A Game of Thrones - Genesis

A Game of Thrones - Genesis

TheAngryAtheist Nov 24, 2012 @ 10:54pm
An Objective Analysis
Please note that the goal of this post is not to be rude or condescending. If one of the developers ever read this, which well never occur, perhaps there are items in here that they could take into consideration? A patch would perhaps make the individuals who purchased this title feel a little bit less used/violated.

Essentially, this game failed in areas that should never have occured. Let me elaborate. If you look at any successful game. Game in general. Be it a rpg, shooter, strategy etc. The games we place on pedistals for their respective genres do the basic things very well. My first examples that come to mind are civ, total war, skyrim, fallout, company of heros.

These titles are obviously exceptional, and not a fair comparison by any means... but when you break down GOT genesis it cant seem to put anything together in a clean manner.

Byfar the most dire issue is the combat. Games that preceed GOTG by 10+ years have produced far more polished forms of pitting armies against one another. Essential GOT genesis looks like blob running into blob. You feel no connection with your units. No names, no murals, no slow character development. I know they wanted to keep the game RTS, but the manner in which they held true to RTS simply lacks effort or refinement. Lets put it this way. You cant even garrison units properly.You go back to....the age of empires combat system lets say. You slap on different names and give us some connection to the units. Alter the tech tree a bit. Most of us would be happy. You somehow make terrain matter? ie 1 unit of archers >10 infantry when assaulting the arryn stronghold...Suddenly we are escstatic. You give the starks a much lower unit cap but much stronger independent units. Give the lannisters a much larger range of sellswords, a higher pop cap, and maybe throw in some nasty and completely intolerable combat or espionage units.Give me engineers and alow me to modify my landscape with towers and walls to keep those cool expionage units you produced OUT OF MY AREA. Suddenly you have us singing "♥♥♥♥ in my pants".

The speed at which the game progresses is also laughable. Everything occurs at once, and there is no feasible way to discern your units at any given moment. Worse yet, the player has no abilty to alter the gameplay at all. you cant slow the game down, you can not modify the hostility levels or victory conditions. You cant even save. Its devastating.

Im going to end my rant now, although there are numerous other flaws...the game also tried hard to do some interesting things. I desperately hope that people feel differently than i do. Particularitly considering the price tag on this item.
< >
Showing 1-12 of 12 comments
Nuushba Nov 25, 2012 @ 5:37pm 
hell yeah! needs some major updating
John Wick Nov 29, 2012 @ 9:38am 
I regret buying this game, i really do. We will NEVER see a patch from the devs, ever... just like "The Guild 2".
No patch, not today, not ever.
I say Do not buy! NO!
mendota Dec 3, 2012 @ 6:27am 
i think you missed the entire point of the game. this isn't some war-porn like the Total War series. you're not going to have thousands of units on screen with garish costumes to gawk over. it's more akin to table top or board gaming with simple avatars standing in for the power of your military or the scope of your intelligence network.

the buggy release and the lack of polish definitely doesn't warrant the $40 price tag, but it's not a complete failure either. the peacetime/wartime mechanic, and the double agent mechanic should definitely be salvaged for other RTSs.
TheAngryAtheist Dec 3, 2012 @ 1:17pm 
In response to your post mendota,

Your absolutely right that there are some interesting mechanics that were introduced. And, drawing a comparison between a total war game was certainly not fair. However, i stand by my initial view that the combat is a large and glaring flaw. Even if we were to examine this game as though it were a board game. Lets say Risk, its a nice basic example. The free online version has dreadfully stronger A.I and clear concise combat. A board game however, is NOT RTS and would certainly fall under the TBS parameters.
mendota Dec 21, 2012 @ 5:29pm 
it's not a boardgame. i never said it was, and it's not productive to chase that red herring...
TheAngryAtheist Dec 21, 2012 @ 6:04pm 
And i quote; "it's more akin to table top or board gaming". Not trying to be a♥♥♥♥♥♥man, just confused where you were going with that point.
Still can't bring myself to play more than a couple minutes at a time despite my love for indie titles.
TheAngryAtheist Feb 7, 2013 @ 6:02pm 
Read this before buying.
TheAngryAtheist Mar 27, 2013 @ 9:47pm 
Do not buy!
OldSnakey Mar 30, 2013 @ 11:31am 
Agreed. I bought this, not happy.
Kindsoul_2002 Mar 31, 2013 @ 3:13pm 
Game sucks!
Darllock Jun 14, 2013 @ 8:49am 
thanks for the info. helped come to a decision not to buy :)
Cypher Jul 19, 2013 @ 12:15pm 
yea the intention of the game is using underhand methods and diplomacy more than open war. I will agree older games look better and have better sound video quality and animations. The combat is dull. For me the most fun is camping roads with mercenaries and starting uprisings. The campaign story is also kind of cool.
< >
Showing 1-12 of 12 comments
Per page: 15 30 50