Hogwarts Legacy - Not as good as Dog Kid University

[Rayn]

Review embargo is lifted at 12 today. So what are we guessing? 

I'm afraid there'll be a lot of politics in some of the reviews, focusing on stuff not directly tied to the actual game. 

 

Based on what I've seen from the game so far, I'm not thinking it'll end up a modern classic, it seems to have loads of invisible walls and quite some limitations to the exploration, especially when using the broom. 

 

My gut feeling tells me we're going to see a meta score around the lower 80s, anything above that would be great though. 

[jonny_rat]

Every review opening with a paragraph blasting Rowling over The Politics would be a nice little step forward for human decency if you ask me.

[Alex W.]

We’ve got plenty of experience with how games media, and film and music media, review the output of Problematic individuals, companies and brands. For EA Spouse to Jared Leto. People were giving Roman Polanski’s films positive write-ups in to the late 2000s. We will mostly get some oblique comments on how there are “issues” with the brand, occasionally get a review which doesn’t comment at all or makes it a central thesis, and have a sprinkling of op-eds.

 

If the games review cycle can crank out a half dozen reviews of games about maintaining NATO military hegemony in the developing world featuring brand approval from arms manufacturers and the military-industrial-entertainment complex every single year, this is not going to move the needle.

[stan]

48 minutes ago, Rayn said:

 

I'm afraid there'll be a lot of politics in some of the reviews, focusing on stuff not directly tied to the actual game. 

 

 

fucking better not be. I dont read videogames journalism to have politics focusing on stuff shoved down my throat

[BitterToad]

I mean look the creator of the universe is trying to literally destroy a community of people and profits from sales of the game but what are the graphics like and how realistic do the wands feel? 

[Uncle Nasty]

Literally destroy. 

[Sumire]

22 minutes ago, stan said:

 

fucking better not be. I dont read videogames journalism to have politics focusing on stuff shoved down my throat

 

I do not mind as long as it isn't as long as this forum discussion and is predominantly about what the actual game is like. I think people just need educating so they can make an informed decision whether to buy it or not. I think if you force things on people or become too preachy, it can have the opposite effect in some cases.

 

I think the bottom line is, if the game is good (who knows it might be) people will buy it regardless. I dare say a fair few people who said they would not be buying the game on this forum will as well if it ends up getting rave reviews.

[BadgerFarmer]

58 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

We’ve got plenty of experience with how games media, and film and music media, review the output of Problematic individuals, companies and brands. For EA Spouse to Jared Leto. People were giving Roman Polanski’s films positive write-ups in to the late 2000s. We will mostly get some oblique comments on how there are “issues” with the brand, occasionally get a review which doesn’t comment at all or makes it a central thesis, and have a sprinkling of op-eds.

 

If the games review cycle can crank out a half dozen reviews of games about maintaining NATO military hegemony in the developing world featuring brand approval from arms manufacturers and the military-industrial-entertainment complex every single year, this is not going to move the needle.

If the option is there for a publication, the best thing to do would be simply not to review it, I think, and explain why. As a reviewer, I've kept well away from it, although that wasn't especially difficult as I have little interest in Potter stuff anyway. I do the same with Call of Duty and the like, too.

 

But when it comes to reviewing this kind of stuff, it's always a bit damned if you do, damned if you don't, and it's difficult to judge how much a controversy should factor into a critique of the experience. Ideally I'd want to do two linked pieces - one a 'straight' review and a then a follow up discussing the issues. Like the way Edge does when it follows reviews with a 'postscript' piece.

[Alex W.]

45 minutes ago, stan said:

 

fucking better not be. I dont read videogames journalism to have politics focusing on stuff shoved down my throat

That famously apolitical medium, videogames.

[bear]

7 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

That famously apolitical medium, videogames.

 

 

EDIT: Well that hasn't worked properly. 

[Uncle Mike]

[bear]

Look I acknowledged there's a problem, that's enough. No need to fix it. 

[Windowlicker]

This has got some mainstream attention 

https://news.sky.com/story/hogwarts-legacy-why-are-people-boycotting-one-of-the-biggest-games-of-the-year-12790384

 

 

[disperse and recoagulate]

The same people probably still dance to Ignition (Remix), I bet.

[Floyd]

1 hour ago, Rayn said:

Review embargo is lifted at 12 today. So what are we guessing? 

I'm afraid there'll be a lot of politics in some of the reviews, focusing on stuff not directly tied to the actual game. 

 

Based on what I've seen from the game so far, I'm not thinking it'll end up a modern classic, it seems to have loads of invisible walls and quite some limitations to the exploration, especially when using the broom. 

 

My gut feeling tells me we're going to see a meta score around the lower 80s, anything above that would be great though. 

 

I'll be looking for at least 8/10 across the board. These games usually come with a lot of bugs though strangly enough don't impact the reviews scores

[Unofficial Who]

2 hours ago, Rayn said:

Review embargo is lifted at 12 today. So what are we guessing? 

I'm afraid there'll be a lot of politics in some of the reviews, focusing on stuff not directly tied to the actual game. 

 

Given the bravery I saw from the media ten or so years back I suspect any outlets who might have concerns about supporting this game will choose to just not review it without comment or a short editorial stating why they aren't. And nothing more.

 

Any reviews that do get printed will be non-political which might be quite the feat if the game really is about putting down a slave rebellion.

[Ork1927]

6 minutes ago, Windowlicker said:

This has got some mainstream attention 

https://news.sky.com/story/hogwarts-legacy-why-are-people-boycotting-one-of-the-biggest-games-of-the-year-12790384

 

 

 

Got to have loads of random anonymous tweets as opinions to show 'all sides' as otherwise how would they ever write a full article.

[Alex W.]

2 minutes ago, Unofficial Who said:

Any reviews that do get printed will be non-political which might be quite the feat if the game really is about putting down a slave rebellion.

Didn’t do Bioshock Infinite much harm.

[thesnwmn]

I think it'll review as a "good" game. You know, that sort of 7/8 out of 10.

 

But I think most outlets will simply review it with barely a mention of the creator. Games press is morally very weak in my opinion and if they can turn a blind eye and continue as usual they absolutely will. Reviewing it without mention sells more issues or gets more readers unfortunately I suspect.

 

I hope to be surprised.

[Ork1927]

Just now, thesnwmn said:

I think it'll review as a "good" game. You know, that sort of 7/8 out of 10.

 

But I think most outlets will simply review it with barely a mention of the creator. Games press is morally very weak in my opinion and if they can turn a blind eye and continue as usual they absolutely will. Reviewing it without mention sells more issues or gets more readers unfortunately I suspect.

 

I hope to be surprised.

 

And outlets and named reviewers will got a lot less grief/abuse if they ignore the issues rather than any sort of comment against Rowling especially if they legit don't think the game is any good.

 

Rowling is bad and this game isn't very good - 5/10 will result in a mega pile on that its being voted down because they don't like Rowling.

[Alex W.]

I don’t think it’s an issue of moral weakness so much as a tendency to review games the way you might review a phone charger or a blender. It doesn’t even really enter the calculus.

 

 

[therearerules]

How have games from Bobby Kotick and Yves Guillemot reviewed?

[Floyd]

I've manged to avoid all the new and latest information on this since there's been more video and details over the last couple of weeks. I did watch the one of the early video's showing gameplay so I've got a good idea what to expect. Fortunately I've got some vouchers from Christmas that'll go on this ... unless it reviews badly, but if it's decent to good I'm definitely going to get my wand on.  

[bear]

I'm guessing at a Metacritic score of 79. 

[thesnwmn]

3 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

I don’t think it’s an issue of moral weakness so much as a tendency to review games the way you might review a phone charger or a blender. It doesn’t even really enter the calculus.

 

 

 

Maybe morally weak is the wrong phrase.

 

But I think across the board it's an industry determined to sidestep difficult conversations. Part of it I think is that historically games press felt a need to defend the hobby as a whole. That it's a valid pursuit. That it doesn't make people violent or cause gun crime. And they don't want to be seen to give its detractors an argument.

 

The result of that though is that I often think games writers don't want to touch the third rail. To highlight abusive working or development practices. To discuss the presence or excess of violence or the military complex. To question the depiction of women or sexualisation of them. To maybe wonder if what we want to call "adult themes" in games is actually a puerile teenage fantasy of adult themes. To question whether the views of creators are important.

 

They would rather, and I understand why, talk about the mechanics of jumping or shooting or whatever. That is to the detriment of them and the hobby.

[thesnwmn]

Sort of tangential

 

I see Rock Paper Shotgun have just announced they're having a "Magic Week" from now until next Friday.

 

Be interesting to see if they use this as a statement of "here are magic/fantasy games other than Hogwarts Legacy" (including stating why) or just wrapping up the game review in a bigger thing.

[Hexx]

 

Jesus the replies.

 

[Isaac]

Just now, thesnwmn said:

Sort of tangential

 

I see Rock Paper Shotgun have just announced they're having a "Magic Week" from now until next Friday.

 

Be interesting to see if they use this as a statement of "here are magic/fantasy games other than Hogwarts Legacy" (including stating why) or just wrapping up the game review in a bigger thing.

 

"Starting today until next Friday, February 17th, it's Magic Week here at RPS, where we aim to highlight all manner of fabulous games about magic, witches, wizards, general sorcery and other spell-adjacent tomfoolery. We're also putting special emphasis on magic games made by trans developers, too. Join us for a glimpse of what's coming up."

 

I imagine they aren't deliberately tying it into a review of the game.

[HarryBizzle]

I’m all for people trying to consume ethically, but I don’t think other controversies have prompted the same strength of feeling on here and cynically, I think if people liked Harry Potter more, or as a better example, it was a Nintendo game, more people would probably justify a purchases to themselves. 
 

It will be interesting to see whether the Diablo IV thread reaches the same sort of degree of people making moral judgements on one another. I suspect not. It certainly hasn’t so far. 

[Graham S]

2 hours ago, Uncle Nasty said:

Literally destroy. 

Now, let's stop this sort of posting. I know the game reviews are coming out and everyone is very excited about the wizard game, but I'd like you all to be respectful here.

 

People like me are not being hysterical when we say JKR and her allies are causing a tremendous amount of harm to vulnerable people. Trans people are at a big risk of harm. Suicide rates are high. Getting the right treatment for the heartbreak of dysphoria as soon as possible can do a great deal to mitigate that. JKR and her allies are doing their best to prevent that. Acceptance by your loved ones, such as your parents, can make a big difference. JKR and the other mumsnet gender criticals are making that less likely. A lot of trans kids end up homeless. Provision is already poor to support homeless trans people or trans people who've suffered domestic violence, but when people campaign about single sex spaces that makes getting help for a geographically dispersed trans population very difficult. Hate crimes and other forms of abuse have increased massively in the last few years. Trans people are massively discriminated against in the workplace, and being poor nowadays isn't much fun.

 

Now, what sort of role has JKR played in this? I realise that she is good at writing polite articles and she's not out there punching trans people in the face herself. I realise she thinks she's doing it for the right reasons. But things weren't as bad as they are now for trans people a few years ago. Even all this GRC business was seen as an easy uncontroversial bit of admin that Theresa May could bring in to look good on social issues without having to do anything expensive or controversial like fix trans health care.

 

But the otherwise progressive gender critical people, who include JKR as a key ally and promoter, have successfully allied with the usual right wing forces (including the far right) to turn trans issues into the big controversial culture war topic of the day. There are loads of news stories every day. This just wasn't the case a few years ago. Please believe me when I tell you this is all having a huge effect on trans people being able to live their lives safely and happily.

 

Please consider not buying this game, but if you do, go ahead and have fun with it. But let's be decent to trans people, in this thread, and in the wider world.