Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Well yes, that's true. But from my perspective, that's Rowling working with what she had already set up and her foundation still had weaknesses that she couldn't really get rid of.
The combo potential of this game is actually kinda crazy. You can Leviso a dude into the air, blast him a few times, then do the Scorpion "Get over here!" Spell to yank him closer, blast him point blank a few more times, finish it up with Incendio and burn the shit outta him and knock him out your face. And by then the Leviso spell is off CD so you can just keep doing that shit until they die.
Or you can call lighting. Or you can grab environmental objects and smash them into your enemies. And it's all snappy, responsive, and isn't a cluttered mess like Forespoken, despite the combat being similar in being exclusively spell based combat.
It's really rather impressive for a game I would assume is more aiming for a skewing younger audience.
Or you can call lighting. Or you can grab environmental objects and smash them into your enemies. And it's all snappy, responsive, and isn't a cluttered mess like Forespoken, despite the combat being similar in being exclusively spell based combat.
It's really rather impressive for a game I would assume is more aiming for a skewing younger audience.
Based on what I've seen and heard, this is basically the Harry Potter game its fanbase have been wanting for like, fifteen years.
Not the first time something that is meant for a younger audience has deep or complex combat mechanics. Games have been doing that since the 8-bit & 16-bit era. Besides, it's pretty clear Hogwarts is hitting all generations of Harry Potter.
Considering the "if it can be used against the target, it will be used against the target" muckraking typical of wrongthink material and unpersons, they may as well be calling it "Witch Eating Crackers".
Is Harry Potter even still
big with teenagers? I feel that even people in their early to mid twenties grew up with Hunger Games or something instead, much less teens and tweens for whom it's probably the MCU before anything else.
Then again, at this point at least the older folks who were into HP when it was big are probably starting to push it onto their own kids. And there's a decent chance that this game might popularize it again, probably moreso than the Fantastic Beasts movies, where you'd be hard pressed to find anyone especially especially excited about them.
Yes. These books still sell to the kids, preteens, and teenage/young adult crowd. Not to mention the cast does get older in each book or movie. Sure, the hype machine ain't as big as it used to be, but it's still big.
Exactly. Though I wouldn't go with a decent chance. This is definitely a big chance. I never saw a Fantastic Beast movies, nor will I ever do so. WB has no idea what they're doing anymore as far as that is concerned. Among many other things as well.
Last edited:
So anyways I was curious about whatever comments JKR actually made. I habitually try to avoid social media drama of any kind for my sanity, but I’ve been reading this thread too much and well, yeah. From a link in this article -
And you know what? It kinda reminds me of the drama surrounding Dave Chappelle’s The Closer show with his story about Daphne.
People gave him all kinds of shit for this, which rationally speaking is pretty absurd if one actually listens to it. Reading the comments in his videos on this special, even many trans people can see past the outrage. Of course, the circumstances are very different than JKR’s as detailed in her letter, but it goes to show these differences don’t really even matter once the vitriolic narrative is set forth in social media. Blind hatred works both ways.
The irony of so many claiming Rowling’s gentle statement, arguing that one should not be fired for saying that sex is real, is dangerous or hateful is clear to any who reads the responses to her online, and is summarized perfectly by blogger Jane Aldridge, who tweeted that she “hated” Rowling and hoped “something bad happens to her.”
www.feministcurrent.com
J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues - J.K. Rowling
Warning: The below content is not appropriate for children. Please check with an adult before you read this page. To go back to the children’s page, please click here. This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an...
www.jkrowling.com
And you know what? It kinda reminds me of the drama surrounding Dave Chappelle’s The Closer show with his story about Daphne.
People gave him all kinds of shit for this, which rationally speaking is pretty absurd if one actually listens to it. Reading the comments in his videos on this special, even many trans people can see past the outrage. Of course, the circumstances are very different than JKR’s as detailed in her letter, but it goes to show these differences don’t really even matter once the vitriolic narrative is set forth in social media. Blind hatred works both ways.
The irony of so many claiming Rowling’s gentle statement, arguing that one should not be fired for saying that sex is real, is dangerous or hateful is clear to any who reads the responses to her online, and is summarized perfectly by blogger Jane Aldridge, who tweeted that she “hated” Rowling and hoped “something bad happens to her.”
JK Rowling spoke out in defense of Maya Forstater and the truth, here's how Twitter responded
Yesterday, a UK judge determined that Maya Forstater’s employer was justified in firing her for speaking out against gender identity legislation. Forstater lost her job as a tax expert at the Center for Global Development after being accused of using “offensive and exclusionary” language on...
www.feministcurrent.com
Last edited:
It's a canabalistic ideology. Where even if you are part of the group whether it's L or B or G or T or whatever, it doesn't actually matter if you aren't also onboard with the ideology. If a trans person comes out and doesn't agree with whatever people are angry about this week, the mob will turn on them and it doesn't matter if they are part of their group.
And it's the same in every marginalized group. BLM shit on Candance Owens and a number of other black news people and accused them of being racist, when they themselves are black. I forget the term they used but it's something disgusting so I'm not gonna look it up.
It's also why TERF is a term, which I find highly ironic because it's obvious that they are more than willing to ostracize and exclude any other trans person who doesn't fully buy into the message they are trying to push.
If any of these people spent a tenth as much time reading about what GCD acrually does as opposed to what they say for PR, theyd have found something else to gripe about years ago.
That's because Candice Owens is a racist and full of self-hatred. She is nothing more to be used and disposed by Republicans and ultra conservatives. She is an Aunt Ruckus sacrificing her own people, for her own wealth and selfish gain. Don't try to pin BLM for dumb crap they didn't do nor accuse him of doing. A majority of them got their head on straight and actually fight the good fight, without being jerks to others.
Not to get too off topic, but you have crap like this happening.
The FBI Paid a Violent Felon to Infiltrate Denver's Racial Justice Movement
Mickey Windecker encouraged violence, accused Denver activist leaders of being police cooperators, and tried to draw demonstrators into elaborate stings.
theintercept.com
How the FBI Infiltrated Racial Justice Protests in 2020
A new podcast from reporter Trevor Aaronson details the story of an FBI informant who infiltrated the racial justice movement in Denver.
theintercept.com
FBI Documents Expose Bureau's Big Jan. 6 'Lie'
The FBI says it lacked the power to monitor social media activity ahead of Jan. 6, but it snooped plenty during Black Lives Matter protests
www.google.com
Last edited:
Really? The leadership can't even be on the up and up.
BLM co-founder admits she held parties at mansion bought with donor funds
Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors admitted in an Associated Press interview she spent overnights and hosted multiple personal events at the group’s controversial Malibu mansion. Cullors’sstatements come after she claimed to have “never misappropriated funds” related to the Black...
komonews.com
Sucks to be her. We don't need her then. The organization is not going to fall apart because of her absence. Sad and sucks, but I'm not going to cry over her being kicked out of the organization, if that's the case. Thank you for the news. Still doesn't change what the FBI did, nor what Candice Owens continues to do. We'll fight the good fight with or without her. In this case better without.Really? The leadership can't even be on the up and up.
BLM co-founder admits she held parties at mansion bought with donor funds
Black Lives Matter Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors admitted in an Associated Press interview she spent overnights and hosted multiple personal events at the group’s controversial Malibu mansion. Cullors’sstatements come after she claimed to have “never misappropriated funds” related to the Black...
Last edited:
I've not seen this any more often from the community than I have from the population at large. People criticise public figures and issues that are personal get emotional. It doesn't make the "ideology cannibalistic". It just means they're as prone to human nature as anyone else.
Some of the rhetoric can get a bit OTT sometimes. That "hope something bad happens" is a prime example and is just plain fucking gross. Again, this isn't unique or special: for every shitty game company issue, like crunch or unionbusting or price gouging or pay cuts, you'll get twats online in the hundreds choosing to harass or threaten individual developers. Does this mean the "ideology" of being against shitty predatory practices is at fault? Fuck no. The original stuff doesn't get a free pass because of that. It's still ripe to be ripped.
The original letter of Rowling's wasn't particularly egregious. It said some shoddy and baseless things, but it was also quite clear she didn't intend malice and that it came from a place of genuine worry for her. What drove the whole thing into the territory where it is now is what followed: complete doubling down, refusal to acknowledge the pain discrimination causes in this area, mocking her opponents. Calling herself a terf, meaning she intentionally identifies her position as trans-exclusionary. And the clear... questionableness of then invoking old time worn transphobic tropes in a subsequent Galbraith book.
A lot of these people-- like Graham Linehan too-- seem to become so personally invested in fighting their critics that they end up going down a rabbit hole that really ain't pretty.
I agree, I feel like a lot of Rowling's behavior is she said some kinda whatever things that people took issue with and started accusing and insulting her about it. So she basically went full, "Oh you think I'm Phobic, I'll SHOW you what phobic is!" And just doubled down to push back against the unreasonable bullying. Which in some ways is kind of commendable because why back down from people bullying you especially when they can't do shit against you? But then you kind of gotta watch the line you push back against because you go from fighting back against people bullying, and actually just being offensive for the sake of spite.
Either way I think her true feelings and intention aren't really as harmful as people try to imply, a lot of her stuff sounds like trolling because she has "fuck you" money and people can't cancel her.
When her responses aren't targeting the critics, but rather just broadening the attack on the whole community whether they're involved or not in the argument with you, then it's harmful.
I don't think she cares, though, that's the issue. In the original letter she said she loved trans people, and I believe she meant it.... then. Now, in response to critics, she's explicitly saying she's "trans exclusionary", and either unaware or uncaring that its a fuck-you to the community she said she loved. The only thing that seems to matter is throwing mud back.
Unless you're Phil fish, Tim Shchafer, Neil druckmann, Anthony Burch, or any other number of people whose views are politically en vogue. Then, they absolutely get a free pass when "toxic discourse taints the conversation" to the point "it can no longer be had in good faith", because "well-meaning but contextually-blind critics" make "unwitting alliances with and "enable" the "toxic actors".
Really funny how that reasoning only ever seems to consistently apply to one side of the debate.
Rowling, for most of the past decade, drew a lot more attention as a conservative political activist than as a writer of fiction. Her detective novels and the Fantastic Beasts movies aren't exactly works of great cultural or artistic relevance. Whether her activism comes from a place of sincere conviction or from a place of spite might matter to her, but I don't see why it should matter to anyone else. She expressed bigoted views, people called them out, she decided to double down rather than apologize. I will admit, it does sting a little to see the author of books that I grew up with become a mouthpiece for discrimination (although not as much as it stings hearing Roger Waters play apologist for war crimes. Really expected better from him.) but I'm not gonna have an existential crisis over it and neither should anyone else. Sometimes good things are made by bad people. Sometimes good things are inspired by things made by bad people. Nothing to lose sleep over.
Which is really what I'm wondering about. I get boycotting the game because you're not comfortable buying something that Rowling gets paid royalties for, perfectly respectable decision. But trying to force a mass boycott of it is... quite a hill to die on, that's for sure. Like, it just makes me wonder if this is the first time that people have realized that sometimes popular things are made by bad people. You know, Roman Polanski molested a teenager, Warren Spector shot someone, both are succesful artists in their respective fields. Not saying that's a good thing, but it shows the futility of that approach. Let's be honest, Rowling could car bomb a pride parade and it wouldn't have any significant impact on the popularity of Harry Potter. People take it for granted as a cultural tentpole. There are more people who are fans of Harry Potter than there are people who are even aware of what Rowling's personal views are. A high budget Harry Potter game that's even supposed to be good in its own merits was always going to be popular, no matter what.
Don't get me wrong, in a perfect world Rowling wouldn't make money off of this. In fact, in a perfect world something like "licenses" and "royalties" wouldn't exist and everyone would be able to expand on other people work to their hearts desire. But at some point you really gotta acknowledge, in a few decades Rowling will be dead, her views are gonna be regarded as an unfortunate and all too common product of a less enlightened time and people are still gonna have fond memories of Harry Potter and Hogwarts Legacy. I hate to bring up this example, as it's brought up way too often, but Lovecraft was, even by the standards of his time, a racist son of a *****. But his contributions to horror literature is still felt in everything that followed, while the name of his cat is a piece of bad taste trivia. And, I guess, Lovecraft also softened up in that regard when he got older, which it's still not too late for Rowling to do, but I know better than to actually expect that from her.
She might, eventually come to her senses and apologize for having discriminated a bunch of innocent people for no reason, or she might not. Either way, Harry Potter and its legacy, no pun intended, are gonna outlast and eclipse her attachement to a conservative political cause she inexplicably chose to support in the last third of her life.