Hogwarts Legacy

[Zevox]

my policy is 'licensed tie in games are usually not worth caring about','.

Somewhat surprisingly, this is becoming something of a dated mindset. Whether it's because of the successes of licensed games that did put in the effort to actually be good games, like the Batman: Arkham series or the recent Spider-Man games, or because the games that fish to make as much money off as little effort as possible migrated away from ordinary console/PC releases into the realm of mobile/live service games, licensed games like this one do tend to be at least reasonably good, and sometimes excellent, these days. Not that there aren't exceptions, but you can usually tell those at a glance, in my experience - Nickelodeon still makes their games on a shoestring budget, for instance, and it shows.

At the least though the worst offenders, the movie tie-in games of old, seem to be well and truly dead.

[Mordokai]

The game is sitting at 93% positive on Steam with over 86,000 ratings. That's not a bad or even mediocre game that got some "own the other guys" ratings (especially when you need to pay $60 to own the other guys). That's a game that the vast majority of people are sincerely enjoying.

I hear ya. You're probably on to something, at least as far as the ratings go. To play devil's advocate, if a piece of media can be review bombed, can it similarly be review lifted? May that have happened here, at least to an extent?

Nah, probably not. So I'll retract the part where I said it's mediocre. I'll stand by my assertion that the whole controversy did the game good, though.

As for the "sticking it to the other guy" by spending your hard-earned cash... in nearly 40 years I spent on this planet, I found out there's almost no depth of pettiness to which humanity won't sink if it means making somebody else's day just a little worse.

I may or may not be speaking from personal experience

[The Glyphstone]

That's at least the 3rd time in one month I've witnessed that exact correction. I've hailed this forum as quite respectful and pleasantly lacking in grammar police (except for "per se") because, you know, who cares? (Nothing against this instance, just an amused observation.)

Just wait until you spell Wookiee with only one E in a Star Wars thread.

[pendell]

Just wait until you spell Wookiee with only one E in a Star Wars thread.

Hey, it's going to be another thirty centuries before THE EMPRAH founds the Empire. Heresy hunters need something to practice on until their descendents can realize their true calling of hunting down heretics, psykers, mutants, and xenos

Tongue-in-cheek ,

Brian P.

[Jophiel]

I hear ya. You're probably on to something, at least as far as the ratings go. To play devil's advocate, if a piece of media can be review bombed, can it similarly be review lifted? May that have happened here, at least to an extent?

If we were to say it should be at 70%, a mediocre game carried largely on nostalgia, that's about 20,000 game positive reviews boosting it to 93%. I don't disagree that there's a lot of petty people in the world but, in my experience, most of them are fairly lazy and self-interested. Retweeting garbage is fine and easy. Putting sixty bucks down just to press an up arrow/thumb is more investment than it's worth just to smile smugly to yourself. I'm sure the number is greater than zero but doubt it's statistically significant.

There very well could have been a Streisand effect though. Ten million articles, tweets and Facebook posts making people aware that there's a new Harry Potter game.

[Lemmy]

Oh, "Review lifting" happens all the time... But of course, studios and producers (and the media with a vested interested in pleasing them) never call it out... Instead, every time something flops, it's "review bombing". Incredibly, it's never the fault of the product or the people who produced it... It's always those damn trolls on the internet. Don't question. Don't think. Just buy product and be excited for next product

As for HL, there's definitely a Straissand effect going on. I personally know quite a few people who only heard of it because of all the noise. I myself knew about the game, but didn't even remember it was coming out this month until angry people on the internet and "journalists" started hating and harassing people for playing a silly wizard video game. After being constantly bombarded by news of HL all the time (most of which made the game's detractors look REALLY bad), I got curious enough to decide to play the game.

I'd say at least the game owes at least 20% of its sales to the massive free PR it got from ots haters.

And it's a pretty fun game. Maybe I should thank the haters for reminding me the game was around and keeping it fresh in my mind long enough to give me the motivation to pick it up.

[Jophiel]

It might just be a reflection of which parts of the internet I haunt but I'd think the game would be more susceptible to review bombing since there's a lot more vehement opposition than support (that I've seen). Of course, you again get the issue that someone who absolutely hates anything to do with Rowling is unlikely to buy a $60 game just to rate it down on Steam. Heck, 90% of the critical "reviews" are from people who obviously haven't played the game, hence references to goblin-slave revolts and stuff.

One thing that's just a reflection of Steam's Up/Down review system is that a game could be "good, not great" but, if consistently so across a large audience, you'll get a lot of Grade B- reviews that add up to "95% positive" and make the game look like the best thing since Pac-Man. In reality, it's an enjoyable game that doesn't break any new ground and isn't going to start a new genre. It's just, you know, a fun game.

[Lemmy]

It might just be a reflection of which parts of the internet I haunt but I'd think the game would be more susceptible to review bombing since there's a lot more vehement opposition than support (that I've seen). Of course, you again get the issue that someone who absolutely hates anything to do with Rowling is unlikely to buy a $60 game just to rate it down on Steam. Heck, 90% of the critical "reviews" are from people who obviously haven't played the game, hence references to goblin-slave revolts and stuff.

Well... The vast majority of people don't even know or care about the game... But out of those who do, the critics are certainly FAR more vocal (as is always the case on the internet), but I think it's pretty clear they are a minority. Most people simply do not care enough about J.K.Rowling one way or another to influence their decision to buy the game or not. 90% of buyers just go with "I like Harry Potter. I wanna play a Harry Potter game! This one seems fun!"

One thing that's just a reflection of Steam's Up/Down review system is that a game could be "good, not great" but, if consistently so across a large audience, you'll get a lot of Grade B- reviews that add up to "95% positive" and make the game look like the best thing since Pac-Man. In reality, it's an enjoyable game that doesn't break any new ground and isn't going to start a new genre. It's just, you know, a fun game.

That's true, but you can very consistently see review rates being fairly accurate to the game's overall quality... Simply because unless someone REALLY likes (or dislikes) something, they are unlikely to bother reviewing it... So the amount of people who have such strong feelings (good or bad) about a games (usually) a pretty good general measure of how good a game is (provided you like the genre / IP), although it tends to be somewhat biased towards positive reviews (as people who buy the game likely already enjoy the kind of content said game includes).

[Kish]

Heck, 90% of the critical "reviews" are from people who obviously haven't played the game, hence references to goblin-slave revolts and stuff.

I think you possibly overestimate--well, Rowling's worldbuilding, for one thing. The books talk about "goblin rebellions" even though they never indicate goblins were enslaved, leaving what they were rebelling against incoherent. Mashing together goblins and house-elves is obviously logically incorrect, but I wouldn't take doing so as an indication of not having played the game.

[Taevyr]

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I guess if you're really that petty, you could buy the game, make a bad/good review, and then refund it as you haven't played it over a certain amount of time? Just thinking out loud here.

Though if you have that much time to waste, you really should get a life. Or "touch grass", as I'm told they put it these days.

[Divayth Fyr]

I think you possibly overestimate--well, Rowling's worldbuilding, for one thing. The books talk about "goblin rebellions" even though they never indicate goblins were enslaved, leaving what they were rebelling against incoherent.

Not really though? You don't need slavery involved to have a rebellion, just some sort of established authority you're going against for one reason or the other.

[Jophiel]

Mashing together goblins and house-elves is obviously logically incorrect, but I wouldn't take doing so as an indication of not having played the game.

I would. The goblins are obviously not house-elves and there's no goblin slaves and none of the Angry Goblin chatter in the game references slavery or a desire to not be slaves or whatever. The idea of a slavery rebellion is completely absent from the game. I simply can't imagine anyone playing the game, much less playing it with an attention to create a supposedly unbiased review, and conflating the two.

Even if someone was to confuse house-elves and goblins, they SHOULD be walking away saying "The house-elves are mad about wizard magic and want more power" and leave slavery out of it entirely. Because that's the stuff actually being said in the game they supposedly played even if they attributed it to the wrong fellas.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: I guess if you're really that petty, you could buy the game, make a bad/good review, and then refund it as you haven't played it over a certain amount of time? Just thinking out loud here.

Possible and I thought about that but I really doubt the number of people motivated enough to do that is statistically significant. If the game just has a few hundred reviews, that could have an impact but I doubt there's multiple thousands of people tweaking the reviews for this game. If it was happening, I'd expect to see it in reverse -- people getting their chance to downrate the game without giving Rowling any money.

OMG maybe it's actually a 97% positive game!

[Spacewolf]

I would say it's more likely they are conflating the Goblins being an underclass and them being slaves after all.

Spoiler: Villain motive

Show

It's stated that the goblin leaders hatred stems from going for an interview, seeing the wizard drop his wand and try to give it back to him to make a good impression. At which point the wizard lost it over seeing a Goblin holding a wand and beat him half to death and nobody cared.

Though like most games they've had to make the grunt goblins cartoonishly evil so you don't feel bad that you kill hundreds of them in pretty horrible ways. Which is one of the reasons open world games have trouble telling good stories.

[Jophiel]

I haven't felt like the nameless goblin masses are all bad, maybe because I always feel a little guilty killing the guy talking about how great his mom's mushroom stew is. He's humanizing!

Ranrok strikes me as the typical villain who tries to spin some world-changing fight that sounds noble on the surface but is actually him nursing a personal grievance. It's got to sound like "Maybe he has a point" in identifying a problem on the surface so it's not as though he just came into the world cartoonishly evil but then terrible enough in motive, solution and execution that he reasonably needs to be stopped. I suppose MCU Thanos is the archetype for that these days.

[warty goblin]

Had a really fun bit playing this morning where I found some enchanted butterflies, right at dawn. I followed them to a Merlin Trial, right in the middle of a poacher camp. In the dim light I promptly got into a quite excellent duel, and just as day was breaking solved the puzzle.

The whole thing felt fantastic, from the butterflies to the lighting to the fight. I think this game is doing for me what Elden Ring did for a lot of people, provide a big cool fantasy landscape to explore full of cool stuff to do. The difference is that exploring in Elden Ring just led to Elden Ring combat, which is more punishment than reward for me. But exploring here can lead to (actually fun) combat or any number of other things. Simply splendid stuff.

[spectralphoenix]

I'm enjoying things so far, though the game is making me wonder if it's time to look into getting a new machine. I'm sure Starfield won't be any easier, after all.

I would have to agree with everyone who says it's more than the sum of its parts. There's a lot of small flaws that ultimately don't detract from the fact that you have genuinely interesting locales to explore and a solid combat system.

My biggest objection is that the game pretty clearly implies that you're outright killing people, even if you don't use Unforgivable Curses. That was one thing I did like about the later books - it was clear that killing another person was a terrible line to cross, even for a guy like Voldemort.

TBH, I would have liked to see all the wacky curses from the earlier books here. Sort of a finishing-move system - when you finish off the last human enemy, you get to choose a selection of humiliating-to-debilitating curses to hit them with. It would also open up the door for more conflicts with fellow students if you could end fights with the Head-Turns-Into-A-Butt Curse instead of lighting them on fire. It probably would have been a lot of development work for little gameplay payoff though.

The actual victims of this seem to mostly be innocent people. JKR is too big, she doesn't care and had no input on the game anyway. Truly hateful people are fine with this, they're making money from reporting on it and or streaming the game, and getting traffic from it.

The primary people being harmed seem to be small streamers who are nice enough to not be able to deal with the wall of hate, but wanted to play the game anyway.

This is my problem. Even if the boycott had succeeded, and I think we can say that it hasn't, by this point, JKR was never going to change her mind as a result. Too many people just use it as a loyalty test - an excuse to harass (often young and female) streamers for not being part of the tribe.

[pendell]

My biggest objection is that the game pretty clearly implies that you're outright killing people, even if you don't use Unforgivable Curses. That was one thing I did like about the later books - it was clear that killing another person was a terrible line to cross, even for a guy like Voldemort.

So I'm burying a pet today. Perhaps it's made me more introspective than it normally does.

But now that I think of it, it's why I'm not going to be able to get into this particular game, regardless of any other considerations.

The Story of Harry Potter is the story of struggle against Death. Harry Potter is not a killer. The name of the chief villain? Voldemort -- "Flight from Death". "Fear of Death". And yet it's precisely because he's so scared of it that death is his tool of first resort. Making one horcrux requires a human death and tears the soul of the caster, but Voldemort is so frightened of death he makes seven of them, at terrible cost to himself. His followers? The Death Eaters. The series starts with the murder of Harry's parents and the attempted murder of Harry himself -- the Boy Who Lived, because of the final wish of Lily Potter which subverted the otherwise-unblockable aveda kedavra.

Every book follows the same basic theme -- Voldemort in one incarnation or another setting out to make the world the way he wants it by killing people, our daring scooby gang of wizards setting out to save life.

Heck , even Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, the fanfic, got that right.

Chapter 45

I comprehend your nature, you symbolize Death, through some law of magic you are a shadow that Death casts into the world.

And Death is not something I will ever embrace.

It is only a childish thing, that the human species has not yet outgrown.

And someday...

We'll get over it...

And people won't have to say goodbye any more...

..

And someday when the descendants of humanity have spread from star to star, they won't tell the children about the history of Ancient Earth until they're old enough to bear it; and when they learn they'll weep to hear that such a thing as Death had ever once existed!

The figure of a human shone more brilliant now than the noonday Sun, so radiant that Harry could feel the warmth of it on his skin; and Harry sent out all his defiance at the shadow of Death, opening all the floodgates inside him to make that bright shape blaze even brighter and yet brighter.

You are not invincible, and someday the human species will end you.

I will end you if I can, by the power of mind and magic and science.

I won't cower in fear of Death, not while I have a chance of winning.

I won't let Death touch me, I won't let Death touch the ones I love.

And even if you do end me before I end you,

Another will take my place, and another,

Until the wound in the world is healed at last...

So yeah, the story of Harry Potter is a struggle against death that never yields to the temptation to use the great Enemy's own weapon against him -- For The Greater Good, as Grindelwald's slogan went. Dumbledore bought into that for a time. Look where it got him.

Harry Potter ends that series willing to lay down his own life for his convictions, and does, but still comes out all right because love, in the Potterverse, is more powerful than death.

Whatever JK Rowling was when she wrote those books, and whatever she is now, I will always be thankful for her to that insight, whatever other silly ideas she has.

What? One of my favorite authors is RA Heinlein, and he's really problematic from pretty much any angle ( Red has a pretty good takedown of Stranger in a Strange Land ). If I couldn't separate artist from art, I'd be reading a very small reading list. And I wouldn't be the person writing to you now. Or here at all, come to think of it.

If the Potterverse has a spiritual realization in video games -- that is, not having the license but hitting all the themes -- it would be Undertale.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dragonus45]

Heck , even Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, the fanfic, got that right.

When even HPMOR manages to find the theme under all it's contempt for the source material you know it's hard to miss. Thematically it is the one big flaw in the game as a piece of HP fiction.

[The Glyphstone]

When even HPMOR manages to find the theme under all it's contempt for the source material you know it's hard to miss. Thematically it is the one big flaw in the game as a piece of HP fiction.

I was thinking this exact thing, actually. When even the most notorious HP hate-fic on the internet can recognize it, that's a pretty big indicator it's important.

[Rynjin]

When even HPMOR manages to find the theme under all it's contempt for the source material you know it's hard to miss. Thematically it is the one big flaw in the game as a piece of HP fiction.

It's definitely a hurdle to jump for licensed media: whether all media that use a SETTING needs to hit the same beats/themes as a STORY. I can definitely see people who prefer the that being put off by something that is interested in just the worldbuilding and not much else.

[Psyren]

Somewhat surprisingly, this is becoming something of a dated mindset. Whether it's because of the successes of licensed games that did put in the effort to actually be good games, like the Batman: Arkham series or the recent Spider-Man games, or because the games that fish to make as much money off as little effort as possible migrated away from ordinary console/PC releases into the realm of mobile/live service games, licensed games like this one do tend to be at least reasonably good, and sometimes excellent, these days. Not that there aren't exceptions, but you can usually tell those at a glance, in my experience - Nickelodeon still makes their games on a shoestring budget, for instance, and it shows.

At the least though the worst offenders, the movie tie-in games of old, seem to be well and truly dead.

Yeah I'd say 2014 was a major turning point for this. We got a 1-2-3 punch of Alien Isolation, Shadow of Mordor, South Park Stick of Truth, not to mention a few other recent licensed hits like Telltale's Walking Dead and Arkham City.

[MinimanMidget]

I was thinking this exact thing, actually. When even the most notorious HP hate-fic on the internet can recognize it, that's a pretty big indicator it's important.

No, the most notorious HP hate-fic (unsurprisingly) completely misread one of the most important themes, because the author doesn't agree with it. If anything, he got it exactly backwards. It's not about a struggle against death, it's about accepting death. Voldemort's entire character is built around his fear of death, his refusal to accept his own death. That's what makes him the bad guy. Harry has the opportunity to become "the master of death", but turns it down, because one of the things he had to do to get to this point was to accept his own death. That's one of the reasons he's the good guy.

More (less prominent) examples: Ignotus Peverell accepts his own death, giving the Deathly Hallows story its happy ending. Dumbledore accepts his death and incorporates it into his plans. Nicolas Flamel accepts his death in order to prevent the Philosopher's Stone from being misused.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm gonna do a hot take here. That being, I think the trans community and the progressive(I refuse to use the W word) media shot themselves in the foot.

I think Harry Potter gets a special level of disdain from the trans community--or at least the Millennial trans community-- because they feel betrayed. When they were young and weird and didn't fit with how things were "supposed" to be...then yeah, a story about an out-of-place-orphan-turned-chosen-one is easy (and socially acceptable) to embrace, even to make a part of their identity. And then Rowling turns around and starts insulting them and saying that their existence is invalid, if not predatory.

I'd be angry too.

So if the vitriol associated with this game seems excessive... just remember that some of it is being fueled by feelings of deep betrayal.

[Rynjin]

No, the most notorious HP hate-fic (unsurprisingly) completely misread one of the most important themes, because the author doesn't agree with it. If anything, he got it exactly backwards.

Well, sort of. HPMOR gets the theme correct, it just comes to the conclusion that book Voldemort is exactly correct, and then needs to make a strawman Voldemort who's even more of a psychopath than Wank!Harry to make him look good by comparison.

[warty goblin]

Important discovery: the broomstick works in the Forbidden Forest. Zooming around the understory is now the new best thing.

[pendell]

Well, sort of. HPMOR gets the theme correct, it just comes to the conclusion that book Voldemort is exactly correct, and then needs to make a strawman Voldemort who's even more of a psychopath than Wank!Harry to make him look good by comparison.

I don't believe that's actually true.

Remember the word carved on Lily and James Potter's tombstone: "The Last enemy to be destroyed is death." And indeed, Harry did overcome death and return from it in book 7.

I would argue that death is every bit as much the enemy in the Rowling verse as in the HPMOR universe. The difference is that in the Rowling-verse the deeper magic from before the dawn of time (to steal from CS Lewis) is love. The reason Harry is still alive in book 1 is because his mother's love was a more effective shield than any magic: Nothing can stop avada kedevra, and yet that's exactly what happened.

That is why someone like Dumbledore can lay down his life for the sake of others -- because he believes that death is not the end for him, and that his afterlife will be far better if goes out this way. Someone like Voldemort doesn't have this faith or this hope -- he sees death as .. well, hpmor spells it out very well. Chapter 39

"All right," Harry said coldly. "I'll answer your original question, then. You asked why Dark Wizards are afraid of death. Pretend, Headmaster, that you really believed in souls. Pretend that anyone could verify the existence of souls at any time, pretend that nobody cried at funerals because they knew their loved ones were still alive. Now can you imagine destroying a soul? Ripping it to shreds so that nothing remains to go on its next great adventure? Can you imagine what a terrible thing that would be, the worst crime that had ever been committed in the history of the universe, which you would do anything to prevent from happening even once? Because that's what Death really is - the annihilation of a soul!"

The old wizard was staring at him, a sad look in his eyes. "I suppose I do understand now," he said quietly.

"Oh?" said Harry. "Understand what?"

"Voldemort," said the old wizard. "I understand him now at last. Because to believe that the world is truly like that, you must believe there is no justice in it, that it is woven of darkness at its core. I asked you why he became a monster, and you could give no reason. And if I could ask him, I suppose, his answer would be: Why not?"

Precisely. Voldemort possesses no faith in the Deeper Magic that animates the potter verse, the power that protected Harry as an infant and brought him back from death in book 7. He believes only in what he sees -- and because he has no faith, he has no hope either. All his hope is in his own magic, his own learning, and he doesn't care what the cost is to other people provided he can save his own skin. And so he creates the Horcruxes -- they are his last, final refuge from death. Because he has no faith or trust in any deeper magic and no hope of rest or peace in death. Nor has he ever, so far as I know, ever shown the slightest compassion or empathy for any other living creature, be they wizard, muggle, goblin, or unicorn. He has neither faith, nor hope, nor love. All he has is fear. Which is why what's left of him with Harry in the afterlife is a pitiable wreck, barely human.

Both Rowling and Eliezer get this. The difference between them is based on their outlooks. Eliezer is a person who believes in the power of knowledge and research to overcome death -- which is still a very different approach from Voldemort in HPMOR because HPMOR-Harry has a functioning set of ethics; the understanding that he cannot harm innocents in his quest to overcome death. Rowling would probably say that the HPMOR approach is ultimately futile, because the conquest of death is already possible in the potterverse. But it isn't through the magic of Voldemort or the rationality of HPMOR-potter. It's this deeper magic -- this justice at the core of the world which HPMOR-Dumbledore believes in -- that saved Harry's life once and brought him back a second time.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Jophiel]

See, this is why I'm glad I'm not a fan of the franchise. I'm able to enjoy turning a dark wizard into an explosive barrel and then telekinetically hurling it at his friend on its own merits

[Saintheart]

Wait a minute ... why does a wand need a silencer? It's not a firearm, there's no loud BANG when it fires , right?

You clearly haven't downloaded the right mod.

See, this is why I'm glad I'm not a fan of the franchise. I'm able to enjoy turning a dark wizard into an explosive barrel and then telekinetically hurling it at his friend on its own merits

There is a great deal of ROFLMAO even watching youtube videos where the player has pimped his wizard for full power dark magic, Avada Kedavara'ing everything in sight, without a single horrified reaction from any teacher in the school.

[MinimanMidget]

I would argue that death is every bit as much the enemy in the Rowling verse as in the HPMOR universe. The difference is that in the Rowling-verse the deeper magic from before the dawn of time (to steal from CS Lewis) is love.

You're right that love overcomes all is an important theme in HP, but everything else about this take seems fundamentally wrong to me. That said, I already laid out my arguments, and you ignored them, so I guess there's nothing more to discuss.

[Morgaln]

I don't believe that's actually true.

Remember the word carved on Lily and James Potter's tombstone: "The Last enemy to be destroyed is death." And indeed, Harry did overcome death and return from it in book 7.

I would argue that death is every bit as much the enemy in the Rowling verse as in the HPMOR universe. The difference is that in the Rowling-verse the deeper magic from before the dawn of time (to steal from CS Lewis) is love. The reason Harry is still alive in book 1 is because his mother's love was a more effective shield than any magic: Nothing can stop avada kedevra, and yet that's exactly what happened.

That is why someone like Dumbledore can lay down his life for the sake of others -- because he believes that death is not the end for him, and that his afterlife will be far better if goes out this way. Someone like Voldemort doesn't have this faith or this hope -- he sees death as .. well, hpmor spells it out very well. Chapter 39



Precisely. Voldemort possesses no faith in the Deeper Magic that animates the potter verse, the power that protected Harry as an infant and brought him back from death in book 7. He believes only in what he sees -- and because he has no faith, he has no hope either. All his hope is in his own magic, his own learning, and he doesn't care what the cost is to other people provided he can save his own skin. And so he creates the Horcruxes -- they are his last, final refuge from death. Because he has no faith or trust in any deeper magic and no hope of rest or peace in death. Nor has he ever, so far as I know, ever shown the slightest compassion or empathy for any other living creature, be they wizard, muggle, goblin, or unicorn. He has neither faith, nor hope, nor love. All he has is fear. Which is why what's left of him with Harry in the afterlife is a pitiable wreck, barely human.

Both Rowling and Eliezer get this. The difference between them is based on their outlooks. Eliezer is a person who believes in the power of knowledge and research to overcome death -- which is still a very different approach from Voldemort in HPMOR because HPMOR-Harry has a functioning set of ethics; the understanding that he cannot harm innocents in his quest to overcome death. Rowling would probably say that the HPMOR approach is ultimately futile, because the conquest of death is already possible in the potterverse. But it isn't through the magic of Voldemort or the rationality of HPMOR-potter. It's this deeper magic -- this justice at the core of the world which HPMOR-Dumbledore believes in -- that saved Harry's life once and brought him back a second time.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

I haven't read HPMOR, so I don't know how this excerpt fits into the greater narrative. But taken by itself, it very much reads as "Voldemort is evil because he's an atheist." Unfortunately, forum rules prevent me from going deeper into this, but it is almost as problematic as JKR's views.