i'm interested, hope to see more of the gameplay in the near future before decision is made. it's being developed by Cyanide, which hasn't made any great games. but most developers start off making bad to mediocre stuff before they get a project that fits. look at rocksteady with batman arkham asylum.
The books are great so there really is a ton of potential here. The world and characters are complex but this game isn't about the main characters in the show/books. They are new characters that are doing things within the storyline. I think the other Game of Thrones game made by Cyanide was a strategy game which aren't really my thing so I can't say if their games are awful or not.
that Forbes article doesn't reference a review, it references an article from kotaku in which the writer wishes the game of thrones game was going to be a different type of RPG. Not all RPGs allow you to choose multiple classes or customize your characters. Now, i don't think the game is going to be great, but i am actually looking forward to it.
Well the article is wrong. The game may very well be crap, but the reasons he has given are incorrect. He states "You can't be a Hedge Knight, you can't be a bandit, you can't be a Bravoosi. You can't even choose your gender." While it's true that you can't choose your gender, you can choose to play as a hedge knight or a water dancer. Each of the two characters has three distinct play styles which include hedge knight for one character and water dancer for the other. I don't remember all of the other play styles but I know that Landed Knight and Sellsword are among them. You can hear about them in the video in this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-KzAaSii3M
So we now have articles that quote blogs? Lol. I can't believe someone would write an entire article without doing any investigation into what he/she is writing about except for hearsay.
That being said, we don't know much about this game. It could very well be terrible. However, implying that a game isn't a true RPG because it isn't sandbox-style like Skyrim shows just how little the author of the Kotaku blog knows about RPGs. One of the greatest CRPGs, Baldur's Gate, allows you to gather companions, but you essentially play as one character (the Bhaalspawn). The Witcher is the same way (except without companions). I love Skyrim, but I wish people who started with "The Elder Scrolls" wouldn't assume they are experts on all things RPG.
Not only that, but the "open world" is a relatively new development in RPGs. Sure, every game is now following that trend...and other genres are following suit as well...but it isn't the status quo for RPGs.
What is status quo is earning XP, gaining levels, improving skills, interacting with NPCs in order to push the story forward...those are your RPG staples that have been around since the beginning. Sandbox is just a new trend.
I'm going to be honest... I don't think the game will be great, but it hardly looks like a disaster either, and in general there are many IPs (Intellectual Properties) that deserve better games than end up getting but as a regular reader of Kotaku I can honestly say that Luke Plunkett is a hack who regularly writes trash/sensational articles for the shake of getting more clicks... And he is the last person whose opinion I would want in regard to video game or anything else.