I have not heard about this happening, I'm just speculating here.

Now, most games based off of fantasy books tend to be RPGs. I don't know why, but heros hitting each other with sword and magic has indelibly linked the fantasy genre to RPGs.

I don't see this working with a the SoIaF. The number of charactors, the realism of the combat, and the very nature of the books (very little one on one combat compared to coniving, diplomacy, marching, running, etc.) would make for a bad RPG.

So I think that the best way to do this would be via a modified Total War engine. It's already got almost all the things feature prominently in the books: spies, assasins, princesses as barter chips, mercenaries, more realistic recruiting (out of cities in the turn based mode, in the real time you get what you have on the field), et all.

Some slight mods for the 'special' units (dragons, dire wolves, and the Others) are all that is really needed.

Thoughts?

Elder scrolls. But extremy realistic.


on the subject of moral choices, i agree with Warty goblin. I hate Fable styled moral choses where it doesn't truly make a difference


Alternatively, biowere could pull it off



Sometimes? Pshaw. Sure, the villains die horribly nearly as much as the rest of 'em, but when they do, it still doesn't do the good guys any favors. If [insert reference to hair net here] didn't screw over Tyrion so badly and give such massive props to Littlefinger, I guess I'd count that as a win, but even then, it'd be the only one. No, that duel at the end of book three doesn't count either; I quit halfway through book four when Arya's character took a dive for the completely unrecognizable, but I've been spoiled on that nonetheless.

But all the deaths of decent people, save the one at the end of the first book that just screwed everyone over, definitely do help the villains along.

there aren't really any villains in Martin's books, other than the Others and Biter. There are antagonists.

Anyways, Song of ice and fire isn't dark and edgy. Sin city and dark and edgy and stupid, song of fire and ice is like a history book to an extant
from
EE

[The_JJ]

I could see it with Eldar scrolls, but can you imagine the engine handling even the smaller of battles? It'd be pretty awesome if it did work though.

[EvilElitest]

I could see it with Eldar scrolls, but can you imagine the engine handling even the smaller of battles? It'd be pretty awesome if it did work though.

super realistic combat would be great, through frustrating
from
EE

[warty goblin]

Elder scrolls. But extremy realistic.


on the subject of moral choices, i agree with Warty goblin. I hate Fable styled moral choses where it doesn't truly make a difference


Alternatively, biowere could pull it off


there aren't really any villains in Martin's books, other than the Others and Biter. There are antagonists.

Anyways, Song of ice and fire isn't dark and edgy. Sin city and dark and edgy and stupid, song of fire and ice is like a history book to an extant
from
EE

Pretty much agreement. Also if you want like the Elder Scrolls but realistic, really go and try Mount and Blade. The melee combat is extraordinary, all about timing and positioning, the mounted combat is excellent, easily the best I've ever played, and the archery is pretty cool as well, particularly from horseback. Crank all the combat settings up to where the difficulty is 107% (no I'm not making that up), and it feels pretty believable.

Plus it's the only game I've played where you see a man in heavy armor on horseback with a lance, steer your horse around his point, cut his horse out from under him, then dismount and beat him to death with a mace.

[Oslecamo]

Just out of curiosity, what makes a song of Ice and fire more realistic than other fantasy tales?

They have magic. Magic by itself is unrealistic. Also, claiming that magic exists but the rest of the world keeps moving in the same way is somewhat questionable.

Specially because we can't really agree on what magic is, like hapened in a thread some months ago.

[Tengu_temp]

Just out of curiosity, what makes a song of Ice and fire more realistic than other fantasy tales?


Because people think that more cynical = more realistic, thinking that real world is 100% cynicism and 0% idealism, while it's closer to 60/40.

[Oslecamo]

Because people think that more cynical = more realistic, thinking that real world is 100% cynicism and 0% idealism, while it's closer to 60/40.

I would say that it's closer to 15%instinct, 15% cynism, 15% idealism, and 55% idiocy/madness.

Remember, kids, the only diference between a madman and a genious is that the genious managed to convince you that he's right.

[SmartAlec]

we can't really agree on what magic is.

Neither can the folk in Westeros! So I guess that's a point for them in the believability stakes.

[warty goblin]

Because people think that more cynical = more realistic, thinking that real world is 100% cynicism and 0% idealism, while it's closer to 60/40.

I would say because the rules are evenly applied- if a character does something stupid they will pay the price, no matter if they are protagonists or not. I guess this might be viewed as cynical, but it does make a certain degree of sense, at least to me.

[EvilElitest]

Just out of curiosity, what makes a song of Ice and fire more realistic than other fantasy tales?

They have magic. Magic by itself is unrealistic. Also, claiming that magic exists but the rest of the world keeps moving in the same way is somewhat questionable.

Specially because we can't really agree on what magic is, like hapened in a thread some months ago.

its realistic in teh way it is designed. The world acts very much like the real world, it doesn't exist for the sake of the plot. Every single person has his own perspective, the world is always moving. I mean, with most books you can find massive plot holes, for example why the hell do the people of FF not used Phonix down's en mass? Or the holes in Eragon.

Song of Fire and Ice is a great creation of world building. I mean, the world functions very much like ours. There is magic, but it is subtle and used logically.

The idea of life not being fair is one example, but other books do that as well. What Martin does however, is that he makes it clear that life doesn't follow a particular order. The world doesn't bend itself back wards to suit the characters. Its very realistic in the way people interact with the world.


Tengu, the real world isnt' divided into two camps. I think there is more idealism than cynicism in terms of people, but that doens't make the world any less unfair
from
EE

[Tengu_temp]

i
Tengu, the real world isnt' divided into two camps. I think there is more idealism than cynicism in terms of people, but that doens't make the world any less unfair


That's not what I meant. I meant that the real world is in the middle of Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism, with cynical tendencies. Instead of being 100% cynical, as some people think.

[EvilElitest]

That's not what I meant. I meant that the real world is in the middle of Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism, with cynical tendencies. Instead of being 100% cynical, as some people think.

i think the history of the world begs to differ.
from
EE

[Tengu_temp]

Mother Theresa and Ghandi would not exist in a cynical world. Allies would lose WW II. This website (http://www.freerice.com/) would be a fraud.

I rest my case.

[EvilElitest]

Mother Theresa and Ghandi would not exist in a cynical world. Allies would lose WW II. This website (http://www.freerice.com/) would be a fraud.

I rest my case.

1) Theresa is over rated
2) Pakastan and India split, Ghandi comes after centrues of British oppression
3) WWII is lost, but at a massive death toll with massive long reaching consciences. Both sides commit atrocities and many effects still linger to day in terms of crappyness


If we are talking about a time closer to novels, William the Conquerer, Ghangis Khan, Attillia the Hun, Roman Empire, The waring states periods. Is the world a dark place like Sin city? No of course not. Is it as bad as beserk. Not quite, through in certain places it can feel like it. Is it idealistic. far from it. Song of fire and ice is not dark simply for its own sake, it is realistic in a logical sense. beserk is dark and nasty for its own sake, Song of fire and ice is just an unfair world
from
EE

[Mr. Scaly]

If we are talking about a time closer to novels, William the Conquerer, Ghangis Khan, Attillia the Hun, Roman Empire, The waring states periods. Is the world a dark place like Sin city? No of course not. Is it as bad as beserk. Not quite, through in certain places it can feel like it. Is it idealistic. far from it. Song of fire and ice is not dark simply for its own sake, it is realistic in a logical sense. beserk is dark and nasty for its own sake, Song of fire and ice is just an unfair world
from
EE

Nitpick: Genghis Khan existed centuries after the Roman Empire.

[EvilElitest]

Nitpick: Genghis Khan existed centuries after the Roman Empire.

that wasn't my point, i'm just listing general crappy things that changed the history of the world
from
EE

[The_JJ]

And I think it's important to remember that things were pretty good for the Westeros world up until a while ago. It's just that now the shtuff hits the fan. Like in real life, large chunks of the world can dissolve into craptapitude in a remarkably short time.

[Cubey]

I think it's amusing to write that world is unfair and crap... while comfortably sitting in front of a hi-tech (internet connection!) computer.

[The_JJ]

Exactly, we're in a pretty good point right now. Russia, I'm looking at you. No need to wreck this over some little tiny coutry and you're pride.

[warty goblin]

Mother Theresa and Ghandi would not exist in a cynical world. Allies would lose WW II. This website (http://www.freerice.com/) would be a fraud.

I rest my case.

A cynical world doesn't mean that nothing good can ever happen, just that doing good is very difficult and likely to fail- not certain, but likely. To me anyway what makes a world cynical is that it doesn't respect ideals, but results. It is perfectly possible to get good results and stand on one's ideals, but it is usually more difficult, and hence those without ideals get ahead. Not all the time, but much of the time.

In fact one could make a rather interesting argument that it was an immoral act on Robb Stark's part that lost him the war to begin with- if he hadn't slept with whatserface, he would have never married her to remedy his wrongdoing, hence would never have offended the Freys and thus never given them cause to betray him. Up until that point he was doing quite well all things considered. He wasn't winning hands down, and might have been in a slightly weaker position, but he was far from losing. Read that way, it isn't even particularly cynical, the virtious hero making a mistake and falling is a theme in far more idealistic settings that the Seven Kingdoms. Granted, the, er, degree and manner of his fall are a bit more graphic than is usual.

[The_JJ]

Anyway... thoughts about mods to existing engines that couldbe done to make a good SoIaF game?

[Tengu_temp]

A cynical world doesn't mean that nothing good can ever happen, just that doing good is very difficult and likely to fail- not certain, but likely. To me anyway what makes a world cynical is that it doesn't respect ideals, but results. It is perfectly possible to get good results and stand on one's ideals, but it is usually more difficult, and hence those without ideals get ahead. Not all the time, but much of the time.


To me, a cynical world means that everyone's purposes are entirely selfish, and if you do something with someone else than yourself and/or your closest friends and family in mind, you're naive and you will fail hardly. It also means that the End Justify The Means approach is smart and rewarding in this world, while acting in a moral way will only make matters worse for you and you won't accomplish anything. In other words, real world is not entirely cynical.

[EvilElitest]

To me, a cynical world means that everyone's purposes are entirely selfish, and if you do something with someone else than yourself and/or your closest friends and family in mind, you're naive and you will fail hardly. It also means that the End Justify The Means approach is smart and rewarding in this world, while acting in a moral way will only make matters worse for you and you won't accomplish anything. In other words, real world is not entirely cynical.

That isn't cynical, cynical is a view point. A cynical personal realizes how unfair the world is and why this stuff happens, doesn't mean they agree. I'm cynical, i'm aware a lot of people ends justifies the means, and i don't agree, because those people are too idealistic. Your talking about defeatism, not cynical ideals. Song of fire and ice doesn't show that view point, through that stuff happens
from
EE

[Oslecamo]

its realistic in teh way it is designed. The world acts very much like the real world, it doesn't exist for the sake of the plot. Every single person has his own perspective, the world is always moving. I mean, with most books you can find massive plot holes, for example why the hell do the people of FF not used Phonix down's en mass? Or the holes in Eragon.



Song of Fire and Ice is a great creation of world building. I mean, the world functions very much like ours. There is magic, but it is subtle and used logically.


Error. Balance of the world is a fragile thing. Discovering atomic energy changed the way the world worked. Gunpowder also did that, altough not as fast. Heck, you could argue that bows and later crossbows revolutionized the world when they apeared.

The english did own the french during the hundred years war because they had specialized in the use of the longbow wich allowed them to cut down the french melee charges.

So, if magic exists, and it could be used in some remotely usefull way, story surely would have been diferent. Training wizards, trying to get the last tech on magic items, finding a way to either control, tame or exterminate dragons, ect, ect. Humanity has a great history of exploring every resource they can get their hands on.



The idea of life not being fair is one example, but other books do that as well. What Martin does however, is that he makes it clear that life doesn't follow a particular order. The world doesn't bend itself back wards to suit the characters. Its very realistic in the way people interact with the world.


I must disagree with this. The world does bend itself backward to suit some characters. More than once in history have some exceptional individuals managed to make thousands if not millions of souls dance to their music.

If someone gets power, followers will naturaly flock around him, as well as enemies. People ignoring power, now that is unrealistic.

[Tengu_temp]

That isn't cynical, cynical is a view point. A cynical personal realizes how unfair the world is and why this stuff happens, doesn't mean they agree. I'm cynical, i'm aware a lot of people ends justifies the means, and i don't agree, because those people are too idealistic. Your talking about defeatism, not cynical ideals. Song of fire and ice doesn't show that view point, through that stuff happens
from
EE

Sliding Scale of Idealism vs Cynicism is used to represent how the world works, not the viewpoint of its inhabitants. You are mistaken because you're not familiar with the specific meanings of the terms that get thrown around all the time. Repent! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SlidingScaleOfIdealismVsCynicism)

[The_JJ]

I think the problem here is the asumption that the SoIaF is truely cynical. It's more cynical then everyone else, but does not reside in absolutes.

Also, people do harness magic to great effect in this world. Dragons anyone? The Tangeyrians (or however you spell it) specifically used dragons and a puny force to own. Ditto Stanis and Meladre, and probably the Green Seers to a certain extent, even if they can't really use it offensivly.

[SmartAlec]

I think Martin described A Feast for Crows as 'the low point' of the series, when the state of Westeros is at rock bottom. Assuming he actually continues it, it's possible we'll see Westeros rallying and making something of a comeback, ousting a few bastards along the way. From here, the only way is up - assuming that the eventual end of the series is the end of the war, the re-establishment of the Targaryen dynasty and the repulsing of the Others, that is.

[Rion]

So, if magic exists, and it could be used in some remotely usefull way, story surely would have been diferent. Training wizards, trying to get the last tech on magic items, finding a way to either control, tame or exterminate dragons, ect, ect. Humanity has a great history of exploring every resource they can get their hands on.

Then isn't it good that the magic hasn't existed for some time in the books? That we so far know of a grand total of 6 dragons? (perhaps a few more, I can't remember how many skulls there were in that room. And what about that dragons have been gone for so long, that nearly everyone believes them to be extinct? And what about the only people who doesn't believe them to be extinct, are the ones that have seen them?

Or to put it differently, the setting is extremely low magic, with only magic being currently existing being market tricks (and by the way, we don't know if those actually are magic) and very old swords forged with an old metal (Valyrian Steel) and magic, and can't remember that those swords have done anything normal swords couldn't do.

[EvilElitest]

Error. Balance of the world is a fragile thing. Discovering atomic energy changed the way the world worked. Gunpowder also did that, altough not as fast. Heck, you could argue that bows and later crossbows revolutionized the world when they apeared.

The english did own the french during the hundred years war because they had specialized in the use of the longbow wich allowed them to cut down the french melee charges.

So, if magic exists, and it could be used in some remotely usefull way, story surely would have been diferent. Training wizards, trying to get the last tech on magic items, finding a way to either control, tame or exterminate dragons, ect, ect. Humanity has a great history of exploring every resource they can get their hands on.

Magic in that world is very subtle, and not many people understand it. There are still groups that use magic (the promancers and the warlocks) but even they don't totally get it



I must disagree with this. The world does bend itself backward to suit some characters. More than once in history have some exceptional individuals managed to make thousands if not millions of souls dance to their music.

Thats not the world bending itself back wards, thats dumb luck. Take Ghangis Khan for example, starts out a minor son of a minor Khan somewhere in Mongolia, ends up making a dynasty that takes over most of the world. He may have done something absurd, but it wasn't like a book where everything went his way. e worked pretty hard to pull that off



If someone gets power, followers will naturaly flock around him, as well as enemies. People ignoring power, now that is unrealistic.
Yeah, but SoFaI doesn't go against that rule ether


Tengu, that view is limited. It is certainly a cynical series, but it is also a very realistic one, in that good stuff does happen, but more bad stuff happens. It also, unlike other cynical series, takes the time to explain why this bad stuff happens

Compare it to sin city for example, where everybody is a bastard. In sin city however, it isn't logical, the city and the people don't make sense


Song of fire and ice has so much grey, and the writer isn't really routing for anybody (he hates all his characters) that their actions are actually explained and are understandable

By the by, i came up with a Martin version of a humor chapter. One chapter from Biter's perspective
from
EE

[warty goblin]

Error. Balance of the world is a fragile thing. Discovering atomic energy changed the way the world worked. Gunpowder also did that, altough not as fast. Heck, you could argue that bows and later crossbows revolutionized the world when they apeared.


Magic clearly does change the balance of the world in SoIaF, just not very often. Look at the Battle of Blackwater, which the Lannisters only won through the use of whatever they called that green fire stuff, or even the entire initial conquest of the Seven Kingdoms. It's made quite clear that Aegon only pulled that off because of his dragons. Dany also seems to be having a major impact on the world, or at least starting to with her dragons. It also seems that the world before the Doom fell on Valeria was a very different place.


The english did own the french during the hundred years war because they had specialized in the use of the longbow wich allowed them to cut down the french melee charges.
At least by the end of the war, this was no longer the case, because armor was good enough to be almost completely arrowproof- all of the French lines reached the archers at Agincourt. Take away the mud there and the English would have lost.



So, if magic exists, and it could be used in some remotely usefull way, story surely would have been diferent. Training wizards, trying to get the last tech on magic items, finding a way to either control, tame or exterminate dragons, ect, ect. Humanity has a great history of exploring every resource they can get their hands on.


The magic does have an influence on the story, just not a steampunk level influence. For starters it's not 100% clear that anything like a magic item in the usual sense exists. Valyrian steel is better than normal steel yes, but it's not a +5 flaming sword, and even when people knew how to make it was far too expensive for general use. Dragons I also note seem to be pretty much gone, except for Dany's three, and many of them were controlled until they died out, and again had a very large influence on world history. The thing that keeps magic from being more readily used is that very few people can do it and it is considered extremely evil by pretty much everybody.

[The_JJ]

Note that the green fire is not nessesarily magic. Look up greek fire. We've lost how to make it, but stuff that burns and spreads on water is a very real thing.

[EvilElitest]

Note that the green fire is not nessesarily magic. Look up greek fire. We've lost how to make it, but stuff that burns and spreads on water is a very real thing.

wild fire isn't actually greek fighter, he has some magical components (at least some of it does, i recall them using the fire to make shapes)
from
EE

[warty goblin]

Note that the green fire is not nessesarily magic. Look up greek fire. We've lost how to make it, but stuff that burns and spreads on water is a very real thing.

Greek Fire and napalm are definately real and non-magical yes, but given that the Pyromancers specifically say that making Wildfire is easier after Dany's dragons hatch, and even inquire as to the possible hatching of dragons owing to said beasts' increasing the power of magic, I'd say it is pretty clearly at least partly magical.

[illathid]

Just thought everyone here might like to see this:

a Westeros Total War mod (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=721)

[puppyavenger]

a reason why major magic isn't used often is it's hard, for example, Stans's shadowbinder had to give birth to a shadow if she wanted to kill someone.