Poll of the Day > hogwarts legacy

(+) Yeah! (+)

is it actually as good as people are saying? i might pick it up after work. i only trust Certified PotD Gamers.

I have not played it, and I am not going to because I don't like J.K. Rowling.

Can't say, I don't want to play it because I think the game looks like trash and is propped up via a Streisand Effect.

Liking or not liking the game basically became a battleground.

While I rarely concern myself with "SWMNBN", I do understand the arguments about how supporting her in any way right now is a problem.

papercup posted...

I have not played it, and I am not going to because I don't like J.K. Rowling.

She had nothing to do with the game other than creating Harry Potter. Probably gets royalties though.

As someone who is not really a Harry Potter fan, I am really enjoying the game. If you like open world western RPGs I think it is highly worth playing. My wife who is a Harry Potter fan is really enjoying it as well, basically limiting my time with the game.

Here's how I feel about the Rowling angle:

Like fettster pointed out, she had nothing to do with the development other than creating the universe Avalanche built their game in (who by the way I've only just discovered is not the same Avalanche that made Just Cause...)

I don't feel like the studio should be punished after all their hard work because Rowling is an asshole. Judge the game and the studio on its own merits. It's getting decent reviews so I bought it and am enjoying it so far.

They absolutely nailed the school. It's huge with a bunch of secrets and cool nods to the IP. The music is fantastic. I'm not crazy with the spell menu, seems a bit clunky but I can work with it. Enemy variety could be better, too.

I wouldn't say it's the greatest game, but what I've played so far is really fun.

fettster777 posted...

She had nothing to do with the game other than creating Harry Potter. Probably gets royalties though.

So she had everything to do with it then. And yes she own the property, so obviously she's making money off of it.

papercup posted...

So she had everything to do with it then. And yes she own the property, so obviously she's making money off of it.

So you're saying she actively created the entire game?

Revelation34 posted...

So you're saying she actively created the entire game?

Do you think this game would exist if Harry Potter wasn't a thing?

papercup posted...

Do you think this game would exist if Harry Potter wasn't a thing?

Under a different name maybe.

yes its good.

Some problems with gameplay, but its fun.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/80340070

Revelation34 posted...

Under a different name maybe.

lol

Also for the support the devs for their hard work thing. The devs were already paid for their work. Any money the game makes from sales goes to the execs or Rowling.

Shes already loaded, to the point where her great grandchildren are set for life. Buying/not buying this game does next to nothing to her.

Far-Queue posted...

I don't feel like the studio should be punished after all their hard work because Rowling is an asshole.

studio already got all their salary out of the project, JK Rowling will continue to get royalties out of it forever. you have it backwards

DirtBasedSoap posted...

Buying/not buying this game does next to nothing to her.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1580639051774054404

she's stated that royalties galvanize her beliefs

DirtBasedSoap posted...

Shes already loaded, to the point where her great grandchildren are set for life. Buying/not buying this game does next to nothing to her.

So youre okay with giving your money to a person that is openly racist and transphobic and gives political donations to literal nazis because shes already extravagantly wealthy?

the combat looks kinda boring honestly and my friends would get mad at me if i played it anyway

I've got a feeling it would be a pretty eh game if you're not a diehard happy potter fan.

I enjoyed the movies when they came out, I read all of the books, but, I've sort of moved on from my interest in the series.

It seems to be mostly leaning into nostalgia as the driving factor.

agesboy posted...

studio already got all their salary out of the project

Studios live and die by sales figures. If a game flops and doesn't sell well it could have dire consequences for the developers, possibly including forcing them to close up shop. Add to this that there are often bonuses for meeting certain sales goals and/or netting a certain metacritic score.

So who is at greater risk if the game flops? The megamillionaire creator of the IP who is going to cash royalty checks from a dozen other sources regardless of Hogwarts Legacy performance? Or the dev studio employees who are making a fraction of a fraction of what Rowling makes in a year, trying to pay their rents and put food on the table?

I don't have it backwards at all.

no piece of entertainment media is owed my dollar, especially if i'm uninterested in the game, extra especially if it means funding a terf

support bigotry all you want but "think of the poor game devs caught in the crossfire!" isn't really a compelling argument

The game looks and sounds spectacular, but the gameplay and story are fairly bland. It's the sort of game I would recommend to someone who doesn't play many games but likes Harry Potter.

agesboy posted...

no piece of entertainment media is owed my dollar, especially if i'm uninterested in the game, extra especially if it means funding a terf

support bigotry all you want but "think of the poor game devs caught in the crossfire!" isn't really a compelling argument

I never said they deserve your money

May not be a compelling argument for you, but I like video games and would like to possibly play more games from this studio since they did a decent job on Hogwarts. In my opinion, the devs should be rewarded for their hard work if they made a game that I'm interested in playing and is fun to play. You do you bud, not trying to convince you to spend your money. Just offering my thoughts on the game and the drama surrounding it for Dirt's consideration

papercup posted...

So youre okay with giving your money to a person that is openly racist and transphobic and gives political donations to literal nazis because shes already extravagantly wealthy?

i would spend money on a video game that looks interesting because i think it looks interesting.

all of this posturing over a game she didnt make is insane lol

DirtBasedSoap posted...

i would spend money on a video game that looks interesting because if i think it looks interesting.

all of this posturing over a game she didnt make is insane lol

In which case we just say thank you for you being open and clear about which side you stand on.

youre welcome!

do you guys also not buy smartphones made by child slave labor?

there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but there are ways to limit unethical consumption once the issue is known. hence why people are making it known

a single video game is a lot less required to participate as a functioning member of society than your smartphone. you should avoid drinking nestle bottled water if you have viable alternatives, but sometimes there are no other alternatives. there are always alternatives for video games

this argument always feels really tedious to me tbh. like yeah ok shes a very outspoken bigot. obv it makes me less interested in her world and wary of people who are into it. but idk why i constantly have to hear about a children's book author who thinks im a pervert or whatever. shes a product of the transphobic media culture in the uk, not the source of it. i do not think boycotting a video game is a meaningful way to make trans people's lives better.

like my attitude towards this as a trans person is basically my attitude towards meat eaters as a vegan. im not your mom and i dont really care that much what you buy, but i will ofc silently judge you

its fuckin culture war bullshit and people on both extremes have made this part of their personalities

i'm in the "hey there's some pretty big reasons why maybe you shouldn't buy the wizard game you should know about" camp

agesboy posted...

there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but there are ways to limit unethical consumption once the issue is known. hence why people are making it known

a single video game is a lot less required to participate as a functioning member of society than your smartphone. you should avoid drinking nestle bottled water if you have viable alternatives, but sometimes there are no other alternatives. there are always alternatives for video games

lmao this is such an odd stance "suffering happens no matter how you spend your money, and I'm not going to stop supporting this suffering, but I'm going to make a fuss over your supporting that suffering"

I'm in the "idgaf how other people spend their money" camp. Just chimed in initially to answer Dirt's question and address some of the other comments at the same time, but I don't give a shit if Dirt or anyone else buy the game.

Frankly, even in light of my prior comments I don't really care if the game tanks and the studio shutters it's doors. I was just stating how I felt about all this dumb drama. It's all bullshit and none of this matters. But saying pooh-pooh to people buying Hogwarts while simultaneously making an argument for buying smartphones is absurd

The critically online are just taking what Rollings said out of context. That's ok, they need something to give their lives meaning.

Games awesome.

NemesisOgreKing posted...

The critically online are just taking what Rollings said out of context. That's ok, they need something to give their lives meaning.

Games awesome.

idk if Id say theyre taking it out of context, shes very dumb.

Far-Queue posted...

But saying pooh-pooh to people buying Hogwarts while simultaneously making an argument for buying smartphones is absurd

if you had to get a job using only one of the following resources:

• a smartphone
• hogwarts legacy

which one would you choose

hogwarts

DirtBasedSoap posted...

hogwarts

This. I don't need a smartphone for my job

It's whatever I just find it funny that ages acknowledges the suffering inherent in consumerism and is like "oh well gotta have a smartphone but shame on you for buying a video game" It's weird to me to be judgemental and preaching from the soapbox while actively participating in similar behavior

Far-Queue posted...

lmao this is such an odd stance "suffering happens no matter how you spend your money, and I'm not going to stop supporting this suffering, but I'm going to make a fuss over your supporting that suffering"

i'm currently using a cheap $20 phone given to me for free by at&t multiple years ago, i literally don't understand why you consider this a gotcha. you shouldn't go completely amoral because it's impossible to be completely moral under capitalism

Far-Queue posted...

This. I don't need a smartphone for my job

do you at least recognize the fact that the majority of first-world society does though

NemesisOgreKing posted...

The critically online are just taking what Rollings said out of context. That's ok, they need something to give their lives meaning.

she literally objects to the phrase "trans women are women" on a fundamental level. she gushed about how much she loved stephen king one day, then two days later when he tweeted those four words she deleted her tweet and blocked him

she's not some misunderstood enigma

Far-Queue posted...

It's whatever I just find it funny that ages acknowledges the suffering inherent in consumerism and is like "oh well gotta have a smartphone but shame on you for buying a video game" It's weird to me to be judgemental and preaching from the soapbox while actively participating in similar behavior

morality is a sliding scale and you should slide as far towards being moral as you can without ruining your own life. you're pretending this is binary

agesboy posted...

there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but there are ways to limit unethical consumption once the issue is known.

ok for real. What even?

You seriously think jk trolling on twitter is worse than literal slavery? Seriously? Because its been known for decades where your phones and chocolate comes from.

When people say shit like this it comes off as so out of touch it leaves the realm of believability..

Kimbos_Egg posted...

You seriously think jk trolling on twitter is worse than literal slavery?

kimbo

do you

do you actually think that's what I believe

thats what i mean though, because it sounds fucking awful when people make this argument.

I get it. I do. I get why people don't want to buy this game. But when people pull out the "unethical" card while excusing almost everything else that isn't remotely necessary for you to function it just comes off as insulting.

I half of it feels like posturing, the other half is a real concern.

I guess if you want to buy the game real bad, and don't want to support Rowling, you could just donate $75 to a trans rights organization. Carbon offset awfulness a bit.

Kimbos_Egg posted...

thats what i mean though, because it sounds fucking awful when people make this argument.

i think bringing up slavery in the context of a video game is fuckin weird. you're excusing every lesser problem in society because something worse exists (that society is currently trying to solve or at least mitigate already)? that's a free pass to never care about anything

JK Rowling isn't as bad as child slavery, but she is still bad and maybe consider not giving her money

To be clear I don't care if anyone disagrees with what I've posted. It's my take on the situation and everyone is welcome to share their own thoughts on the matter

What strikes me as particularly dubious is the high-horse judgmental attitude when your position is "I'm standing up for what I believe is right, until standing up for something inconveniences me" - that's literally bullshit

You can try to spin it or rationalize it with your sliding scale or whatever but you're still a hypocrite

Far-Queue posted...

What strikes me as particularly dubious is the high-horse judgmental attitude when your position is "I'm standing up for what I believe is right, until standing up for something inconveniences me" - that's literally bullshit

i've literally stopped buying phones for the past 10 years after learning more about it, and when my current one stops working I'll probably use hand-me-downs if there are no non-slavery options on the market

phones THEMSELVES inconvenience me i dont wanna fuckin be on call by everyone at all times

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/7/6/AAI1MSAAEKjA.jpg

hey its you

agesboy posted...

phones THEMSELVES inconvenience me i dont wanna fuckin be on call by everyone at all times

You are under no obligation to actually answer your phone.

Nichtcrawler-X posted...

You are under no obligation to actually answer your phone.

not legally obligated yeah, i meant more of a social obligation. today's always connected culture kinda sucks compared to twenty-ish years ago

Cute cartoon, but as long as you keep looking down your nose at people for using money in a capitalist society that you yourself are very much a part of, you're still a hypocrite. I denounce transphobia and child slavery, and a myriad of other terrible aspects of consumer culture. I do take care in how I spend my money in some ways. What I don't do is judge others for not doing more than I'm willing to do myself. Your judgment is what makes you a hypocrite here, not your words and actions.

Phones are just one aspect of consumer culture that is problematic. You would literally need to live in some luddite commune off the grid to escape contributing to capitalist suffering in some capacity.

And I don't expect you to. Or expect anyone else to. And I also don't judge anyone else for not sacrificing more than what I sacrifice myself.

Far-Queue posted...

Studios live and die by sales figures. If a game flops and doesn't sell well it could have dire consequences for the developers, possibly including forcing them to close up shop. Add to this that there are often bonuses for meeting certain sales goals and/or netting a certain metacritic score.

So who is at greater risk if the game flops? The megamillionaire creator of the IP who is going to cash royalty checks from a dozen other sources regardless of Hogwarts Legacy performance? Or the dev studio employees who are making a fraction of a fraction of what Rowling makes in a year, trying to pay their rents and put food on the table?

I don't have it backwards at all.

My dude, these studios will lay staff off because their games are successful. When corporations have particularly strong quarters, they face a lot of shareholder pressure to keep that momentum, and one of the most common ways the game industry does that is by following up strong quarters with quarters in which they lay off a bunch of staff to slash their expenses so they can maintain the illusion of growth without having to produce anything that will generate additional revenue. On top of that, big projects like this usually entail bringing on a bunch of temporary contract workers (both to satisfy temporary demand and because temps are easier to treat like garbage) who get laid off when the game launches regardless of how well it does.

In extreme cases, if a game fails so catastrophically that it shuts down the entire company, sure, that's going to result in some lost jobs. That's quite exceptionally rare, though, especially when the company in question is goddamn Warner Bros. For corporations on that scale, a game's success tends to be largely unrelated to the job security or well-being of those responsible for actually making it, instead translating into bonuses and residuals for executives and other higher-ups. That's especially true with a game like this, where WB has been very aggressively marketing it (including a token trans character) and carefully curating who's allowed to review it because they know exactly what a PR minefield releasing anything HP-related is, meaning if it does fail, it's most likely because they failed to navigate that minefield and not anything that would lead them to shutter the studio.

NemesisOgreKing posted...

The critically online are just taking what Rollings said out of context.

Translation: "I've paid literally zero attention to any of this but still think I have a valid opinion on the matter."

Rowling's a transphobic piece of shit. If you don't realize that, you either haven't paid enough attention to the matter to be able to comment credibly on it, or you're so gullible that you actually fall for some of the most transparent dog whistles out there. Neither really reflect well on you.

Far-Queue posted...

But saying pooh-pooh to people buying Hogwarts while simultaneously making an argument for buying smartphones is absurd

It's a lot easier to defend buying something with some sort of utility than to defend buying a video game. There are tens of thousands of other video games one can buy to yield the same effect as buying Hogwarts (that is, "play game and have fun"), and countless alternatives beyond games if the goal is simply to be entertained. There are decidedly fewer alternatives available for anyone that needs to maintain phone/text contact with others, and even fewer for those that need portable internet browsing, email access, GPS use, or any of the other functions that smartphones offer.

That's not to say people shouldn't try to be more ethical about their smartphone purchases, but comparing something that is a near-essential utility for many people to a single piece of luxury entertainment isn't the most valid.

chelsea___wtf posted...

shes a product of the transphobic media culture in the uk, not the source of it.

The street's a bit more two-way than that. I don't doubt that she's been influenced by that culture, but she's also absolutely contributing to it in many ways, including funding transphobic organizations and endorsing/giving a platform to vocal transphobes. She's a non-trivial media figure, to the point where a lot of fascists are choosing to rally behind her, so even if she's not single-handedly responsible for the broader culture of transphobia, I'm not particularly inclined to do anything more to support her. If nothing else, she's explicitly stated that she considers the continued success of Harry Potter to be an endorsement of her views (to paraphrase, "I think 90% of Harry Potter fans agree with me"), and I'm just not going to be a part of that perceived endorsement.

agesboy posted...

not legally obligated yeah, i meant more of a social obligation. today's always connected culture kinda sucks compared to twenty-ish years ago

"I was away from my phone" is always a valid response for why you did not answer immediately, regardless of your actual location. Also, people will call again or send a different kind of message if it was actually important.

Far-Queue posted...

Cute cartoon, but as long as you keep looking down your nose at people for using money in a capitalist society

i'm not though, you're taking a hardline approach to my view

i don't care if most people do buy the game or not, but if you specifically care about trans lives (I have a LOT of trans friends and I love all of them dearly), it's worth at least educating yourself on how JK Rowling views your every purchase

Far-Queue posted...

What I don't do is judge others for not doing more than I'm willing to do myself.

I judge you in a "this person cares less about trans people than me (who cares a lot)" way, not in a "this person wants trans people to die" way. you'll live from some rando on the internet's mild judgement dude.

Far-Queue posted...

Phones is just one aspect of consumer culture that is problematic. You would literally need to live in some luddite commune off the grid to escape contributing to capitalist suffering in some capacity.

And I don't expect you to. Or expect anyone else to. And I also don't judge anyone else for not sacrificing more than what I sacrifice myself.

I think the problem is that there's a misunderstanding on what we mean by "judge". Like if someone is loudly repeatedly coughing in public without making an attempt to cover their mouth I'm gonna judge them. That doesn't mean I'm equating them with slavery or some shit. It's a choice they made that I disagree with and wish they hadn't made and I'm disappointed but I'm not gonna stigmatize them or some shit over it. I will tell the coughing guy "bro thats gonna make us all sick" though

When I say something is unethical I don't mean you're the antichrist, we both have recognized society itself is both unethical and forces voluntarily or involuntarily unethical actions

JK is a TERF. Fuck TERFs.

That is all.

Good day.