I can imagine Rocksteady could have made a solid game in the vein of the Arkham series if WB execs with zero competence didn’t interfere. A real waste of talent.
I think this article is rather misleading, or the headline is specifically. Before this article was written there was DMC 3 Special Edition, DMC4, DMC 4 Special Edition, and DMC HD Collection.
DMC 3 Special Edition and DMC 4 are the two being removed. DMC 3 SE was a terrible port that barely runs on just about any machine, and DMC 4 is just the inferior version of DMC 4 SE.
DMC 3 is still available in the DMC HD Colleciton, and is actually playable. So Both games are still available in their actually playable form.
I guess all the twitter drama around the author matters less to the real world. It’s impressive to see how a vocal minority can completely distort what is happening offline.
It happens every time. Pokémon Sword/Shield and Scarlett/Violet had the biggest launch in the franchise’s history despite being (justifiably so) heavily criticized by pretty much everyone online.
People shit on microtransactions and always-online games but the top charts always show online multiplayer games are among the most played.
It doesn’t make the criticisms any less valid; it just means that the general public is usually ignorant of them.
Sure call me a bigot. The point I was making is this is an echo chamber issue for people who want to eat others because they are not pure enough. And on that you come out swing with the same incessive echo put stuff I was pointing to.
No matter how much you hurt the people you say you are fighting for. Go ahead, run your inquisition on people to see if they match your purity standards, don’t be surprised if one day you end up in front of the inquisition yourself accused of being impure.
You spend time fighting with someone who might disagree with you in this fringe of society but still takes on the biggest fights out there… and you would rather burn them than focus on better, easier, more impactful targets.
Yeah, and the fact that people basically can’t talk about this game without mentioning it got boycotted because one of the people who makes money from it is a massive piece of transphobic shit is a small step forward all on its own
In that sense, it worked. Let’s face it: The people who don’t care about the author’s raging bigotry were never going to be convinced regardless, but there were a lot of us who didn’t even consider playing it because of the TERF.
Anecdotally, everyone I’ve talked to about it doesn’t care. They don’t like she’s a TERF and some even condemn her for it, but every single person I’ve talked to separates the world of Harry Potter from her. It basically has a life of its own and they couldn’t care less about JKR now, that’s what I’ve been able to surmise of people’s view of it now. It’s like having racist parents but not being labeled as one because you’re a separate entity.
This happens a lot more than you think. It isn’t just coping.
How many movies were produced by Weinstein? How many comics were published by bigots that still re-sell in droves today?
How many celebrated tv shows were made by pieces of garbage?
Wrestlemania season is here. THAT company is completely vile from the ground up.
Sometimes, people just pick and choose their fiction and legitimately separate the artist from the art. The Harry Potter franchise has outgrown it’s original author, just like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, WWE or almost any franchise.
If you think the world truly is so black and white, you haven’t gone out and experienced enough of it.
Thats not death of the author, thats you covering your eyes while handing them money.
Death of the author does not exist while the author makes money off the product.
If you pirated the hogwarts game? Then you have room to speak on death of the author. But jkr has a hefty royalties deal on hp products. If you paid for it, the author is living well.
Im sorry you apparently cant face that truth, but that doesnt change it.
The phrase “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism” does not mean “therefore, death of the author always exists for all art the second it is made.”
For starters, you will not die if you dont experience all art made. Its not food. Its not shelter. You will be okay if you dont watch some movies, dont read some books, and dont play some games. I promise.
But, more specifically, death of the author means to separate an author and their life from the work they create. If your purchase directly funds the author? You didnt separate the author from the work.
Death of the author is when you accept and understand that reading a story written by a shitheel from the 18th century is not supporting their shitheel opinions. That you can study the work and its influence on culture without that study or consumption being explicit or implicit support of the creators thoughts and opinions.
But when you pay an author for their work, you have supported the author. Period, thats what the word means.
Now you can fibble or quibble about morality of putting money into someones pocket all you like, but if the author is literally benefiting from your purchase, they are not dead. There has been no death of author.
You also don’t need an iphone or mac since there are plenty of other smartphones and PCs available, but nobody stopped buying them because foxxcon used slave labor.
Everyone draws the line where they want, this controversy only exists because people were trying to guilty trip streamers and anyone online from playing it, do not try to rewrite what happened.
You mean you didnt stop buying apple products? Lots of people, myself included, avoid slave labor brands.
(And also most jobs and housing do require a phone, and its better to buy a used phone second hand than a brand new phone every time. Utility devices are far more nuanced and intricate about “ethical” choices than a video game.)
E: also, this thread specifically is about death of the author, which I dont think anyone would apply to iphones at any point regradless
(Thought experiment time) So at what point, if ever, does a universe separate from its creator? Think about Star Wars. There have been a large number of derivative works by multiple authors. However if George Lucas came out against gays and trans people, would you taint the entire franchise? At what point are the two separated, if ever?
However if George Lucas came out against gays and trans people, would you taint the entire franchise?
Yes. I would immediately lose ibr interest in Star Wars and go do something else. There’s plenty of entertainment out there that’s not made by shitty bigots.
Fr, why are we acting like this is hard? Or acting like any of these aggressively mid media franchises are so sacred as to be unassailable?
Even if JKR was a literal saint Harry Potter would still be Baby’s First Fantasy Series, at best, so the idea that so many people are willing to continually enrich one of the world’s most influential TERFs for it honestly blows my fucking mind.
Like just pick and follow literally any other fantasy series folks, jesus.
Star Wars is an awkward example because it’s already pretty well tainted itself with mediocre films.
But yes, unironically I would actively stop looking for the shreds of good among the carnage that is the once-beloved franchise if I knew its creator, whose name is still tied to it and who financially benefits at least from the propagation of successful entries under that IP, would be just a little bit more able to get their awful views out there thanks to that success.
HP Lovecraft was horribly racist, but his works are in the Public Domain. Neither him, his estate or any causes he supported get any money by engaging with his works. His opinions are still part of his works, but that can be criticized and modified in adaptations and derivative works.
The same can’t be said of living creators who still own and profit from those works. Even if some team deliberately tries to gloss over or alter concerning aspects, the money the author gets might still be directed towards concerning movements.
In all fairness there are concerning aspects in many industries and a lot that we consume, and each person has a lot of other issues to worry about, so while disappointing, it’s inevitable that people won’t care about everything. But I definitely don’t feel confortable giving money to someone who’s spreading hate about people I care for. I used to be a big HP fan but this situation completely spoiled any interest I had in that world… and also helped me realize it was never that good anyway.
I’m a big gamer, and was a massive HP fan. I did not buy the game, or even consider it, specifically because of JKR’s bullshit.
I may be in the minority, but I guarantee I’m not the only one in this boat. So now you’ve talked to someone who cares, if you count this as talking.
And just to say a little more, no I didn’t crusade against the game, nor do I villainize people who bought it and enjoyed it. I do think it’s possible to enjoy art without liking the artist. Hell, my favorite book series of all time is the Ender’s Game series, and Orson Scott Card is probably just as bad as JKR, though maybe not quite as famous/public about it.
But I can’t bring myself to buy it. I’m trans, and her rhetoric, and how public it is, has been specifically harmful to me, directly. But that’s just me. I won’t tell other people how to live their lives or enjoy their free time, so long as they’re not actively hurting others. And no, I don’t consider buying a game where one person who is profiting from it might spend a sliver of that profit on anti-trans BS to be actively harming others, especially when she already has enough money to do whatever the hell she wants anyways.
This doesn’t make a dent, and ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible anyways. I just hope that some portion of people who bought the game heard about the protests and maybe donated a fraction of what they paid for the game to some pro-LGBTQ groups. I have to believe there’s at least a handful of people like that. I do believe that people are mostly good, and want to do good.
Yeesh, I wrote a lot more than I planned to here. I’ll stop now lol.
I mean, I didn’t consider playing it because I’ve never been a fan of Harry Potter, but Rowling’s ramblings definitely didn’t do anything to change my mind.
I was a moderately engaged HP fan before I learned what a colossally awful human the author is, but her TERF ramblings also made me realize there’s quite a lot of racial and ethnic stereotypes baked into the franchise. It’s probably the fastest I’ve ever totally abandoned an interest in a series. Even if we do separate the works from the author like so many fanbois suggest, they’re still awful.
The whole situation with house elves, goblins and other intelligent magical creatures treated as inferior doesn’t make the story feel to good. It might even be understandable if the heroes realized the deeper problems that couldn’t be solved simply by fighting, but the protagonist ultimately just inherits a slave and becomes an enforcer for the status quo.
In retrospect it makes a lot of words about good and love and doing what’s right feel like going through the motions rather than any real values.
I mean I’m sure it’s a lot more cheerful for the to imagine the number as really high, but the fact of the matter is that in the end it still sold really well, becoming the top seller of that year.
I’d expect it to meaningfully affect the sales and the maker/seller/whoever behind it. Being the most sold game of the year and presumably making a fat profit, I don’t think it really did either.
So, the fact that it took all year on all 4 major platforms to outsell one game from a much smaller but recognized IP thats restricted to one platform doesnt sound like a meaningful effect on its sales to you?
Because thats a very weird thing. It should not have taken so long to reach this point, given the size of hp as a franchise.
That’s the cheerful way to look at it. It sure could’ve, hypothetically, sold two gazillions instead of one. Take that, game, the boycott must’ve worked! Yeah…
I guess a single person boycotting it would be a detriment but when you’re selling a boatload and making a hefty profit you aren’t all that bothered by that one lost sale.
Is it really that difficult just tell me what was the thing you meant? I’m not sure if you’re being childish or what but obviously I don’t think I’ve said anything delusional, so I’d like you to explain what you thought was delusional. I’m sorry but it’s not much of an ask.
Do you want me to copy and paste your comments? Lile what the fuck do you mean, did you forget this whole thread? Baby do too much meth this morning? What the fuck are you talking about
Sure, that’s one way to explain what you thought was delusional. There’s really no need to be this difficult and childish about it. I’m literally just asking you to explain or elaborate on what you mean.
I’m not sure you know it because you think it’s delusional. That’s one reason I’m asking. Honestly if you’re afraid to answer, just tell me and I promise to drop it. I don’t mind. But if you’re unsure and that’s why you’re not answering then please tell me, I can try to explain it. I just need your help to continue the actual conversation.
You’re throwing a huge fit over saying or just copy pasting what you thought was delusional. I really don’t get it.
Did you think it was delusional to say this didn’t have a big/meaningful effect? Did you think it was delusional to say it made a hefty profit? I’m really trying to help you out here.
Did any of the other HP games ever top the charts?
If not, then there must be something special about this one other than IP. Especially since most of the other HP games came out before there was any JKR controversy.
Other than mobile games or Lego versions, there hasnt been a proper Harry Potter game since 13 years ago and from memory they were extremely average movie tie in games.
Its not a series like Pokemon or Zelda that sees frequent releases. It being the first real game, and done beautifully (graphics/ recreation wise) is certainly the biggest selling point.
Just because a minority is depicted in a work of art does not mean that depiction was made in good faith. Americans are familiar with that concept because of our dark history of minstrel shows and blackface performances.
When the trans woman character’s name is Sirona Ryan, it calls into question whether she is meant to be a character or a caricature.
I think that the masses are mostly disengaged with terminally-online type discourse. The only reason I knew JK Rowling was TERF was because of reading it on here, so if you are only on social media to follow your old high school classmates on facebook, you’d probably never find out
The masses are largely disengaged with LGBT rights in general, but the declining rights of transgender people in the UK (and the US) shows this is not just a “terminally-online” kind of issue. She is not the only one responsible, of course, but her outspoken antagonism towards transgender people is influencing people.
It concerns me when people can’t differentiate “this issue does not affect me” from “this issue does not exist”. Even calling matters “terminally-online” in general is a bit questionable when whole ass presidents get elected by meme campaigns these days.
JKR is a very vocal TERF that basically wants trans people to dissappear. A lot of people dont want to financially support her because of that. That most people seemingly either dont care about trans erasure or even worse, bought the game specifically because theyre the type to do shit just because people with a conscience told them they shouldn’t, says more about most people than it does that “vocal minority”
Oh pipe down, I read the entire thing when it was recent and in no way does she want what you claim. She has an open letter on her own website outlining her views.
Over the course of the years since this happened it has grown, morphed and people are now probably also saying she would be the one herding the trans people into the gas Chambers.
Thats just one example. There are many others but I feel like if the point isn’t made it never will be.
She makes a number of claims about transitioning and detransitioning that are straight up lies, tries to conflate trans women with predators that must be denied entry to womens’ bathrooms, claims that the change in societal views toward trans issues threatens to erase women etc.
The reality is that JKR seems to have never dealt with the trauma of her rape and abuse so she denigrates trans women as being little more than predatory men in skirts. Thats why she brings that up in her post. She’s explaining why she is so concerned with trans issues and those reasons go back to that trauma never being processed in a healthier way.
I hadn’t read this before, and I am honestly shocked that this is the what the uproar is over. This isn’t a call to action to hurt anyone. It is basically a statement that there is a difference between a transwoman and a woman, that distinction needs to be made, and this is mainly due to society rushing to a solution without due diligence. This is not 1/100th of what it has been made out to be. If this is all it takes for someone to never want to associate with someone else, then I don’t think he should associate with anyone. Everyone is going to differ from your opinion on one topic or another, you can’t escape it.
On one level, my interest in this issue has been professional, because I’m writing a crime series […].
When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.
Sure, Joanne. “My interest in this was only professional, because I was writing a book where the serial killer is a man cross-dressing as a woman that kills other women”. We know how it ended.
She then proceeded with a very weird anti-trans statement:
When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. […].
As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman […]; it’s OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.
I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria.
“I felt non-binary too, but I’m not trans, so you aren’t either!”.
For reference, desistance is a real term that refers to people who changes their mind about their gender dysphoria, and, although further research is still needed, she is probably citing real sources. It’s also strange to insert that knowledge in a post where she’s supposedly trying to convince people that she’s not a TERF, among the “five reasons she’s worried about the new trans activism”, whatever that means. “I don’t hate trans people, but anyway, they aren’t real and you are preying on children”.
She then ended her wall of text by alluding that all trans women are actually men who want to prey on women (never mind that, if a man wanted to become a sexual predator, he could just… Do that, instead of faking gender dysphoria? Like, a man who wants to sexually harass someone isn’t stopping at the “girls only” sign. He’s not a vampire). But hey, before that she said that she cares about trans women, so I’m sure it’s just a misunderstanding.
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
That’s the simple truth of a person who should really talk to their therapist about her trauma instead of writing bullshit online.
If agreeing with known transphobes, erasing trans identity, and putting trans women and sexual predators on the same level isn’t transphobic, I really don’t know what is.
No This is it, after a relatively lengthy twitter conversation she ended up writing this blog post.
And the anger and vitriol boils down to “why do animal rights activists throw paint on rich ladies wearing fur, because bikers in leather jackets will punch you in the mouth”.
This right here is why Lemmy is often a shitshow. You’re absolutely right, but since you’re going against the hive mind it’s nothing but downvotes. No one’s even bothered to reply because there’s nothing to argue against in good faith. Just angry downvotes because your facts are getting in the way of fake outrage.
It’s OK, people can read the content themselves. I have a lot of (maybe misplaced) confidence in most people.
And I personally don’t see a lot of hivemind but plurality of opinion luckily. The angry downvotes without response is usually telling enough, although someone did reply to tell me to “fuck off” this time.
Nah. Both of you just haven’t kept up with her history of equating trans women with sexual predators and trans men with poor brainwashed little girls, some of which was hinted, if disguised in polite words, in the article where she talked about the situation and defended how she totally didn’t mean any harm to anybody.
Did you see when she said she’d march with trans people if they truly were persecuted? Their rights have been challenged and undermined many times since, and she didn’t show any sign of that.
Because, you know, sometimes people aren’t completely honest and taking them at their word is not the ultimate measure of their characters.
So don’t confuse disagreeing with people here and getting downvoted with being the one clear-minded contrarian. However much internet bandwagons are a thing, you won’t get the clear picture unless you go look into it. Sometimes you might get that reaction because you are wrong and that’s it.
Seriously! If I say something stupid, others are supposed to show up and educate me on why what I said is stupid! That is how public discourse is supposed to works!
Wait, why aren’t the people tired of my ignorant shit jumping to help me learn? Oh I know, that means I’m actually super smart, totally correct and fully informed. Everyone else is just being stupid and mean to me for no valid reason.
Honest feedback (for honest ppl): there are ways to ask people what they think so they’ll be inclined to reply earnestly. Starting with “pipe down” ain’t it… ya fuckin dingus. lol
It’s multi-platform, uses one of the biggest IPs of an entire generation and seems to do it quite well too. Everything else would have been more surprising to me.
Not really, they were often really serious about it which made it all the more ridiculous. Sometimes it’s a fun circlejerk sub, sometimes it’s presenting their slacktivism almost as being some gaming vanguard and fighting a war against the game.
I used to love that sub, but these days they are only focused on the outrage culture. Nothing inherently wrong with that, I like to laugh at people who take their video game waifu too seriously. I initially joined that sub because it seemed like the best place to have level-headed conversations about overhyped games, like the Witcher 3. Everywhere else seems to love that game as if it’s the second coming of Jesus, but if you find some places that didn’t like the game, they swing a bit too hard on the opposite site, so you can’t have a conversation with them either. I found plenty of people in that sub who loved that game, but knew where the shortcomings were.
I have. Hogwarts Legacy has really good graphics but it’s honestly pretty generic, it only sold so well because there are millions of harry potter fans out there.
Hogwarts is fun for about 30 hours roleplaying as a wizard, as a casual potter fan. I got really bored of it after that and never finished the game. At its core it really is very generic, it’s really propped up by the IP. That’s not to say it’s bad by any means but its not got the depth of Zelda.
I think the biggest issue for me was how large the map was. They did the castle and hogsmede very well, but then threw in a bunch of filler content in the other towns. If they had stuck to the more core areas only, the game wouldn’t have gotten so stale later on.
Sure, more room is nice, but the map could have been 1/3rd the size and still have a good sense of speed with it. A better option would have been to put in some fun mini games with the broom, but that would have been required then to make flying the broom more engaging.
Eh I dunno, I got bored of it before I finished the story or explored the other half of the map. Feels like a bit of a failing there. 30 hours would be fine if it was a fully contained experience.
I’m kinda curious in what way Zelda (assuming TOTK) has more depth. Combat wise HP has stealth, an attack typing system, comboing, special moves, and more if I recall correctly. TOTK does have a variety of weapons and you can craft weapons, but it generally boils down to just whacking away at things. You could also mention the ability to make vehicles/automaton, but the time to build things (until you find ultra hand?) mixed with limited resources made that more of a pain/chore than fun.
I could go into other mechanics, but ultimately I think TOTK would be rated worse if it wasn’t for the Zelda branding carrying it.
You aren’t wrong, there was an unpopular opinion thread some weeks ago and several zelda fans called both BOTW and TOTK just ubisoft open worlds with a zelda skin. They are both carried by their IP (even though I love these 2 zeldas), the worst Zelda (Skyward Sword) still sold 4.15 million units, just counting the HD version, the Wii version sold 3.67 million.
Haha I appreciate the comment and the ability to call them out even though you like them.
I just wish I felt the same. The longer they’ve been out the more I realize that we probably won’t get a more traditional zelda ever again. I think the thing I liked about zelda up to BOTW was that the world itself was a puzzle. Figuring out how to navigate and open up new areas was part of the fun and challenge to me. Not to mention dungeons being larger and more intricate puzzles than anything you come across in BOTW and TOTK.
I played both. Both are excellent games, and both also have flaws.
I think Zelda was by far the better game - HL isn’t really on the same level as it at all, design-wise, story-wise, or or in terms of things to do.
HL’s strength is definitely the world itself - the Hogwarts and Hogsmeade areas in particular are both incredibly well done and very faithful to the source material. The other areas are just alright.
I’d say HL’s weaknesses become most apparent if you’re a completionist. Things can get very repetitive if you’re going for 100%. I did, and I honestly think you’ll like it a lot more if you just don’t.
It’s still lots of fun though. Zelda was my most played game in 2023 and HL was kind of far behind, and everything else combined would still probably be a distant third.
I absolutely agree with the other people saying HL is generic and propped up by the IP. But for me that was enough.
I’m really confused by all of the story comments in this thread. It’s fair to criticise HL’s story, but at least there is a story and characters. What story does TOTK even have? What characters have more than a line or two? While Zelda has never been big on complex narratives, at least previous entries (before BOTW and TOTK) could develop a story since they could have a linear progression. A couple of flashback scenes really doesn’t tell a great or compelling narrative and really disconnects the gameplay from the events going on.
Disclaimer: I haven’t played TOTK. I only played a bit of BOTW.
It’s all about expectations. I never thought of Zelda as a game with a story, so BOTW not having one doesn’t bother me. Harry Potter, on the other hand, I’ve always associated with memorable characters and a bonkers world. HL translates this bonkers world into a game quite well, but its story doesn’t (in my opinion) fit that world nor does it have memorable characters. (Some of the characters look and feel like Lidl versions of the characters from the original books.)
Zelda is the better game. Problem is (sales wise) the Zelda franchise isn't nearly as popular outside of gaming circles, and access to this game is locked to those that own a Switch, whereas HL is on all platforms
videogameschronicle.com
Najstarsze