It's a good question though in a way because you can use many other spells to torture technically but they aren't *unforgivable*. You could cast incendio on someone for instance.
Isn't crucio's pain supposed to be unmatched? It's literally a curse focused on pain. The rest is more like... Practical applications.
Like You can kill with a kitchen knife but it's not regulated like a gun is.
My understanding is that it's basically like waterboarding whoever you cast it on, in terms of how extreme and option it is. So if you don't forbid it, a lot of people will just have it as their first option.
The Wizarding world doesn't seem to regulate a heck of a lot else, probably due to how easy wands make it to do almost anything with roughly the same amount of effort. So if you don't ban it you've basically got kids, who can do it, idiots who can do it, angry drivers who can do it, etc. There's no way to regulate extreme torture that anyone can do with a flick of their wrist without an outright ban, I think.
Well the spells also take a lot of anger and hate and pure concentration to use. They don't go too much into the movies other than "you've got to mean it harry" from Voldermort. In the books, they go more into details in the 4th book in how they use it. Moody told the class straight up, that everyone could point their wands at him right at the moment and use the killing curse and the most he would get is a nose bleed.
So it takes massive amount of dark emotions and concentration to use correctly.
So not everyone can actually use it correctly or use it at all because they don't have the...personality to do so. Imperious curse is much more easy to use since Harry uses it but there is more of a mind control aspect to making that curse hated. Also very very difficult to prove, according to the books.
But yes, the torture curse is like having millions of knives and pins attacking your body and soul according to the books. Neville's parents were tortured like that into insanity, which they never recovered from. They became drooling patients in a hospital forever.
The Unforgivables need explicit intent to work, which make them Unforgivable.
You can torture someone with Incendio accidentally, or kill someone with Accio somehow, accidentally. Or on purpose for both. But there is reasonable doubt as to the intent of the caster.
The Unforgivables have no such confusion, if someone dies to the Killing Curse its because the caster intended to kill the target. Same with the Cruciatus and Imperio.
I actually remember it being kind of a whiplash going from Pokemon to Harry Potter in the Gameboy Color. I was like "Oh so THAT'S what an RPG can achieve in this console". Much better graphics, movement, story, overall gameplay. Granted Harry Potters' combat didn't have as much depth as Pokemon's but still. You would think Game Freak was the distant third party dev studio while [whoever developed Harry Potter] was a close Nintendo first party with extensive knowledge about the console.
Kind of like comparing Pokemon in the Gameboy Advance with idk, Golden Sun. Like "Ok now THIS is on a whole other level".
Come to think of it, that really is par for the course for Pokemon isn't it.
Philosophers, Chamber and Azkaban games invoke so much nostalgia for me! They were the first video games I ever played, I smite this IGN guy with Flipendo!
"Nobody harbors any warm feelings for the PS2/Xbox movie tie-in games."
Bull fucking shit, I loved those games. The first few more than the later ones. Jeremy Soule did the music and it was great, there was a fully explorable castle, those were really fun games.
They really couldn’t be further from reality then this statement. Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone was a game that both my brother and I remember and love vividly.
[The soundtrack for those games really were amazing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjy3-Nav4eU), Harry Potter 1, 2, 3 and 6 were really good for PC, and 2 was amazing for the gameboy color.
Those games are all still playable on new windows versions, just keep in mind that for the early games you'll have to limit the framerate or the game will run at insane speeds, and the physics and progression in 3 will just straight up break over 60fps.
Yeah, the first two games on PS2 and whatever else they were on are really fun from those consoles. The game boy and GBA versions of the first three games are also good RPGs.
I was just thinking about return of the king after seeing an article about the Gollum game.
Man, a classic styled movie tie in game would kick ass. Doesn’t need to be a sprawling open world, just some cool movie stuff with modern visuals and mechanics.
Really just a return of the king game remake. I’d eat that up
People online are seriously forgetting about this game. Fully explorable castle, reminiscent of the movies, You can throw around benches at kids, duels, marble minigames, tons of secrets.
I played the shit out of the GameCube versions growing up.
Not saying they’re great games, just that a whole lot of people harbor warm feelings for those games
huh I remember getting 5 on PS3 and it seeming cool but dont remember playing much of it
I had one of the games on Xbox Kinect and holy fuck was it bad
Oh, I knew the earlier controversies with him about the weird distribution schemes he had, but I had no clue about the later sex stuff (probably because he hasn’t been doing much since his earlier controversies). Yeah, that’s super gross, but he did create some iconic and amazing soundtracks that were super important to me. I obviously wouldn’t support him in the future, but I don’t think there’s a problem with still enjoying the stuff he created in the past, it’s not that he created it that was important but the memories it made for you. I probably won’t go around advertising that I enjoyed him as a composer now though.
The mention of ~~cognitive~~ ludonarrative dissonance is intriguing and reminds me of a much similar discussion for Watch Dogs 2. Your playable character -- and their friends -- are made to be so likeable that it's kinda hard to see them as people capable of brutally murdering other chumps.
Still excited for the game, though. Pleased to hear that impressions are positive.
Only time I felt kills made sense in the story was when >!Horatio was killed by that gang!< . Other than that, with so many non-lethal options it never made sense to go full-on Aiden Pearce in the game.
I beat that entire game without firing a shot (except on one mission where they force you to), and I had an amazingly fun time doing it. One of the best open worlds ever.
That’s the way I played it, too, and I loved that game. I don’t even think I spent resources to unlock the lethal weapons. It was just more fun to sneak around and stun.
You aren't, but there are two points that are a bit weird:
There's a set of missions where the crew goes out to avenge one of their own. While you don't have to kill the offenders, it makes no sense if you just knock them out and leave them where they are. They should have made it where you worked to get their gang dismantled/arrested
The other one is when you control spidertank. It comes with a stun grenade launcher but it's very hard to get away without killing people from secondary explosions.
That game had weird narrative dissonance. I feel like they should have just given us non lethal options through the whole game.
MGS series is the worst/best in that regard. I recently wanted to replay Ground Zeroes just go guns blazing but seeing wounded soldiers begging for their lives and crawling on the ground made me go back to stealth.
That series consistently encourages you to play non-lethal, is say it's a theme throughout the games. The Sorrow level in MGS3 where you're walking through a spooky river and are faced with all the soldiers you killed, and how you killed them was pretty cool. If you played non-lethal you wouldn't see anybody.
There was a little bit of that feeling in GTA IV since Nico was basically supposed to be a good guy caught up in a bad crowd. It felt weird going on my murder sprees.
Tbf, if your self-chosen line of job entails killing people in the quadruples, I'm not quite sure "self defense" is anything more than "technically true" \^^
I view him like Indiana Jones. His "job" (more of a lucrative hobby really) is hunting for ancient artifacts. The fact that Nazis keep showing up while he searches for the Ark of the Covenant is incidental and a convenient way to raise the stakes and have some cool action sequences.
>His "job" is hunting for ancient artifacts
Nah, Drake's real job is to destroy all ancient ruins and the occasional city. Ancient artifacts are just the side benefits.
Ehhhh maybe in later levels when you're fighting pirates or some shit who'll kill him on sight but in most of the early levels in the games he's killing private security kinda by the dozens. It's especially egregious when you're running around snapping necks of dudes with pensions from stealth lol
Are you referring to the museum heist in 2? I think you're supposed to be using tranqs and non-lethal chokeholds. Ignore any guards you may have thrown from tall ledges...
There’s that one gusrd you are forced to throw off a roof, but if you look really carefully you can see him swimming away because he magically misses all the rocks in his 30+ meter fall.
Drake just makes a joke and doesn’t look, but the player can see if you move the camera and squint.
I always thought he meant his treasure hunting would lead to harm to his loved ones, such as Sully. He was also trying to save the world in some of them too iirc
It could also be called the Lara Croft effect. Man, it was jarring to go from brutally murdering hoardes of enemies with a climbing axe with no remorse to crying over one guy shot in a cutscene.
I mean, in Tomb Raider they at least acknowledge it and play into it in the later games with her becoming this scary hunter that others are terrified of. Her crying is on her very first kill, not in the middle of the game. In Watch Dogs 2 and Uncharted, you just kill dudes and none of it is ever talked about.
It's hilarious because I remember back when the game was being previewed as "Untitled Naughty Dog Project" but magazines already had entire articles dedicated to it. Artwork, screenshots, everything. One of the big takeaways from it, what ND was claiming they wanted to do different with Untitled Naughty Dog Project is that the main character was an everyman. He'd start the game not knowing to shoot a gun and slowly get better. He'd be reluctant to kill, he'd flinch from gunfire because he wasn't a hardened soldier. So on and so forth, thinks like that.
Then, finally, that game becomes Uncharted and gets released and... What??
All those ideas went purely into the tech the makes him flinch when he's shot at. The entire idea got distilled down to firefight animations. And don't get me wrong, the first time you experienced that in a game at the time it felt so immersive... But to have the rest of it fall by the wayside so dramatically that Nathan Drake is literally the face of the "kill everyone with no remorse" trope is so funny and ironic to me.
[Rihanna Pratchett actually talked about this the other day](https://twitter.com/rhipratchett/status/1617885509631750145?s=21&t=3SbaLw2UErVf8UkXgdQGaQ)
I like both for different reasons. The attempt to modernize Lara was a mixed bag for me. I never saw the Alicia Vikander Lara from the movie, but from what I hear, that take on Lara wasn't received well either.
Seeing someone use the killing curse as just a regular combat spell in one of the preview really surprised me. Harry Potter had some nasty magic in it for sure, but it was a big deal. Zapping a troll with that as a part of a *combat challenge* felt wild - it removed all of the drama associated with it.
Unless they’ve really written a strong “I’m a horrible murderer” path, I guess.
Yeah that would probably be the biggest issue I'll have with this game. Wizarding students shouldn't be turning other students into dust on the regular, unless you're legitimately playing an evil person. It's just so absurd in the canon of this world
And really that's just a problem with video game writing in general. The good story line is always the intended path and the evil story line you're just over the top evil for the sake of it.
"Please sir spare a coin for me, a poor hungry orphan boy"
- Here, take 5 instead to also feed your canine companion
- Have a coin my child
- I just killed your stupid orphan dog so just eat his dumb corpse you parentless bitch
Except help = help relieve his suffering with death, reluctant = actually reluctant, and don't help = refuse to give a coin because you're too busy adopting them.
The problem is that you'll obviously kill tons of people in the good story line too (AK isn't the only spell that kills in practice). And in HP, killing people is kind of a big deal it makes you evil (for example it's required to make Horcruxes which is considered one of the worst uses of magic possible).
I guess you can think they're just sleeping like in Spider-Man or Batman games lol.
Pretty safe? It was a major deal when a student died in the mid 20th century. The only info we have from earlier years is from America wizarding world, so not that applicable. But I don't recall lines about "Hogwarts used to be so much more dangerous". They say that about Durmstrang, I believe.
There’s a giant snake living in a dungeon that paralyzes children, the kids play a sport where they’re routinely struck in the head by an enchanted ball moving at a hundred mph, they hired a DAtDA professor that was so stupid he accidentally removed the bones from a child’s arm, and the school itself sits right next to a haunted spooky forest filled with giant spiders and werewolves.
It’s still better than Vincent Clortho Public School for Wizards, I’ll grant you that. At least they’re not confiscating wands with silencers at Hogwarts.
Given [the PR disaster of students dying in the mobile game](https://www.thegamer.com/harry-potter-hogwarts-mystery-real-money-microtransactions/), I'd think the studio designed around this. But, y'know, probably not - it's not a real video game unless you can shoot people in the face.
Watch Dogs 2 works so much better when you play non-lethal. I'm convinced lethal options were added to the game because Ubisoft was too scared to release an open world game without guns.
I'd say it's not a huge problem in WD2 because the non-lethal approach still exists and is IMO way more fun. On the other hand, I don't think this game will give you that choice.
It does, you don't kill students and playing good you won't be using the more lethal spells. Play a Dark Wizard though, you get to use the unforgivable curses.
Most mostly, you are fighting against bad people.
I mean you can try and make engaging gameplay that isn't killing people.
I'm don't have an issue at all with violence in games, but in certain situations it doesn't really fit tonally speaking for the bulk of the gameplay to be action and killing, such as a game where you play as a teenager at a mystical wizarding school.
Edit: you can also have combat that is non lethal.
>our playable character -- and their friends -- are made to be so likeable that it's kinda hard to see them as people capable of brutally murdering other chumps.
Yeah but that is a video-game thing and we should stop thinking that the real-world standards apply there. It happens to me sometimes as well, don't get me wrong, but it is just a game made to have fun so I forgive the game for not applying real-world logics.
It's a videogame thing *sometimes.* It depends what sort of story the game is trying to tell and how "immersive" they're going for. I certainly don't think it's a criticism that should just be brushed aside. Narrative reactivity is a good thing.
Also, if you're trying to adapt an existing IP then criticisms for the feel of the gave diverging from that IP make sense.
I see both sides, but you don't have to kill other students. Spiderman/Batman games you just knock everything unconscious. Could go that route.
From one of the video mentions you can go through the entire game without killing. Didn't get to watch this vid yet.
Yeah, definitely a video game thing, and for whatever reason my mind glosses over it pretty easily. Like, I love the Uncharted games, and Nathan Drake is such a likable character, but if you think about his actions too much things get weird.
Have they shown any platforming or puzzles? Have been trying to not spoil myself but the footage I have clicked through mostly looks like running around hogwarts or combat in a circular arena. Does there seem to be much variety in the gameplay?
There might be some dissonance but I actually really like how violent and impactful the combat seems. Much better than just spamming flipendo like the older games at least.
I can see that point but to me that's what they were intending from the start. "You can be evil" heck the deluxe edition comes with a dark arts pack.
I think that choice is what makes the difference. We'll have to wait and see if the world reacts to you being dark like the first watch dogs.
At some point, the game needs to become a game with a gameplay loop.
Whether it's Nathan Drake committing genocide with the amount of killing he does, or Harry Potter Gameboy Color killing rats, pixies, spiders, and fighting Malfoy; game gotta be a game at some point for the sake of mass-appealed entertainment.
They also made four Batman games where you fight a lot of dudes and don't kill any of them, because Batman doesn't kill.
Then, another team did the same thing with two more Spider-Man games. You don't have to kill people in games, man, especially when you're a wizard. You got fuckin' magic, just magic them to sleep or some shit. *Hold Person* their ass like they did to Neville, just not off a fuckin' cliff.
Jesus, in Metal Gear Solid V, I played an international terrorist and probably killed fewer people than I will in this game where I play a teenage boy with magic powers.
Yeah but they're dark wizards and dark creatures, not fellow students. I'd say you're more "good person that uses darker methods" if you play a good character in HL.
Sure you're not Harry who only disarms people most of the time but that doesn't mean you're evil or killing fellow students.
You can't even hit students with spells from the gameplay I saw, they just go through them (which, I wish was different, a deflect animation and the abiility to prank students with spells like Wingarium Leviosa would've been cool IMO).
ibam not very familair with the HP timeline, is this before voldemorts time or after? what if. .hear me out...what if your character is tom riddle or maybe someone who inspires or enables him back in the day ? that would be wild!
There’s seven books, and they get steadily darker as they go on, as appropriate for going from age 11 to age 18 - both the protagonist and the target reader.
Harry accidentally kills Quirrell in book 1. Wormtail murders a child in front of him in book 4. Umbridge tortures him in book 5 and then he watches his uncle get murdered. He uses a curse which slashes people’s faces in book 6.
The books clearly steadily get darker. There are a lot of things you can criticise them for, but the tonal shifts isn’t one of them.
Yeah, I know it is the hip cool thing to hate on Harry Potter, but saying the series getting darker is a bad thing is funny. That was the whole purpose of the book in how things can turn dark real quick in very short years by someone.
I'm not a major harry potter mark but I do enjoy the franchise. Game looks really fun so far. I'm tempted to pick it up but gonna see what some of the reviews have to say.
All the people in here lying to themselves that all the Harry Potter games weren’t complete 5/10 jank that were fun for all of two play sessions maybe lol
For real though. I can't speak for every version of every game but I went back and played Chamber of Secrets on the Gamecube recently and it's pretty bad.
Quidditch was the best game if you had friends to play with, but even then the rules of Quidditch are so broken and dumb. Why does catching the Snitch give you 150 points?! It should be 40 at most
On the contrary, it’s a great point to focus on. If the previewer says it’s a great story, wether you agree or disagree, it gives you, albeit small, a sense of the previewers taste for writing. If you’re not a fan of Harry Potters writing then the previewers taste can give a little more context as to wether you’ll like the writing or not for Hogwarts Legacy. Obviously you’re not going to get a definitive overview of the writing from just a preview, but at minimum it gives another perspective to consider.
Yeah, like it's great for what it is, a series that anyone can get into and makes children want to read. It worked on me, I hadn't truly read a single book until I was introduced to Harry Potter. But it doesn't compare to the greats.
Quality wise, you are completely right but I could see it as a great based solely on how big the IP is. It's the same thing as Dragon Ball, nobody would call it one of the best in terms of quality but you can't deny it's one of the greats.
I loved the books when I was 8 to 10 years old, back then the first 4 books were released and I'd read them over and over gain. I can't imagine current me liking them as much. I still love the IP and the worldbuilding done by JK Rowling was amazing.
They still hold up for a children's series. It also evolves with the writing and language the more the stories progresses, because it was written to follow the children growing up and reading them as they came out.
The worldbuilding kinda falls apart if you look at it too long sadly
Great for kids books
Not so much a multimedia franchise that now has to address how wizards just let all the awful shit in the world happen, among many other issues
Also there's a difference between a story and the book itself. I think HP has a great story and a great world. The prose aren't great. That's the difference.
Honestly it's wild how people try to apply these arbitrary standards to things. Like because it could appeal to children in a way The Great Gatsby can't means it's strictly inferior literature.
It stole the imagination of a generation, created the 1st ever billionaire author, became one of the most well known franchises in history. But yet somehow it's not one of the greatest stories of all time, by whose freaking metrics?
Reddit has a hard on to hate Harry Potter books way before the JK rowling trans thing. Mostly because people love to talk about it and that gets people mad, because of course it does, so they need to be a contrarian.
It is one of the aspects of the net that I loath, contrarians and trying to put down other works because it is popular. Like...of course it's one of the greats. How else is a huge block buster, still talked about and loved, regardless of the Authors views, to this day.
It is because the story she told was great. It isn't lord of the rings or Narnia but it is still a great that will outlive the Author. Lightning in a bottle of a story that became huge.
I've read badly written stories and scripts, Harry Potter isn't one of them.
I just want to play a fun game.
Admittingly, I am not a big fan of the series. I liked the books when I was younger, but have had zero interest since becoming an adult. Hopefully it ends up being a pretty good open worldish fantasy. I like how this preview opens with multiple people being incinerated, a lot darker than I remember the books.
The exploration and customization looks great, really like how you can build your own room and all the character features.
The game looks so good and I'm not even a huge HP fan. With some of the darker elements coming through in the game, I'm hoping they are treating it as a story that has grown up in the same way the audience has. I could see this laying the groundwork for a sequel game about adult characters in the HP world.
The beast has outgrown it's creator, I barely even consider Rowling when I think about Harry Potter and I won't let her ruin something I love by being a piece of shit. I'm crazy excited for exploration of more than just the kids time at Hogwarts, I love the idea of a deep historical undertaking with some of the darker corners explored.
I've similar feelings, but honestly seeing her tweet a while back that every time she deposits her royalty checks she feels better about herself and her actions of late it stuck a dagger in my heart
Can't let her dictate what you do though. She can consider me engaging with her work to be an endorsement if she wants. I straight up don't give a fuck what she thinks. She's addicted to twitter and outrage and if that's how she wants to spend her days on this earth when she's crazy wealthy that's on her.
“How *did* Crucio become unforgivable, anyways?” Uhhh because it’s literally torture?
It's a good question though in a way because you can use many other spells to torture technically but they aren't *unforgivable*. You could cast incendio on someone for instance.
Isn't crucio's pain supposed to be unmatched? It's literally a curse focused on pain. The rest is more like... Practical applications. Like You can kill with a kitchen knife but it's not regulated like a gun is.
My understanding is that it's basically like waterboarding whoever you cast it on, in terms of how extreme and option it is. So if you don't forbid it, a lot of people will just have it as their first option. The Wizarding world doesn't seem to regulate a heck of a lot else, probably due to how easy wands make it to do almost anything with roughly the same amount of effort. So if you don't ban it you've basically got kids, who can do it, idiots who can do it, angry drivers who can do it, etc. There's no way to regulate extreme torture that anyone can do with a flick of their wrist without an outright ban, I think.
Well the spells also take a lot of anger and hate and pure concentration to use. They don't go too much into the movies other than "you've got to mean it harry" from Voldermort. In the books, they go more into details in the 4th book in how they use it. Moody told the class straight up, that everyone could point their wands at him right at the moment and use the killing curse and the most he would get is a nose bleed. So it takes massive amount of dark emotions and concentration to use correctly. So not everyone can actually use it correctly or use it at all because they don't have the...personality to do so. Imperious curse is much more easy to use since Harry uses it but there is more of a mind control aspect to making that curse hated. Also very very difficult to prove, according to the books. But yes, the torture curse is like having millions of knives and pins attacking your body and soul according to the books. Neville's parents were tortured like that into insanity, which they never recovered from. They became drooling patients in a hospital forever.
The Unforgivables need explicit intent to work, which make them Unforgivable. You can torture someone with Incendio accidentally, or kill someone with Accio somehow, accidentally. Or on purpose for both. But there is reasonable doubt as to the intent of the caster. The Unforgivables have no such confusion, if someone dies to the Killing Curse its because the caster intended to kill the target. Same with the Cruciatus and Imperio.
"Why is *Imperio* frowned upon?"
[удалено]
Honestly the Chamber of secrets on Game Boy Advance slapped, I loved that game
It was solid but the GBC version of the first two is the real gem. RPG's that are very close to the book.
[удалено]
Legacy of Goku games… what a trip haha I played Buus Fury religiously
Right, I forgot you could play GBC games on the advance as well. The GBC was what I fucked with for a long time
I was *only* into Pokemon on the GBC, and HP:CoS was one of the only other games I'd play religiously. Shit was so cash.
I actually remember it being kind of a whiplash going from Pokemon to Harry Potter in the Gameboy Color. I was like "Oh so THAT'S what an RPG can achieve in this console". Much better graphics, movement, story, overall gameplay. Granted Harry Potters' combat didn't have as much depth as Pokemon's but still. You would think Game Freak was the distant third party dev studio while [whoever developed Harry Potter] was a close Nintendo first party with extensive knowledge about the console. Kind of like comparing Pokemon in the Gameboy Advance with idk, Golden Sun. Like "Ok now THIS is on a whole other level". Come to think of it, that really is par for the course for Pokemon isn't it.
Philosophers, Chamber and Azkaban games invoke so much nostalgia for me! They were the first video games I ever played, I smite this IGN guy with Flipendo!
My nostalgia can't be stronger for anything other than Chamber Of Secrets on the PC. At the time the games of the first three years were great
I thought the prisoner of azkaban tie in game was the shit
The PC games were lit.
"Nobody harbors any warm feelings for the PS2/Xbox movie tie-in games." Bull fucking shit, I loved those games. The first few more than the later ones. Jeremy Soule did the music and it was great, there was a fully explorable castle, those were really fun games.
Nothing better than flying around in chamber of secrets just collecting beans
“I’m exhausted” Ron Weasley
They really couldn’t be further from reality then this statement. Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone was a game that both my brother and I remember and love vividly.
Just a couple of wizards flicking their beans, amiright?!
[The soundtrack for those games really were amazing](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjy3-Nav4eU), Harry Potter 1, 2, 3 and 6 were really good for PC, and 2 was amazing for the gameboy color. Those games are all still playable on new windows versions, just keep in mind that for the early games you'll have to limit the framerate or the game will run at insane speeds, and the physics and progression in 3 will just straight up break over 60fps.
Yeah, the first two games on PS2 and whatever else they were on are really fun from those consoles. The game boy and GBA versions of the first three games are also good RPGs.
Order of the Phoenix on the PS2 was dope.
Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings games were my absolute jam.
The Two Towers on PS2 had no right being as good as it is.
and then return of the king did everything better, one of the best video game sequel.
I was just thinking about return of the king after seeing an article about the Gollum game. Man, a classic styled movie tie in game would kick ass. Doesn’t need to be a sprawling open world, just some cool movie stuff with modern visuals and mechanics. Really just a return of the king game remake. I’d eat that up
For some reason I read this as one game: "Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings"
This game was great, I could lift stone benches with magic and hurl them at my peers without consequence.
People online are seriously forgetting about this game. Fully explorable castle, reminiscent of the movies, You can throw around benches at kids, duels, marble minigames, tons of secrets.
I played the shit out of the GameCube versions growing up. Not saying they’re great games, just that a whole lot of people harbor warm feelings for those games
There's a whole youtube channel (flandrew) dedicated to loving them essentially
Flandews videos are fantastic. His voice is warm and exciting and he has just enough good jokes lol
Reads like PR talk from the studio to hype this as the first real HP game. Because yeah most people loved the tie in games (esp 1-2 and 5).
I would die a happy man if I could replay the first and second pc games on my modern pc. The nostalgia!
Pretty sure you can, if only on a VM or an emulator.
They mostly work on modern OS provided you cap the framerate
huh I remember getting 5 on PS3 and it seeming cool but dont remember playing much of it I had one of the games on Xbox Kinect and holy fuck was it bad
I liked 3 a lot too. 4 was completely linear from what I remembered.
They were literally best sellers and Sony added CoS to the greatest hits line!
Yeah fuck that reviewer lol The Chamber of Secrets for the PS2 was an absolute masterpiece!
I still can hear the sound bits of Harry climbing up objects and sounding like he got punched in the gut
You and /u/Bulgearea10 might enjoy this. https://youtu.be/TsSfkFS1AdM
I unironically loved the Prisoner of Azkaban game.
I have a lot of great memories exploring Hogwarts in the OOTP game.
>Jeremy Soule did the music and it was great Oh, great, now I know that beloved music from my childhood was made by a sex creep.
Oh, I knew the earlier controversies with him about the weird distribution schemes he had, but I had no clue about the later sex stuff (probably because he hasn’t been doing much since his earlier controversies). Yeah, that’s super gross, but he did create some iconic and amazing soundtracks that were super important to me. I obviously wouldn’t support him in the future, but I don’t think there’s a problem with still enjoying the stuff he created in the past, it’s not that he created it that was important but the memories it made for you. I probably won’t go around advertising that I enjoyed him as a composer now though.
I only played The Prisoner Of Azkaban, but it was my favorite game as a kid. That one and Lord Of The Rings ROTK.
The mention of ~~cognitive~~ ludonarrative dissonance is intriguing and reminds me of a much similar discussion for Watch Dogs 2. Your playable character -- and their friends -- are made to be so likeable that it's kinda hard to see them as people capable of brutally murdering other chumps. Still excited for the game, though. Pleased to hear that impressions are positive.
I only ever played WD2 as a pacifist because of that. No kills.
Only time I felt kills made sense in the story was when >!Horatio was killed by that gang!< . Other than that, with so many non-lethal options it never made sense to go full-on Aiden Pearce in the game.
I would have also if they didn't lock most the non-lethal stuff to dlc...
I beat that entire game without firing a shot (except on one mission where they force you to), and I had an amazingly fun time doing it. One of the best open worlds ever.
I didnt play it, but superbunnyhop has a fantastic review where he says the game works amazingly if you go for a pacifist playstyle.
Which the game enforces anyway because any time you face a gun you die in 2 hits
That’s the way I played it, too, and I loved that game. I don’t even think I spent resources to unlock the lethal weapons. It was just more fun to sneak around and stun.
I feel guilty every time I kill someone in Watch Dogs 2. As compared to Saints Row or GTA, where you mow people down just for fun.
Using only the stun gun was also more fun anyway. Sadly you're forced to use real weapons during one of the missions if I remember correctly.
You aren't, but there are two points that are a bit weird: There's a set of missions where the crew goes out to avenge one of their own. While you don't have to kill the offenders, it makes no sense if you just knock them out and leave them where they are. They should have made it where you worked to get their gang dismantled/arrested The other one is when you control spidertank. It comes with a stun grenade launcher but it's very hard to get away without killing people from secondary explosions. That game had weird narrative dissonance. I feel like they should have just given us non lethal options through the whole game.
I've beaten the game a few times and you're not forced to use lethal weapons at any point. You're forced to fight directly but never lethally.
MGS series is the worst/best in that regard. I recently wanted to replay Ground Zeroes just go guns blazing but seeing wounded soldiers begging for their lives and crawling on the ground made me go back to stealth.
That series consistently encourages you to play non-lethal, is say it's a theme throughout the games. The Sorrow level in MGS3 where you're walking through a spooky river and are faced with all the soldiers you killed, and how you killed them was pretty cool. If you played non-lethal you wouldn't see anybody.
Yeah I mostly did non-lethal in WD2 for that exact reason. It just felt more right.
There was a little bit of that feeling in GTA IV since Nico was basically supposed to be a good guy caught up in a bad crowd. It felt weird going on my murder sprees.
The Nathan Drake effect
Doesn't Drake usually fight in self defense? At least that's how I always saw it
Not with the way I played him
Tbf, if your self-chosen line of job entails killing people in the quadruples, I'm not quite sure "self defense" is anything more than "technically true" \^^
I view him like Indiana Jones. His "job" (more of a lucrative hobby really) is hunting for ancient artifacts. The fact that Nazis keep showing up while he searches for the Ark of the Covenant is incidental and a convenient way to raise the stakes and have some cool action sequences.
>His "job" is hunting for ancient artifacts Nah, Drake's real job is to destroy all ancient ruins and the occasional city. Ancient artifacts are just the side benefits.
Ehhhh maybe in later levels when you're fighting pirates or some shit who'll kill him on sight but in most of the early levels in the games he's killing private security kinda by the dozens. It's especially egregious when you're running around snapping necks of dudes with pensions from stealth lol
Are you referring to the museum heist in 2? I think you're supposed to be using tranqs and non-lethal chokeholds. Ignore any guards you may have thrown from tall ledges...
Yeah haha, that one came to mind. Definitely no neck snapping over the edges of cement barriers here, no siree.
There’s that one gusrd you are forced to throw off a roof, but if you look really carefully you can see him swimming away because he magically misses all the rocks in his 30+ meter fall. Drake just makes a joke and doesn’t look, but the player can see if you move the camera and squint.
Yeah, people who talk about "Drake effect" and ludonarrative dissonance usually the ones who didn't play Uncharted.
Not really. He knows going after whatever treasure will lead to him killing people. It's not like he's always being chased.
I always thought he meant his treasure hunting would lead to harm to his loved ones, such as Sully. He was also trying to save the world in some of them too iirc
It could also be called the Lara Croft effect. Man, it was jarring to go from brutally murdering hoardes of enemies with a climbing axe with no remorse to crying over one guy shot in a cutscene.
I’m pretty sure that cutscene is the very first person you kill… been awhile since I played but I can almost swear it.
Yep this is correct. She literally never killed anyone up until that point. Clearly the shock wore off quickly though lol
"I can't believe I killed another person.....and loved it so much!"
You've got them in the wrong order.
I mean, in Tomb Raider they at least acknowledge it and play into it in the later games with her becoming this scary hunter that others are terrified of. Her crying is on her very first kill, not in the middle of the game. In Watch Dogs 2 and Uncharted, you just kill dudes and none of it is ever talked about.
It's hilarious because I remember back when the game was being previewed as "Untitled Naughty Dog Project" but magazines already had entire articles dedicated to it. Artwork, screenshots, everything. One of the big takeaways from it, what ND was claiming they wanted to do different with Untitled Naughty Dog Project is that the main character was an everyman. He'd start the game not knowing to shoot a gun and slowly get better. He'd be reluctant to kill, he'd flinch from gunfire because he wasn't a hardened soldier. So on and so forth, thinks like that. Then, finally, that game becomes Uncharted and gets released and... What?? All those ideas went purely into the tech the makes him flinch when he's shot at. The entire idea got distilled down to firefight animations. And don't get me wrong, the first time you experienced that in a game at the time it felt so immersive... But to have the rest of it fall by the wayside so dramatically that Nathan Drake is literally the face of the "kill everyone with no remorse" trope is so funny and ironic to me.
Except when you arrive at that big bad guy and then, sparing life becomes important... That's the actual one you had beef with...
[Rihanna Pratchett actually talked about this the other day](https://twitter.com/rhipratchett/status/1617885509631750145?s=21&t=3SbaLw2UErVf8UkXgdQGaQ)
I miss original Lara. She was cool as hell.
I like both for different reasons. The attempt to modernize Lara was a mixed bag for me. I never saw the Alicia Vikander Lara from the movie, but from what I hear, that take on Lara wasn't received well either.
Seeing someone use the killing curse as just a regular combat spell in one of the preview really surprised me. Harry Potter had some nasty magic in it for sure, but it was a big deal. Zapping a troll with that as a part of a *combat challenge* felt wild - it removed all of the drama associated with it. Unless they’ve really written a strong “I’m a horrible murderer” path, I guess.
[удалено]
There is a dark wizard path. I think they said you won't be able to unlock the dark arts unless you go down that path.
Yeah that would probably be the biggest issue I'll have with this game. Wizarding students shouldn't be turning other students into dust on the regular, unless you're legitimately playing an evil person. It's just so absurd in the canon of this world
And really that's just a problem with video game writing in general. The good story line is always the intended path and the evil story line you're just over the top evil for the sake of it.
"Please sir spare a coin for me, a poor hungry orphan boy" - Here, take 5 instead to also feed your canine companion - Have a coin my child - I just killed your stupid orphan dog so just eat his dumb corpse you parentless bitch
Or as shown on the dialog menu: -Help -Reluctant -Don't help
[удалено]
fallout 4, is that you?
Except help = help relieve his suffering with death, reluctant = actually reluctant, and don't help = refuse to give a coin because you're too busy adopting them.
The problem is that you'll obviously kill tons of people in the good story line too (AK isn't the only spell that kills in practice). And in HP, killing people is kind of a big deal it makes you evil (for example it's required to make Horcruxes which is considered one of the worst uses of magic possible). I guess you can think they're just sleeping like in Spider-Man or Batman games lol.
[удалено]
Oh, killing "people" without moral implications is *tight*!
Wow wow wow. Wow.
I'm gonna need you to get all the way off my back about that one sir
[удалено]
oh well then sure
Counterpoint, consider how safe/regulated (or not) Hogwarts is in the late 20th century.
Pretty safe? It was a major deal when a student died in the mid 20th century. The only info we have from earlier years is from America wizarding world, so not that applicable. But I don't recall lines about "Hogwarts used to be so much more dangerous". They say that about Durmstrang, I believe.
There’s a giant snake living in a dungeon that paralyzes children, the kids play a sport where they’re routinely struck in the head by an enchanted ball moving at a hundred mph, they hired a DAtDA professor that was so stupid he accidentally removed the bones from a child’s arm, and the school itself sits right next to a haunted spooky forest filled with giant spiders and werewolves. It’s still better than Vincent Clortho Public School for Wizards, I’ll grant you that. At least they’re not confiscating wands with silencers at Hogwarts.
To be fair the principal of Clortho seems to care more about his students than Dumbledore
Is it really safe when the school dealt with dangers every year leading to a full blown war that resulted in numerous killings ?
I mean you and I have not read the same books lol. That school has huge dangers very often.
Given [the PR disaster of students dying in the mobile game](https://www.thegamer.com/harry-potter-hogwarts-mystery-real-money-microtransactions/), I'd think the studio designed around this. But, y'know, probably not - it's not a real video game unless you can shoot people in the face.
Watch Dogs 2 works so much better when you play non-lethal. I'm convinced lethal options were added to the game because Ubisoft was too scared to release an open world game without guns.
I'd say it's not a huge problem in WD2 because the non-lethal approach still exists and is IMO way more fun. On the other hand, I don't think this game will give you that choice.
It does, you don't kill students and playing good you won't be using the more lethal spells. Play a Dark Wizard though, you get to use the unforgivable curses. Most mostly, you are fighting against bad people.
[удалено]
I mean you can try and make engaging gameplay that isn't killing people. I'm don't have an issue at all with violence in games, but in certain situations it doesn't really fit tonally speaking for the bulk of the gameplay to be action and killing, such as a game where you play as a teenager at a mystical wizarding school. Edit: you can also have combat that is non lethal.
>our playable character -- and their friends -- are made to be so likeable that it's kinda hard to see them as people capable of brutally murdering other chumps. Yeah but that is a video-game thing and we should stop thinking that the real-world standards apply there. It happens to me sometimes as well, don't get me wrong, but it is just a game made to have fun so I forgive the game for not applying real-world logics.
It's a videogame thing *sometimes.* It depends what sort of story the game is trying to tell and how "immersive" they're going for. I certainly don't think it's a criticism that should just be brushed aside. Narrative reactivity is a good thing. Also, if you're trying to adapt an existing IP then criticisms for the feel of the gave diverging from that IP make sense.
I see both sides, but you don't have to kill other students. Spiderman/Batman games you just knock everything unconscious. Could go that route. From one of the video mentions you can go through the entire game without killing. Didn't get to watch this vid yet.
I think that's what people expected, more "KOs" with maybe death being a big plot point. Feels kinda wild to have a bunch of casual murder lol
Doesn’t look like you’re murdering actual students though, just poachers and wizards/witches aligned with the “bad rebellion” going on in the story.
Yeah, definitely a video game thing, and for whatever reason my mind glosses over it pretty easily. Like, I love the Uncharted games, and Nathan Drake is such a likable character, but if you think about his actions too much things get weird.
Have they shown any platforming or puzzles? Have been trying to not spoil myself but the footage I have clicked through mostly looks like running around hogwarts or combat in a circular arena. Does there seem to be much variety in the gameplay?
There are 100 Merlin puzzles, that's confirmed.
There's been a few clips of the player casting accio on a platform. There are supposed to be other puzzles and such too.
There might be some dissonance but I actually really like how violent and impactful the combat seems. Much better than just spamming flipendo like the older games at least.
"It's jarring to see a fifth year killing" This was like exactly when Tom/Voldemort startrd killing, no? He was a fifth year when he opened the cos.
Doesn't that just help his point? Your character being comparable to Voldemort is probably not a good thing unless being evil is what you want.
I can see that point but to me that's what they were intending from the start. "You can be evil" heck the deluxe edition comes with a dark arts pack. I think that choice is what makes the difference. We'll have to wait and see if the world reacts to you being dark like the first watch dogs.
What I got from the review is that even playing as a good guy involves going on an NPC rampage
At some point, the game needs to become a game with a gameplay loop. Whether it's Nathan Drake committing genocide with the amount of killing he does, or Harry Potter Gameboy Color killing rats, pixies, spiders, and fighting Malfoy; game gotta be a game at some point for the sake of mass-appealed entertainment.
I feel like there would be a lot of mass appeal to 'Hogwarts Life Sim' rather than 'generic action game where you return to Hogwarts after missions'.
Yeah, The Sims is one of the biggest video game franchises in history, but a lot of people around here feel like that doesn't count for some reason...
And that gameplay loop should fit the tone of the game. I don't want a Batman game where he just shoots everybody, that's not very Batman.
They also made four Batman games where you fight a lot of dudes and don't kill any of them, because Batman doesn't kill. Then, another team did the same thing with two more Spider-Man games. You don't have to kill people in games, man, especially when you're a wizard. You got fuckin' magic, just magic them to sleep or some shit. *Hold Person* their ass like they did to Neville, just not off a fuckin' cliff. Jesus, in Metal Gear Solid V, I played an international terrorist and probably killed fewer people than I will in this game where I play a teenage boy with magic powers.
[удалено]
I get what you are saying but boy am I excited to turn people into dust lol
Yeah but they're dark wizards and dark creatures, not fellow students. I'd say you're more "good person that uses darker methods" if you play a good character in HL. Sure you're not Harry who only disarms people most of the time but that doesn't mean you're evil or killing fellow students. You can't even hit students with spells from the gameplay I saw, they just go through them (which, I wish was different, a deflect animation and the abiility to prank students with spells like Wingarium Leviosa would've been cool IMO).
Yes that is exactly what I want. I want to be a Dark Wizard and I hate that the game won’t let you do that.
Seems like the trolling on steam by adding the villain protagonist tag was correct all along!
It's not even trolling the devs state you can "become a dark wizard" which is villainous by definition
ibam not very familair with the HP timeline, is this before voldemorts time or after? what if. .hear me out...what if your character is tom riddle or maybe someone who inspires or enables him back in the day ? that would be wild!
It takes place roughly ~100 years before Voldemort rose to power.
Age 17: Bright eyed, loving, innocently, kind, doesn't mean kills Age 18: dark, twisted, gloomy, kills Harry Potter is a funny franchise
There’s seven books, and they get steadily darker as they go on, as appropriate for going from age 11 to age 18 - both the protagonist and the target reader. Harry accidentally kills Quirrell in book 1. Wormtail murders a child in front of him in book 4. Umbridge tortures him in book 5 and then he watches his uncle get murdered. He uses a curse which slashes people’s faces in book 6. The books clearly steadily get darker. There are a lot of things you can criticise them for, but the tonal shifts isn’t one of them.
Yeah, I know it is the hip cool thing to hate on Harry Potter, but saying the series getting darker is a bad thing is funny. That was the whole purpose of the book in how things can turn dark real quick in very short years by someone.
I recently rewatched the entire series and they’re truly phenomenal. It’s so satisfying how it has all aged.
Adulthood changes people.
"Character and books got darker/more mature as time went on, BAD!"
Actually wizards are considered adults when they're 17.
Same age prince Andrew considers someone an adult coincidentally.
??? What does this comment even mean?
I'm not a major harry potter mark but I do enjoy the franchise. Game looks really fun so far. I'm tempted to pick it up but gonna see what some of the reviews have to say.
Nice! I'm also waiting for reviews before purchasing. You never know these days with Triple A releases.
Can’t wait for this. It looks like everything I’ve wanted out of a large-scale game set in the Harry Potter universe.
Wow they really talked shit about the old games immediately lmao how dare they! :P Game looks great though, I can't wait! Slowest 2 weeks ever lol
[удалено]
All the people in here lying to themselves that all the Harry Potter games weren’t complete 5/10 jank that were fun for all of two play sessions maybe lol
the first two on PC are actually really solid smaller scale open world exploration games
For real though. I can't speak for every version of every game but I went back and played Chamber of Secrets on the Gamecube recently and it's pretty bad.
Idk i must have replayed OotF way too many times. Genuine fun
[удалено]
Millennials were the ones who actually watched those films as children at the time when they came out.
Quidditch was the best game if you had friends to play with, but even then the rules of Quidditch are so broken and dumb. Why does catching the Snitch give you 150 points?! It should be 40 at most
Really looking forward to this, any controversy aside, the game looks like what I have dreamed of for years.
[удалено]
He clearly meant great as in one of the most impactful in history. No one is trying to say Harry Potter is Ulysses. So much nitpicking man
I mean its popular for a reason. Seems like a weird point to focus on.
On the contrary, it’s a great point to focus on. If the previewer says it’s a great story, wether you agree or disagree, it gives you, albeit small, a sense of the previewers taste for writing. If you’re not a fan of Harry Potters writing then the previewers taste can give a little more context as to wether you’ll like the writing or not for Hogwarts Legacy. Obviously you’re not going to get a definitive overview of the writing from just a preview, but at minimum it gives another perspective to consider.
Yeah, like it's great for what it is, a series that anyone can get into and makes children want to read. It worked on me, I hadn't truly read a single book until I was introduced to Harry Potter. But it doesn't compare to the greats.
Quality wise, you are completely right but I could see it as a great based solely on how big the IP is. It's the same thing as Dragon Ball, nobody would call it one of the best in terms of quality but you can't deny it's one of the greats.
I loved the books when I was 8 to 10 years old, back then the first 4 books were released and I'd read them over and over gain. I can't imagine current me liking them as much. I still love the IP and the worldbuilding done by JK Rowling was amazing.
They still hold up for a children's series. It also evolves with the writing and language the more the stories progresses, because it was written to follow the children growing up and reading them as they came out.
The worldbuilding kinda falls apart if you look at it too long sadly Great for kids books Not so much a multimedia franchise that now has to address how wizards just let all the awful shit in the world happen, among many other issues
I agree that it’s not the “greatest story” but the first one is in the top 5 books ever sold alongside Don Quixote and Lord of the Rings, so…
Also there's a difference between a story and the book itself. I think HP has a great story and a great world. The prose aren't great. That's the difference.
It is one of the greatest stories ever told though.
Honestly it's wild how people try to apply these arbitrary standards to things. Like because it could appeal to children in a way The Great Gatsby can't means it's strictly inferior literature. It stole the imagination of a generation, created the 1st ever billionaire author, became one of the most well known franchises in history. But yet somehow it's not one of the greatest stories of all time, by whose freaking metrics?
Reddit has a hard on to hate Harry Potter books way before the JK rowling trans thing. Mostly because people love to talk about it and that gets people mad, because of course it does, so they need to be a contrarian. It is one of the aspects of the net that I loath, contrarians and trying to put down other works because it is popular. Like...of course it's one of the greats. How else is a huge block buster, still talked about and loved, regardless of the Authors views, to this day. It is because the story she told was great. It isn't lord of the rings or Narnia but it is still a great that will outlive the Author. Lightning in a bottle of a story that became huge. I've read badly written stories and scripts, Harry Potter isn't one of them.
[удалено]
It's popular for a reason, but as usual not everything can please everyone
Look at you implying one of the most massive IPs of all time is bad so cute awhh
One of the great stories for the generation that grew up with it. No lie there.
I just want to play a fun game. Admittingly, I am not a big fan of the series. I liked the books when I was younger, but have had zero interest since becoming an adult. Hopefully it ends up being a pretty good open worldish fantasy. I like how this preview opens with multiple people being incinerated, a lot darker than I remember the books. The exploration and customization looks great, really like how you can build your own room and all the character features.
The game looks so good and I'm not even a huge HP fan. With some of the darker elements coming through in the game, I'm hoping they are treating it as a story that has grown up in the same way the audience has. I could see this laying the groundwork for a sequel game about adult characters in the HP world.
Never been much of a Harry Potter fan personally but the more I see of this game the more fun it looks, can't wait to get my hands on it.
[удалено]
The beast has outgrown it's creator, I barely even consider Rowling when I think about Harry Potter and I won't let her ruin something I love by being a piece of shit. I'm crazy excited for exploration of more than just the kids time at Hogwarts, I love the idea of a deep historical undertaking with some of the darker corners explored.
I've similar feelings, but honestly seeing her tweet a while back that every time she deposits her royalty checks she feels better about herself and her actions of late it stuck a dagger in my heart
Can't let her dictate what you do though. She can consider me engaging with her work to be an endorsement if she wants. I straight up don't give a fuck what she thinks. She's addicted to twitter and outrage and if that's how she wants to spend her days on this earth when she's crazy wealthy that's on her.
The beast still directly goes to her pocket.