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.Actually for my money, Potter was a bit unique compared to some of its contemporaries. Like I won't claim to have read the entire set but the Famous Five or Secret Seven (as examples) didn't grow with its audience. Harry Potter on the other hand does follow them over the course of growing up and changing. Its one of the series great strengths, just as we grow and learn more of the world some of the conceits the books run on make us look twice and go "Hang on a second". Mind you the books suffer this far, far less than the movies do.
Based on what I've seen and heard, this is basically the Harry Potter game its fanbase have been wanting for like, fifteen years.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.
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.It's really rather impressive for a game I would assume is more aiming for a skewing younger audience.
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".A nickname that poster gave to Hogwarts Legacy on account of what they perceive to be antisemitic undertones.
Is Harry Potter even stillNot 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.
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.Is Harry Potter even still
big with teenagers?
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.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.
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.snip
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.Blind hatred works both ways.
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.Candance Owens and a number of other black news people and accused them of being racist, when they themselves are black.
Really? The leadership can't even be on the up and up.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.
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...komonews.com
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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
Which makes her all the more a thundering dumbass.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".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.
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.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.