I said that HL would get average reviews at best because it was gonna be a janky game, and that there would be two camps in the user reviews: reactionaries who barely play the game so they can stick it to the LGBT community, and the other camp who will play the game and just admit that it’s not super good.
I was wrong on the fact that the reviews would be average; the press loved this game – I underestimated how much they loved the HP franchise. But I was right that the game was criticised for some jankiness.
Anyway our own co-admin @ksynwa@lemmygrad.ml was right about it when he told me that the game would get an 85 on metacritic – it’s sitting in at 84!
Strangely enough the game is apparently full of anti semetic tropes. The plot involves hook nosed banker goblins trying to commit blood libel. There is a collectible goblin artifact that looks like an instrument used in synagogues. All this is with just ignoring that goblins are trying to overthrow an oppresive regime. So in MCU fashion they use bloodthirsty and excessively violent means which are indirectly used to justify their oppression.
I don’t know how writers end up writing a world like this in 2023. I would say that unless you live under a rock this level of anti semetic dogwhistling has to be intentional.
I don’t know how writers end up writing a world like this in 2023.
Well, given how Fascism seems to be in everyone’s menu these days…
it’s probably intentional. the lead designer was a gamergater. https://kotaku.com/hogwarts-legacy-lead-designer-used-to-run-anti-social-j-1846316222
death to all gamers, of course.
Well well, the joke writes itself.
I don’t know how writers end up writing a world like this in 2023.
Well the world was written in the 90s by a someone born, raised and living in Gloucestershire, TERF Island, whose childhood education would have happened while T.I. was at peak Thatcherism and Red Scare.
Having to write for this game would be like your boss dropping Atlas Shrugged on your desk and telling you “I’m gonna need you to write a prequel for this; we want you to make it more palatable for modern audiences but also don’t change too much of what made it popular in the first place.”
What fumbles me is that despite the jank, IGN still had the guts to give the game a fucking 9 outta 10; simply because the reporter liked Parrying Hotter. Shouldn’t you deduct a few points for the Jank? Especially on a AAA quality game?
They really should hire people that actually play video games as game journalists. Ugh.
And no, I haven’t played, nor am I playing Logwart’s Hegacy. I can’t find it in me to care about whatever that Just Kidding Rowling woman makes.
One, your comment is poetry.
Two, it’s the same in almost every similar industry, like fiction, movies, and series. They all coexist. Production and distribution, including marketing (i.e. the ‘reviewers’) are all owned by the same people, even if they appear to be separate entities. Real critics don’t get close to the widely distributed and promoted publications because that is not their purpose.
Once the head has decided that something will be a success, they will spend a proportionate amount of effort and money ensuring that it succeeds. There’s no way they even go into production today with something related to Harry Potter without a plan that is about as close as possible to guaranteeing it’s success. This can involve trickery. But by the time they critical people notice, it will be too late. Some negative press will be allowed to appear in the mainstream (like when we hear about a box office flop), but only after they’ve reached their sales targets (unless, like with a box office flop, it’s clear that the truth can’t be hidden).
I was thinking about this. The main problem is that within the video game journalism and reviewing industry there ia a fundamental conflict of interest. They have to try to make big games look good otherwise the industry that fuels their livelihood will be in jeapordy which will in turn jeapodise their own sources of income. When it comes to things like technical performance, websites like IGN never criticise those fairly. You are more likely to find honest criticisms on those from niche reviewers like Digital Foundry.
They have to try to make big games look good otherwise the industry that fuels their livelihood will be in jeapordy which will in turn jeapodise their own sources of income.
Wouldn’t they be able to just use ads, donations and - god forbid - stuff like patreon and subscriptions to make up for the lost corporate backing?
Also, how do they still maintain credibility (after giving bogus reviews and gameplays) among the general public? Clearly there still are people that read IGN, given how they still haven’t went under.
They are owned by a publicly traded company. They cannot refuse corporate banking.
They really should hire people that actually play video games as game journalists. Ugh.
Well the BoD would get their stonks low.
I gotta be honest I think that the liberal and western “Left” shitstorm surrounding this game is completely pointless. In terms of actual relevance to anything, this videogame is completely inconsequential. Yet you’ll see every leftist cracker out there give their two cents about this stupid game as if it actually matters, theres countless terrible things going on this instant that they could be talking about yet they find themselves arguing about a game.
Honestly even those that say they don’t like this game for whatever reason are probably ecstatic that it came out because it allows them to pretend like they’re doing some sort of activism by telling people not to buy it. Meanwhile most of them are probably gung ho in favor of US imperialism and actively supporting it and spreading it’s lies.
I don’t know if everyone in the west is really this concerned over meaningless shit or if western media amplifies this shit on purpose to distract from stuff that matters.
Fucking thank you. So refreshing to see this comment after being surrounded by people who are full of vocal and moral condemnation for others playing a videogame. Like, sure, whatever, fine. But they all fail the same moral litmus test when it comes to engaging in countless other consumer activities.
I mean fuck, a lot of these “leftists” are also expressing outrage at how “oppressed” Beyonce is for not winning a Grammy. Beyonce is a billionaire who profits off of African sweat shop labor.
Im not arguing that the faults with this game shouldn’t be pointed out. Or that people can’t choose where and when they want to consume more “ethically.” All im saying is these people are confused on where they need to actually spend most of their energy.
I mean fuck, a lot of these “leftists” are also expressing outrage at how “oppressed” Beyonce is for not winning a Grammy.
That’s not a leftist. That sounds more like a Liberal.
Hence the quotations I assume.
most games nowadays are medicore at best.
I repsectfully disagree
A friend of mine wants to play it. One friend of many. So that’s how I view it, maybe just HP fans will play it, I don’t expect a huge turnout since nobody watches their new movies
I don’t expect a huge turnout since nobody watches their new movies
Personally I see it as a Westerner’s take on Elden Ring, so I wouldn’t be sure about that.
Not to mention the overwhelming amounts of people on Steam are reactionary/fascist, whom will buy the game just because it’s causing “trans people/”““wokesters””“” to “”“seethe”“”"; even though they’ve begun to start seething and malding whenever pronouns, an important part of every language, is brought up.
I could be wrong, but wouldn’t they actually have to BUY the game? That seems like a hefty price to possibly maybe piss off a lefty, idk if that sells games
You underestimate Right Wingers.
These people will do anything to “own” the libs/lefties, even if it means buying an overexpensive game (which, again, mind you, is causing controversy in the western left/trans community)
I think the problem here was the collective action strategy. You organise a boycott when the majority of buyers are aware of the issue and care. You don’t organise a boycott when the majority of buyers either don’t know or don’t care… and in this instance, the vast teeming majority of potential buyers didn’t even know. The boycott was never going to work.
There were some voices that had the right idea - some twitch streamers wanted to stream the game and use the huge viewership boost (and it was a record breaking boost in stream viewership) to campaign for LGBTQ+ issues and educate people about JKR. That was the right play: when people don’t know about an issue, your collective strategy should be to raise awareness and educate, not boycott.
The argument that “the (lack of) material effect of a boycott doesn’t matter, that it’s the principle of the thing”… that’s liberal failing: focusing more on virtue than on material change. It doesn’t matter if it was virtue signalling or genuine virtue because either way it was inconsequential: you objectively cannot stage an effective boycott when your call to action is restricted to your internet circles that form a tiny minority of buyers even if 100% of them get on board.
It’s just a textbook example of the West’s progressive movements being made impotent because liberals are the dominant voices in that collective, claiming the mantle of their predecessors like the suffragettes and civil rights movement but with zero clue about how those movements made an effective difference.
