Videogames 2023: Dreams of the Sandbox Kings

[RumHam]

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I know there's quite a big demarcation between online discourse and real life, but I don't understand how one can be on the internet, and be involved enough to know the Potter game but not know about Rowling's bigotry. Like how are you someone who has a username and online handle, but not have come across that battleground. 

I remember I saw something about tweets years ago, but I came away with the impression she was just an out of touch old lady. Sorta like my dad, I assumed she'd never want to hurt trans people for their choices but just grew up with the idea that you can't change your gender and had a hard time adapting. My dad won't accept that pluto isn't a planet either. 

But yeah apparently she's more activly bad and not even as old as I thought. 

Resident Evil 4 has been a weird experience. I was very excited for it and then it is awesome but it's also just....resident evil 4? Which I just replayed a couple months ago. I don't know what I was expecting and that's my fault. 

The Last Spell meanwhile falls into that "learned the mechanics and now it's less fun as we grind" trap. I could probably set up some kinda script to fake input and level everything up real quick. I won't, but the problem is that I even wanted to. 

I know there are other maps, but I don't know how to unlock them.

So the goal of the game is to protect the mages casting the titular "last spell." Ok so I do that. It's hard because the "seal" doesn't have much HP. I can see that more mages will grant it more HP, but not how to get more mages. 

It turns out to get two mages you have to let the thing you're supposed to defend at all costs fall, twice. All my game overs were "your heroes died." because like....AT ALL COSTS. 

 

[Secretary of Eumenes]

2 hours ago, Poobah said:

 

 

2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

1 hour ago, IlyaP said:

 

I think there's some confusion: I'm not telling you you should like, or even not-dislike J.K. Rowling for her opinions. Please don't think I'm doing that. I don't like J.K. Rowling- I've never met her, and if I ever do meet her by then I'll be the young writing phenom and she can feel however she wants about me. I don't need her approval to be an awesome writer.

And I don't need her approval to cherish her stories. I don't need anyone's approval, because I make up my own mind. Based on what I feel, what I believe, and what I know. 

And what I know is that there is nothing in a Harry Potter book that should make anybody but a Death Eater feel unwelcome to them. There is nothing -barring some kinda horrid final boss or something, I haven't beaten it- in the Hogwarts game that should make anybody but a School Shooter feel unwelcome to it. 

The thing that irks me about this is that there IS an implicit pressure -on this subject- to condemn Rowling. I'm not talking about Death of the Author or whatever, neither. Where you're giving me permission to like the books while disliking the woman. Nah, no thanks. I don't know her. I don't have to condemn or dislike her just because it's three-on-one. 

Even bad, failed, or perhaps just wrong (maybe she's just wrong!) people are capable of good and noble deeds. That's, like, one of the great messages of the later books. Reinforced many times over. You have to let people be wrong. You have to let them fail, and sometimes to have even been actively bad. You have to remember that not everybody's life was your life, that people can change and become better for it. 

But they won't if you never give them a chance. Why would they? Why SHOULD they? And giving people a chance to become better, or to maybe just learn better, should not come with prerequisites to apologies and grovelings in the "public square"- not in any interaction I wanna be a part of. 

Ms. Rowling is entitled to her opinions and her writings- ESPECIALLY if I don't like them. I won't hate her for it. I don't have to.

2 hours ago, Poobah said:

Rowling has made a great many tweets, but also written articles and letters, and used her influence, and most importantly to the discourse around the Hogwarts game her money to support anti-trans causes and groups. It's not that she is bigoted on a personal level which, sure means I wouldn't want to be her friend, but on a political one. She's a major voice in the so-called "culture wars" that have already had real-life negative impacts on the lives of trans people in the UK.

Frankly, I looked at the GLAAD list of charges against her and the only thing that I really even gave half-a-fuck about was that she wrote that book with the crossdressing serial killer. Which is cringe, and I already knew about- but... Well... I'm writing a book right now in which an character is dehumanized and psychologically conditioned to stop seeing himself as a person, and instead as a thing. While being tortured and sensory nulled. Later, the evil scientist in charge of the program collects this... thing... and on the super-secret mission decides it still has enough going on sentience/personality-wise to treat them like a pet instead of a thing. Gives their new pet a name and decides it's gonna be a girl pet, because the evil scientist is fucking evil 

Am I not allowed to write my story, or try to have it published, because that depicts a transition in a bad light or something? Even though that poor, abused, character is secretly the hero. The only hero in the entire story? Or because I might suggest that a scientist/authority figure might not have a gender-nonconforming person's best interests at heart? Because that's what the GLAAD report on Ms. Rowling reads like. Block after block of text that really boils down to 

"She said or wrote THIS and if we had said or wrote it we would have said THAT."

And frankly, my response is that if they want THAT then they should go fucking write THAT. 

Prolly can't tho huh? Not in a way people wanna read, eh? 

It takes nothing to say "I woulda wrote it like thiiiiiiis" 

Mr. Martin stole my name for a Hellenic princeling in my Magnum Opus. He stole it by beating me to get his art completed and produced/published. That's a challenge for me to make sure he doesn't beat me again. If you're so concerned with Rowling's productions, that they're anti-trans and whatnot, beat her to the ball. Being anti-Rowling isn't going to give anybody anywhere anything except a feeling of righteousness and/or rage. Being pro-trans, POSITIVE actually gives people something on which they can build instead of destroy. 

J.K. Rowling is not the First Order. She isn't a Nazi and she isn't Donald Trump or an elected official. She's a person. You credit her with too much power, that's why her game has power over you. 

2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

Sure, I know plenty of people who haven't scoped the controversy, but they're not active members on internet forums. 

It's less that I haven't heard of it. I've just never heard of anything worth the seething hate I see in response to the woman's name. Sorry, that's just how I feel. Also, Bloomberg said...

Quote

The legislation, which passed its first Holyrood vote by 88 to 33 last week, includes proposals that will remove the requirement for someone to obtain a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before they can seek a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

Now the whole Trans-Raping-in-Bathrooms thing? Yeah, it doesn't happen. But you are allowed to be afraid of things, even irrationally. I'll remind that Ms. Rowling was raped. She's allowed to be wrong without having people send her death threats. Stating her opinion, and writing about the influences on said opinion, is NOT THE SAME as causing harm. 

 

1 hour ago, IlyaP said:

I maintain a policy to each their own, as I know the Potterverse (if that's the term to use?) means a lot to some people - 

 

I ain't really got much else to say, just that I don't identify with any Potterverse or what have you. I cherish the books, adore the films, and... Yeah, that's it. Those things, plus refuse to join in the tearing down of somebody I don't know and -surely- don't fully understand when I have thousands and thousands of pages of their art to reference that however wrong, misinformed, or outright irrational they may be about something: that doesn't define her on everything

 

Edited March 26 by Secretary of Eumenes

[Gorn]

Most of Rowling's income actually gets donated to things like women's shelters, orphanages, and supporting single parents. People are complicated, and shades of grey exist.

Yes, her views on trans people are wrong, but the Twitter-fueled need to declare someone an unperson over having crappy views should be resisted. 90+% of people on this planet who live outside of big cities in the West have far more abhorrent views than Rowling does. Should we boycott all of them? Since I see a lot of logistical hurdles if we should.

[Heartofice]

I know people who are extreme HP fans and others who play HL and generally they have zero interest in the personal views of Rowling. They don’t sit on Twitter all day talking about it or even thinking about any of it.

You’d be amazed how people outside of your echo chamber even live! 

They just want to enjoy the stuff they enjoy. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

7 hours ago, Gorn said:

Most of Rowling's income actually gets donated to things like women's shelters, orphanages, and supporting single parents. People are complicated, and shades of grey exist.

Yes, her views on trans people are wrong, but the Twitter-fueled need to declare someone an unperson over having crappy views should be resisted. 90+% of people on this planet who live outside of big cities in the West have far more abhorrent views than Rowling does. Should we boycott all of them? Since I see a lot of logistical hurdles if we should.

I wonder how many people boycotting Hogwarts buy Harper Collins books (like ASoI&F) which is owned by NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch and his media empire have done more harm to the trans community than Rowling could ever manage.

Or buy games made by companies that make their staff ‘crunch’ to finish the game on time?

Or buy anything from Amazon, which treats creators badly (overly generous refund policies for audiobooks etc), and treat their staff appallingly?

That’s before we get to our clothes, food and drink, many of which are made by child labour and literal slaves.  Same with the conponents in our tech, the lithium in our batteries.

So I find it hard to get mad at people for buying a game whose IP creator has views I vehemently disagree with.

Edited March 26 by Derfel Cadarn

[IlyaP]

10 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

I wonder how many people boycotting Hogwarts buy Harper Collins books (like ASoI&F) which is owned by NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch and his media empire have done more harm to the trans community than Rowling could ever manage.

I haven't crunched the numbers myself - as I said, I'm quite indifferent to all of it since 'magical school for wizards' was never my thing from day one¹ , but after asking some friends for someone who might be able to provide some figures, numbers, context, etc., a rather large number of people kept referring me to Jimquisition's Hogwarts Legacy². 

1. I was working at Dragon Books in Weston, MA, and was busy reading the Wheel of Time series when the Potter books exploded in popularity with the fourth book, which led to some impressively long lines out the door at the store where I worked)

2. Why can't people just write essays instead? I'd much rather read this as long-form piece than watch it as a video. *comical grumble*

 

[psynetik123]

Looks like MS's acquisition of ActiBlizz is a done deal at this point, with UK's CMA essentially approving the deal:

https://stevivor.com/news/cma-says-microsofts-acquisition-of-activision-blizzard-wont-lessen-competition/

Interesting times we live in. I wonder how Sony is going to respond.

[Kalnestk Oblast]

1 hour ago, psynetik123 said:

Looks like MS's acquisition of ActiBlizz is a done deal at this point, with UK's CMA essentially approving the deal:

https://stevivor.com/news/cma-says-microsofts-acquisition-of-activision-blizzard-wont-lessen-competition/

Interesting times we live in. I wonder how Sony is going to respond.

The US still hasn't dropped their suit. I think its more likely but it is by no means a given.

[IlyaP]

Something I did not expect to discover today: Frostlands, from the WoW: Dragonflight score, has a very clear tip of the hat to the 1996 film The Rock: 

The Rock - Jade: https://tinyurl.com/228whb35

WoW Dragonflight - Frostlands: https://tinyurl.com/ycyx589e

There I was assembling a bookshelf, when this caught my ear and completely derailed my afternoon's activities!

Edited March 27 by IlyaP
Formatting

[Poobah]

23 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

I wonder how many people boycotting Hogwarts buy Harper Collins books (like ASoI&F) which is owned by NewsCorp. Rupert Murdoch and his media empire have done more harm to the trans community than Rowling could ever manage.

Or buy games made by companies that make their staff ‘crunch’ to finish the game on time?

Or buy anything from Amazon, which treats creators badly (overly generous refund policies for audiobooks etc), and treat their staff appallingly?

That’s before we get to our clothes, food and drink, many of which are made by child labour and literal slaves.  Same with the conponents in our tech, the lithium in our batteries.

So I find it hard to get mad at people for buying a game whose IP creator has views I vehemently disagree with.

This is a very "and yet you participate in society" kind of response. 

We're are allowed to pick our battles, make our preferences known, and exercise what little power we have in our fucked up world as and when we are able. Just because we can't change all the things and simply existing forces us to make compromises with our principles it doesn't make our efforts any less meaningful when we are able to make them, some might argue more so, given that it requires swimming against the current of shit instead of just letting ourselves be carried along with it. 

Also I'm not mad at the person playing the game, but I'm equally entitled to not play it, and when the thread starts going in the "omg you should play this game" direction offer my own counterpoint as to why I disagree. Plus when they specifically ask what it is exactly that JRK did it's entirety reasonable to reply. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

4 hours ago, Poobah said:

This is a very "and yet you participate in society" kind of response. 

We're are allowed to pick our battles, make our preferences known, and exercise what little power we have in our fucked up world as and when we are able. Just because we can't change all the things and simply existing forces us to make compromises with our principles it doesn't make our efforts any less meaningful when we are able to make them, some might argue more so, given that it requires swimming against the current of shit instead of just letting ourselves be carried along with it. 

Also I'm not mad at the person playing the game, but I'm equally entitled to not play it, and when the thread starts going in the "omg you should play this game" direction offer my own counterpoint as to why I disagree. Plus when they specifically ask what it is exactly that JRK did it's entirety reasonable to reply. 

That’s kind of my point. Where the line between being able to separate art from artist is a personal thing.

But what I was mainly referring to was people declaring anyone who bought Hogwarts as being no ally of Trans folk is being hypocritical if they buy products made by companies that equally - or moreso - hurt the Trans community. Or indeed any community.

Don’t want to buy Hogwarts because of Rowling? That’s your choice. Denouncing anyone who has as an enemy of the Trans community? While giving money to Rupert Murdoch? Amazon? Nestle?

That’s hypocrisy imho. 

Edited March 27 by Derfel Cadarn

[IlyaP]

On 3/26/2023 at 11:17 AM, Werthead said:

Very interesting to see how the media responds to this. Multiple venues repeated the allegations against Avellone instantly, but, despite the news breaking hours ago, none of them apart from Forbes seem to have updated the news that the allegations have been retracted.

PCGamer have finally covered it: https://www.pcgamer.com/chris-avellone-accepts-seven-figure-payment-to-settle-libel-suit-with-those-who-accused-him-of-sexual-misconduct/

[Secretary of Eumenes]

Never let nobody make you do something you don't want- least of all me

I only ever was excited to have a game that was playable and engaging from the second I bought it. It's the first time in a long, long, while that I didn't have to wait for the game to be made playable via patch or completed through extra payments. 

And I take issue with certain made-up words that, by their very use, imply that I ain't supposed to like something. 

I don't want you to feel compelled to play the game. I just wanted to share that I am enjoying it and others might also. My niece was absolutely taken in by it yesterday. 

[IlyaP]

9 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

But what I was mainly referring to was people declaring anyone who bought Hogwarts as being no ally of Trans folk is being hypocritical if they buy products made by companies that equally - or moreso - hurt the Trans community. Or indeed any community.

It's entertainment, not a necessary must-have-to-survive item. It's not vital to our daily existence, so some personal ethical choices are available to us.

That said, this is one ethical quandry we face on a daily basis in a capitalist society - as Chidi Anigonye displayed with his assorted moral dilemmas in The Good Place. 

But as information is made available about who, what, how, etc., a given Thing abuses, exploits, harms, etc, a group at any end in the production process, we can choose our actions accordingly and seek alternative options, depending on the severity of the transgression(s).

In the case of this non-essential piece of entertainment that by all accounts legitimises a writer with a set of views some may find disagreeable, it's not particularly challenging to not financially validate said person and associates by abstaining from simply buying this non-essential entertainment.

Above early-morning musings brought to you by my philosophy degrees. 

[Derfel Cadarn]

9 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

It's entertainment, not a necessary must-have-to-survive item. It's not vital to our daily existence, so some personal ethical choices are available to us.

That said, this is one ethical quandry we face on a daily basis in a capitalist society - as Chidi Anigonye displayed with his assorted moral dilemmas in The Good Place. 

But as information is made available about who, what, how, etc., a given Thing abuses, exploits, harms, etc, a group at any end in the production process, we can choose our actions accordingly and seek alternative options, depending on the severity of the transgression(s).

In the case of this non-essential piece of entertainment that by all accounts legitimises a writer with a set of views some may find disagreeable, it's not particularly challenging to not financially validate said person and associates by abstaining from simply buying this non-essential entertainment.

Above early-morning musings brought to you by my philosophy degrees. 

So you’re resigned to not buying the last two AsoI&F novels (if they’re ever finished) since they’re luxury items and Rupert Murdoch will be publishing them (assuming he lives that long)?

Or Robin Hobb or any Tolkien books since they’re also published by Murdoch?

[Kalnestk Oblast]

10 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

So you’re resigned to not buying the last two AsoI&F novels (if they’re ever finished) since they’re luxury items and Rupert Murdoch will be publishing them (assuming he lives that long)?

Or Robin Hobb or any Tolkien books since they’re also published by Murdoch?

I don't think this is an equivalence; depends a lot on how horrible you view Murdoch's views and how directly affecting Murdoch this would be. IMO, the tie between Murdoch and the publishing is much more tenuous than the tie between JK Rowling and a direct adaptation of her work. 

But ultimately this will always be subjective - the level of immorality and unethical behavior you are willing to support compared to the value you receive is going to be different for each person. Just don't be surprised if that value is higher or lower than yours.

[IlyaP]

25 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Or Robin Hobb or any Tolkien books since they’re also published by Murdoch?

I wasn't aware Tolkien was writing new novels. What the hell do you know that I don't?!

[Derfel Cadarn]

7 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I don't think this is an equivalence; depends a lot on how horrible you view Murdoch's views and how directly affecting Murdoch this would be. IMO, the tie between Murdoch and the publishing is much more tenuous than the tie between JK Rowling and a direct adaptation of her work. 

But ultimately this will always be subjective - the level of immorality and unethical behavior you are willing to support compared to the value you receive is going to be different for each person. Just don't be surprised if that value is higher or lower than yours.

Murdoch owns Harper Collins. Rowling’s involvement with the Hogwarts game is limited to allowing the game company to make it in exchange for (I assume) a big sum of money. I suspect she would not be happy at the character creation which allows trans female characters to (I assume) bunk with cis-female characters. 
 

Regardless, my point is people should be free to buy or not buy whatever product they want to. People don’t want to buy anything related to Rowling? I respect their decision. People hate Rowling but really really want to fly around an open world Hogwarts, separating the IP creator from the art? I respect their decison.

What makes me uncomfortable is denounciations I’ve seen (not on this forum) that people buying the game are betraying the trans community. People giving money hand over foot to organisations doing far worse to the trans community than Rowling ever could.

And that’s ignoring other stuff such as giving money to Amazon, or Disney (who as reported on this forum have fought to avoid paying royalties to authors).

Its a capitalist society and someone’s getting screwed somewhere down the chain. So boycott who you want, but don’t judge people who don’t.

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, IlyaP said:

I wasn't aware Tolkien was writing new novels. What the hell do you know that I don't?!

Tolkien has released four new(ish) books in the last six years, fifty years after he died. He's on a roll.

[IlyaP]

@Kalnestk Oblast summarised my thoughts eloquently before I could. Basically: "what he said".