Regardless of the controversy, this was just an underwhelming game. The quest design was awful and the combat was repetitive.
If it wasn’t using one of the most well known IPs in modern history it would be a financial flop and have terrible ratings.
Different take:
What we got was a pilot, an experiment to see if it is even worth going all in on the ‘Portkey Games’ route in the future. Sure, there’s young adults out there who played the old school movie tie-in games of the GameCube era. But they aren’t enough of an audience to warrant spending big on something that might flop.
Most of the game’s systems and gameplay are underwhelming, yes. And they could probably have spent some time writing a more compelling story with a lot less chosen one bullshit tropes in it. But they did manage to build a wizarding world that convincingly lets you immerse yourself in it. The game has a real sense of scale to it, unlike the older games, and my favourite thing is just walking around looking at details and letting my own fantasy do the rest.
Now here’s the thing. They did a succesful little experiment: They made a game that isn’t outright hated and lives up to some of the dreams we had as kids playing the original movie games. And they managed to do so without defaulting to the shitty loot box practises so many publishers are known for this day and age. Especially WB stuff. It all depends on what they do next.
From here they can go one of two ways: Either take the easy route and create a carbon copy of this game, rake in some profits and watch as people start seeing the cracks and slowly lose interest. Or take it seriously, spend the extra attention and actually improve upon anything this game has to offer and stand to gain even more revenue.
Chances are they take the first path and everything comes crashing down, and they’ll blame fans for losing interest. If they do opt to go the second route there is a lot of work to be done. Interested to see where it goes either way.
I think it’s worth considering the idea that shareholders will want more money. So, they make a second game and load it with mtx. They know now that people will show up for the name despite any controversy.
Exactly, and I’ll be ready - lighter and gasoline in hand - to burn bridges if they do.
I like the Wizarding World as a fantasy setting, but that is something not even our fucked up copyright laws can take away from me now. Rowling is going to hell for being a piece of shit, which is just as inevitable.
Just like Star Wars, the original creator started something amazing, ans they can fuck off now, the fans are taking over.
Sadly this world of publishers and royalties does not work this way, but I can at least cherrypick which parts of the material I get my enjoyment from.
I highly doubt it. Why would they try to make a better game when a copy paste collect-a-thon action adventure light rpg with stealth and crafting elements with Harry Potter twist ensures huge sales. What incentive do they have?
If it wasn’t using one of the most well known IPs in modern history it would be a financial flop and have terrible ratings.
That’s everything though, a good unknown game will always do worse than a bad known game
Thanks. This is the first review I’ve seen of the actual game… glad somebody rated it as a stand alone product on its own individual merit rather than by all the other noise around its release.
To me it was a pretty mid game that let you design your harry potter. Most of the plot was taken directly from the movies
Huh? What plot was taken from the movies?
wazzards
It was little things for me like a snape-esque teacher, using polyjuice potion, an old wizard who takes you under his wing, a student turned evil, and the slitherin kid is bad
But the slitherin kid isn’t bad. He’s got what the slitherin house has. He isn’t evil he just chose some very bad choices to try to save his sister. In the end he turns himself in if you allow it. An old wizard that is nothing like Dumbledore. And what school doesn’t have bad kids?
Further proof that being “cancelled” isn’t a thing, never has been.
Sure, a tiny few experience legal consequences for illegal actions. But in general, cancellation is just not a thing.
I think being cancelled can affect small groups and fan bases, but doesn’t have any impact on the larger population.
It didn’t help that boycotting it didn’t make much sense. The game itself goes out of it’s way to make sure it’s “inclusive”, actually boycotting it will hurt a lot of people involved in the game more than it would hurt Rowling. Supposedly the royalties are very minor for stuff that doesn’t actually include any of the Harry Potter storyline, and JK Rowling is already richer than God.
Yeah, I noticed the same thing, in fact I think the game was a bit too aggressive on that part, starts becoming too “in your face” if it makes any sense. But still, told that to a few friends and they still refuse to even pirate it, can’t say I understand.
The (Dixie) Chicks.
You’re talking about The Chicks, who just finished a tour in 84 locations, including 6 nights in Vegas?
Yeah, they took a pretty hard hit for publicly stating their political beliefs, but like true artists, they then went to make a chart-topping, award-winning song about the controversy, kept working on their craft, and just finished a tour that doubtless made them millions (I tried to find an exact number, but couldn’t).
Why yes, I do have some relatives who made the comment “Go woke, go broke” wrt The Chicks. This certainly could have gone very differently.
That’s actually a great example.
I come back to this video pretty often
I think JK Rowling is still canceled, but… HP stuff is very special to a lot of people. They’re able to separate her from the world she created I think.
If asked point blank most would probably be aware of and disagree with her stance on trans people.
Down vote me all you want, I know my opinion is the majority, just not for Lemmy people.
You can’t cancel Rowling and keep buying HP stuff. That’s giving her money, not separating anything from anything.
You can’t buy chocolate and a ton of other common ingredients without supporting slavery. There’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, the HP franchise is a small drop in the ocean of suffering. Expecting peole to be aware of all those things and also boycott every single one is not feasible and should be solved top down.
“No ethical consumption under capitalism” isnt supposed to be used as justification to support shitty people. Lots of decent people write fantasy books. Buy their shit instead of a bigot’s.
No, it just means it’s pretty much impossible to buy stuff and not support something shitty, Rowling is just more visible than like a forest somewhere that was cut down for paper to print books or some child slaves operating printing presses. Like yea, Rowling is a massive asshole but compared to something like Neste she’d be an angel and you can’t have the expectation for every individual to boycott everything harmful, it’s just not doable.
I can’t argue with that for sure, but here it’s specifically against Rowling. You can’t pretend to be boycotting her and keep giving her money through her licenses.
Oh yea true, if anyone is claiming they are boycotting Rowling then they can’t really buy any media associated with her while still boycotting her, that’s just a contradiction.
Lol OK, no shit, but that’s not what I said anyway.
I really hope that the next game will have a social sim aspect like Bully, where you have to go to class and build friendships
Exactly this. I’d’ve taken those niche depth mechanics over that huge mostly-empty world and hundreds of collectibles in a heartbeat. Free-roam, yes but a HP game doesn’t need to be a Ubisoft-a-thon
What, you dont even need to go to class at all?
Just sometimes when learning a new spell, but not as a reoccurring, routinely timetable-sequel thing
Not really surprising considering how absolutely massive of an IP Harry Potter is.
B-b-but the boycott!
I remind been in work (very geeky environment) with people patting themselves on the back about the boycott. There’s an odd silence that comes when a very vocal anti Rowling person bangs the drum but its the usual very loud minority.
“this person is still successful despite being shitty against you and I find it hilarious you are mad that people like her want you dead”
-You
I think it’s funny when boycotts fail in general, I don’t care what genitals you have or don’t, what your pronouns are. It’s objectively hilarious when boycotts fail, especially when the groups are so freaking confident it will work.
I’m pretty certain she never said she wanted trans people dead or anything like that
You’d be correct.
It’s a mediocre video game. I’m supremely disappointed in those who call themselves allies but can’t do the equivalent of picking a different coffee brand. I know you find us annoying. Just imagine how annoying I find contrarions and pissants like yourself when my rights and safety are stripped away using the clout and profits of shit like this game.
Oh, wait. My bad. I asked you to empathize. I know you’re incapable, I shouldn’t have bothered.
I, along with many others, just don’t think Rowling is transphobic. I don’t see any evidence that she hates trans people, just that she doesn’t agree with some of the extreme trans activists takes, just like most people who aren’t extreme.
This doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as being canceled, but I do think that it shows more and more people have caught on to some of tactics that are used to cancel others. It’s going to continue to have less impact as time goes on, which is good, imo. Cancelation has its merits, but we’re coming out of an overreach period.
Some of the things that she has said have been a little dogwhistly, and she doesn’t come right-out and say “Trans people are icky and I hate them”, but if you look at what she’s said/done publically you should be able to see why people are mad at her.
I’m not trans, but when you look at and compare it to other minorites that have had to fight to be accepted, it lines up with what they had to go through.
This article has a pretty decent timeline:
https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timelineHere’s an even shorter version:
It starts with Joanne puiblically liking the works of someone who is saying the quiet parts out loud.
This person’s work contract ended and it was not renewed.
Joanne then publically claimed that the scary trans people are getting women fired.About a month later she is using menstration the line in the sand about what it means to be a women. She then mixed up sex and gender, and implies that trans people are erasing cis people.
Daniel Radcliff then publically posts “Transgender women are women, any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.”
Joanne then puts out her Essay:
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
It’s very “Trans people are scary, think of the children, trans-inclusive language hurts real women, accepting trans-people means that bathroom rapes are going to go up”Another month goes by and she then claims that “we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people”. Trans people aren’t real, they are just confused gay people.
A couple months later she puts out a book where the serial killer is a “Man in a dress”, once again “trans people are scary and dangerous”.
I think the issue comes down to what is pushed as transphobic. We have this issue a lot right now, where certain terms have been stretched out to encompass more and more. The major downside to this tactic is that eventually you cram enough people under that term that no one cares anymore.
Nothing she’s said has lined up with “trans people are icky and I hate them”. Trans woman are trans women. They’re not women. The trans label is there to diffentiate the two terms, because biological women are different than tran women are, and we require terms that alert us to differences when we discuss things.
For example, her character in a dress in a serial killer who dresses up as a woman not because he feels like a woman on the inside - it’s so he can lure victims in. Hes not fundamentally “a man in a dress” hes "a man who puts on a dress for a short, specific purpose. He doesnt wear a dress when hes not luring in victims. He in no way thinks, acts or feels like a woman or a trans woman. He does not wish to be one, and puts on a dress and wig for the sole purpose of committing a crime. In my eyes, anyone who looks at that character and thinks he in any way is tied to trans is the actual transphobe.
Your list is examples of things she said, and then immediately putting words into her mouth that are the worst possible interpretation you can make, and interpretations can easily be wrong.
Again, most rational people who have gone through what she’s said don’t see transphobia there.
Also, we’re also seeing the effects of pushing physical transitions on younger people in detransitioners that are speaking out about it. It’s not crazy to understand that gay people who are confused can easily make the wrong decision that can never be made right again. Understanding that and approaching the issue with extreme caution is a good thing.
Oh wow, where to begin. Let’s start with your first paragraph. What terms are you talking about when you say “certain terms have been stretched out?”
Secondly, trans women are women, just as much as short women are women, or blonde women are women. Trans is a descriptor meaning “on the other side of”, signifying that their biological sex is different to their gender expression. The opposite of this is cis, meaning “on the same side of”, describing that their gender expression matches their biological sex.
When you interact with people, you’re generally interacting with them in regard to how they present in the world, their gender, their appearance, their personality. Very rarely do you interact with them in regard to their genetics, so that’s not really a useful thing to talk about. Interacting with trans women or cis women on a day to day basis is no different than interacting with short women or tall women.
Gender is a constellation. You may have heard “gender is a spectrum”, but it’s actually even more complicated than that. Not only does XX and XY not cover everyone (XXX, XXY and XO are all observed in humans), but genetic expression is very bad at doing binary. You can see this by looking into people’s eyes. While there are dominant brown eye genes, and recessive blue eye genes, even people’s eyes we’d describe as blue or brown have so much variation it’s almost unimaginable. When it comes to all the ways sex characteristics develop in the body, external and internal organs, muscle mass, fat distribution, body hair and so on, sex expression dramatically fails to be binary. This is why I say it’s a constellation that is over simplified by just talking about someone’s sex chromosomes.
You spend a lot of time trying to justify JK’s use of cross dressing as a characteristic of a serial killer. This is just sad. Look at the constellation of everything that the previous poster brought up. JK has done a whole bunch of things that are anti-trans, from using the old trope of protecting children from the scary trans, to opening a women’s shelter to specifically deny trans women from it (which is against the law in Scotland, where she did this), to all the times she’s promoted very bigoted anti-trans sentiments on twitter (including anti-abortionists, anti-semites, and actual fascists when they agree with her anti-trans sentiments). This is a pattern that you absolutely can draw conclusions from. Anti-trans sentiment has been used in crime stories so many times, it’s kinda pathetic at this point. While JK does hide behind enough of a distinction for some people by calling the killer a cross-dresser, rather than trans, it’s very clear what she’s suggesting once you’ve looked at the pattern of her work, her thoughts, and who she allies with.
You bring up “trans regret” but this is such an overblown talking point, again it’s sad you’re doing that. Studies have shown that those who do transition, socially and/or medically, regret it very little, with a regret rate of less than 1% in most studies that observed good scientific process. This is not too discount detransitioners. They deserve respect and support just like anyone else. But to put barriers in the way of trans healthcare because of a less than 1% regret rate, when knee surgery has a regret rate of almost 30% and you don’t hear anyone trying to stop that, do you?
When it comes to trans teens, no surgery is done on anyone under 16, with the biggest intervention being puberty blockers, which delay the onset of puberty. This is fully reversible, has almost no long-term side effects, and has been shown to be so incredibly effective at treating disphoria that again the regret rate is minimal. Also more cis teens are prescribed puberty blockers than trans kids.
The previous poster was not putting words in JK’s mouth, they were observing the pattern that JK has created. She’s good enough at disguising her true thoughts that calls to bigots through dog whistles, emotionally harms her targets, and gives herself enough plausible deniability that those who aren’t paying attention can fail to see the issue. Then bigots use that deniability to continue all three of these tactics. Just like you’re doing now.
Trans women are trans women. They’re not women. The trans label is there to differentiate the two terms, because biological women are different than trans women are
Uh… ‘trans’ and ‘biological’ are the labels… Trans women and biological women are women. The distinction you made is rooted in the idea that women must have female reproductive organs, which is just a description of biological women. That is why we use the label ‘biological,’ to distinguish biological women from women as a whole.
Again, most rational people who have gone through what she’s said don’t see transphobia there.
Who are these “rational people” you’re referring to? You can’t just make a claim like that and not back it up with any logical reasoning.
I know many people I would consider rational that disagree with you.
Ever take a peek outside your bubble?
Instead of making assumptions about me, how about you answer my question?
It says more about you that you’re incapable of seeing hate unless the person spreading it literally says the quiet part out loud. Rowling does the bare minimum, couching her hate in the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability, and you just gobble it up. She freely associates with TERFs and White Nationals, simply because they agree with her views on transwomen.
The UK has made a hard turn against trans rights in the last decade, and Rowling had been the driving force behind that reversal.
You’re making up a quiet part that you can’t possibly know is true, that’s the problem. You’re reading into something that’s not there. Again, you do you, but most people outside of the trans activist community aren’t going to agree, including some trNs people themselves.
Agreeing with someone isnt gobbling anything up, it’s just coming to the same conclusion and not believing that transphobia encompasses what she is.
The UK made a hard turn because they saw the damage that treating disphoria physically first and mentally second is having. There were dire consequences. I agree there’s going to be some overreach in response to the overreach from what more of the extreme activists have done. I think we’ll eventually get to a good place and figure it out, but until then, things will get rocky.
This is after Sweden, who was first to start the extreme treatments we’ve seen, pulled back as well.
You’re making up a quiet part
No, you see, I included evidence for this, her friends that are TERFs and White Nationals. If she “wanted the best” for trans people, she wouldn’t associate with people who wanted them eradicated. You ignored it. She also uses Motte-and-Bailey Fallacies to maintain distance from her less friendly views. I can get receipts if you want.
The UK made a hard turn because
Prove it. Cause from where I’m sitting, a right-leaning government took over and ran back social progress, a thing right-leaning governments do. What were the negative ramifications from allowing trans people to exist without needing to jump through hoops? They were “dire” in your own words, so you must have some examples.
This is after Sweden
Appeal to Authority. And meaningless to this conversation. It’s not proof of anything, just that a fairly socially conservative country ran back a socially progressive policy. Shocker.
I kind of agree but I can’t really look past her supporting literal (actually transphobic) fascists because they agree with her
I haven’t seen her support any fascists, though I can’t say for sure she hasn’t spoken with any on twitter. Supporting someone is different than agreeing with one thing they say though. I agree with lots of people that vanilla ice cream is delicious. It doesn’t mean I support everyone who agrees with that statement.
I don’t have time to listen to it again right now so I’m just gonna dump my fairly long video source onto you, but this guy researched it pretty well
All Ive ever seen her say is that trans women don’t know what it’s like to have a period
Which is a true statement. Trans women don’t know what it’s like to have a period. Trans men do, for the most part.
I knew a girl who lost her uterus in an accident before she hit puberty. We lost touch, but im pretty sure that precludes her having a period. Is she not a woman? Is she less of a woman because of this?
