General Gaming Thread 2024

[gunnar hendershow]

Didn't Pottermore lose a ton of users and money in the last year+? The crowd who wants to just buy her shit to "stick it to the SJWs" will eventually get tired/bored and move on to the next thing that jazzes them. Then there will be nobody left of what was once an enormous empire.

Anyway, as a reminder, to anyone on the fence about the game because they want to support the people who worked on it - they're all paid a salary regardless of the game's success and won't see royalties. Only a handful of upper people will see the royalties and they're most likely all already very well off.

[Bobfoc]

Another concerning thing about the game is that the plot appears to centre around crushing a goblin rebellion. Given that goblins are an underclass in the Harry Potter universe at best, and antisemitic caricatures at worst, it's rather off-putting.

[Draevyn]

Sometimes I think some of you really really really overthink things. I'm not sure how you manage to enjoy things....

[Liam]

5 hours ago, Ebenezer Fork said:

Sometimes I think some of you really really really overthink things. I'm not sure how you manage to enjoy things....

People can enjoy things and also query the ways in which some media can act as microcosms for bigger, more concerning world views or the motives of the people who have created said media . I'd be concerned if they didn't.

I mean, there is a lot of stuff out there not made by people who use their platform to attack marginalised people.

[Skummy]

10 hours ago, damhausen said:

Didn't Pottermore lose a ton of users and money in the last year+? The crowd who wants to just buy her shit to "stick it to the SJWs" will eventually get tired/bored and move on to the next thing that jazzes them. Then there will be nobody left of what was once an enormous empire.

There's a reason why corporations are happy to change their logo to rainbow colours for Pride, to make performatively "woke" gestures in their marketing, or for Disney to make the smallest of gestures towards LGBT+ inclusivity in their films, and it's not - as the online right wing would have you believe - that the largest corporations in the world have somehow been captured by a coterie of queer academics, but because they've done the calculations; the majority of people either broadly agree or, just as importantly, don't care either way. That means the people who get actually angry about this stuff are the smallest minority, and corporations can risk losing their business - we should always find some small comfort in that, even while recognising that it's a cynical gesture.

The other part of that calculation is that the right-wing are notoriously bad at boycotting stuff. It's a well-observed phenomenon. There's rarely the concerted effort behind them that a large scale more left-wing boycott can manage, because the left have decades of experience of how to pressure corporations to make changes - but also because there tends to be a more joined-up set of principles, and more desire to actually enact change, behind them. Right-wing "boycotts" tend to be little more than yelling into the wind, and then probably still buying the thing regardless, or, at the extreme end, buying lots of the thing you're "boycotting" so you can burn it or otherwise performatively destroy it.

I imagine there's a similar flipside when it comes to showing support by buying certain products - there are probably people saying that they're buying Harry Potter stuff to "own the libs", but that's coming from a political bloc that aren't really all that good when it comes voting with their wallet. I very much doubt that there's any meaningful number of people buying Harry Potter books, movies or merch purely to stick it to woke liberals, who wouldn't be buying that stuff anyway. It's far more likely that are people are buying it because it's one of the biggest media franchises in the world, than because of something somebody said on Twitter. 

Sales of Harry Potter books did increase quite substantially last year - but that's almost certainly because there were new 25th anniversary editions released, and likely a significant marketing push along with them. Not only that, but sales of books in general have been increasing for the past couple of years. 

 

While I appreciate people who want to just say "continue to enjoy the series while not endorsing the views of the author", it's not something I can bring myself to support. Continuing to give money to someone who espouses an ideology that actively demonises my trans friends, and someone who rubs shoulders with the far-right, should be a harder moral choice to justify than "I want to still read the boy wizard books". There are other books, and better ones. What's more, Rowling herself has repeatedly made it clear that she sees the continuing success as her work as evidence that the majority of people support her - so while you might not see buying her work as supporting her views, it's clear that she does.

That said, it's easier for me because I've always hated these books anyway. Lazy plotting, poor writing, and a real creeping sense of nastiness barely concealed below the surface - "ethically mean-spirited", as Ursula Le Guin put it.

[OctoberRaven]

I have negative nostalgia for Potter because of Rowling. I don't just not want to consume anymore of Boy Wizard Thing, I actively regret that I wasn't gifted something like Neuromancer instead of the first book so that I had never supported her in the first place. So yeah, fuck Hogwarts Legacy.

[Draevyn]

5 hours ago, Tall Boi Byrne said:

People can enjoy things and also query the ways in which some media can act as microcosms for bigger, more concerning world views or the motives of the people who have created said media . I'd be concerned if they didn't.

I mean, there is a lot of stuff out there not made by people who use their platform to attack marginalised people.

I don't disagree with that. However, you can find a lot of things to hate in almost anything that you encounter in your day to day life, and even more so if you go looking for it which I find a lot of people do today because it's so readily accessible. I'm not saying that you can't question the motives of some people but this argument for instance is based on a lot of "What if's" because the game isn't even out yet.

Are people going to use this in the way that Bobfoc has stated. Of course they will because some people are just going to be complete assholes for the sake of being an asshole. They were going to do that no matter what. But contributing the mass amount of sales or success to those people is a stretch.

Colly & Benji pointed it out far better than what I can but there are going to be a lot of people who bought this game that bought it simply because they love the world, for nostalgia purposes, etc. I just don't see how bringing the toxicity of twitter and using it as a benchmark is a good idea.

[Colly]

And to be clear I'm not defending Rowling in the slightest and won't be buying the game (largely because my backlog is enormous and the idea of playing anything online repulses me...), but I live in a household of people without Twitter where my daughter loved the books (now blessedly moved on to Terry Pratchett) and everyone likes the films. If it wasn't for me being always online no one would have a clue about any of it and I'm sure there are plenty of households exactly the same.

I'm also really curious as to whether "crushing the goblin uprising" really will be the whole story, it feels very much like somethings been misreported and repeated forever, much as if you're looking you can find issues with the books/films (not least the fact that the working class kids are always thick, particularly the Irish and northern ones) they don't tend to let the goodies do overly bad things like perpetuate slavery...

[Bobfoc]

1 hour ago, Colly said:

I'm also really curious as to whether "crushing the goblin uprising" really will be the whole story, it feels very much like somethings been misreported and repeated forever, much as if you're looking you can find issues with the books/films (not least the fact that the working class kids are always thick, particularly the Irish and northern ones) they don't tend to let the goodies do overly bad things like perpetuate slavery...

There is a subplot in the books in which Hermione wants to free the house elves and the other characters tell her she's being ridiculous because they love being slaves. Now, I've probably missed your sarcasm, but I'll add the point that making Hermione black for the stage play makes that particular part of the story even more troubling.

[Dang117]

I was intrigued at the pricing off it for when it came out and its already as low as £51.00 on some stores which for a new generation game is relatively cheap, considering God of War was £70.00 on release and even Star Wars Jedi Survivor is shaping to be selling at £60-£65 rrp.

It might be nothing but with it being based in the Harry Potter Universe and adaptation of JK Rowlings work maybe that's why it's considerably lower than other triple a games.

JK Rowling is a horrible person no questions about it and I do not agree with her views but this game goes back to the argument off can you separate the art from the artist.

There will be people who will genuinely buy the game out of spite to the 'woke generation' but then there will also be people who are out of the loop who will buy the game because they like Harry Potter, I dont think anyone should be penalised or punished for what they like but then again I also don't think people should go out of there way to try and undermine people's beliefs and values. 

[Colly]

14 minutes ago, Bobfoc said:

There is a subplot in the books in which Hermione wants to free the house elves and the other characters tell her she's being ridiculous because they love being slaves. Now, I've probably missed your sarcasm, but I'll add the point that making Hermione black for the stage play makes that particular part of the story even more troubling.

I haven't read the books so no sarcasm or knowledge of that subplot. Is that carried forward into the play though because if not I think linking the two is a bit of a stretch.

[gunnar hendershow]

I think, as someone who was familiar with the books and movies, that Rowling was generally just someone who only had familiarity with stereotyped depictions of groups that are rooted in racism. And looked at all at a very superficial level like admittedly a lot of people do. The very antisemitic goblins isn't something she pulled out of thin air for example, there's similar racial tropes in tons of media. So she just seemed to me, and many others, as a well-meaning idiot.

The transphobia was something totally different than that because it built up from her following/reading some TERFs on social media, then sharing, then agreeing, etc. Nobody was jumping on her or piling on her at first, people were just like "wtf?" and "that's actually considered a bigoted belief" but gave her the benefit of the doubt. I think it's either she was just testing the waters of extreme transphobia that she always held or she got snatched up by the transphobes who found the best possible mouthpiece they could imagine. Doesn't matter, she is a proud and vocal transphobe now and has a platform so large it can literally affect lawmaking in multiple countries. 

But unless you've been extremely tuned in with it through Twitter or maybe TikTok you're not going to know. My coworker is a good dude but got the 25th anniversary books with illustrations for Christmas and was extremely excited about it - this guy has zero internet usage. Younger people are typically "online" but they aren't on Twitter, where visibility of JK's views are highest. 

So I do think for people who consider themselves allies and are in the know, especially since JK has and will use the enduring popularity of the Wizarding World as justification, it's a very questionable game to purchase. It's not the same as watching or liking "problematic" media. At the same time there's going to be maaaaannyyyy people who don't know or care not to know, which delves into a whole different conversation on "death of the artist" and separating creators from their works.

[Bobfoc]

35 minutes ago, Colly said:

I haven't read the books so no sarcasm or knowledge of that subplot. Is that carried forward into the play though because if not I think linking the two is a bit of a stretch.

It isn't carried into the play, but Rowling said that she was all for a black Hermione on Twitter. Now, I don't think she said that out of malice, but it also reframes that subplot in a worrying manner as you've got several people telling a black character to stop whinging about slavery.

Regardless, the eventual "resolution" of the house elves' plight is that Harry realises that it's important to treat them with kindness and respect, but there's no follow-through on the idea that slavery is an inherently awful concept. Being a violent and bullying slave owner, like the Malfoys, is bad, but giving your slaves compliments and kind words now and then is fine.

25 minutes ago, damhausen said:

But unless you've been extremely tuned in with it through Twitter or maybe TikTok you're not going to know. My coworker is a good dude but got the 25th anniversary books with illustrations for Christmas and was extremely excited about it - this guy has zero internet usage. Younger people are typically "online" but they aren't on Twitter, where visibility of JK's views are highest. 

So I do think for people who consider themselves allies and are in the know, especially since JK has and will use the enduring popularity of the Wizarding World as justification, it's a very questionable game to purchase. It's not the same as watching or liking "problematic" media. At the same time there's going to be maaaaannyyyy people who don't know or care not to know, which delves into a whole different conversation on "death of the artist" and separating creators from their works.

This is an important distinction to make. The idea that everyone who plays the game is a transphobe is overly simplistic because a huge number of people aren't aware of the people Rowling has allied herself with over the last couple of years. I would encourage people not to buy the game, just as I do with Ubisoft games, but I'm not trying to equate ten million sales with ten million committed transphobes.

[Skummy]

In terms of Rowling's world-view as reflected in the books, it's easy to see why it became a go-to metaphor for a lot of comfortable middle-class liberals - the kind of people who saw the biggest problem with Donald Trump as him being "crass", and who were constantly convinced that the rule of law or democratic processes would definitely stop Brexit or depose Trump eventually.

The Harry Potter series is basically about battling "evil" but ignoring injustice. Aside from the surface-level stereotypes that are there probably more out of laziness than malice - hook-nosed banking goblins, the one Asian character being called "Cho Chang", and the one Irish character constantly blowing things up - the ideology of the books is just toxic. It's an essential part of the Hogwarts deal that children are categorised in ways that will define them for their entire lives - it's a tired joke by this point that "there are four kinds of kid: brave, smart, evil and miscellaneous" - but beyond that, the entire premise of the Harry Potter universe is one built of inequality and injustice:

• House elves as happy and contended slaves has already been addressed but, again, nobody in the universe really seems to see this as a problem on anything other than an individual basis. Dobby gets his freedom not because house elves are universally deserving of freedom, but because he's One Of The Good Ones.
   
• The entire world of Harry Potter is basically built on a system of magical apartheid, where magic users and non-wizards are kept entirely separate. It's acknowledged that this has its drawbacks, and that calling someone a "muggle" is insulting, but no real effort is actually made to change this state of affairs. It's just The Way Things Are.
   
• There are non-human sentient species, and it's acknowledged that they don't have the same rights as humans. Again, this is never resolved. The only character to meaningfully challenge this state of affairs is Hermione, who is largely depicted as a silly idealist for it, and whose activism is generally depicted as a youthful folly that can be forgotten about once she can settle down with a good husband.

I don't think any of that is coming from a place of consciously saying "these injustices are proper and correct", but from a very lazy liberal position of "these things are bad, but that's just the way things are, what a shame", and a lot of the problems are problems with a lot of children's literature and the fantasy genre. It shows a profound lack of insight or imagination as an author, that would all be fairly benign and run-of-the-mill stuff for a poor children's fantasy book, but when she gets involved with social issues and frequently uses her work as an analogy for real-life politics, she (and her fans) can't have it both ways and be celebrated for saying "Donald Trump is Voldemort" or whatever, but handwave away any discussion of the actual politics of the work when that discussion is critical of her. 

And then there's Rowling trying to present herself as an ally to LGB (obviously not T) people - and even if we didn't know that she's cosying up to people who actively hate gay people, you can point to her claim for gay "representation" in her books being Dumbledore, who she arbitrarily decided was gay after all of the books had been published, without ever mentioning it in the text, and then only as a cynical make-good after rejecting the suggestion that the central premise of Harry Potter - a young boy living a miserable life in a closet, who is told that he's actually magic and belongs to a wider magical world he knew nothing about - could be read as an analogy for coming out. As far as I'm aware, Dumbledore being gay also isn't mentioned in any of the prequel films that came out after Rowling had announced that he was gay, even though their films expressly about him. 

Mostly, though, the problem is with Rowling's actions since publishing the books, far more than the dodgy moral world-view of the books themselves, as plenty of good people have taken good things from those books in spite of their failings. But I don't think there's anything wrong with examining the politics of a work, and what that tells us about the creator of that work. 

[Krabby]

The freaking Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance opening cut scene where Shang Tsung kills Liu Kang after interference from Quan Chi

[Chris2K]

Yakuza 3 completed...

  

On 26/12/2022 at 15:42, JasonM said:

@Chris2K, the biggest thing you'll run into with Y3 is that it's the roughest game of them all. It was the first step away from the PS2 games and had a bunch of quality of life changes for its time, but it's also the oldest title that hasn't been given a glow up in the form of a Kiwami game. So it's very... uneven and rough.

Also it probably has the most bullshit fight AI in any of the games, like having to fight peak Shao Khan with every boss battle, getting blocked constantly and then walloped with mega moves. It'll test your patience, and taking a lower difficulty is not an excessive luxury.

I can absolutely understand what you mean with the boss battles, getting one shot of a 5 hit combo in before getting slugged by an unblockable move became tiresome fast. Thankfully...

On 27/12/2022 at 23:09, Kazuma KiRuki said:

Yeah, it's sadly the worst in the series. If possible, I'd turn down the difficulty and speed through it. I think I skipped a lot of the side stories in this one

I did what Ruki suggested with the difficulty, so it wasn't so bad. I still did most of the side stories, and there were some good ones, particularly the murder mystery one.

But other than that, here's a list of my issues:

Spoiler

I've mentioned the walking animations, but didn't mention that Kiryu's footsteps sound like he was wearing very heavy tap shoes, whilst everyone else didn't make a sound.

There was way, way, way too much orphanage stuff for my liking, and it got very boring solving literal children's problems. There's a reason I'm not suited to be a father.

The quality of life removals, like inventory space, lack of taxis and thugs attacking you in the street with no way of avoiding them were really irritating.

I'm still struggling to understand why knocking people out gives them the same face paint of the Joker every time.

I was ready to call Rikiya the most annoying character in video game history, until he died saving Kiryu's life. But that changes nothing, he still is. I was more saddened by the orphanage getting destroyed than his death scene. Hell. I was more saddened by the dog's kennel being destroyed.

And on that note, how did MIkio survive getting his head crushed by a sledgehammer and a kennel?

2 "Kiryu's dead! No wait, he's fine." endings in a row is a little lazy.

The voice actor of Richardson was hilariously bad, although I'm willing to accept they got someone to speak English a certain way because it was a Japanese language game.

Despite all those complaints it wasn't as bad as I feared, but I'm also glad it's out of the way. On to Yakuza 4...

[Ruki]

Nice! I hope you like 4. That's where they really started changing the formula of the game, I dug it a lot. 

[OctoberRaven]

On 12/01/2023 at 14:11, Krabby said:

The freaking Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance opening cut scene where Shang Tsung kills Liu Kang after interference from Quan Chi

Man imagine if Street Fighter 6 starts up with M Bison just *ending* Ryu and be like "Yeah motherfuckas, I'm BACK"

[Ruki]

The LARP missions in Saints Row are so over the top and silly and I love it.

[Draevyn]

Everything about Saints Row is so over the top and silly. I actually keep meaning to play a few more of those but haven't made it to them yet.