An official PC & next-gen game for ASOIAF

[haLobEnder]

I've never played a Cyanide game before but a quick search of Meta-Critic shows what is the worrying trend there. It seems like quite the risk, but I'm optimistic that the studio truly intends for this to be their break-out title. I do hope a larger developer/publisher backs them up though, otherwise I can easily see this being a game that's shelved for financial reasons.

[SeriousMite]

Given how rarely licensed games turn out good and given this developers track record, I really don't see any reason to get excited about this. Especially since they're developing it simultaneously for several platforms.

[McCloskey]

I wonder if Cyanide pitched the type of game they envisioned and it interested GRRM enough to give it the go-ahead? If thats the case mabe we'll get some more info about the potential game from him on his blog and it will ease some minds.

[Cirdan]

Cyanide is known to make sport manager games like Pro Rugby Manager, Pro Cycle Manager and the Horse Manager Series. I really do not understand how they will be able to make a good game out of ASoIaF as long as it isn't a sport manager game about horse races around westeros :D.

I've played Pro Rugby and it's one of the worst and less enjoyable game I've ever purchased. I've played tons of better games/mods for free from some indie company/dev groups.

So, I'm sorry but I really do not understand how GRRM have decided to sell the rights of such a famous book series to such a modest dev company. I really don't see Cyanide making a good game out of the books. Imho, GRRM has been poorly advised on the matter (I suppose that he is not a great fan of computer gaming).

It would have been better no games at all, imho.

If they are simply going to make the PC version of the FFG board game, then it could be good, but imho that's the best they could make.

[Myrddin]

Are we finally getting a next gen joust game?

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

This is awesome news! Second only to HBO producing the TV adaptation.

I for one hope it is a RTS with emphasis on the political aspects and Hero characters ala Warcraft III.

This would be pretty sweet.

More total warish than warcraft though.

[sio]

Why the excitement?

A Song of Ice and Fire is a series of fantasy novels. Moderately popular fantasy novels. There hasn't been a good video game based on a series of novels smaller than LotR since the eighties.

Like the Harry Potter games and Spawn: The Eternal, this will turn out to be a disappointing attempt at capitalization on a fanbase.

[Werthead]

A Song of Ice and Fire is a series of fantasy novels. Moderately popular fantasy novels. There hasn't been a good video game based on a series of novels smaller than LotR since the eighties.

You mean, apart from Betrayal at Krondor, the three Discworld games and The Witcher, which were all excellent?

We're not talking about game development, though. Just rights acquisitions. And beyond the fact that this random fellow spoke up a year and a half ago, we've had a year knowing it was optioned by HBO, and it's been a number of years since it was NYT #1 bestseller and TIME called him "America's Tolkien". Seems to me that if one of the big boys were serious about acquiring the rights, they would have done so by now.

Well, the 'random fellow' was the lead developer on Company of Heroes (the single most critically-acclaimed real-time-strategy title since StarCraft) and a fairly high-up figure at Relic, and he was discussing how he envisaged a SoIaF game could develop. Not necessarily a sign of 'serious interest', perhaps, but certainly a sign that someone in an influential post at a major company would have been interested in the project.

The money people, OTOH, almost certainly needed something a bit more for them to get interested. The HBO series could have pushed them to that point or maybe a second successive NYT #1 bestseller may have done that.

The analogy at the moment is that after someone at HBO (BioWare) and after someone at Showtime (Relic) both voice an interest in your book and go on at length about much they like it (in BioWare's case, every other fricking interview for the three years that Dragon Age has been in development), even if they haven't made an official approach yet, you then decide to tell the rights to

instead.

OTOH, you could be right. GRRM has reported before that there have been offers, but he didn't like what they wanted to do with the setting so declined them. Maybe Cyanide just happened to find the right approach that he thought would work better.

[Onion Knight]

in BioWare's case, every other fricking interview for the three years that Dragon Age has been in development

Really? Can you link such interviews?

[Ran]

BioWare did Dragon Age, though, rather than go and pursue an ASoIaF license. Just because someone at BioWare is a fan, and doubtless many other notable creators are fans, doesn't mean their studios are actually interested in the property.

Frankly, as noted, licensed literary titles aren't exactly a sure-fire hit, and in the grand scheme of things GRRM's sales are tiny compared to your typical Hollywood blockbuster. So mostly I think large game developers would be pretty indifferent, whatever their individual employees may think. Sitting around for a decade because at some point some developer at some studio said he liked the series just isn't very sensible if you have people coming to you with good offers and good ideas that you're willing to take a chance on.

In any case, I'll just emphasize that I'm arguing about the language used to describe the situation. All we know is that Cyanide closed the deal. We don't know that GRRM has had any contact whatsoever from any big studios, nor do we know that individuals who have called themselves fans and openly speculated about the kinds of games they could make if they had the license actually meant any kind of intent or even a real interest in doing anything -- it could just be idle musing and shooting the breeze.

[sio]

You mean, apart from Betrayal at Krondor, the three Discworld games and The Witcher, which were all excellent?

Krondor was excellent, yes. I thought The Witcher was so-so - I was bored. I haven't played the Discworld games. Still, you mention five games from almost twenty years. I just don't see any reason to get excited.

[Naknakkus]

The Witcher was awfully puerile and pretty poorly translated, so I don't think that can go down as a success. I have no idea what the source material was like, however, so maybe it's a decent adaptation...

[Alty]

Hope this is good. But if not I guess no harm done. I just really hope it's a free roaming MMO with lots of roleplay. I hope it isn't just a scripted TV series tie-in..

[Cirdan]

The Witcher was awfully puerile and pretty poorly translated, so I don't think that can go down as a success. I have no idea what the source material was like, however, so maybe it's a decent adaptation...

The Witcher it's a PC exclusive and sold more than 1 milion copies. Commercially it's a great success. I know that the translation for North America wasn't good, but in Italy it was translated really well. It wasn't puerile in my opinion (a part from the sex card thing) and overall it was a very good fantasy storydriven CRPG with solid gameplay, a non generic setting and good Choice_&_Consequences narration. Then, you could like it or nor, but commercially it remains a success. Have you played it?

[sio]

commercially it remains a success.

So do the Harry Potter games. Doesn't mean they're any good.

[Cirdan]

So do the Harry Potter games. Doesn't mean they're any good.

Yep, but the world that was contested was success, not quality. The Witcher is a success. Even reviews are mostly positive: look at metacritic. The game scores 81 from critics and 9,3 from players. At the end everyone will have different opinions and different tastes. I do not like HP games. While I enjoyed the Witcher a lot.

Btw, you should not compare HP with TW since they really are different kind of games... it makes me question if you actually played The Witcher.

[sio]

Yep, but the world that was contested was success, not quality. The Witcher is a success. Even reviews are mostly positive: look at metacritic. The game scores 81 from critics and 9,3 from players. At the end everyone will have different opinions and different tastes. I do not like HP games. While I enjoyed the Witcher a lot.

No, the word that was contested was 'excellent'.

You mean, apart from Betrayal at Krondor, the three Discworld games and The Witcher, which were all excellent?

Btw, you should not compare HP with TW since they really are different kind of games... it makes me question if you actually played The Witcher.

Question away.

They are popular video games based on fantasy novels. Thus, for the purposes of this exercise (determining how many, if any, video games based on fantasy novels are any good), they are the same kind of game.

[Cirdan]

No, the word that was contested was 'excellent'.

No. I was replying to Naknakkus who wrote: "The Witcher was awfully puerile and pretty poorly translated, so I don't think that can go down as a success". Check, it's quoted on my original message about TW.

Question away.

They are popular video games based on fantasy novels. Thus, for the purposes of this exercise (determining how many, if any, video games based on fantasy novels are any good), they are the same kind of game.

I don't think so.

HP's game is the exact copy of the book/moovie wich is based on. The Withcer is a completely original story in a setting based on a series of fantasy novel.

One game is based on the books that have sold more copies in the history of literature after the bible: everyone knows about Harry Potter. One game is based on a franchise that at the time was known only in Poland (I don't even know if the series was translated in english in 2006).

So, the commercial success of HP is due mostly because of the HP brand. While the commercial success of The Witcher is because of the game itself. Metacritic wise the game was received very well by fans of fantasy CRPG.

So, for the purpose of this exercise, The Witcher is a good adaptation of the franchise. As was Baldur's Gate for D&D. Age of Conan for Conan. Warhammer games for WH. Many lord of the rings games. Etc. etc. etc.

Imho, there is nothing that prevent a literary franchise to generate good games (look at ASOIAF board game, wich is a work of beauty). Imho, the question is only if Cyanide is able to make such a game.

[Naknakkus]

I've actually finished the Witcher, but it didn't do anything for me. No characters, boring quests, content described as "mature" by the developers that was distinctly adolescent, and dull graphics.

Maybe I disliked it because I was thinking that an Elric game would've been 10 times better with the engine, and not just because of the white hair thing.

[Ran]

George has posted the news at his site, now. He says that Cyanide contacted him around 2004, but no deal transpired then. They've kept in touch though, and have now convinced him as they've doubled their staff size and opened a second headquarters.

They have RTS and RPG rights, apparently. Plan is for the first game to be done by Summer 2011.