I think for me granularity of descriptions isn’t really the main thing. Instead it’s down to:Well, that wasn't my impression 25 years ago, but again, it has been awhile. I remember thinking that--at the least--his female characters were more similar to each other than his males. It was a common view, iirc.
What do you mean by "impact?" Impact on what? Fantasy literature? Culture? World events? Cosmic history?
True. He is more Dickensian than Hemingwaysian (awkward). I think part of his appeal for many was how granular his descriptions were. But it is a stylistic preference, or a spectrum that he's on one end of and someone like Michael Moorcock is on the other (at least his earlier stuff, pre-Gloriana).
- Heroic characters that come into their own from zero to hero
- meticulous and consistent world building, reinforced over and over again in hundreds of circumstances.
- A strong compelling mythology of the world with clear links to the current story
- More moments of awesome than three other book series combined.
The last for me is why Wheel of Time blows the socks of Game of Thrones. GOT has come cool bits in it (usually involving dragons), but most of the climaxes in GOT where the result of tragedy striking - Ned’s head, red wedding, purple wedding, Tyrion’s second trial etc.
Wheel of Time however takes the mythology, takes the characters, takes events up to that point and weaves them into spectacular achievements that are so epic they could be series climaxes in their own regards. The Eye of the World; Falme; The rings of Rhuidean; The breaking at Alcair Dal; Dumai’s Wells; The Cleansing; Egwene’s Election; Egwene v Elaida; The Raid of Tar Valon; Verin’s revelation; The Tower of Genji; The Last Battle… and many many many more encounters. Any of those are more powerful than events in GOT.