http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1206307-game-of-thrones/
http://viewers-guide.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/
http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/index.html

Please use spoiler tags, keeping the book the spoiler is from out of the tag.

To answer the question about the characters in the book; it is true that you can assign most Houses into some variant of 'good' and 'evil'. Mostly honour versus treachery, I guess (Starks - Lannisters, for example).

However, most individual characters go through some sort of development. I won't spoil a character with examples, but I have to agree with the poster who said that characters are indeed three-dimensional.

I guess you could interpret these arguments both ways; a House 'style' will be passed along during the upbringing, for example. It's nonetheless a great read.

Quite honestly, I'd say that anyone who sees the characters as totally good or totally evil isn't paying attention. The Starks are more honorable and bound to fairness, the Lannisters are more about personal gain and power, but neither are totally good or totally evil, especially as the series progresses and you find out more about both the main characters and the supporting cast. The only real black evil character is Gregor, but he's more of a psychopathic totally amoral evil than a cackling villain type. It being dark is a valid critique, though - it does include a lot of grim elements and 'good' characters don't always make it through. If you like everything to turn out alright and everyone to get what they deserve, this might not be the series for you (on the other hand, it might change your mind).

Thread 6 should be subtitled "titles, titles"

As others have said, I found the characters in this book to be anything but one-dimensional. Sure there are some 'evil' characters, but at least there are reasons for it.

I agree to the first part, and I'll keep the second part in mind if I end up making the next one

I always thought Gregor to be a really simple-minded man - just do what you're told. In some sense, not really evil, just stupid.

Yeah that doesn't really fit in with the whole
But I do agree with everyone else that there really aren't any "good" or "bad" guys, its all just shades of grey.

Agreeing with the general consensus that ASOIAF is full of morally grey characters rather than just good v evil. If it was, I doubt I'd be reading them.

I agree that the Mountain is a bit more extreme than just stupid and ... agreeable.

Well yeah, that was kinda the point; if he had a decent set of brains, he wouldn't be a psycho.

There are a few character which I think could classify as outright evil. Ramsay Bolton/Snow is another that springs to mind. Ramsay doesn't even have the defense of being stupid, as he is portrayed as being a rather cunning but sadistic maniac. If he has any redeeming qualities, Martin hasn't seen fit to mention them yet. There have been sadistic maniacs in history who have done some pretty horrible things, so it doesn't really strain the credibility of the series to have a couple of them.

But for the most part, I agree that the majority of the characters are pretty grey. The "good" characters do some questionable things, and the "bad" characters have moments where they are sympathetic.

Just finished watching season 1 of GoT. I should probably get the books now.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1231576-bethesda-dumped-game-of-thones-game-for-skyrim/
lets continue here then I guess. Although IMO it was fully deserving of its own thread.

Then there'd be separate threads for the books, the movies and the games, and that would get messy. But comments like that will detract from the thread and are best left dealt with in a PM to the respective moderator (or another one if you feel like you can't deal with said respective mod).

Back on topic, I think they made the right choice. They aren't a big enough studio to make such a game, and it's would be very hard for them to make it fit in with the lore of those books, due to the open endedness of TES games.

Well I think it was a bit silly to say they'd never pick it up again. Some other company will just get the job and Beth will lose out big time.

They won't lose out though. If anything I'd say they'd lose out by going with GoT. The wait between TES games (and Bethesda Game Studios' Fallout games) is long enough, without throwing a third game into the mix. Imagine waiting 6 - 8 years for the next TES! (Assuming each TES/Fallout game take 3-4 years development time).

How would Beth "lose out big time" if they didn't want to do it? Game of Thrones isn't that amazing sorry to disappoint, and the show is worse, the TES universe is so much bigger and the lore has been established for so long, it trumps Game of Thrones by far.

'Some other company' has already gotten the job are are doing two games, an RTS and an RPG.

While I'd love to see Beth do a GoT game, I think Bioware would actually be the better studio. GoT is about characters and story, with the world serving only as a backdrop to them. Beth does good worlds, but isn't too hot on telling a story like GoT's.