Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

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

Dhaze

Cipher
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
527
Location
Belgium
Chad tier writing tbh, only losers who obsess over crap nobody cares about waste time thinking about consistency.

Thinking of the way various details of a story commingle or conflict with one another can be an interesting endeavor in its own right. I'm not sure I envy those who don't care about consistency; though I guess they would make a fantastically easy-to-please readership.

Imagine Rusty reading a book centered around Pietro Aretino.

Chapter 17: Aretino writes his Soneti Iussuriosi.
Chapter 18: Having done so, he loses the favors of Clement VII.
Chapter 19: "... and Aretino, whose favor with the pope never faltered in the least, ..."
Rusty, forcing himself to not do a quick double-take: "Whatever. Don't give a shit. I'm not a loser."
 
Unwanted
Dumbfuck
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
999
Location
Free Market Paradise
Rusty, forcing himself to not do a quick double-take: "Whatever. Don't give a shit. I'm not a loser."
correct
Based and winner pilled. Except when niggas do this with the fucking constitution and their freedoms and instead of goin "HOL UP, this is against an amendment or two" they be like "whateva, I aint no loser" when some fed bitch starts fucking them up the ass. Or when they slurp Todd "Infinite Genders" Howard's asshole for sum reason and never go "waitaminute, dis here nigga never made a good game".
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2022
Messages
110
Idea for an extension/dlc: you play the whole game as a Squib. It would be somewhat akin to a low-Int run in Fallout, inasmuch as many questlines would be closed to you, but other specific ones would become available. Think of it as a class with many restrictions, but a handful of exclusive feats.

Because I've recently re-read the books for the first time in fifteen years, and amongst other things I wondered why exactly are Squibs not enrolled into Hogwarts? Now, I can imagine some contrivance for why that is; but deep down, surely you don't need magic for such purposes as herbology, potion-brewing, or caring for magical creatures. Admittedly it would be very useful, but not a pre-requisite by any means.

"Alas! my entire lineage is that of potent wizards—but I can't do magic for shit. Oh well, guess I'll become a bitter and loathsome janitor; better get a cat, too." So what if you can't cast spells? You can still nurse mandragoras to maturity then hurl them at your foes who will die upon hearing the plants' abominable wailings. And you can brew such potions allow you to morph into someone else, or kill or maim or soothe in a multitude of ways as befit your intentions. And you can raise helpful or dangerous creatures of many species. And though you might not be able to manufacture them, you can still use implements like Dungbombs and Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder.
If you remember Hagrid was also a Squib and he had a magical umbrella that could cast something or other (I think it was a glorified magic missile - he used to open a door once). Hagrid was also not a pushover, he could endure a couple of months in Azkaban with soul-raping demons.

My point is that squibs can still use magical artifacts so what they lack in natural magical ability they can make up in craftiness. Instead of casting infinite spells a day you can already implement a restriction to the spell casting. Maybe add things like a magic mark which can instacast a spell once per day but you are locked to one and only one. Or have a skill tree dedicated to totems and traps. Or if you want to go full retard, become a berserker and inmunize yourself from all magic for a few rounds per day.

Another way you could implement restrictions to magic would be with someone who's wand was taken away. In the books, Snape could cast a few spells without a wand and Harry tried it in book 6 when Malfoy sucker punched him, put a cloak of invisibility on him and left him on the train. Harry tried to cast accio on his wand but it was a no sell. You could play the GTA angle and have someone coming fresh out of Azkaban that can't own or operate wands but still needs to cast spells. Give him spell slots and a cast and forget system.
 

Dhaze

Cipher
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
527
Location
Belgium
If you remember Hagrid was also a Squib...
Not that it changes the rest of your post, but no, Hagrid's not a Squib; he made it to his third year of studies before being expelled. The broken remains of his wand are in his umbrella.

Still, interesting though the ideas are, and regardless of their potential, I'm pretty sure they will unfortunately never be added to the game. Realistically, I see creating a Squib or a half-giant character as something relegated to mods, way down the line, if it's even possible to mod the game without the process being a giant pain in the ass.
 

Twiglard

Poland Stronk
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
7,546
Location
Poland
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
media%2FFmjECVWWAAcKOTK.jpg
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2022
Messages
110
Not that it changes the rest of your post, but no, Hagrid's not a Squib; he made it to his third year of studies before being expelled. The broken remains of his wand are in his umbrella.
Damn, I forgot about that. Oh well, you can also make a case that you can have a half succubus like the french girl (I know they are not succubi, but they are very similar).
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
37,087
Chad tier writing tbh, only losers who obsess over crap nobody cares about waste time thinking about consistency.

Thinking of the way various details of a story commingle or conflict with one another can be an interesting endeavor in its own right. I'm not sure I envy those who don't care about consistency; though I guess they would make a fantastically easy-to-please readership.

Imagine Rusty reading a book centered around Pietro Aretino.

Chapter 17: Aretino writes his Soneti Iussuriosi.
Chapter 18: Having done so, he loses the favors of Clement VII.
Chapter 19: "... and Aretino, whose favor with the pope never faltered in the least, ..."
Rusty, forcing himself to not do a quick double-take: "Whatever. Don't give a shit. I'm not a loser."
For fiction made for adults sure, but Harry Potter was a series made for young children and the writing reflects this. Basically
uhkqoj2m5tm61.jpg
 

Harthwain

Arcane
Joined
Dec 13, 2019
Messages
5,651
"Government keeps its census/tax data, likely on a computer, and can track down a birth certificate for a domestic birth" is a great deal less than "all powerful".
Which makes it believable, especially when compared to some really crazy stuff people can believe in.
 
Unwanted
Dumbfuck
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
999
Location
Free Market Paradise

Dhaze

Cipher
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
527
Location
Belgium
For fiction made for adults sure, but Harry Potter was a series made for young children and the writing reflects this. Basically

uhkqoj2m5tm61.jpg

Fundamentally, I agree; I don't read a story and question the intricacies of goety or invultuation. But too many people and writers—including Rowling—extend that idea to things other than wonderful singing crabs, and use it as an excuse or crutch for what is, essentially, bits or chunks of bad writing.

Without even delving into other, more minute details and events, the entire time travel thing in the third book provide a great example. It's time travel, and it's magic, and it's a book for kids; so instead of questionning the whole thing as I did when I was twelve and reading it, I should have waved it away like a pesky fly? Fuck no. Rowling herself later said it was dumb as all hell, and regretted going there.

Any bit of careful thinking should be encouraged, no matter it should concern "crap nobody cares about." There's enough braindead morons as it is; let's not encourage kids to emulate them.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
7,100
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
Man, speaking about all that, I really do wonder what her editor thought. I noticed he had let slip some very basic errors like confounding jealousy with envy, poisonous with venomous, and things of a like ilk, so perhaps he wasn't bothered about the little details and was focused solely on the big-picture stuff?
The books were coming out pretty rapidly, at least early on. Potentially there just wasn't enough time for multiple revisions?
It's notorious that Bloomsburry was a small editor, and the only one who accepted publishing her work. I am far from an expert, but maybe they just did not have the manpower to thoroughly proofread before publishing it.

I'm sure you guys are right. Seven books (circa 3500 pages) in about ten years is a gargantuous amount of work, for both writer and editor. And with the first movie adaptation being released only shortly after the fourth book, that had to put a lot of pressure on the whole enterprise.

Still though, mistaking 'venomous' for 'poisonous'? Tsk. Though that can be very funny: in the last book some Ministry clerks complain about their colleagues from the department of Experimental Charms, saying, "... they're so careless, remember that poisonous duck?" Certainly Rowling meant venomous, but in the end it's funnier that way. Because really, what happened? A random duck walked into the Ministry, and a clerk went, "Well, we'd better cook that duck!"

Sucks its denuvo so you can't pirate it :(
Eh, the whole pirate world sits on one schizo tranny to crack these games. I can't even....

Wait, is he/she/xum still tripping on that whole 'pay me and worship me' attitude? That was some of the most bizarre, half delirium, half nervous breakdown stuff I've ever seen.
That's very relative, isn't it? P.K. Dick at the height of his writing years published 10~12 books a year. Shorter ones but twelve. In one year. Several years in a row. And despite some weaker ones they are on average very good. Certainly more imaginative than Rowling. You call 7 in 10 years "gargantuan". I'd say, 1 book (in a series = using a lot of the same stuff from book to book) every 1,5 year is a very moderate amount of work for someone who actually lives from writing.
 

Jaedar

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
10,289
Project: Eternity Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 Pathfinder: Kingmaker
That's very relative, isn't it? P.K.Dick at the height of his writing years published 10~12 books... a year. Shorter ones but twelve. In one year.
Yeah, and admittedly I've only do read androids dream of electric sheep, but you really can tell it was rushed out. I've heard all his books feel rushed like that.

And well, writing many books is "easier" in the sense that you don't need to keep the setting consistent for years and many different plots.
 

Dhaze

Cipher
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
527
Location
Belgium
That's all very relative, isn't it? P.K. Dick at the height of his writing years published 10~12 books a year. [...] You call 7 in 10 years "gargantuan".

Yep, all very relative. From my perspective, let's call Philip K. Dick's body of work 'cyclopean', if you want. (I've always envisionned cyclops as being much bigger than Gargantua)
 

Tyranicon

A Memory of Eternity
Developer
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
8,354
This is all really basic suspension of disbelief. The answer is simple: the dumber your audience, the less the author needs to actively care about this principle.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
7,100
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
That's very relative, isn't it? P.K.Dick at the height of his writing years published 10~12 books... a year. Shorter ones but twelve. In one year.
Yeah, and admittedly I've only do read androids dream of electric sheep, but you really can tell it was rushed out. I've heard all his books feel rushed like that.

And well, writing many books is "easier" in the sense that you don't need to keep the setting consistent for years and many different plots.
Because Rowling is so well known for keeping her books consistent as this thread shows. Am I right? Nigga please.

Also, i'm responding to a nigga who read Harry Potter but not P.K. Dick - and starts arguing about his works. I need to rethink my life's choices.
 

Cross

Arcane
Joined
Oct 14, 2017
Messages
3,061
Chad tier writing tbh, only losers who obsess over crap nobody cares about waste time thinking about consistency.

Thinking of the way various details of a story commingle or conflict with one another can be an interesting endeavor in its own right. I'm not sure I envy those who don't care about consistency; though I guess they would make a fantastically easy-to-please readership.

Imagine Rusty reading a book centered around Pietro Aretino.

Chapter 17: Aretino writes his Soneti Iussuriosi.
Chapter 18: Having done so, he loses the favors of Clement VII.
Chapter 19: "... and Aretino, whose favor with the pope never faltered in the least, ..."
Rusty, forcing himself to not do a quick double-take: "Whatever. Don't give a shit. I'm not a loser."
For fiction made for adults sure, but Harry Potter was a series made for young children and the writing reflects this. Basically
uhkqoj2m5tm61.jpg
Comparing Harry Potter to other childen's books (e.g. A Wizard of Earthsea, which also revolves around a boy wizard coming of age) doesn't do it any favors either. Rowling is simply a poor writer, whether for adults or children.
 

Serus

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
7,100
Location
Small but great planet of Potatohole
That's all very relative, isn't it? P.K. Dick at the height of his writing years published 10~12 books a year. [...] You call 7 in 10 years "gargantuan".

Yep, all very relative. From my perspective, let's call Philip K. Dick's body of work 'cyclopean', if you want. (I've alway envisionned cyclops as being much bigger than Gargantua)
He was just one example. Chosen because the speeds he wrote were extreme but high quality at the same time. I could give you more, tough probably not all as good. The "relative" part was a joke. Seven average (both by size and quality) books in 10 years is NOT "gargantuan" by any stretch of imagination. It is something to be expected and very many authors writing popular literature do that and more.
They have dwarf sized gargantuas where you live.
 

gerey

Arcane
Zionist Agent
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
3,472
Just because you don't need to explain every single detail of your story to the audience does not mean you don't have to explain the extraordinary.

People don't need to know the specific "scientific" principle that allows Superman to fly, but neither can you just have a normal human flying around without giving some sort of explanation, even if the explanation is that the guy is an alien that just happens to look like a human.

The issue with Harry Potter is that Rowling is bad at worldbuilding. Things are introduced to the audience as the plot requires with no thought given about the possible ramifications of said elements. Also, for a setting about kids attending a magical school and learn how to be wizards, very little time is actually devoted to explaining how any of the magic works.

Rowling is just a bad author. The fact she hasn't written anything of note since releasing Harry Potter books is proof enough of this.

Don't blame the audience for asking poignant questions your dumb writer ass failed to consider.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
37,087
Don't blame the audience for asking poignant questions your dumb writer ass failed to consider.
Given her massive popularity, the number of people asking these questions and being unsatisfied with the answer is small. Most kids don't care.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom