Hogwarts Legacy

[Ronnie]

Couldn't find a thread for this. Coming later this year (yeah right), all platforms...

Looks amazing. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Cube
Removed baiting.

[Glen-i]

Just a reminder that JK Rowling benefits from this, and that's a good enough reason for me to completely ignore it.

It's depressing how much she's lost my respect, considering that I did literally queue outside a bookstore at midnight for the last book. Wish I could go back and tell my younger self to reconsider.

[Ronnie]

I've just found out all discussion of this game is banned from ResetEra  that place never fails to amuse.

Game seems really full of content and quite stunning at times, hopefully the frame rate keeps up, looked a little ropey at times.

[Cube]

Even if you have doubts due to JK Rowling's involvement in this, Fanbyte's coverage of the gameplay is well worth delving into:

ICYMI: Everything From Today’s Hogwarts Legacy State of Play

[Julius]

23 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

Couldn't find a thread for this.

Yeah, I've thought about starting a thread several times for this game since it was first announced, and then after the State of Play was announced too. 

It's just such a sticky wicket, and I'm one of those who personally finds it hard to care about the game - and, well, the franchise - because of it, as someone not already with some form of attachment to that universe (the extent of me caring goes so far as the music in the films, because John Williams). It's a shame because naturally it's going to affect the developers involved in making the game, either in terms of their job security or even just in their desire to work, and for that I do feel for them, because I'm sure they just wanted to make a game set in a cool universe which has kind of been sidetracked by a discussion which they have very little to do with. That totally sucks. 

At the same time, I'm not going to put down other people's hype, and for those interested in the game and wanting to check it out when it releases, I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say – I think that there should still be some healthy discussion about the game, as for all intentions it might be good. But as someone not already attached to the franchise and with J.K. Rowling just being a tool (to put it kindly), this isn't going to be the thing which pulls me in. Separating the art from the artist is one thing, but for me personally, it's a bit different when it's an expansion of that art into a medium it's barely touched in any serious capacity, and will likely be making more money for said artist. 

I did check out a bit of the footage, purely out of sheer curiosity, and for those willing to look past the conversations outside of the game's development, this looks like it could be a bit of a dream game. Kind of got a Persona vibe with going to classes (I wonder if there's any time management involved?), making friends and starting rivalries, as well as with some dungeons, so yeah, I'll be curious to read and hear thoughts from others as we get more information and when it's released, even if it's not something I'm personally going to be getting excited for. 

[Ronnie]

5 minutes ago, Julius said:

It's a shame because naturally it's going to affect the developers involved in making the game, either in terms of their job security or even just in their desire to work, and for that I do feel for them, because I'm sure they just wanted to make a game set in a cool universe which has kind of been sidetracked by a discussion which they have very little to do with. That totally sucks. 

The media boycotts will affect the hundreds of hard working developers, and conversely will have all the effect of a slight breeze on JK Rowling. She doesn't need any more money, least of all from a video game like this. But I'm someone who finds it very easy to separate art from artist, I can disagree with someone's values whilst still enjoying the world they created. 

[Glen-i]

15 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

The media boycotts will affect the hundreds of hard working developers, and conversely will have all the effect of a slight breeze on JK Rowling.

That's not how that works.

The developers will have already been paid by Warner Brothers. How much it sells affects WB. Developers only get hurt by poor sales if it's a truly independent affair.

Look, if you want to buy it, go right ahead. It'd be wrong for me to dictate what people spend their money on. And yes, there is some merit to "Death of the author", of which I normally support, but there is a line. And a very much live person supporting the removal of rights to a group of already persecuted people is one that rubs me the wrong way.

Buying this game is not altruism.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Glen-i

[Ronnie]

6 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

That's not how that works.

The developers will have already been paid by Warner Brothers. How much it sells affects WB. Developers only get hurt by poor sales if it's a truly independent affair.

Look, if you want to buy it, go right ahead. It'd be wrong for me to dictate what people spend their money on. And yes, there is some merit to "Death of the author", of which I normally support, but there is a line. And a very much live person supporting the removal of rights to a group of already persecuted people is one that rubs me the wrong way.

Buying this game is not altruism.

Ah so who cares about the hard working people at WB is that what you're saying? And I'm not just talking about financial rewards for the developers (though who's to say they don't have bonuses in place relating to how well the game sales, there's been other instances like that in the industry). It's about getting recognition for the effort and being able to show off what you've been proud of working on for years.

I certainly will be buying it, yes. I think it looks fantastic. If you want to ignore the game/all discussion on it, by all means...

[Julius]

9 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

The media boycotts will affect the hundreds of hard working developers, and conversely will have all the effect of a slight breeze on JK Rowling. She doesn't need any more money, least of all from a video game like this. 

I mean, respectfully, by the same logic, I have to ask: should we never protest or boycott anything, because those being targeted - in power or of wealth - aren't going to be as impacted as others in their chain? This isn't me trying to corner you or anything, but I can imagine others having the same thought process spring to mind. 

And, at the same time, the developers will be getting paid for their work regardless. Now, how that work is viewed moving forwards by where they work next, and how it impacts their motivation to continue working on the project, in spite of the conversation surrounding this game - and more widely this IP and it's creator - remains to be seen, but at this point those developers will be fully aware of that. 

12 minutes ago, Ronnie said:

But I'm someone who finds it very easy to separate art from artist, I can disagree with someone's values whilst still enjoying the world they created. 

Yeah, that's totally fair, at the end of the day I think it is up to the individual as to where they draw the line.

I hate what we hear and see of many of EA's and Ubisoft's practices, and now go out of my way where I can to avoid supporting them, but will I be buying their Star Wars games? On Day One. I love Star Wars too much already.

Now, Star Wars Eclipse by Quantic Dream? That might be a step too far for me, and I think I know the reason why: what David Cage says and does just doesn't align with what I see as the purpose of Star Wars as a story. It's a story about equality, hope, feminism (what I call the good kind of feminism, and the only kind I give a damn about, which is presenting women as women, as individuals unto themselves, nothing more or less than that), dreams, standing up for what you believe in as you stare down the face of adversity, etc.

I could go on for paragraphs, but point is, there's already some contradiction - for me - between the world of Star Wars, in terms of the stories it is trying to tell, and David Cage's previous words and actions that I don't think makes him an individual who should be telling a story in that universe. 

I also think - again, just for me - that there's a big difference between being into something and loving it already, then finding out that it's a creator is a tool, than finding out someone is a tool and then diving into their work. If the attachment is not already there your entire lens through which you view their work is going to be different (for me), and so while I can understand some Harry Potter fans being totally onboard for this game because it's everything they've wanted - and again, which they're totally entitled to do! - I can also appreciate @Glen-i's perspective as someone who clearly loved that work enough to such an extent that he's lining up at midnight for a book launch, but I imagine might struggle to reconcile the world of the creator with the creator itself, because - as someone not into Harry Potter - I have to imagine there is some misalignment there, and maybe to some extent even feels guilty about supporting someone like J.K. Rowling, with the thoughts and opinions that she has. Not trying to put words into his mouth or thoughts into his head, but I can definitely understand where he's coming from. 

@Ronnie out of curiosity, were you already a Harry Potter fan before this was announced? To be clear, again, not trying to call you out (I'm sure you already know that but tone and intention is virtually impossible to put across with typed words), I'm just curious. For me I think it's the context of knowing what J.K. Rowling has said in the past and not already being invested which means this doesn't do anything for me personally, so I'm wondering if you were already a fan but you're just excited by the possibilities (which is completely fine and understandable), or if like me you're coming from a background of no real interest in the franchise, but are generally intrigued just from what we've seen of the game (which is also completely fine and understandable). 

As an aside, I can already see why a place like ResetEra wouldn't want a discussion of this game, just due to the sheer volume of users and how deep the discussion can easily go with a game like this, outside of the game itself. I think there's few enough of us here that it can be kept civil, though. 

[Rummy]

1 hour ago, Glen-i said:

Just a reminder that JK Rowling benefits from this, and that's a good enough reason for me to completely ignore it.

It's depressing how much she's lost my respect, considering that I did literally queue outside a bookstore at midnight for the last book. Wish I could go back and tell my younger self to reconsider.

Yeah I'm big on the books/was growing up with them(ie when they were getting released, I think only had up to PoA when I started them) but the films irked me for a variety of things(mostly not capturing all the books because you can't fit it all in etc. very upset at film 3 where they didn't do ANY of the history of the MM) and I've been pretty much done other than re-reading the books since then. Never played ANY of the games because I knew they'd probably be even more so based off the films than the books and I just....eh. Have any of the games been a good gameplay, if you've played them? I always presumed them all as cash-grabs tbh.

[Glen-i]

36 minutes ago, Rummy said:

Never played ANY of the games because I knew they'd probably be even more so based off the films than the books and I just....eh. Have any of the games been a good gameplay, if you've played them? I always presumed them all as cash-grabs tbh.

I've always been wary of games made to coincide with movie releases, even in the 90's, the tight deadline more often then not meant that a less then mediocre product was the result.

So the only one I've ever tried was Philosopher's Stone on the PS1. This actually reviewed quite well at the time, and a lot of people seemed to enjoy it, but I don't know.

It might be me just flat out disagreeing with the general consensus, or it might be the issue I run into with a lot of problems an N64 owner like me would have with 3D action games on the PS1, compared to the likes of Mario 64 and Banjo-Kazooie, they just feel clunky.

Playing those games first have ruined my tolerance for platform games from that era.

Nowadays, the only games I'd be interested in are the Game Boy Colour ones, which are Turn-Based RPG's, quite good ones, apparently. But now, even though I know a copy would be second hand, so no money would get into Rowling's pocket, I just know there'd be a bad taste in the back of my throat playing it.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Glen-i

[Dcubed]

While technically this should be in the Nintendo forum, since it's also coming to Switch? I'm happy to let this game languish here.

JK Rowling is a cunt who is actively contributing to the death of Trans people (including children ironically enough), and this game does not deserve to have any meaningful discorse surrounding it.  There's a good reason why nobody previously made a thread about this game @Ronnie, and out of solidarity? I'd recommend that this thread just be closed (I'm sure you meant no harm Ronnie, but I really don't think that we should be discussing this game here).  Normally I'm all for seperating art from artist, but Death of the Author doesn't really apply in the case where the author is very much alive and actively & gleefully causing significant harm to society; while still producing directly relevent and adjacent works.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Dcubed

[Rummy]

21 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

I've always been wary of games made to coincide with movie releases, even in the 90's, the tight deadline more often then not meant that a less then mediocre product was the result.

So the only one I've ever tried was Philosopher's Stone on the PS1. This actually reviewed quite well at the time, and a lot of people seemed to enjoy it, but I don't know.

It might be me just flat out disagreeing with the general consensus, or it might be the issue I run into with a lot of problems an N64 owner like me would have with 3D action games on the PS1, compared to the likes of Mario 64 and Banjo-Kazooie, they just feel clunky.

Playing those games first have ruined my tolerance for platform games from that era.

Nowadays, the only games I'd be interested in are the Game Boy Colour ones, which are Turn-Based RPG's, quite good ones, apparently. But now, even though I know a copy would be second hand, so no money would get into Rowling's pocket, I just know there'd be a bad taste in the back of my throat playing it.

Interesting! I was mildly curious because like all good young british gamers, I was working in Game(also available at GAME!) in like...2004 maybe? i think, 2004-2005? I was, ofc, still absolutely a Ninty boy back then mostly so I didn't even have the platforms for as much Harry Potter as others but I did recall one of them, tho I forget which, would often sell kinda/quite well - even as a pre-owned. Having been switched off to the games even then though I never ever tried any myself that I recall. Obvs a slight diff dimension to the questions @Julius put to Ronnie - but I'm a big 'original' HP fan with little interested beyond the books into the movies(and later books, cursed child etc) other than to see/know I saw them. I watched the first Fantastic Beats/Grindelwald but didn't bother with whatever sequels they made - but games aren't quite the same as books or films and I guess I was wondering - what game if any game was the best HP game made so far, what made it great, and was it ACTUALLY that great in itself as a game or was its appeal mostly being in the franchise?

[Jonnas]

As someone who's dealt with enjoying works by other shitty authors, I can separate art and artist in certain occasions, but find myself being unable to think of anything else in others. Depends on context, as well as the content of the specific work.

I certainly don't blame anybody who feels turned off by JKR to the point of not wanting to play a game that brings her world to life (even if she didn't make it).

I've been reading the books at launch since Goblet of Fire, and JKR being an awful person hasn't affected my previous enjoyment, mainly because her vile side doesn't come out on the text. However, the Fantastic Beasts films, alongside Cursed Child, definitely deflated my enjoyment of the franchise, it's like they all revel on the worst habits of the books.

The GBC and PS1/PC games were enjoyable and captured the whimsy of the first books quite well, but as of right now I'm lukewarm at best for this game.

...

If this is set in the late 1800s, I wonder if the "shitting on the floor" thing is going to make an appearance.

3 hours ago, Dcubed said:

Normally I'm all for seperating art from artist, but Death of the Author doesn't really apply in the case where the author is very much alive and actively & gleefully causing significant harm to society; while still producing directly relevent and adjacent works.

"Death of the Author" isn't meant to be literal. It's just the idea that an author's intent and opinions don't need to reflect on the reader's interpretation of their work. In other words, it's a figurative death, as in, the author metaphorically ceases to exist after their work is released to the world.

And I disagree on closing the thread. It's best to actually have a venue in which to discuss these things.

[Ronnie]

6 hours ago, Julius said:

I mean, respectfully, by the same logic, I have to ask: should we never protest or boycott anything, because those being targeted - in power or of wealth - aren't going to be as impacted as others in their chain? This isn't me trying to corner you or anything, but I can imagine others having the same thought process spring to mind. 

It's not quite the same thing though? If JK Rowling was on the development team of Hogwarts Legacy, or had any direct input into the creation of this game, then by all means boycott away. But she had nothing to do with it. 

Your David Cage and Star Wars Eclipse is a perfect example, in that instance I'd fully support a boycott of the game. The guy is vile, and is in charge of the development studio making the game. Very different to Hogwarts Legacy.

6 hours ago, Julius said:

out of curiosity, were you already a Harry Potter fan before this was announced? To be clear, again, not trying to call you out (I'm sure you already know that but tone and intention is virtually impossible to put across with typed words), I'm just curious. For me I think it's the context of knowing what J.K. Rowling has said in the past and not already being invested which means this doesn't do anything for me personally, so I'm wondering if you were already a fan but you're just excited by the possibilities (which is completely fine and understandable), or if like me you're coming from a background of no real interest in the franchise, but are generally intrigued just from what we've seen of the game (which is also completely fine and understandable). 

It doesn't come across as if you're singling me out don't worry  I was a big HP fan before this was announced. Portkey Games look to have made a fantastic game and I can't wait to dive in. Hopefully it lives up to the hype and promise shown.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Ronnie

[Glen-i]

11 hours ago, Ronnie said:

But she had nothing to do with it.

She gets money from the usage of the IP. She not's completely separated from the project.

[darksnowman]

I think this thread should be moderated so the virtual signalling is kept out of it. Even discussions about separate games could be spun off into their own threads if they look to be gaining enough traction.

On 18/03/2022 at 6:12 PM, Rummy said:

what game if any game was the best HP game made so far, what made it great, and was it ACTUALLY that great in itself as a game or was its appeal mostly being in the franchise?

I remember playing the quidditch game on GameCube which was about as average as you could expect but a bit of a laugh for a quick multiplayer sesh before rotaing back to Double Dash. There was a GBA or GBC effort that was meant to be a genuinely decent game though so they weren't all duds!

Edited March 20, 2022 by darksnowman

[Ronnie]

2 hours ago, Glen-i said:

She gets money from the usage of the IP. She not's completely separated from the project.

She had nothing to do with the development of the game. The millionaire (billionaire?) will make a few extra quid from it that’s true, but I personally couldn’t care less. I’m going to (hopefully?) enjoy the product of hard working devs. There’s a time and place to boycott something, I personally don’t believe this it is. But you’re welcome to talk about wanting to ignore it of course. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Ronnie

[Ashley]

47 minutes ago, darksnowman said:

I think this thread should be moderated so the virtual signalling is kept out of it. 

Just a note that "virtue signalling" is subjective so that's not an easy thing to moderate. As long as people remain respectful of others' rights and opinions (as has been the case) then there's no harm.

[Glen-i]

2 hours ago, Ronnie said:

But you’re welcome to talk about wanting to ignore it of course. 

OK, I overlooked this the first time, but if you're gonna keep using this, I'll have to clarify.

I'm ignoring the game, not even watched the trailer, or looked up info about what the game entails, but I'm not gonna ignore discussing the implications of how JK benefits from it. It's a valid concern, and I think there's merit to pointing it out.

[Ashley]

Worth pointing out the game has also been criticised for focusing on a part of the universe that has its own problems for using antisemitic tropes as outlined in this thread:

 

 

[Rummy]

On 18/03/2022 at 10:49 PM, Jonnas said:

And I disagree on closing the thread. It's best to actually have a venue in which to discuss these things.

Still catching up and just my own personal take(im not the only mod, and depending on flow ofc this can change) - we ARE a forum. a place of congregation and discussion. Our members and community generally prove themselves worthy and able of both this congregation and discussion. I have no intents or agreements in closing threads solely because of socio-politically related issues(and make NO mistake, when it comes to both Harry Potter I'm probably exceptionally qualified, and I will genuinely fight people on this, and have on record lol) - if it gets TOO far sidetracked maybe then we'll see - but as far as it is now its a valid discussion if even in the wrong place(not sure where i WOULD fit it) - and I think thats important too. We MUST have space for conversations as a society even if difficult for some/the many, and I am not one for tribalistic tendancies of dismissal.

 

/RummyNote

[Rummy]

21 hours ago, Ronnie said:

She had nothing to do with the development of the game. The millionaire (billionaire?) will make a few extra quid from it that’s true, but I personally couldn’t care less. I’m going to (hopefully?) enjoy the product of hard working devs. There’s a time and place to boycott something, I personally don’t believe this it is. But you’re welcome to talk about wanting to ignore it of course. 

Tbf, the opinion of others on your original statement of essence that said 'JK Rowling has nothing to do with the Harry Potter franchise' is being called out for the disingenuity laid within that. I think you already get that, and your attempt to pivot afterwards to 'nothing to do with this game' doesnt really hold water - especially when, as has been pointed out, she profits from the whole franchise and every iteration within it, maybe even original intention when she made it(i mean hell we've seen GRRM cares more about that than actually writing his damn books).

[Ronnie]

55 minutes ago, Rummy said:

Tbf, the opinion of others on your original statement of essence that said 'JK Rowling has nothing to do with the Harry Potter franchise' is being called out for the disingenuity laid within that.

You accuse me of being disingenuous and then put fabricated words in my mouth? Please kindly point out where I wrote that "JK Rowling has nothing to do with the Harry Potter franchise".

56 minutes ago, Rummy said:

and your attempt to pivot afterwards to 'nothing to do with this game' doesnt really hold water

I didn't once pivot. My stance has always been clear. I said she had nothing to do with the development of the game.

[Rummy]

On 18/03/2022 at 11:40 PM, Ronnie said:

But she had nothing to do with it

Step back off your attitude, @Ronnie. This is a direct quote. 'nothing to do with it'. Thats you. I ain't putting words anywhere - the argument by others than she is inextricably linked to the entire franchise whilst you are disingenuously trying to argue otherwise is 100% legit for you to be called out on.

 

I KNOW my HP, and i ALWAYS know your words. Don't run from your own voice now it doesn't suit you - if you don't like your own voice we'll gladly silence you at your own request.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself Ronnie - you like to abuse authority because you forget we are people too. You may try and demand I be either member of this forum or moderator of this forum - I am both. I have equal right to report you as disruptive and be taken seriously without being the moderator involved - I suggest again you step off and back off with your issues with authority/whatever complexes you have and really consider how you post.

 

You on VERY thin ice my friend and I'd like to be passionate about a subject such as HP which I already am, beyond most measures, very passionate about. Your entire flaw and reason I want you off this forum is you discourage peoples' passion(again, as I stated in my previous, I am not here to stifle conversation whereas it seems you are. That is an untenable position.)

 

Behave yourself.