Hogwarts Legacy

[Rynjin]

I wish more people remembered this. I've seen plans online to scour friends' and acquaintances' achievement lists even years down the line so people know who might be deserving of castigation and cancellation. It is in fact possible to buy a game without financially rewarding the holder of its IP.

Pfft. I enjoy when people severely overestimate many things about themselves at the same time, thanks for making me aware of this little gem.

[Jophiel]

Not on PC it isn't.

True, but it's published by WB which means it'll probably be $5 at some point (not soon since it's currently the top selling/played game on Steam, but it'll get there). It's an exercise for the purchaser to decide if they can accept that when the time comes.

I was saying to a friend yesterday that anyone vehemently opposed to the game should spend less time on social media and more time playing CS:GO to rob the game of the top spot on Steam. They were neck and neck yesterday.

[Psyren]

Not on PC it isn't.

PC gamers have... er, other options.

(Like sales! I mean sales. What did you think I meant.)

[Vizzerdrix]

PC gamers have... er, other options.

(Like sales! I mean sales. What did you think I meant.)

Sales, or SAILS?

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: A.) This is the Hogwarts Legacy game thread in the gaming section. Discussion of broader facets of the game (eg the IP originator and controversial stances) are not out of line but the discussion should ideally focus on the game more than such broader facets. Normally we allow discussions to go in the direction people like to take them but in this specific instance it can easily go into forum-unfriendly territory. There is no moritorium against expressing distaste or opposition to the game or related properties/people, but again, discussion about a game in a gaming forum should focus at least mainly about the game.
2.) Don't advocate piracy in here.

[Trafalgar]

Getting back to the game, I am not a huge fan of the franchise. I think I have read 5 of the books. My kids love it though. For those people who have played it, what age range do you think is appropriate?

[Rynjin]

Probably the same as the books so far. The main character is a 5th year, and the tone fits about what the 5th book has; still far from "adult" but definitely in the realm of YA fiction now, aimed at roughly an audience of 12-13 and up.

So PG-13? I think the game is rated T for Teen but I haven't looked at an ESRB rating in years.

[Jophiel]

Getting back to the game, I am not a huge fan of the franchise. I think I have read 5 of the books. My kids love it though. For those people who have played it, what age range do you think is appropriate?

There's a lot of video game killin' (including of bad wizards and goblins) including a plot-based death in the opening scenes and some story-based opportunities to steal (in addition to usual CRPG kleptomania). Nothing remotely approaching "adult situations" and none of the concepts are really deep or challenging. Some of the puzzles might be frustrating to a younger player. I'd say 11 or 12 on up?

[warty goblin]

There's a lot of video game killin' (including of bad wizards and goblins) including a plot-based death in the opening scenes and some story-based opportunities to steal (in addition to usual CRPG kleptomania). Nothing remotely approaching "adult situations" and none of the concepts are really deep or challenging. Some of the puzzles might be frustrating to a younger player. I'd say 11 or 12 on up?

Some of the puzzles are very light algebra, crossed with a touch of symbol substitution (think x + owl = 15, where you have to look up owl on a diagram to find out it's 6, then figure out the answer is 9 and set a dial to the 9 symbol), and a few others require fairly sharp observation (find a location based on a painting) but these are decidedly optional. The game itself, at least on Normal, is pretty easy, at least in the beginning. So far I haven't seen anything more intense than the movies, and not even like the late movies. More like Prisoner of Azkaban levels, and absolutely nothing as dark as the end of Goblet of Fire, though I haven't gotten very far so maybe that changes.

[Renegade Paladin]

Your character's goal is the preservation of slavery, so if that's your thing by all means, but that's more than enough for me to not deal with it.

[warty goblin]

Got out of Hogwarts finally. The surrounding countryside is definitely large, and also more sparse than Hogwarts itself. But sparse is not empty, there's still a ton of puzzles and side quests and so on. These hit about the right density for me, common enough to make exploring worthwhile, but not so dense you are drowning in icons.

None of these are, at one level, anything particularly out of the ordinary for an open world game. But there's a bit more care to them, like a certain puzzle requiring you to use a specific magical herb to activate, that makes things feel just more... magical I guess. And a lot of the time you can only get so far before running into a problem that needs a spell you don't have yet.

It's also really startling just how well the world works for a videogame. You are constantly learning new abilities because you are literally a student in school, that's your actual job. Everything is packed with secrets because it's a magical castle and that's what magical castles do - recently I accessed a secret room by feeding myself to a frog statue - and so on. A lot of open world games feel like there's just an open world there because, well, you gotta have an open world full of ledges to platform on while the xharacters talk, but none of it really matters to the world or characters. It's just there for you to have stuff to do. This feels rather like Witcher 3 in that the world fits into the game and vice versa.

Also I just got the ability to throw chomping cabbages at people. Game of the year.

Your character's goal is the preservation of slavery, so if that's your thing by all means, but that's more than enough for me to not deal with it.

Goblins aren't slaves in HP. They are an underclass to a degree, but they own property, are armed, and hold at least some political power. What exactly the relationship between the goblins and the ministry is, at least in the books, rather unclear, but they definitively aren't slaves.

The goblins you are fighting in the game (which are not all goblins in the game) are a radical and extremely violent group of more or less terrorists. Their main wizard allies are literally organized crime, running poaching operations and also doing kidnappings for hire. An early quest has you helping another goblin they beat up and robbed because he refused to collaborate. They are very clearly not acting for the benefit of goblinkind as a whole.

[Rynjin]

Your character's goal is the preservation of slavery, so if that's your thing by all means, but that's more than enough for me to not deal with it.

You might be confusing goblins with House Elves. The latter ARE actually enslaved, and the brushing aside of that is genuinely the most WTF part of the books. It's established that they "like" to be enslaved which is mega-cringe.

Goblins have a lot of political and financial power, but what they lack seems to be magical power. This has led to an uneasy standoff between goblins and wizards as the latter often try to strongarm the former, but can't push too hard without their economy getting ****ed.

The main bad guy of the game seems to have the goal (so far, I'm still pretty early in) of rectifying that "lack of magical power" problem in a rather violent fashion. He considers any goblin that doesn't immediately join his violent uprising as a race traitor, and executes them on the spot.

In other words, he's your usual Saturday morning cartoon caricature, and his very existence makes it pretty clear you're not meant to actually think about the plot too much. AKA "It's not that deep bro."

[LaZodiac]

You might be confusing goblins with House Elves. The latter ARE actually enslaved, and the brushing aside of that is genuinely the most WTF part of the books. It's established that they "like" to be enslaved which is mega-cringe.

Goblins have a lot of political and financial power, but what they lack seems to be magical power. This has led to an uneasy standoff between goblins and wizards as the latter often try to strongarm the former, but can't push too hard without their economy getting ****ed.

The main bad guy of the game seems to have the goal (so far, I'm still pretty early in) of rectifying that "lack of magical power" problem in a rather violent fashion. He considers any goblin that doesn't immediately join his violent uprising as a race traitor, and executes them on the spot.

In other words, he's your usual Saturday morning cartoon caricature, and his very existence makes it pretty clear you're not meant to actually think about the plot too much. AKA "It's not that deep bro."

Yes and I'm sure the fact that said leader wants to harvest the blood from a child and all the imagery involved in his depiction are also not that deep.

If it's "just a game", if it's "not that deep" then why are you defending it from people who take umbridge on how the game presents itself?

[Jophiel]

I don't think correcting is the same as defending. Saying that your character's focus is preserving slavery just sounds like "Tell me you haven't played Hogwart's Legacy without saying that you haven't played..."

With about 50+ hours, my character's focus has been, in rough order of time spent:
- Running through Hogwarts but getting distracted by a puzzle or event every seven steps
- Playing Barbie Dress-Up Dreamhouse with my cosmetics and magical room
- Running through the outside but getting distracted by a puzzle, critters or events
- Doing little missions for various randos
- Going to classes and other school-based main missions
- Robbing people's homes in typical CRPG kleptomania
- Trying to reach the top of Hogwarts on my broom by forcing it against the tower spire above it's normal max altitude
- Doing main missions about why some goblin and wizard want to capture/kill me

[Rynjin]

Yes and I'm sure the fact that said leader wants to harvest the blood from a child and all the imagery involved in his depiction are also not that deep.

A supervillain needing the blood of some magical McGuffin child to complete their evil plan? Perish the thought.

If it's "just a game", if it's "not that deep" then why are you defending it from people who take umbridge on how the game presents itself?

First: nice pun.

Second: I have been extremely bored at work the last couple of days.

That said, I really don't understand what it is about how the game presents itself that people are taking umbrage with to begin with. I understand the underlying controversies and opposition to the game existing, but not why that seems to have stretched over to making bad faith arguments about the game's actual content, when it's...extremely standard for a fantasy game, for the most part.

[Gnoman]

It's established that they "like" to be enslaved which is mega-cringe.

Only if you ignore the bit in the last book where Dumbledore straight-up says "Anybody defending elf slavery is wrong, the critics are right". That's not subtext - it is actual text. Rowling's done much to be criticized for, but there's a lot of "mine the books for other Bad Things and take everything out of context" because of it. A lot of the very people that now have an issue with Rowling very heavily identified with the books and take her more recent actions as a personal betrayal.

[Rater202]

The implication seems to be that the elves genuinely enjoy servitude but the current situation involving them is easily abusable by *******.

I've been second-guessing a lot about the books in the last few years for reasons I hope I don't have to explain but I think in this case... Rowling didn't always think things through. I don't think she grasped the implications of using house fae as a metaphor for slavery and then later using the same house fae for a subplot about "activists who are really trying to make themselves feel better without actually asking the opinions of the people they're trying to help and end up just condescending to them and pissing them off."

I'm not touching the Goblin discussion. That is a minefield I can't navigate.

[LaZodiac]

A supervillain needing the blood of some magical McGuffin child to complete their evil plan? Perish the thought.

First: nice pun.

Second: I have been extremely bored at work the last couple of days.

That said, I really don't understand what it is about how the game presents itself that people are taking umbrage with to begin with. I understand the underlying controversies and opposition to the game existing, but not why that seems to have stretched over to making bad faith arguments about the game's actual content, when it's...extremely standard for a fantasy game, for the most part.

There is nothing I can say to this comment that is board safe. Suffice to say; we both know what the goblin antagonist of this game is meant to represent. That you seem not to care about this is telling, and if you truly, genuinely, do not know, contact me off forum about it.

I'll cop to just not remembering how to spell umbrage.

EDIT: Also yeah Rater she's just, flatly, not a good writer. Sirius had the stuffed and mounted head of his most beloved goblin slave over his mantle place. Harry ends the series thinking about ordering his slave to make him a sandwhich. Hagrid notes taking care of "Werewolf cubs" under his bed as a kid and later it is shown werewolves are a messy, terrible, metaphor for AIDS and gay people. Make of it what you will, but the fact is she just kinda stinks at this.

[Rynjin]

Only if you ignore the bit in the last book where Dumbledore straight-up says "Anybody defending elf slavery is wrong, the critics are right". That's not subtext - it is actual text. Rowling's done much to be criticized for, but there's a lot of "mine the books for other Bad Things and take everything out of context" because of it. A lot of the very people that now have an issue with Rowling very heavily identified with the books and take her more recent actions as a personal betrayal.

That sounds more like an "author's saving throw" than anything else. Hermione was treated not just by the characters but by the NARRATIVE as dead wrong about wanting to free House Elves. Dobby's desire to be free made him "unique and quirky", not just the only sane house elf.

Hell, Harry owning Kreacher is never seen as a problem, only the mistreatment of him is. Just going "oh hey BTW this subplot that took up a good chunk of book 5 was actually wrong kthxbyeeee" from a character that's already dead is...eh.

There is nothing I can say to this comment that is board safe. Suffice to say; we both know what the goblin antagonist of this game is meant to represent. That you seem not to care about this is telling, and if you truly, genuinely, do not know, contact me off forum about it.

I'll cop to just not remembering how to spell umbrage.

I know what you're referring to. It's not that I don't care, it's that I don't believe it's the smoking gun you think it is, any more than I agree with certain opinions mentioned in other threads about orcs.

HP goblins are pretty similar to WoW goblins overall, and both aren't too far off from Forgotten Realms gnomes. I think reading things into these depictions in most cases reflects the detractor's internal biases more than anything else.

[LaZodiac]

HP goblins are pretty similar to WoW goblins overall, and both aren't too far off from Forgotten Realms gnomes. I think reading things into these depictions in most cases reflects the detractor's internal biases more than anything else.

They're not similar at all, and regardless- it is the specific depictions of the villain and how it correlates to their depiction in the series that makes it clear what they're a blatant dog whistle for.

Also, it needs to be said: "you reading negative things into this, and that means YOU'RE actually the negative thing" is bull**** statemen.

[Gnoman]

That's a misread. Hermoine's fault was not "she's ruining a perfectly good thing", it was her "I am the witch, I Know What's Best For You, stop arguing with me" attitude toward the whole thing - she assumed she was the only one who ever had a problem with it, and not only failed to consider the opinions of the elves themselves but tried to outright trick and force them into doing things her way. Not only is the whole "Elves like being slaves!" thing straight from the mouth of Ron, who usually has the Designated Wrong Person role in the narrative, the bad effects are pretty strong in the narrative from the introduction. The institution not only does a great deal to slow the destruction of Voldy (had Kreacher not been ignored and abused, one of the soul jars would have been discovered much sooner), but got important characters killed.

[hamishspence]

Sirius had the stuffed and mounted head of his most beloved goblin slave over his mantle place.

The Black family did. Sirius hates the Black family traditions in all their forms, ran away, and was disowned by the family - only being able to return to the house after the rest were all dead. A point is made of how they're clearing the house of all the clutter - I would figure that if they'd been removable, the goblin heads would have gone as well. Some things are specifically called out as un-removable due to "permanent Sticking charms"

Hagrid notes taking care of "Werewolf cubs" under his bed as a kid

"Locket Tom Riddle" is the one who says that, not Hagrid himself.

Only if you ignore the bit in the last book where Dumbledore straight-up says "Anybody defending elf slavery is wrong, the critics are right". That's not subtext - it is actual text.

That said, I'm having trouble finding Dumbledore's speech about the wrongness of elf slavery in Deathly Hallows.

[Jophiel]

Rowling might be a terrible author but she didn't write the game. Likewise, she might depict the goblins as whatever in the books (haven't read them) but, in game, the ones I've met have been not just bankers but also traders, artists, miners, craftsman, possessing a distinct culture and living in relative harmony and footing with the humans (minus the bad guy and his minions). Trying to use a broad brush over how all goblins are depicted in the game based on the bad guy feels like someone reaching for an overreaction.

[Rater202]

There is nothing I can say to this comment that is board safe. Suffice to say; we both know what the goblin antagonist of this game is meant to represent. That you seem not to care about this is telling, and if you truly, genuinely, do not know, contact me off forum about it.

I'll cop to just not remembering how to spell umbrage.

EDIT: Also yeah Rater she's just, flatly, not a good writer. Sirius had the stuffed and mounted head of his most beloved goblin slave over his mantle place. Harry ends the series thinking about ordering his slave to make him a sandwhich. Hagrid notes taking care of "Werewolf cubs" under his bed as a kid and later it is shown werewolves are a messy, terrible, metaphor for AIDS and gay people. Make of it what you will, but the fact is she just kinda stinks at this.

Apparently, the werewolves cubs mentioned weren't... Actual werewolves. Per supplementary materially rarely two werewolves will run tin each other and boink on the night of the full moon and the net result is an unnaturally intelligent but otherwise ordinary wolf and there's a pack of those in the Forbidden Forest.

This is obviously a sloppy retcon, but...

As for Harry and Kreacher... it kind of depends if a locket counts as clothes. If it does then Harry freed Kracher when he gave him Regulus's locket and Kreacher then stayed on of his own will. Which is still problematic, mind you.

And you're misremembering the Elf-Heads: That's something that other members of Sirius's family did. The worst thing Sirius is known to have done is put hats and beards on them for Christmas and, well... Sirius isn't exactly the most rational of people by the time we meet him.

[Gnoman]

That said, I'm having trouble finding Dumbledore's speech about the wrongness of elf slavery in Deathly Hallows.

That's because I remembered the location wrong - it is near the end of Book 5, not 7.

The explicit text is "We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for far too long, and we are now reaping our reward" , "I do not think Sirius... ever saw Kreacher as a being with feelings as acute as a human's", and "Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards... His existence has been as miserable as your friend Dobby's".

[hamishspence]

Given that he uses Sirius's will, to transfer ownership of Kreacher to Harry , and that the Hogwarts elves don't wear clothes, but tea-towels,


it may be in Dumbledore's eyes, less "having house elves is wrong" and more "abusing house elves, mentally or otherwise, is wrong". He also says that Sirius was kind to house elves in general, and that it was only Kreacher that Sirius treated poorly, due to Kreacher reminding him of his unhappy childhood.

[warty goblin]

Rowling might be a terrible author but she didn't write the game. Likewise, she might depict the goblins as whatever in the books (haven't read them) but, in game, the ones I've met have been not just bankers but also traders, artists, miners, craftsman, possessing a distinct culture and living in relative harmony and footing with the humans (minus the bad guy and his minions). Trying to use a broad brush over how all goblins are depicted in the game based on the bad guy feels like someone reaching for an overreaction.

Really the goblins hardly show up in the books at all. They're in Sorcerer's Stone guarding the bank where they guard the bank. That's it, their narrative role is the make the magical world magical, and to make the bank difficult to rob in some unspecified way. There's background stuff about goblin rebellions in History of Magic, but those could mean anything because it's detail filler and nothing in History of Magic ever matters to anything. In Deathly Hallows we spend a very little time with one goblin, and about all we learn there is that wizards won't share wand magic with goblins, goblins won't share magical artifacing with wizards, and goblins think that purchases are more like rentals that expire with the purchaser's death, after which the item reverts to the goblin who created it, or possibly their descendants. In the case of really ancient stuff it seems goblins (or at least some goblins) feel that any goblin made artifact belongs to goblinkind more or less collectively, and not the current wizard owner. I guess we also learn that the Gringott's goblins use an abused dragon as a security device.

So far the game has payed a lot more attention to goblins than the books do. And (early on in the game anyway) goblins are shown as having multiple political perspectives and differing interests, jobs and so on. They are not a monoculture by any means, nor do they seem like they stand in for any particular group. Yes, the ones who run the bank are into money, but they, uh, they run a bank. That's what bankers do. Not all goblins in the game are bankers, or seem particularly interested in money. And the bad guys are evil, but not all goblins are bad guys, not all bad guys are goblins, and not all the goblins agree with the bad guys. Honestly, given how much time the evil goblins spend beating up, robbing and killing other goblins, one gets the sense that they aren't exactly polling at 90% among goblinkind.

I really have to say, there's nothing exceptionally offputting or problematic or anything about the goblins in this game that isn't true of the bad guys in pretty much any other fantasy game (nearly any other game) out there. If you're OK with murderhoboing through Pathfinder or Skyrim or Assassin's Creed or Far Cry or just about anything else, this is just that.

[Rater202]

Without stepping into the minefield, there are some subtle and unfortunate implications regarding the Goblins that make the villain's plan, in particular, especially uncomfortable.

I don't think it was malicious, but the unfortunate implications were well-documented while the game was in development and the people writing it should have known better.

[Rynjin]

They're not similar at all, and regardless- it is the specific depictions of the villain and how it correlates to their depiction in the series that makes it clear what they're a blatant dog whistle for.

Thing is, the villain in the actual game is more reminiscent of arguments against completely different social issues than the one you're referring to.

I could see an argument being made that the narrative is uncomfortably anti-revolutionary, and borrows similar rhetoric I've seen used against riots and protests.

However, this rhetoric is also ethnically agnostic, and I think the continued implication that it is referring to any particular group undermines any argument about the content of the game.

Given the setting of the story, even if the implication WAS to impugn a specific ethnicity, the more likely reference would be to one that is located a bit closer to the north of England.

Also, it needs to be said: "you reading negative things into this, and that means YOU'RE actually the negative thing" is bull**** statement.

Edit: I wasn't initially going to touch this part, but I feel it would be a bit unfair not to.

The point is not "if you read into subtext, you are [Bad Thing You're reading Into]", the point is that in a lot of cases people are less reading into things and more manufacturing reasons to be upset. And when it comes to free-associating physical characteristics and perceived cultural stereotypes with a fantastical ethnic group that doesn't fit the group you're trying to connect them with as clearly as you think they do...eh, it starts to make me wonder what's actually going on inside some peoples' heads.

I'm not saying you, specifically are [Negative Thing], but I do think that the people who initially whipped up this particular subset of the frenzy very well might be, the same as the orc "controversy" was, and people lacking context, and already inclined to think negatively about the property due to more valid reasons, are getting caught up in it. it's kind of the double edged sword of trying to boycott a product and also argue details about it at the same time. You, uh, don't actually know the details, because you're boycotting it.

[Dragonus45]

So far the game has payed a lot more attention to goblins than the books do. And (early on in the game anyway) goblins are shown as having multiple political perspectives and differing interests, jobs and so on. They are not a monoculture by any means, nor do they seem like they stand in for any particular group. Yes, the ones who run the bank are into money, but they, uh, they run a bank. That's what bankers do. Not all goblins in the game are bankers, or seem particularly interested in money. And the bad guys are evil, but not all goblins are bad guys, not all bad guys are goblins, and not all the goblins agree with the bad guys. Honestly, given how much time the evil goblins spend beating up, robbing and killing other goblins, one gets the sense that they aren't exactly polling at 90% among goblinkind.

I thought it was particularly notable that

Spoiler

Show

there is a whole quest that boils down to O'Cee Donutsteel meeting a goblin in a pub before leaving to raid the tomb of a dead wizard, where he explains the differing cultural views on ownership and the MC shows sympathy and talks about the difficulties in reconciling their two cultures instead of calling it barmy or insulting the goblins for their strange ways.

Clearly the story is not here to frame goblins as evil creatures of the night here to steal children's blood for dark rituals.