Regardless of the controversy, this was just an underwhelming game. The quest design was awful and the combat was repetitive.
If it wasn’t using one of the most well known IPs in modern history it would be a financial flop and have terrible ratings.
Different take:
What we got was a pilot, an experiment to see if it is even worth going all in on the ‘Portkey Games’ route in the future. Sure, there’s young adults out there who played the old school movie tie-in games of the GameCube era. But they aren’t enough of an audience to warrant spending big on something that might flop.
Most of the game’s systems and gameplay are underwhelming, yes. And they could probably have spent some time writing a more compelling story with a lot less chosen one bullshit tropes in it. But they did manage to build a wizarding world that convincingly lets you immerse yourself in it. The game has a real sense of scale to it, unlike the older games, and my favourite thing is just walking around looking at details and letting my own fantasy do the rest.
Now here’s the thing. They did a succesful little experiment: They made a game that isn’t outright hated and lives up to some of the dreams we had as kids playing the original movie games. And they managed to do so without defaulting to the shitty loot box practises so many publishers are known for this day and age. Especially WB stuff. It all depends on what they do next.
From here they can go one of two ways: Either take the easy route and create a carbon copy of this game, rake in some profits and watch as people start seeing the cracks and slowly lose interest. Or take it seriously, spend the extra attention and actually improve upon anything this game has to offer and stand to gain even more revenue.
Chances are they take the first path and everything comes crashing down, and they’ll blame fans for losing interest. If they do opt to go the second route there is a lot of work to be done. Interested to see where it goes either way.
I think it’s worth considering the idea that shareholders will want more money. So, they make a second game and load it with mtx. They know now that people will show up for the name despite any controversy.
Exactly, and I’ll be ready - lighter and gasoline in hand - to burn bridges if they do.
I like the Wizarding World as a fantasy setting, but that is something not even our fucked up copyright laws can take away from me now. Rowling is going to hell for being a piece of shit, which is just as inevitable.
Just like Star Wars, the original creator started something amazing, ans they can fuck off now, the fans are taking over.
Sadly this world of publishers and royalties does not work this way, but I can at least cherrypick which parts of the material I get my enjoyment from.
I highly doubt it. Why would they try to make a better game when a copy paste collect-a-thon action adventure light rpg with stealth and crafting elements with Harry Potter twist ensures huge sales. What incentive do they have?
If it wasn’t using one of the most well known IPs in modern history it would be a financial flop and have terrible ratings.
That’s everything though, a good unknown game will always do worse than a bad known game
I, along with many others, just don’t think Rowling is transphobic. I don’t see any evidence that she hates trans people, just that she doesn’t agree with some of the extreme trans activists takes, just like most people who aren’t extreme.
This doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as being canceled, but I do think that it shows more and more people have caught on to some of tactics that are used to cancel others. It’s going to continue to have less impact as time goes on, which is good, imo. Cancelation has its merits, but we’re coming out of an overreach period.
Some of the things that she has said have been a little dogwhistly, and she doesn’t come right-out and say “Trans people are icky and I hate them”, but if you look at what she’s said/done publically you should be able to see why people are mad at her.
I’m not trans, but when you look at and compare it to other minorites that have had to fight to be accepted, it lines up with what they had to go through.
This article has a pretty decent timeline:
https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timelineHere’s an even shorter version:
It starts with Joanne puiblically liking the works of someone who is saying the quiet parts out loud.
This person’s work contract ended and it was not renewed.
Joanne then publically claimed that the scary trans people are getting women fired.About a month later she is using menstration the line in the sand about what it means to be a women. She then mixed up sex and gender, and implies that trans people are erasing cis people.
Daniel Radcliff then publically posts “Transgender women are women, any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.”
Joanne then puts out her Essay:
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
It’s very “Trans people are scary, think of the children, trans-inclusive language hurts real women, accepting trans-people means that bathroom rapes are going to go up”Another month goes by and she then claims that “we are watching a new kind of conversion therapy for young gay people”. Trans people aren’t real, they are just confused gay people.
A couple months later she puts out a book where the serial killer is a “Man in a dress”, once again “trans people are scary and dangerous”.
I think the issue comes down to what is pushed as transphobic. We have this issue a lot right now, where certain terms have been stretched out to encompass more and more. The major downside to this tactic is that eventually you cram enough people under that term that no one cares anymore.
Nothing she’s said has lined up with “trans people are icky and I hate them”. Trans woman are trans women. They’re not women. The trans label is there to diffentiate the two terms, because biological women are different than tran women are, and we require terms that alert us to differences when we discuss things.
For example, her character in a dress in a serial killer who dresses up as a woman not because he feels like a woman on the inside - it’s so he can lure victims in. Hes not fundamentally “a man in a dress” hes "a man who puts on a dress for a short, specific purpose. He doesnt wear a dress when hes not luring in victims. He in no way thinks, acts or feels like a woman or a trans woman. He does not wish to be one, and puts on a dress and wig for the sole purpose of committing a crime. In my eyes, anyone who looks at that character and thinks he in any way is tied to trans is the actual transphobe.
Your list is examples of things she said, and then immediately putting words into her mouth that are the worst possible interpretation you can make, and interpretations can easily be wrong.
Again, most rational people who have gone through what she’s said don’t see transphobia there.
Also, we’re also seeing the effects of pushing physical transitions on younger people in detransitioners that are speaking out about it. It’s not crazy to understand that gay people who are confused can easily make the wrong decision that can never be made right again. Understanding that and approaching the issue with extreme caution is a good thing.
Trans women are trans women. They’re not women. The trans label is there to differentiate the two terms, because biological women are different than trans women are
Uh… ‘trans’ and ‘biological’ are the labels… Trans women and biological women are women. The distinction you made is rooted in the idea that women must have female reproductive organs, which is just a description of biological women. That is why we use the label ‘biological,’ to distinguish biological women from women as a whole.
Again, most rational people who have gone through what she’s said don’t see transphobia there.
Who are these “rational people” you’re referring to? You can’t just make a claim like that and not back it up with any logical reasoning.
I know many people I would consider rational that disagree with you.
Ever take a peek outside your bubble?
Instead of making assumptions about me, how about you answer my question?
I mean, she’s straight up said she thinks that trans women are not women and that she believes being transgender is a mental illness. She said she’d rather go to jail than be forced to call trans people by their preferred pronouns (which is insane and not a real scenario that would happen, but still telling nonetheless lol). She’s buddied up with some far-right extremists, one of which has likened being transgender to doing blackface and another that said trans men should be sterilized.
I also don’t agree with extremist takes on either side, but promotion of trans erasure and mocking/minimizing/invalidating a margininalized group that is frequently at risk of being targeted for violence are not victimless acts.
All Ive ever seen her say is that trans women don’t know what it’s like to have a period
Which is a true statement. Trans women don’t know what it’s like to have a period. Trans men do, for the most part.
I knew a girl who lost her uterus in an accident before she hit puberty. We lost touch, but im pretty sure that precludes her having a period. Is she not a woman? Is she less of a woman because of this?
I’ve been waiting to upgrade my PC to play it properly. Looks very fun, at least for most of the game (have heard it gets a bit repetitive)