Too much GRRM, not enough Telltale?
I read this article many months before Telltale started releasing its own version of GoT, and now, reading the same article again, I find myself agreeing with many of its points:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/battle_of_the_myths_game_of_thrones_v._lord_of_the_rings
Telltale forces the downfall of House Forrester despite all of your efforts, which makes me wonder: How much do the developers personally agree with George R.R. Martin's philosophy? There was a time when I flat-out hated Robert Kirkman's WALKING DEAD. I hated its fatalism, its pessimism, and its shallow understanding of what's "realistic." I still do, but Telltale managed to make me fall in love with Clementine's corner of the same universe. That's because (in my opinion) Telltale counterbalanced Kirkman's nastiness with warmth and humanity. But they seem too afraid of Martin to contradict his perception of how "reality" works, with evil winning all the time...or most of the time. As a result, I feel playing this game is fundamentally pointless in such a way that TWD wasn't.
Comments
Well, unfortunately, being "dark and gritty" is trendy now, so everyone wants a piece of that action. Doom and gloom is fine, but doom and gloom for the sake of it isn't. (E.g. parts of this game, and most of the show and books post-Red-Wedding)
It's just not realistic to have everything always end in disaster. To have all the "good" people always fail and die and suffer. Sometimes? Yes. Most of the time? Well... All the time? Definitely not.
Going into the finale, you know House Forrester aren't going to win the battle. And then, of course, they don't.
What's the difference between knowing a character will win, and knowing a character will lose? Nothing. In both cases, there is no unpredictability, and that is bad. I hope David Benioff and Dan Weiss figure that out, going forward. Telltale as well, to an extent, even though I still adore both of their work, even if they frustrate me at times.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been--"
SHUT UP.
I don't think that's true. Yeah the Forresters lost the battle but that doesn't mean they always lose.
First things first: aSoIaF represents a medieval world: so basically, it represents the reality of human nature in dark times. And yes there are dragons and whitewalker but the construction of human being is really deep and try to depict them as they are in reality, which is done pretty well.
There are not only grey characters in it; some of them are still better than the others; you can't say Eddard, Robb, Reeds, Bran, Gendry, Brienne, Thoros of Myr, Beric Dondarrion and his brotherhood, Ellaria Sand, Jon, Stannis, (imo) Lyman Manderly, Tormund (and so on).. are bad guys.
Evil don't win all the time. But in the series it seems so seeing how:
They either blackwash/whitewash characters/they need to kill a major character for Ep.9 for every season/they kill far more characters than in the books.
In the games Telltale chose yo to play as a minor house which had power from the Stark. This power is removed so they are weak. Seeing at the point of this story Forresters win would be lore-destroying; Now with the Northern conspiracy going to happen someday, it would make sense if they get revenge and go more "happy".
Telltale forces the fall of Ironrath cause otherwise, how season 2 would work if you did actually win? Don't forget it's played on several seasons (so basically what would be the point of S2 if winning?) and making them win or not would put a huge gap between the two paths.
Also with no spoiler GRRM stated that he wanted to make an end à la LotR: a victory but still people feel empty, kind of like a pyrrhic victory. So no, people do not loose at the end.
Again with you I dont get what you want? The perfect "hero" to beat a stupid "villain" and win?
I do feel the show and game was a bit too miserable at times and I hate all the dumb memes and ideas that only the good guys die etc and the bad guys win. Game of thrones is all about consequences and strategy. it just happens that good guys have a severe disadvantage as there are many things they wont do, which eviler character will. At the same point I always found the books not that bad, they kind of showed a good greyness to most characters and also have begun to show how moral and good characters do have there advantages. They inspire more loyalty for example.
I'm not sure how much you have read, watched or played of game of thrones and I'd be wiling to comment on what you specifically didnt like about each one, which deaths etc?
It makes me both sad & amused how people can't realize, that what's happening to the Forresters isn't realistic by one simple reason - they get off too easy. Heads up - when you are at the loosing side in a war, you are fucked. No, sorry, you aren't, more like, YOU ARE FUCKED. Whole houses ended up disappearing without trace because of it - Greystarks, Reins etc. Even if you survive, you are about to get bent over and brutally raped by those you've wronged in your better days - remember Thorren the Bold and the river valley? The reasonable thing to do for the Whitehills would be to wipe the whole house out, just murder every last one of them, and claim the smallfolk, craftsmen & ironwood groves for theirs. It would cost them nothing, it would ensure no trouble in the future, it would show everyone, that no one fucks with house Whitehill the way Forresters did, it would mean they wouldn't have to share money made from the ironwood business with anyone - it would benefit them in any possible way. The offer Ludd makes in episode four is pure generosity, and even after that he is still willing to make it to Asher again. This is pure luck. Was a different man leading the Whitehills - Forresters would be destroyed by the end of first couple of episodes. It doesn't matter whether we like it or not - this is how things go after a war, it's a truth similar to "sky is blue" or "water is wet".
It's impossible to be "sad" and "amused" at the same time. One cancels the other out. Just one sentence in, and your post is already an oxymoron.
If it isn't possible for you, doesn't mean it's the same for everybody else. I don't see anything wrong with both finding something to be funny, which makes you amused & not beeing too happy about the fact, that it exists, which is saddens you.
What a constructive answer...
Never heard of sad laugh? Or "better laughing than crying" when confronted to a sad, pitiful situation? This is an expression used in my country.
It's a better answer than yours, smart-aleck. Krapinka isn't being any more constructive than I am.
And for the record, what you're referring to is basically joy mixed with sorrow. "Amusement" is a smirk, not a guffaw. Try to get your facts straight next time.
Well, Krapinka is basically constructive. He mentionned the lore, how the medieval world of aSoIaF worked, taking examples of others families.
Now: taking a random dictionnary:
laugh/laughter
noun. audible expression of amusement
Anyway, the thing that you only argue about laughing to say his arguments are wrong is a proof by itself.
I disagree
one time I got punched when I was a kid and I laughed and cried about it at the same time
it was... actually pretty weird
I'm going to be honest, I'm not understanding what your position on George's writing is. Yes, his books have bad things happen to good people, like the Red Wedding, but he gives his readers satisfaction, even if it's small. Joffrey eventually dies in a horrific way, the Freys are slowly getting what's coming to them, I expect the Night's Watch mutineers won't last long...
To provide a better example: The Freys and Lannisters succeed in capturing Riverrun in the books, but almost immediately following that, we learn that Ryman Frey, heir to the Twins and an all-around horrible person, gets hanged along with his escort. George realizes that nobody wants to read a book series where only bad things happen, plus that would be completely unrealistic. That's why when bad things do happen, he gives us some satisfaction knowing that the bad guys didn't get through it completely unscathed.