Linking on from the morality component, there should be very real and very severe consequences to the choices that you make throughout the game, with no "obvious" correct choice. In fact, if anything, this would be an excellent opportunity to reverse the moral compass many games have. Typically it is seen as a positive action if you allow a villain who has committed a reprehensible action to live and permit them a chance at redemption. What would happen then, if after allowing said character to live, they only ended up doing something far worse or just as evil? Think Saruman in the Lord Of The Rings - the books, that is. After being left to skulk alone in Orthanc at the end of The Two Towers, Saruman does not simply retire from evildoing, but instead travels to the Shire and turns it into an industrialised, tyrannical dystopia somewhat resembling modern-day North Korea. While allowing him to live may have been merciful, the long-term repercussions have resulted in an undeniably worse situation. This kind of beyond-the-surface narrative fits perfectly into the world of GOT. Case and point: Jaime Lannister. Condemned throughout the Seven Kingdoms as the "Kingslayer", Jaime's actions, we learn later, actually saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Yet his reward for this act is to be ill-regarded by almost the entire population as a man without honour. A raw deal indeed, but one that speaks volumes about the type of world Westeros is. This kind of far-reaching cause and effect has near limitless potential to work in a Game Of Thrones game.
When not writing Chris spends more time thinking about playing videogames than actually playing them and can usually be found reorganizing his Blu Ray and book collections. He owns four different editions of A Song of Ice and Fire and no, it isn't overkill. He's left the neon haze of Tokyo and Seoul for the more sedate streets of Bournemouth.
