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

[InD_ImaginE]

Dude Harry Potter was a hail marry of literal single mother nobody, JK probably didn't even think about anything past the 1st book. And the fact that the rest non European world has gaping magical hole on them is probably because Rowling just handwaved them on whatever she knows about the rest of the world being a normal suburban author in UK.

Not that the rest of the world has much of a bearing in HP world and it's plot as written in the books. You can remove Dumstrang and those siren schools from book 4 and replace them with random characters from the other House and literally nothing will change with the plot. It is a very Britton centric world in HP much like Murican pop culture products is very America centric or how Japan is literal center of the world in anime and manga. It not until the last book ends that there is this "muh HP extended universe" which of course failed because the world was never written with that in purpose.

People nitpicking these and trying to "LOL SO BAAAAD LOLOLOL" is autistic.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Most open worlds replicate countryside areas, and as such, they are bound to be seen as "empty" by urbanites. One thing I'll give to old Asscreed games is that their cities were always fun to explore, even as walking sims.

This is something I don't get.

Why does every square inch of a game world need some bespoke content?

maybe it's because of my upbringing in which I was dragged, begrudgingly, to the great outdoors and made to appreciate nature for its own sake, but part of what I loved about Breadth of the Wild was how much of its world felt like natural wilderness- devoid of necessity for the player.

There was plenty of cut and paste content, having a bit of negative space improved the world, not diminished it.

I'd rather have a pretty vista than be forced to fight the same Watch-Dog monster 21 times (or Hippogryff as the case may be.)

Hell, in the Chamber of Secrets game for PS2 my favorite thing to do was fly around the school and go places you wouldn't expect. There were wizard cards in some of those places, but mostly you flew to the top of Hogwats just to see the game world.

This is one of the biggest differences between say, BG1 and BG3. People who complain about BG1's "empty" areas when you need that spacing to give you a sense of adventure and exploration, as opposed to BG3 where you can't go three steps without tripping over "something awesome".

 

[Delterius]

Dude Harry Potter was a hail marry of literal single mother nobody, JK probably didn't even think about anything the past 1st book. And the fact that the rest non European world has gaping magical hole on them is probably because Rowling just handwaved them on whatever she knows about the rest of the world being a normal suburban author in UK.

no she didn't

handwaving would be saying 'this is the french school and this is the russian school there are others but i don't care about them right'. which is what rowling stopped doing after a while. rowling explicitly removed all the holes because she thinks 'there's two schools in the west, one is the american school called i love money, and the other is the brazilian school which is magic castle in their godforsaken non calvinist language'

why would anybody simp for rowling's worldbuilding lmao

 

[lycanwarrior]

Assuming its his real account of course. But anyway... Admin of retardera is a hypocrite who would have thought lol? Following the footsteps of his kike masters: rules for thee but not for me. Even ditched that stronk quirky nigger game from square enix to play an "alt right tranny muder sim".

Reminds me of the Call of Duty boycotters meme lol.

Gamers are such sheep it's disgusting at times.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Most open worlds replicate countryside areas, and as such, they are bound to be seen as "empty" by urbanites. One thing I'll give to old Asscreed games is that their cities were always fun to explore, even as walking sims.

This is something I don't get.

Why does every square inch of a game world need some bespoke content?

maybe it's because of my upbringing in which I was dragged, begrudgingly, to the great outdoors and made to appreciate nature for its own sake, but part of what I loved about Breadth of the Wild was how much of its world felt like natural wilderness- devoid of necessity for the player.

There was plenty of cut and paste content, having a bit of negative space improved the world, not diminished it.

I'd rather have a pretty vista than be forced to fight the same Watch-Dog monster 21 times (or Hippogryff as the case may be.)

Hell, in the Chamber of Secrets game for PS2 my favorite thing to do was fly around the school and go places you wouldn't expect. There were wizard cards in some of those places, but mostly you flew to the top of Hogwats just to see the game world.

I think it's not really related to actual depictions of countryside... it's just that people crave handmade design, but can't bring themselves to hate procedural generation.

 

[Delterius]

Why does every square inch of a game world need some bespoke content?

Todd (PBUH) tried to bring the wonders of nature to a godless demographic, complete with soil erosion AI. Unfortunately the RPG Gamers called his offerings 'walking simulators' so it was all for naught. But y'all aren't ready for this conversation.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Why does every square inch of a game world need some bespoke content?

Todd (PBUH) tried to bring the wonders of nature to a godless demographic, complete with soil erosion AI. Unfortunately the RPG Gamers called his offerings 'walking simulators' so it was all for naught. But y'all aren't ready for this conversation.

The best countryside atmospheres I've felt have been in The Witcher 1 and Kingdom Come: Deliverance. You can even feel the whiff of cow dung if you close your eyes.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

why would anybody simp for rowling's worldbuilding lmao

but I am not simping for her world building. it's just it is incredibly autistic nitpicking of something that fundamentally irrelevant to the book world. That Africa has 1 or 20 schools, that China and India has 1 school is just a handwave. Rowling is not really trying to make Sanderson "fantasy world" here. HP becomes a successful international seller and thus there are question and she probably just google shit for 15 min before making shits up, but as far as the world goes it is still British centric with the rest of the world being of 0 consequences.

it's like reading a manga being set in Japan and endlessly nitpicking on how USA is not there and solving the plot

I just find this incredibly autistic

 

[Fargus]

Assuming its his real account of course. But anyway... Admin of retardera is a hypocrite who would have thought lol? Following the footsteps of his kike masters: rules for thee but not for me. Even ditched that stronk quirky nigger game from square enix to play an "alt right tranny muder sim".

Reminds me of the Call of Duty boycotters meme lol.

Gamers are such sheep it's disgusting at times.

Its new and shiny normie game. Most weak willed cunts can't resist even if they act like they hate it.

 

[Delterius]

Rowling is not really trying

i agree. you see 'rowling is not really an author' as defence, i see it as an explanation.

and she probably just google shit for 15 min before making shits up

and somehow it is autistic to criticize that level of writing

ok

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Rowling is not really trying

i agree. you see 'rowling is not really an author' as defence, i see it as an explanation.

and she probably just google shit for 15 min before making shits up

and somehow it is autistic to criticize that level of writing

ok

I don't know man. Do you nitpick on where the hell is the rest of the world's metahuman when you read Marvel or DC stuff? There are surely token minority here and there but why is everything US centric in spite the scale of the threat and meta human thing not being localized stuff? I guess there is this mystical high tech African country there that also fall apart the moment you question everything. I don't think anybody does this because really, neither HP or those American comic is going for that. Neither is trying to be Sandersen making a fully realized fantasy world or something.

It is just incredibly autistic behaviour.

 

[Delterius]

when you read Marvel or DC stuff?

i don't read those

It is just incredibly autistic behaviour.

bro your standards are lower than a potterhead's please sit down

 

[Lambach]

and somehow it is autistic to criticize that level of writing

ok

It kinda is, because it's completely irrelevant. It's a story about a "Chosen One" super special magic boy from Britain and his wacky zany adventures with his magic friends. The world-building needs to be developed just enough to deliver his story, through his eyes, within his own environment. Whether there is a 2000-pages worth of lore dump that goes into painstaking details regarding the last 3000 years of Magic and Wizard society in China, or Rowling just goes "Yeah, I guess there's a Wizard school there too, it's called 'Rice Bong Ching Chong' or some shit lmao" makes absolutely no difference to the subject of her books.

 

[Jarmaro]

J.K. Rowling wrote an extremely evocative setting that synergizes casual 'wizard' fantasy into a funny adventure for children. I don't think at any point she considered logical ramification of her world or tried to do anything we call a real 'world-building.' She didn't need to because she was in it for easthetics of a secret society of wizards, paralel to a normal modern one. It's a literal wish-fulfilment. If you want serious, downright autistic consideration of a Harry Potter world then just read Methods of Rationality by Eliazer Yudkowsky.

I'm not saying that I like fantasy books where the author doesn't give a shit about continuity or world coherency, but they weren't important for Rowling, and considering the books were for children she wasn't wrong in doing as she did. The success of the books speaks for itself.

 

[Delterius]

It kinda is, because it's completely irrelevant. It's a story about a "Chosen One" super special magic boy from Britain and his wacky zany adventures with his magic friends. The world-building needs to be developed just enough to deliver his story, through his eyes, within his own environment.

That is false. You're talking about the approach taken before the 'wizarding world' became a thing and we started seeing stories that involve the rest of the world. Which is when you go from 'france has its own school' to 'entire continents have their own school'. Which is worth criticism, together with some of the stuff that just didn't transition well into the growing seriousness of the story.

Even the potter fans agree on the weaknesses of Rowling's worldbuilding who, to her credit, often just retcons stuff on the fly. The funny thing about Rowling is that while her ego is up there, she still focuses more on not losing face as opposed to pretending her stories are perfect. Rowling could come up with 10 different schools for eastern asia and she'd just add them to her IP without batting an eye.

 

[turkishronin]

Why do normies flock to open-world shit? I'm pretty sure a lot of people who bought this didn't even care about Harry Potter and jumped on the OMG AAA OPEN-WORLD hype train

 

[Axioms]

J.K. Rowling wrote an extremely evocative setting that synergizes casual 'wizard' fantasy into a funny adventure for children. I don't think at any point she considered logical ramification of her world or tried to do anything we call a real 'world-building.' She didn't need to because she was in it for easthetics of a secret society of wizards, paralel to a normal modern one. It's a literal wish-fulfilment. If you want serious, downright autistic consideration of a Harry Potter world then just read Methods of Rationality by Eliazer Yudkowsky.

I'm not saying that I like fantasy books where the author doesn't give a shit about continuity or world coherency, but they weren't important for Rowling, and considering the books were for children she wasn't wrong in doing as she did. The success of the books speaks for itself.

Rowling was very explicit early on that she "wasn't writing fantasy" but children's stories. You really need to consider the genres like British Boarding School and Roald Dahl kids stories that she was operating within. Harry Potter, especially the early 3 books or so, was a fantastic kids story. The key element was strong and consistent "whimsy" related to the magical culture and society. That is what blew the mind of the original target audience. Of course the story fell apart as she tried to move towards more Young Adult(YA), rather than what professionals would call "Middle Grade"(MG) in America, style narratives. This is especially evident in the logic of Harry living at Privet Drive, both the reason he has to and the consequences. Note that The Half Blood Prince was inititally intended to be the second book for instance, iirc.

Rowling wrote mediocre adult fiction, even prior to the trans drama, for the same reason the later Potter books got trashy.

If you look at other middle grade chosen one stories, like The Dark Is Rising, they actually maintain their credibility specifically because they don't try to move into the YA space. Something like Deltora Quest or The 7th Tower would be another good example. No one subjects these stories to any sort of consistency or logic review because they never tried to be more than they were.

 

[Gamezor]

J.K. Rowling wrote an extremely evocative setting that synergizes casual 'wizard' fantasy into a funny adventure for children. I don't think at any point she considered logical ramification of her world or tried to do anything we call a real 'world-building.' She didn't need to because she was in it for easthetics of a secret society of wizards, paralel to a normal modern one. It's a literal wish-fulfilment. If you want serious, downright autistic consideration of a Harry Potter world then just read Methods of Rationality by Eliazer Yudkowsky.

I'm not saying that I like fantasy books where the author doesn't give a shit about continuity or world coherency, but they weren't important for Rowling, and considering the books were for children she wasn't wrong in doing as she did. The success of the books speaks for itself.

This is an interesting debate. The bad world building and plots that broke suspension of disbelief hurt my enjoyment of the books but I still liked them. It is hard to compete with Tolkien where he spent his entire life building the world and iterating on it. Whatever she may claim it seemed obvious to me reading it that Rowling had one book (first one was best) and then not much material for more until it took off. So then she makes unforced errors like having a quidditch World Cup or having foreign schools or the time travel shit as she pieces it all together in a hurry. She needed to make the whole thing much more insular to be believable which probably means the game works well.

 

[Strange Fellow]

That is false. You're talking about the approach taken before the 'wizarding world' became a thing and we started seeing stories that involve the rest of the world.

What stories are these? I thought you guys were talking about social media shitposts.

 

[Peachcurl]

J.K. Rowling wrote an extremely evocative setting that synergizes casual 'wizard' fantasy into a funny adventure for children. I don't think at any point she considered logical ramification of her world or tried to do anything we call a real 'world-building.' She didn't need to because she was in it for easthetics of a secret society of wizards, paralel to a normal modern one. It's a literal wish-fulfilment. If you want serious, downright autistic consideration of a Harry Potter world then just read Methods of Rationality by Eliazer Yudkowsky.

Or fully buy into the joy of a nonsensical world and read Monday Begins on Saturday by the Strugatskys.

 

[KIss My Ass]

This game has some crazy level scaling. I was out killing all manner of wild critters and every single one of them was level 16 which just so happens to be the level I am at. What kind of lazy shit is that.

 

[Lambach]

That is false. You're talking about the approach taken before the 'wizarding world' became a thing and we started seeing stories that involve the rest of the world.

The "Wizarding World" is a product created by corporate suits trying to milk every single penny from the teats of an extremely succesful series of novels (granted, the series author is right there alongside them, squeezing those titties too). It should not be conflated with the Harry Potter series proper.

Yes, Rowling sucks fat cocks at large scale world-building, but that is largely irrelevant when it comes to her core product because the story of Harry Potter works just fine with the amount of world detail that it has. I mean, it's right there in the name. The series is called "Harry Potter", not "Wizarding World".

 

[Delterius]

That is false. You're talking about the approach taken before the 'wizarding world' became a thing and we started seeing stories that involve the rest of the world.

What stories are these? I thought you guys were talking about social media shitposts.

The new movie trilogy starts in the US, then moves onto Paris and I think it has a scene in Brazil? More importantly the expanded universe does feed back into Britain, as the game now has teachers from ugandan school and so on.

The "Wizarding World" is a product created by corporate suits trying to milk every single penny from the teats of an extremely succesful series of novels (granted, the series author is right there alongside them, squeezing those titties too). It should not be conflated with the Harry Potter series proper.

Rowling is rather notorious for her creative control. The series is her baby and I think she actually wrote the Fantastic Beasts screenplay, which is one of the reasons the movies try to flow like prose. Yeah, the 'Wizarding World' is a corporate tool to make money, but that's Rowling's estate right there. She's conscious of the fact that lots of things in her books didn't transition well after her roald dahl phase and she's retconning things all the time. She was just a bit out of her depth when creating an entire world all at once, on top of insisting that it had always existed in her notes.

 

[Axioms]

J.K. Rowling wrote an extremely evocative setting that synergizes casual 'wizard' fantasy into a funny adventure for children. I don't think at any point she considered logical ramification of her world or tried to do anything we call a real 'world-building.' She didn't need to because she was in it for easthetics of a secret society of wizards, paralel to a normal modern one. It's a literal wish-fulfilment. If you want serious, downright autistic consideration of a Harry Potter world then just read Methods of Rationality by Eliazer Yudkowsky.

I'm not saying that I like fantasy books where the author doesn't give a shit about continuity or world coherency, but they weren't important for Rowling, and considering the books were for children she wasn't wrong in doing as she did. The success of the books speaks for itself.

This is an interesting debate. The bad world building and plots that broke suspension of disbelief hurt my enjoyment of the books but I still liked them. It is hard to compete with Tolkien where he spent his entire life building the world and iterating on it. Whatever she may claim it seemed obvious to me reading it that Rowling had one book (first one was best) and then not much material for more until it took off. So then she makes unforced errors like having a quidditch World Cup or having foreign schools or the time travel shit as she pieces it all together in a hurry. She needed to make the whole thing much more insular to be believable which probably means the game works well.

This is not accurate. Rowling had a general plot and lots of story detail but it was mostly narrative and characters and not the kind of stuff that "worldbuilders" focus on. Quidditch was because she was pissed at an ex at the time and he loved sports or something, so she made a silly low effort sport and didn't worry too much about anything but the popularity/jock plotting for Harry. Time travel was NBD in a middle grade story for elementary students. The problems only arise with the shift to YA.

To be fair lots of the dumbest stuff *did* get added after the first couple books got big. Minor plot details and stuff. But again the key is the age group targeted. The entire first book had a totally ridiculous plot in every way for a story that went above middlegrade. Dumb little games guarding the stone? What? Total boarding school type stuff. Many similar wizard school stories around the same period, of which there were tons and they often had school competitions like the House Cup, had similar plot points. The stories aren't for teens and adults to analyze into oblivion but to be fun for kids.

 

[Tyranicon]

I thought we settled the JK Rowling "worldbuilding" stuff pages ago?

Yes, they're kids' books (YA is basically the same with more angst).

Yes, being too critical on logic in kids' books is a waste of time.

Yes, they are hilarious to make fun of, because Rowling is not a great writer.

Yes, this is the best selling series of forest-killing books in human history, outside of the holy Bible (which is an anthology, but semantics).



Ain't reality a funny thing?