Hogwarts Legacy - Whimsical Wizardry

[Hawki]

Incremental and unspecified changes of a minor nature off screen years after the story was written is not something to brag about. There's something to be said about Hagrid and Ron's lazy "oh, they love being enslaved, except for all the weird ones that don't" argument literally never being followed up on in your story that's ostensibly about bigotry being bad.

Why?

I'm not sure who's doing the bragging in your scenario, and I don't think one should brag too much, period, but your gripe seems to be that Hermione isn't improving house elves "the right" way. Within the context of the work, I'd be more sympathetic to that position (show, don't tell) if house elves were the main focus of the story, except they aren't.

As for Ron and Hagrid, that might have more weight if there were more house elves like Dobby. Their words are validated in the same book they're spoken in.

Dumbledore literally says that Kreacher is enslaved. Is the book presenting the truth or not? If you don't like fanwank, don't base your argument on fanwank.

Yes, Kreacher can be reasonably said to be enslaved, as he's being forced to act against his will.

You seem insistent that there's a conflict of facts here. And when I'm talking about fanwank, it's the running theory that house elves are being mind controlled when there's nothing to suggest it.

I've literally never claimed that, so I'm not going to argue a made up point that you've assigned to me. Have fun

Okay, fine, maybe you didn't make the claim directly, but the claim's surfaced more than once throughout the thread.

However, Mass Effect and I, Robot certainly also belong in the Slavery column. And the Whoniverse also evokes slavery without using a real-world analogue, via the Ood).

I can agree to disagree on the first two, but how do the ood fit in? The ood are biological, not synthetic, they don't meet the definition of an AI uprising by virtue of biology.

Also, is that really "evoking" slavery? I mentioned something like this before, but saying "slavery evokes slavery" feels a bit, I dunno, redundant? There's not exactly a shortage of slavery in the Whoniverse, since it's got all of time and space to cover.

I'm afraid that if you can't accept that some things are popular despite being shit, you're legally obliged to explain Mrs Brown's Boys.

Oh, lots of things are popular despite being shit (to go back to the post you've quoted from, KotLC is absolute shit from where I'm standing, but people love it for whatever reason), but the difference is that HP isn't shit. It's quite good, actually, especially when compared to its contemporaries.

And yes, I know that's a subjective statement, but then, most statements of quality usually are. By whatever measure you choose to use, be it sales or critical reviews, HP has almost always come out on the not-shit aside, as opposed to, say, Twilight or 50 Shades (highly popular, critically lambasted).

I mean, the obvious answer to Hawki is that Artemis Fowl *wasn't* in exactly the right place at the right time. The twenty years of development hell for the movie probably didn't help

Artemis Fowl (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Philosopher's Stone was published in 1997, Artemis Fowl was published in 2001 - Deathly Hallows was published in 2007, Last Guardian published in 2012. I used these as a comparison because of their proximity to each other, that both were popular in my circles back in the day, both deal with the premise of a tweenager being exposed to a magical world, and even Eoin Colfer, who gave a mini-lecture at my school back in the day (good times) was aware of HP's popularity. Yet for whatever reason, HP remains highly popular to this day (again, library work, I've got a good sense of what kids are into) whereas Artemis Fowl just faded away.

Also, I'm not even sure how one can deduce what the right place and right time is. Under what basis would HP have done worse/better if published, say, in 1992, or 2001? Was Percy Jackson in the right place, right time, hence its rival popularity, or is there something to it? Was Goosebumps in the right place, right time? Animorphs? A book has to be published eventually, and I'm not sure what was so special about 1997 in this context.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

As for Ron and Hagrid, that might have more weight if there were more house elves like Dobby. Their words are validated in the same book they're spoken in.

There *were* more house elves like Dobby. Hagrid mentions how there's always a few "weirdos" who want freedom

Yes, Kreacher can be reasonably said to be enslaved, as he's being forced to act against his will.

You seem insistent that there's a conflict of facts here. And when I'm talking about fanwank, it's the running theory that house elves are being mind controlled when there's nothing to suggest it.

They are literally compelled to act directly against their own will

Philosopher's Stone was published in 1997, Artemis Fowl was published in 2001 - Deathly Hallows was published in 2007, Last Guardian published in 2012. I used these as a comparison because of their proximity to each other, that both were popular in my circles back in the day, both deal with the premise of a tweenager being exposed to a magical world, and even Eoin Colfer, who gave a mini-lecture at my school back in the day (good times) was aware of HP's popularity. Yet for whatever reason, HP remains highly popular to this day (again, library work, I've got a good sense of what kids are into) whereas Artemis Fowl just faded away.

Did you not see the link or what? Movies drive a lot of merch and constantly playing on TV helps cement a cultural phenomenon. That why It's a Wonderful Life is a Christmas Classic instead of a forgotten about bomb.

Also, I'm not even sure how one can deduce what the right place and right time is. Under what basis would HP have done worse/better if published, say, in 1992, or 2001? Was Percy Jackson in the right place, right time, hence its rival popularity, or is there something to it? Was Goosebumps in the right place, right time? Animorphs? A book has to be published eventually, and I'm not sure what was so special about 1997 in this context.

Lmao, if people could divine what the right place and the right time was, John Carpenter would be a billionaire. Past that, you're asking me to peer into alternate realities

The phrase "cult classic" exists for a reason, and there's huge amounts of hidden gems that got covered up or not appreciated in their own times due to essentially random and unforeseeable circumstances. I firmly believe that Mitch Hedberg would be the god-king of tumblr if he wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time, and if it's possible to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, it's certainly possible to be at the right place at the right time. Hell, we live in the age of memes, this should be easy to understand

 

[Hawki]

There *were* more house elves like Dobby. Hagrid mentions how there's always a few "weirdos" who want freedom

"Few" is the key word in that sentence.

They are literally compelled to act directly against their own will

Who? Certainly not the Hogwarts house elves. Certainly not Winky. Certainly not Hooky. Kreacher and Dobby, sure, but again, the exceptions.

The thing with the house elves isn't that they're being forced against their will, it's that by their nature, they're in a position where that good will can be abused.

Did you not see the link or what? Movies drive a lot of merch and constantly playing on TV helps cement a cultural phenomenon. That why It's a Wonderful Life is a Christmas Classic instead of a forgotten about bomb.

I saw the link, I don't agree with the premise. Films based on books are a dime a dozen. Plenty of those films fail. The reason the films became a phenomenon was because the books had already entered the cultural zeitgeist. Keeping in mind that HP is generally regarded to have exploded in popularity when Prisoner of Azkaban was published (1999), while the first film was released in 2001, after entering production in 2000. The books account for the films' popularity far more than the films accounting for the books' popularity.

And on a subjective level, I don't really care for the films at all, since they're inferior in every regard except in areas where they're able to use the strengths of their medium. As actual vessels of story? The films cut so much out in places that some plot points no longer make sense.

Also, are you saying Wonderful Life is only popular because it's aired a lot? Because if so, yikes.

The phrase "cult classic" exists for a reason, and there's huge amounts of hidden gems that got covered up or not appreciated in their own times due to essentially random and unforeseeable circumstances. I firmly believe that Mitch Hedberg would be the god-king of tumblr if he wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time, and if it's possible to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, it's certainly possible to be at the right place at the right time. Hell, we live in the age of memes, this should be easy to understand

I know what cult classics are. HP isn't a "cult" classic, it's just a classic-classic. There's nothing "cult" about it.

Also, you haven't actually proven your claim that HP was in the right place at the right time. I don't even know how you could prove it, but I'm not the one making the claim.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

"Few" is the key word in that sentence.

How do you figure? Is it not actually in their nature? Is Dobby a mutant?

Who? Certainly not the Hogwarts house elves. Certainly not Winky. Certainly not Hooky. Kreacher and Dobby, sure, but again, the exceptions.

Winky absolutely was, until she was freed and turned into an alcoholic mess because she didn't have anybody's orders to follow. Hell, *somehow*, despite you thinking this shit is voluntary, she couldn't just get totally not enslaved by Hogwarts. Figure that one out. And whoms't the fuck is Hooky?

The thing with the house elves isn't that they're being forced against their will, it's that by their nature, they're in a position where that good will can be abused.

Kreature, repeatedly shouting about how he's not going to serve Harry, shutting up immediately and involuntarily when Harry shouts at him to: "my good will is being abused"

I saw the link, I don't agree with the premise. Films based on books are a dime a dozen. Plenty of those films fail. The reason the films became a phenomenon was because the books had already entered the cultural zeitgeist. Keeping in mind that HP is generally regarded to have exploded in popularity when Prisoner of Azkaban was published (1999), while the first film was released in 2001, after entering production in 2000. The books account for the films' popularity far more than the films accounting for the books' popularity.

I mean, that was the last good one

And on a subjective level, I don't really care for the films at all, since they're inferior in every regard except in areas where they're able to use the strengths of their medium. As actual vessels of story? The films cut so much out in places that some plot points no longer make sense.

Those plot points don't make much sense anyway, if you think about them

Also, are you saying Wonderful Life is only popular because it's aired a lot? Because if so, yikes.

It bombed when it came out and severely hurt the director's career.

I know what cult classics are. HP isn't a "cult" classic, it's just a classic-classic. There's nothing "cult" about it.

Also, you haven't actually proven your claim that HP was in the right place at the right time. I don't even know how you could prove it, but I'm not the one making the claim.

That's true. We were making a purely objectively scientific claim with zero evidence. We shall completely revise our objective opinions and never, ever use that phrase ever again.

 

[Baffle]

And yes, I know that's a subjective statement, but then, most statements of quality usually are. By whatever measure you choose to use, be it sales or critical reviews, HP has almost always come out on the not-shit aside, as opposed to, say, Twilight or 50 Shades (highly popular, critically lambasted).

This would make the Spice Girls a good band (and one of them became a UN Ambassador!). And that's fine I guess, but kinda highlights how subjective that is, because they were, in fact (i.e. IMO), not good.

 

[Hawki]

How do you figure? Is it not actually in their nature? Is Dobby a mutant?

1: Because there's nothing to suggest that the information we're receiving is inaccurate.

2: Because the no. of house elves who actively seek freedom are few and far between, backing up the previous statement.

3: Because everything we see with house elves has clear parallels to their real-world antecedents.

Winky absolutely was, until she was freed and turned into an alcoholic mess because she didn't have anybody's orders to follow. Hell, *somehow*, despite you thinking this shit is voluntary, she couldn't just get totally not enslaved by Hogwarts. Figure that one out.

Someone happy to serve and loves serving, who becomes distressed when her old life is ruined by being fired? Um, that pretty much backs up what's said and shown about house elves.

And if you want to claim that all of this is involuntary, you need to provide evidence for it.

And whoms't the fuck is Hooky?

Hokey

Hokey was a female house-elf that belonged to Hepzibah Smith. She was framed in the murder of her mistress by Tom Riddle.[3] Hokey was an old house-elf that served Hepzibah Smith. She used to flatter her mistress, and it was speculated (albeit sarcastically) that this was among her tasks as a...

harrypotter.fandom.com

(Fun fact, there's an actual house elf named Hookey, but I mispelled it when I meant Hokey.)

Kreature, repeatedly shouting about how he's not going to serve Harry, shutting up immediately and involuntarily when Harry shouts at him to: "my good will is being abused"

Kreacher, who has long been abused by the Blacks, and who disdains Harry because of his lack of pure-blood status? Um, yes?

I mean, that was the last good one

Those plot points don't make much sense anyway, if you think about them

I can agree to disagree with both.

It bombed when it came out and severely hurt the director's career.

Which is relevant to the film's quality/lack of it...how, exactly?

That's true. We were making a purely objectively scientific claim with zero evidence. We shall completely revise our objective opinions and never, ever use that phrase ever again.

Hardy hah hah.

"X is a piece of crap. X was only popular because it came out at the right time."

It's a silly claim to make because it's an unfalsifiable one. There's plenty of popular stuff I dislike, if I'm explaining why I dislike them, it's an asinine argument to say "X is only popular because of happenstance, I know the real truth that X isn't good, all those dirty plebs are just too stupid to realize how bad X is."

It's academic as to what people do or don't like, but arguing why something is/isn't good requires more than that.

 

[Silvanus]

I can agree to disagree on the first two, but how do the ood fit in? The ood are biological, not synthetic, they don't meet the definition of an AI uprising by virtue of biology.

Keep in mind the reason I brought up AI in the first place.

People kept opining that the House Elf situation wasn't slavery because the Elves aren't analogous to any real-world group. I brought up AI specifically as a rebuttal to that argument: to provide a well-known example to show that you can portray/evoke slavery without requiring an analogue for any specific real-world groups.

So the fact that the Whoniverse doesn't portray AIs as slaves is sort of beside the point, because it still provides another separate example of exactly what I was talking about: a portrayal of slavery without a real-world analogue group.

Also, is that really "evoking" slavery? I mentioned something like this before, but saying "slavery evokes slavery" feels a bit, I dunno, redundant? There's not exactly a shortage of slavery in the Whoniverse, since it's got all of time and space to cover.

I guess this is a bit semantic now, but i'd say portraying a fictional instance of slavery is "evoking" the real-world phenomenon of slavery.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

So now they're doxing. People are cheering this on even though I highly doubt 4chan (a site that is completely sympathetic to trans people/s) have listed only harassers

 

[BrawlMan]

So now they're doxing. People are cheering this on even though I highly doubt 4chan (a site that is completely sympathetic to trans people/s) have listed only harassers

I've always despised 4chan (and it's other variations). Whatever "good" they have done, was not out of selflessness, or just happened to coincide with other goals. They're nothing more than a glorified vigilante group who see themselves better than everyone else. Right now and for a long while, we don't need their "help".

 

[laggyteabag]

I appreciate that this thread has generally gone quite far off the rails from talking about the actual game, but I just wanted to note a couple of things.

Firstly, this game actually runs remarkably well on the Steam Deck, at a mostly locked 30FPS. This is quite surprising to me, because the game basically runs like shit on my PC, and struggles to maintain even a locked 60FPS on an RTX 3080, no ray tracing, at 4K DLSS (effectively running at 1080p).

Otherwise, having sat through basically the entire game, watching my girlfriend play it (and playing a bit of it myself), I find it quite funny that this game is such a massive controversy/talking point, when the game itself is just mediocre.

This has to be some kind of record on quality vs outrage.

 

[Dreiko]

Game did good enough it's likely getting a sequel looks like.

Hogwarts Legacy 2 sequel already hinted at by Warner Bros.

There might not be any DLC planned for Hogwarts Legacy but Warner Bros. bosses see only a ‘bright future’ for the franchise...

metro.co.uk

 

[Baffle]

So now they're doxing. People are cheering this on even though I highly doubt 4chan (a site that is completely sympathetic to trans people/s) have listed only harassers

Saving that thread so I can wheel it out any time I get accused of being 'too online'.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Game did good enough it's likely getting a sequel looks like.

Hogwarts Legacy 2 sequel already hinted at by Warner Bros.

There might not be any DLC planned for Hogwarts Legacy but Warner Bros. bosses see only a ‘bright future’ for the franchise...

metro.co.uk

To me it's another reminder that this controversy stuff is just inside the bubble online gamer drama nonsense. It really is as simple as- there's a Harry Potter game, it's fine, it's a big name and a popular brand, of course there's gonna be sequels.

Funny enough I think this perceived controversy drama inspired Yahtzee because his Zero Punctuation on the game is his best piece of writing in a long time. I mean I always like the videos but this time he managed to convey what it's like to play the game while addressing Rowling and making it funny. Basically he says it starts off very good especially if you're a HP fan, then gets lame and boring with the typical modern open world blah. And to me this is basically my experience with almost every big title- halfway through, I feel like I've seen the good stuff and then there's this insurmountable wall of annoying required to actually get to the end, whether it's because of repetitive grindy crap or tedious difficulty spikes.

 

[Baffle]

This has to be some kind of record on quality vs outrage.

You must have missed all the bed-shitting over Gone Home! (I have not played Gone Home [can one really play Gone Home?] so I cannot comment on the quality of the aforementioned walking simulator, I simply recall a lot of hoo-hah.)

 

[Dreiko]

To me it's another reminder that this controversy stuff is just inside the bubble online gamer drama nonsense. It really is as simple as- there's a Harry Potter game, it's fine, it's a big name and a popular brand, of course there's gonna be sequels.

Funny enough I think this perceived controversy drama inspired Yahtzee because his Zero Punctuation on the game is his best piece of writing in a long time. I mean I always like the videos but this time he managed to convey what it's like to play the game while addressing Rowling and making it funny. Basically he says it starts off very good especially if you're a HP fan, then gets lame and boring with the typical modern open world blah. And to me this is basically my experience with almost every big title- halfway through, I feel like I've seen the good stuff and then there's this insurmountable wall of annoying required to actually get to the end, whether it's because of repetitive grindy crap or tedious difficulty spikes.

There's definitely some of that, but I think it's more like a sub-bubble, you have people in their bubble attacking others for not being part of their group and playing this game, which then causes the people of the greater bubble to coalesce against these attacks and keep supporting this game and the franchise they loved growing up.


I'm not a big fan, never read the books and only saw some of the films, but the game stands on its own merit despite that, so I can imagine if this IP is one of your favorites, you will be more than pleased.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I appreciate that this thread has generally gone quite far off the rails from talking about the actual game, but I just wanted to note a couple of things.

Firstly, this game actually runs remarkably well on the Steam Deck, at a mostly locked 30FPS. This is quite surprising to me, because the game basically runs like shit on my PC, and struggles to maintain even a locked 60FPS on an RTX 3080, no ray tracing, at 4K DLSS (effectively running at 1080p).

Otherwise, having sat through basically the entire game, watching my girlfriend play it (and playing a bit of it myself), I find it quite funny that this game is such a massive controversy/talking point, when the game itself is just mediocre.

This has to be some kind of record on quality vs outrage.

Ehh, I remember Hatred, and walking sims/visual novels in general

 

[Terminal Blue]

I would like to ask why you find them not competently written and badly plotted, but if you don't have the energy to break it down: could you point to another series that you consider good on those merits that would be a worthwhile alternative?

Obviously, the writing quality issue is relative and a little subjective. Compared to Twilight, for example, I'll concede Harry Potter is pretty well written. It's also exceptionally well edited, however, which means that as Joanne gets more creative control her writing becomes noticeably worse. She also doesn't seem to use or understand literary devices beyond obvious or simple things like wordplay. She seems to understand the basic concept of a subplot, but not how to tie a subplot to the main plot by means of a theme or interwoven narrative. Above all, this leads to problems of narrative efficiency which actually become worse as she goes on. It's why later books balloon in length and get filled up with pointless events or keeping track of characters who don't matter.

She also doesn't seem to understand how to pace in writing. She likes to write long descriptions, and that can be a good thing, it's immersive and conveys a maximial aesthetic, but she doesn't seem to really get that the effect of doing that is to slow the pace so she'll drop long descriptions into the middle of tense scenes. This is another reason why her later books become so bloated.

Like, I accept that a lot of things I read as a child might not be accessible to all children, so let's keep away from things like Earthsea and Gormenghast and focus on the one really obvious point of comparison.

Terry Pratchett.

It's quite amusingly obvious that Terry Pratchett was one of JK Rowling's biggest influences, and also that he didn't like her at all.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Who? Certainly not the Hogwarts house elves. Certainly not Winky. Certainly not Hooky. Kreacher and Dobby, sure, but again, the exceptions.

The thing with the house elves isn't that they're being forced against their will, it's that by their nature, they're in a position where that good will can be abused.

Since I've now reminded myself of Terry Pratchett, let's take this seriously for a moment.

Let's say that people really did exist who were compelled to serve others, who could never overcome this all-consuming need to follow commands and could only find happiness through doing so. People whose very nature made them easy to exploit, and who had (with a few exceptations) accepted this exploitation as entirely normal and natural.

It would still be wrong to exploit those people.

The correct response to the existence of such people is not simply to accept that they're different and thus it's okay to use them as slaves. The correct response is to recognize that these are people who are vulnerable, who through no fault of their own aren't capable of protecting themselves from abuse and thus need other people to protect them. The correct response is to find a solution that allows those people to live (as best as possible) in a way that makes them happy without putting them at risk of being abused.

Because people who can't recognize their own interests, people who can't take responsibility for their own actions, people who lack the mental capacity to understand what appropriate or respectful treatment looks like exist in our world too, and it's not legal to use them as slave labour. Exploiting someone who doesn't know that exploitation is bad doesn't absolve you of responsibility for exploiting them.

 

[Baffle]

There's an elf called Winky?! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Fucking winky! Winky the elf! Ha ha ha ha ha jesus christ winky the elf.

 

[BrawlMan]

Because people who can't recognize their own interests, people who can't take responsibility for their own actions, people who lack the mental capacity to understand what appropriate or respectful treatment looks like exist in our world too, and it's not legal to use them as slave labour. Exploiting someone who doesn't know that exploitation is bad doesn't absolve you of responsibility for exploiting them.

Certain people on this forum and the outside world, never gets this.