One thing that bugs me off: the fate of the characters.

If the game, as Telltale states so, is loyal to George R.R. Martin style, that´s quite certain that as soon as we start to enjoy any character, he or she will die an abject death, regardless of the way we handle our decisions. Are any of you also disturbed by this?

Comments

  • edited July 2015

    ...is loyal to George R.R. Martin style, that´s quite certain that as soon as we start to enjoy any character, he or she will die an abject death...

    That's not really GRRM's style though... All GRRM wanted was to create a fictional world where war and political intrigue have realistic consequences on characters in the story. It's not like he's just killing off people's favorites to make them cry. Likable and unlikable characters alike have died in the ASOIAF/GOT universe, and they all died to serve a purpose to the plot (and because they failed at playing the game of thrones of course.) I seriously don't know why so many people think this show kills people off for the sake of it. It has a general direction it wants to move the plot in, so it goes in that direction. Simple.

  • THANK YOU

    It is not a slaughter of fan favourites, it is more like a chess game.

    ...is loyal to George R.R. Martin style, that´s quite certain that as soon as we start to enjoy any character, he or she will die an abject

  • The show does seem to kill purely for shock value, but yes GRRM most certainly doesn't

    GRRM style: Actions and their consequences.

    D&D style: HAHAHAHA shock value!

    ...is loyal to George R.R. Martin style, that´s quite certain that as soon as we start to enjoy any character, he or she will die an abject

  • edited July 2015

    Imo that's only Season 5... they actually had their priorities straight before that.

    The show does seem to kill purely for shock value, but yes GRRM most certainly doesn't GRRM style: Actions and their consequences. D&D style: HAHAHAHA shock value!

  • That´s really well described point.
    I did not read any of the books so far, but judging by what I´ve saw about the differences among books I´ve read and and their respective adaptations to movies and TV however, while the writer has nearly unlimited freedom to create the story, the movie/tv director does not (hence the inevitable differences).
    The realistic consequences of the political intrigue and war are probably very clear in the books, but for tv dramatization purposes, I really feel that most of the times when a dear character is about to be dispatched, the directors first highlight their qualities, making them even more appealing to the public, and therefore maximizing the impact - Eddard Stark was the first example. As the tv series advanced, that pattern consequently gave the fans the sensation that their favourites are all doomed.
    When I mentioned George R.R. Martin style, that was not an open critic. Most authors tend to reject realistic consequences in their stories, so the readers might enjoy a temporary refuge from real life. Martin doesn´t. And nearly everything you see in the series regarding politics, we also see in regular newspapers.
    If we give a cold unbiased look at our game´s plot, the most plausible outcome is House Forrester will be extinct. There are simply too many things against them. They are surrounded by enemies, depleted of resources, weakened allies... name a problem, they have it.

    ...is loyal to George R.R. Martin style, that´s quite certain that as soon as we start to enjoy any character, he or she will die an abject

  • edited July 2015

    It is a shame that we have so little power in the game, regarding the decisions of the characters. There were quite a few decisions they made that we couldn't influence in any way, and those were the important (and stupid) decisions that created that "most plausible outcome" you said. Because of that, I am not stressing over the few decisions we can make, as they don't matter as much as the decisions the characters make by themselves.

    I'm saying this because, in the books, characters usually die because they made a very bad decision or because they were near someone that made a very bad decision.

    That´s really well described point. I did not read any of the books so far, but judging by what I´ve saw about the differences among books

  • It just became a fad, a meme, to say that GRRM is a serial killer. He's not, there are certain characters who clearly have plot armor, and there's nothing bad about it.

    ...is loyal to George R.R. Martin style, that´s quite certain that as soon as we start to enjoy any character, he or she will die an abject

  • edited July 2015

    Honestly, what deaths would count as shock value?

    • Barristan? Died to make space for Tyrion to rule Meereen.
    • Shireen? Died to start finishing off Stannis's plot.
    • Jojen? Well, it's likely he wouldn't have served any more purpose after getting Bran to Bloodraven and he himself also insinuates that his death is imminent in the books.
    • Myrcella? Every child of Cersei needs to die for the prophecy and she'll probably blame Jaime, which will finally break their relationship off.
    • Grenn and Pyp? Died so that the battle of Castle Black actually had deaths of named characters.

    The show does seem to kill purely for shock value, but yes GRRM most certainly doesn't GRRM style: Actions and their consequences. D&D style: HAHAHAHA shock value!

  • Barristan was a member of her Queensguard, he wouldn't have been able to rule... If anything, he would have went with Jorah and Daario to look for Dany.

  • In the books he's defacto ruler in her absence (i think she even made him Hand of the Queen but I'd need to reread), but yes in the show they could have easily just sent him with Daario and Jorah.

    Barristan was a member of her Queensguard, he wouldn't have been able to rule... If anything, he would have went with Jorah and Daario to look for Dany.

  • Myrcella and Shireen were purely for shock value. Shireen because Stannis' plotline still has a ways to go, it's about as over as Jon's is. Myrcella was blatantly for shock value, especially with the whole "I'm glad you're my father Jaime!" and the whole sweet moment beforehand. Talisa M@5#_=/;yr (Robb's wife in the show) was shock value, especially because of the whole "I'm pregnant let's name the baby after your dead father" and Catelyn hearing it.

  • Stannis has been confirmed dead a couple of times already and, unlike Jon, he has no way of coming back. Unless everyone's lying, his story is over. While her last scene was rather 'eh', we don't know what Myrcella's death will lead to because it was at the very end of the season, so it wasn't purely for shock value. And I don't see the problem with Talisa, since it makes sense, the Freys wouldn't want Robb's heir to stay alive :P

    Myrcella and Shireen were purely for shock value. Shireen because Stannis' plotline still has a ways to go, it's about as over as Jon's is.

  • And he would've just trusted Tyrion to stay ruling Meereen, even though he abandoned Westeros specifically because of his nephew? Barristan was already super against Jorah because he betrayed her a long time ago, I doubt he'd be ok with a Lannister who has killed his own family members...

    In the books he's defacto ruler in her absence (i think she even made him Hand of the Queen but I'd need to reread), but yes in the show they could have easily just sent him with Daario and Jorah.

  • I'll believe it when I see it. He still has quite a bit to do, killing him now would be stupid and pointless even by D&D standards. Of course he is confirmed dead, they aren't going to spoil their own show.

    That1Guy posted: »

    Stannis has been confirmed dead a couple of times already and, unlike Jon, he has no way of coming back. Unless everyone's lying, his story

  • I think in his blind devotion to Dany he probably would have. Jorah, Daario, Greyworm, and Missandei were all I'm agreement so he's outvoted regardless. I also doubt he'd hold Tyrion accountable for Joffrey and he probably wouldn't care about Tyrion killing Tywin. After all, he accepted Jaime, blindly followed a king that burnt people alive, served a king that let the murder of children (that he swore to protect) go unpunished (and rewarded), served a young psychopath despite seeing he was his mother's puppet AND with a letter directly from the King insisting that Eddard rules.

    In short, Barristan is stupid and would have stepped aside, yes.

    That1Guy posted: »

    And he would've just trusted Tyrion to stay ruling Meereen, even though he abandoned Westeros specifically because of his nephew? Barristan

  • They killed the Amazing Barristan Selmy is Season 5 - while even GRRM has kept him alive so far.

    Imo that's only Season 5... they actually had their priorities straight before that.

  • Myrcella will die anyway in the books and show, but since they're not at that point the writers probably figured "eh lets make it something great" since chances are the series will finish before the books.

    Myrcella and Shireen were purely for shock value. Shireen because Stannis' plotline still has a ways to go, it's about as over as Jon's is.

Sign in to comment in this discussion.