Hogwarts Legacy - Harry Potter open world action RPG prequel set in the late 1800s

[JarlFrank]

basically every shot of the entire video

I just can't take modern games seriously anymore, it's supposed to be in the fucking UK not africa
"b-b-but it's a wizarding school!"
there's fucking multiple schools all over the world, it's a major plot of like two of the books
hogwarts is literally a school for fucking british people, not even european people -- which has like three of their own or some shit

this is on the same tier as claiming hermione is black, fucking clownworldia

same exact shit ruined my vampyr experience, why even set it in "hogwarts" if you're going to do this

Funniest part is how it's not even set during the time of the novels, which were set in the 90s.

No, this is 100 years in the past, in the 1890s.
Seeing even one black guy in an English school in the 1800s would make the local headlines. But here we are, a British wizard school in the 19th century, filled with black people. Because that totally makes sense.

 

[Kem0sabe]

Funniest part is how it's not even set during the time of the novels, which were set in the 90s.

No, this is 100 years in the past, in the 1890s.
Seeing even one black guy in an English school in the 1800s would make the local headlines. But here we are, a British wizard school in the 19th century, filled with black people. Because that totally makes sense.

I remember a WW2 documentary where they discussed how shocked the english were at how segregated and racist the treatment of the US army towards black personnel stationed on the country during the staging of D day.

 

[Nano]

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

Lets call it inspiration and leave it at that.

Tolkien was absolutely inspired by the events of the war. However, to say a story was inspired by certain events and to say that a story is an allegory for those same events is very different. A story can be inspired by one thing while existing as an allegory for something different and unrelated.

 

[wishbonetail]

Lets call it inspiration and leave it at that.

Tolkien was absolutely inspired by the events of the war. However, to say a story was inspired by certain events and to say that a story is an allegory for those same events is very different. A story can be inspired by one thing while existing as an allegory for something different and unrelated.

There is a Tom Bombadil segment in a book, which Tolkien admitted was his son's toy. This was understandibly left out in movies.
There is a hobbit's homecoming segment at the end, which is an absolute cringe. Saruman went out to create his own little hobbit gulag after the war. The analogy was cringeworthy and blunt. It was omitted in movies. I wonder why?
Makes you wonder, if author shoved in a real world toy in his book as a character, what else did he borrow?

 

[Salvo]

Lets call it inspiration and leave it at that.

Tolkien was absolutely inspired by the events of the war. However, to say a story was inspired by certain events and to say that a story is an allegory for those same events is very different. A story can be inspired by one thing while existing as an allegory for something different and unrelated.

There is a Tom Bombadil segment in a book, which Tolkien admitted was his son's toy. This was understandibly left out in movies.
There is a hobbit's homecoming segment at the end, which is an absolute cringe. Saruman went out to create his own little hobbit gulag after the war. The analogy was cringeworthy and blunt. It was omitted in movies. I wonder why?
Makes you wonder, if author shoved in a real world toy in his book as a character, what else did he borrow?

Fuck you on about, the Scouring of the Shire is a way to show how the hobbits couldn't simply afford to ignore the outside world any longer and keep being protected by outsiders (Aragorn and the Grey Company), there's no parallels to be drawn with real events

 

[wishbonetail]

Lets call it inspiration and leave it at that.

Tolkien was absolutely inspired by the events of the war. However, to say a story was inspired by certain events and to say that a story is an allegory for those same events is very different. A story can be inspired by one thing while existing as an allegory for something different and unrelated.

There is a Tom Bombadil segment in a book, which Tolkien admitted was his son's toy. This was understandibly left out in movies.
There is a hobbit's homecoming segment at the end, which is an absolute cringe. Saruman went out to create his own little hobbit gulag after the war. The analogy was cringeworthy and blunt. It was omitted in movies. I wonder why?
Makes you wonder, if author shoved in a real world toy in his book as a character, what else did he borrow?

Fuck you on about, the Scouring of the Shire is a way to show how the hobbits couldn't simply afford to ignore the outside world any longer and keep being protected by outsiders (Aragorn and the Grey Company), there's no parallels to be drawn with real events

That was a Soviet union ommage, the ramaining threat after the Big War. The resemblance is glaring.These books ARE the real events, just with a different skin.

 

[wishbonetail]

Okay i decided to read wiki on this one. So it may be post war Britain and not reds. I mostly know soviet history and i saw this as a reference.
From wiki "Critics have considered "The Scouring of the Shire" the most important chapter in The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien denied that the chapter was an allegory of the state of Britain during the aftermath of World War II. Commentators and critics have however seen it as applicable to that period, with clear contemporary political references, which in their opinions include a satire of socialism; echoes of Nazism; allusions to the shortages in postwar Britain; and a strand of environmentalism."

 

[Bastardchops]

Give me cute wifes!

There you go, fitting to the game.

Looks like there'll be undead enemies.

 

[Harthwain]

These books ARE the real events, just with a different skin.

It's not that simple. You talk about the Soviet Union and the Reds (and WW2), but Tolkien fought in the Battle of the Somme (during WW1), so if you were to follow this idea of the author using the real events in his story then you ought to read the alliance of the West (Rohan and Gondor) against the East (Mordor) as England helping France to beat Germany. The fact that you can read this as the NATO vs the USSR only shows how universal the idea of West vs East is in our [European] culture. And you would still be wrong to read Tolkien's works that way, because he straight up said The Lord of the Rings is no allegory:

I hope you have enjoyed The Lord of the Rings? Enjoyed is the key-word. For it was written to amuse (in the highest sense): to be readable.

There is no 'allegory', moral, political, or contemporary in the work at all…I think that [the] fairy story has its own mode of reflecting 'truth', different from allegory, or (sustained) satire, or 'realism', and in some ways more powerful. I did not foresee that before the tale was published we should enter a dark age in which the technique of torture and disruption of personality would rival that of Mordor and the Ring and present us with the practical problem of honest men of good will broken down into apostates and traitors.

It is a ‘fairy-story’, but one written - according to the belief I once expressed in an extended essay ‘On Fairy-stories’ that they are the proper audience - for adults. Because I think that fairy story has its own mode of reflecting ‘truth’, different from allegory, or (sustained) satire, or ‘realism’, and in some ways more powerful. But first of all it must succeed just as a tale to excite, please, and even on occasion move, and within its own imagined world be accorded (literary) belief. To succeed in that was my primary objective.

The fact that people can read anything into any creation of any author (including something not intended by said author) is a whole different topic.

 

[wishbonetail]

Mostly Lotr was inspired by its time. The ending part is an allegory. It would require to post exempts from book itself with analisys. This i cannot do with mobile phone as i dont have a pc right now. And it is a discussion for a different thread and maybe site.

 

[Caim]

basically every shot of the entire video

I just can't take modern games seriously anymore, it's supposed to be in the fucking UK not africa
"b-b-but it's a wizarding school!"
there's fucking multiple schools all over the world, it's a major plot of like two of the books
hogwarts is literally a school for fucking british people, not even european people -- which has like three of their own or some shit

this is on the same tier as claiming hermione is black, fucking clownworldia

same exact shit ruined my vampyr experience, why even set it in "hogwarts" if you're going to do this

Funniest part is how it's not even set during the time of the novels, which were set in the 90s.

No, this is 100 years in the past, in the 1890s.
Seeing even one black guy in an English school in the 1800s would make the local headlines. But here we are, a British wizard school in the 19th century, filled with black people. Because that totally makes sense.

Maybe I'm being the devil's advocate here, but I found this map showing the British Empire back in 1890:

The Brits used to own a fair chunk of Africa, so maybe the black kids we see in Hogwarts during that time came over from the colonies to have a magical education in the west. Africa mightn't've'd a big magic school like Hogwarts and its ilk or if they had they were regional (Europe is only a faction of Africa's size, but they have several magical schools) or magical education was through apprenticeships, so having access to a place like Hogwarts might work.

But then again, I strongly suspect that the kids we see aren't from specific parts of the Empire and instead are the cookie cutter capital-b-Black people that live in America.

 

[Harthwain]

Maybe I'm being the devil's advocate here [...]

Yeah.

It should be obvious that Rowling made the "potterverse" to be "The real [modern] world, but with hidden magick in it!" and aimed it at the kids (which is why it starts with the school and everything else is more or less related to it, although in later books the world of mages gets expanded to cover more adult stuff, because the children grow up and it's a good excuse to fill in the blanks). I mean, she literally wrote it for her kids, who were her first readers (so to speak).

The adults who like the "Real world, but with hidden stuff in it!" are a bonus audience. Hell, my father was/is much more enthusiastic about it than I was and I really enjoyed reading it due to how well it depicted the high school drama (although he doesn't go beyond the "Did you hear about Rowling's latest book/movie? Is it related to Harry Potter/Hogwarts?"). She really hit the jackpot with the idea.

Side note:

Spoiler

Rowling wasn't exactly successful with her other books. So much so that she even had to advertise she was writing something else under a pen name to help sell it. Otherwise barely anyone would notice she even wrote something else than Harry Potter. It also explains why they are trying to grow up the "potterverse".

So trying to see it as a historically accurate representation or trying to justify everything that takes place there - including the game - is kind of a huge miss. The only reason the game takes place a hundred of years earlier is to not run into the original cast (and their parents). The rest is kept more or less the same to not deviate too much from the original and not upset the fans on accident. The fact that we're talking about a school of magic, and the world of mages itself is presented as a fairly static one is only helping to sell this vision. And makes it easier to make people pretend/believe they are in the world of Harry Potter when playing the game. Even if there is no actual Potter around.

I personally think The world of Harry Potter could make for a good game, but only if you made it into an action game with huge focus on spell creation and reactivity. Seriously, this is the only reason why magic is interesting: because it allows to manipulate the otherwise immutable reality. So why not make the most of out it?

 

[deuxhero]

Funniest part is how it's not even set during the time of the novels, which were set in the 90s.

No, this is 100 years in the past, in the 1890s.
Seeing even one black guy in an English school in the 1800s would make the local headlines. But here we are, a British wizard school in the 19th century, filled with black people. Because that totally makes sense.

I remember a WW2 documentary where they discussed how shocked the english were at how segregated and racist the treatment of the US army towards black personnel stationed on the country during the staging of D day.

Which started in 1913 thanks to Democrat hero Woodrow Wilson.

 

[Sarathiour]

It should be obvious that Rowling made the "potterverse" to be "The real [modern] world, but with hidden magick in it!"

To be fair, it also work better using the 20th century as a settings. Lot of today's technology would clash with the potterverse settings, despite the usual "why is nobody using gunpowder" ?

 

[Nano]

To be fair, it also work better using the 20th century as a settings. Lot of today's technology would clash with the potterverse settings, despite the usual "why is nobody using gunpowder" ?

What'd be the point of using guns instead of wands? Wands don't have to be reloaded.

 

[JarlFrank]

To be fair, it also work better using the 20th century as a settings. Lot of today's technology would clash with the potterverse settings, despite the usual "why is nobody using gunpowder" ?

What'd be the point of using guns instead of wands? Wands don't have to be reloaded.

You can block an avada kedavra spell with an ancient stone statue or a metal shield (happens in the books).

You can't block a high caliber sniper rifle round.

 

[Joggerino]

basically every shot of the entire video

I just can't take modern games seriously anymore, it's supposed to be in the fucking UK not africa
"b-b-but it's a wizarding school!"
there's fucking multiple schools all over the world, it's a major plot of like two of the books
hogwarts is literally a school for fucking british people, not even european people -- which has like three of their own or some shit

this is on the same tier as claiming hermione is black, fucking clownworldia

same exact shit ruined my vampyr experience, why even set it in "hogwarts" if you're going to do this

Funniest part is how it's not even set during the time of the novels, which were set in the 90s.

No, this is 100 years in the past, in the 1890s.
Seeing even one black guy in an English school in the 1800s would make the local headlines. But here we are, a British wizard school in the 19th century, filled with black people. Because that totally makes sense.

Yeah but this argument won't get you anywhere because they'll just say it's a game made for the present British audience. They have no issue depicting Roman Britain as black either. Real problem is the present Britain that's black and arab.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

To be fair, it also work better using the 20th century as a settings. Lot of today's technology would clash with the potterverse settings, despite the usual "why is nobody using gunpowder" ?

What'd be the point of using guns instead of wands? Wands don't have to be reloaded.

Because I can put 3 rounds in their chest before they get a chance to move their wand or say anything.
The only way a wizard would win vs a trained person with a modern firearm(and I'm using modern in a very loose sense here) is if they completely take the person by surprise.

 

[Tacgnol]

To be fair, it also work better using the 20th century as a settings. Lot of today's technology would clash with the potterverse settings, despite the usual "why is nobody using gunpowder" ?

What'd be the point of using guns instead of wands? Wands don't have to be reloaded.

You can block an avada kedavra spell with an ancient stone statue or a metal shield (happens in the books).

You can't block a high caliber sniper rifle round.

Ah yes, I also remember the "Harry Potter should have carried a 1911" copypasta. That was a classic.

 

[Nano]

You can't block a high caliber sniper rifle round.

Says who? I doubt no wizards have developed a spell to shield against bullets. And I think JK Rowling would agree if she ever happens to write this scenario.

 

[JarlFrank]

You can't block a high caliber sniper rifle round.

Says who? I doubt no wizards have developed a spell to shield against bullets. And I think JK Rowling would agree if she ever happens to write this scenario.

The time it takes to pull the trigger is way shorter than the time it takes to cast a spell in Harry Potter.

Spells require a wand, a vocal component, and a somatic component. You have to move the wand and you have to speak the words, if you say the magic words wrong the spell won't work.

A gun requires you to pull the trigger. One quick finger movement.

And considering the scenes we've seen in some of the books where Harry blocks an avada kedavra death spell with an old shield, a fully armored medieval knight could easily block a wizard's spell, and if he's fast enough at sprinting he can drive his sword through the wizard's chest before the wizard can cast a second time. Because rate of fire is limited by how fast you can say AVADA KEDAVRA!

Now compare that to a machine gun's rate of fire.

Or a grenade launcher. There are no spells in Harry Potter that have splash damage like a grenade.

Wizard army vs modern military in Harry Potter would end with the wizard army being shot to pieces. And by "modern military" I mean anything from 1900 onwards, your average WW1 army would make short work of them.
Which is why wizards are so reclusive and hide from the world at large.

 

[Joggerino]

You guys are forgetting that in the HP universe killing someone splits your soul. So machine gunning wizards is going to put you in a lot of agony very quickly. The soldier cries out in pain as he guns you down.

 

[Tacgnol]

You can't block a high caliber sniper rifle round.

Says who? I doubt no wizards have developed a spell to shield against bullets. And I think JK Rowling would agree if she ever happens to write this scenario.

The time it takes to pull the trigger is way shorter than the time it takes to cast a spell in Harry Potter.

Spells require a wand, a vocal component, and a somatic component. You have to move the wand and you have to speak the words, if you say the magic words wrong the spell won't work.

A gun requires you to pull the trigger. One quick finger movement.

And considering the scenes we've seen in some of the books where Harry blocks an avada kedavra death spell with an old shield, a fully armored medieval knight could easily block a wizard's spell, and if he's fast enough at sprinting he can drive his sword through the wizard's chest before the wizard can cast a second time. Because rate of fire is limited by how fast you can say AVADA KEDAVRA!

Now compare that to a machine gun's rate of fire.

Or a grenade launcher. There are no spells in Harry Potter that have splash damage like a grenade.

Wizard army vs modern military in Harry Potter would end with the wizard army being shot to pieces. And by "modern military" I mean anything from 1900 onwards, your average WW1 army would make short work of them.
Which is why wizards are so reclusive and hide from the world at large.

The classic needs to be posted. Spoilered for length.

Spoiler

Ok, this has been driving me crazy for seven movies now, and I know you’re going to roll your eyes, but hear me out: Harry Potter should have carried a 1911.

Here’s why:

Think about how quickly the entire WWWIII (Wizarding-World War III) would have ended if all of the good guys had simply armed up with good ol’ American hot lead.

Basilisk? Let’s see how tough it is when you shoot it with a .470 Nitro Express. Worried about its Medusa-gaze? Wear night vision goggles. The image is light-amplified and re-transmitted to your eyes. You aren’t looking at it–you’re looking at a picture of it.

Imagine how epic the first movie would be if Harry had put a breeching charge on the bathroom wall, flash-banged the hole, and then went in wearing NVGs and a Kevlar-weave stab-vest, carrying a SPAS-12.

And have you noticed that only Europe seems to a problem with Deatheaters? Maybe it’s because Americans have spent the last 200 years shooting deer, playing GTA: Vice City, and keeping an eye out for black helicopters over their compounds. Meanwhile, Brits have been cutting their steaks with spoons. Remember: gun-control means that Voldemort wins. God made wizards and God made muggles, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

Now I know what you’re going to say: “But a wizard could just disarm someone with a gun!” Yeah, well they can also disarm someone with a wand (as they do many times throughout the books/movies). But which is faster: saying a spell or pulling a trigger?

Avada Kedavra, meet Avtomat Kalashnikova.

Imagine Harry out in the woods, wearing his invisibility cloak, carrying a .50bmg Barrett, turning Deatheaters into pink mist, scratching a lightning bolt into his rifle stock for each kill. I don’t think Madam Pomfrey has any spells that can scrape your brains off of the trees and put you back together after something like that. Voldemort’s wand may be 13.5 inches with a Phoenix-feather core, but Harry’s would be 0.50 inches with a tungsten core. Let’s see Voldy wave his at 3,000 feet per second. Better hope you have some Essence of Dittany for that sucking chest wound.

I can see it now…Voldemort roaring with evil laughter and boasting to Harry that he can’t be killed, since he is protected by seven Horcruxes, only to have Harry give a crooked grin, flick his cigarette butt away, and deliver what would easily be the best one-liner in the entire series:

“Well then I guess it’s a good thing my 1911 holds 7+1.”

And that is why Harry Potter should have carried a 1911.

tl;dr
Voldemort has seven horcruxes, Harry's 1911 carries 7+1.

 

[Nano]

you have to speak the words, if you say the magic words wrong the spell won't work.

Not after wizards are old enough.

Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry began teaching nonverbal magic to students in their sixth year in Defence Against the Dark Arts, Charms, and Transfiguration; the students were expected to use spells nonverbally from then on.