Hogwarts Legacy Controversies

[AngelaHornung]

I have LOVED Hogwarts Legacy thus far, but I see a lot of people bashing it because JK Rowling is kind of a jerk and apparently there is a Trans character in the game (which is cool, but for me not really important despite being trans myself, I just wanted to live out my childhood dream of going to Hogwarts and becoming an evil witch like Bellatrix Lestrange lol) named Sirona. At what point do you separate the art from the creator and their views?

 

I personally don't think JK Rowling is mean or evil enough (not really sure what words to use here) to justify bashing or even boycotting the game, yet I remember hearing about it everywhere about how people were going to stay away from it which I think is kind of silly. I plan on continuing to enjoy the experience regardless but what super curious as to how others go about this. 

 

Side Note: Has anyone else created a side plot for their character? My character's whole gist atm is that they become so distraught at the destruction Ranrock and his Goblins have caused (especially with Sebastian's poor sister Anne  ) that she grows to hate Goblins and eventually the Ministry of Magic due to their inaction as well as their stance on Dark Magic which Sebastian and my character have utilized several times to save people. Effectively creating this little juicy set up where my character is using the unforgivable curses as a means to help fellow Wizards and Witches escape from Ranrock's loyalists. Effectively pertaining to the fallen hero type arch where they end up going way too far in removing the Goblins and their use of dark magic out of a place of wanting to defend their fellow Wizards and Witches. Kind of like how Anakin fell to the dark side trying to protect his wife and also despising this idea that the dark side wasn't allowed in the Jedi order (btw totally had a crush on Anakin from Episode III in middle school lol). 

[Stahlmann]

I think most people have no problem separating the art from the artist. JK Rowling wasn't even involved in the development or decision-making of the game afaik. She just owns the rights to the Harry Potter brand.

 

The problem these days is that Twitter and Reddit have a way of allowing a few very vocal individuals to make their personal problems seem much bigger than they are.

Even though I've never seen such a huge shitstorm around a game launch, it was still the bestselling game of 2023, which shows that the outcry and real harassment that occurred during this whole debacle was actually for nothing, and most normal people just don't care. They just want to play a good game, and from what I've seen, that's what Hogwarts Legacy was.

 

In my personal experience, the people who demand inclusivity and diversity are often the most racist and hateful people, but they lack the self-awareness to see it. And to be clear, I have no problem with natural diversity. I, like most people who just want to enjoy games, just don't want it to be forced, because it often comes at the expense of the integrity or authenticity of the medium.

 

Recent reports about the work Sweet Baby Inc. is doing and the type of people who work at these consultation studios are what's really frightening, not a book author who doesn't have anything to do with games.

 

Case in point, tell my how people like these have the moral authority to tell me what's right or wrong in society or the way games are presented:

(These are actual quotes from employees, and even the CEO of that company...)

 

The obvious answer is: They don't. And that's why shitstorms like the one around the game release just doesn't hold water. And in the end nothing matters more than simply making a good game.

[Sharkyx1]

On 3/7/2024 at 8:27 AM, Stahlmann said:

I think most people have no problem separating the art from the artist. JK Rowling wasn't even involved in the development or decision-making of the game afaik. She just owns the rights to the Harry Potter brand.

 

The problem these days is that Twitter and Reddit have a way of allowing a few very vocal individuals to make their personal problems seem much bigger than they are.

Even though I've never seen such a huge shitstorm around a game launch, it was still the bestselling game of 2023, which shows that the outcry and real harassment that occurred during this whole debacle was actually for nothing, and most normal people just don't care. They just want to play a good game, and from what I've seen, that's what Hogwarts Legacy was.

 

In my personal experience, the people who demand inclusivity and diversity are often the most racist and hateful people, but they lack the self-awareness to see it. And to be clear, I have no problem with natural diversity. I, like most people who just want to enjoy games, just don't want it to be forced, because it often comes at the expense of the integrity or authenticity of the medium.

 

Recent reports about the work Sweet Baby Inc. is doing and the type of people who work at these consultation studios are what's really frightening, not a book author who doesn't have anything to do with games.

 

Case in point, tell my how people like these have the moral authority to tell me what's right or wrong in society or the way games are presented:

(These are actual quotes from employees, and even the CEO of that company...)

 

The obvious answer is: They don't. And that's why shitstorms like the one around the game release just doesn't hold water. And in the end nothing matters more than simply making a good game.

The critisism on SBI are more silly than the the critisism of JKR in relation to hogwarts legacy.

 

JKR uses her platform and money as one of the most culturally significant authors today to heave attacks at lgbt people. 

 

The CEO of sweet baby Inc is no JKR and has no where near the money or influence. 

 

Plenty of people with actual experience in the games industry have refuted the arguments that SBI goes in with a knife and has significant influence on the trajectory of AAA games. 

 

Now none of this is to say that either of these campaigns are particularly important. I didn't pay HL, but it had more to do with it being an open world game 

 

 

 

Now the way I see art-artist seperation is kinda tough and on a case by case basis. Especially in games to boil down the concept of a game being the creative vision of a single man or woman is naive to be sure.

 

But for example I see buying and playing Hideo Kojima's games to be a statement in favour of Kojima's beliefs and choices. On the other hand I'd like to say watching Roman Polanski films isn't a statement in favour of statutory rape, and I think the majority of people wouldn't see it that way, I've seen many people critical of actors working with the on the run criminal and showering him with praise over the years. I think there's plenty of legitimate reason to not listen Chris Brown and express that for example 

 

The music industry is inundated with some of the most prolific abusers of other people. In Elvis, the Eagles, The Rolling Stones, Beatles, Phil Specie, Marilyn Mansion, the grunge scene,Michael Jackson, the majority of the pop punk scene from the early 2000s, and countless other Acts, we see some examples of decades of different kinds of abusive dogshit people, who happen to be some of the most influential drivers of pop culture in the modern world. To not seperate the art from the artist opens the audience up to what is effectively no end to moral challenges of what to some is just enjoying some art.

 

In the end of it I don't think there is a neccisary reason to not seperate the art from the artist. An end user can't be required to research the choices and actions of every member of every part of an artistic project before they decide to interact with a single peice of art

[MarkPol88]

On 3/7/2024 at 3:27 PM, Stahlmann said:

Even though I've never seen such a huge shitstorm around a game launch, it was still the bestselling game of 2023

I wonder how many copies were bought in spite?

Of course it is really hard to prove but I personally know about quite a few people who did just that - not single hour clocked in game.

On 3/14/2024 at 12:42 AM, Sharkyx1 said:

The CEO of sweet baby Inc is no JKR and has no where near the money or influence. 

Does not mean that they got none - some influence is sometimes enough.

 

The thing is - people will not care about any of this if, and ONLY IF, the game is good. But we all know how most games are today...

On 3/14/2024 at 12:42 AM, Sharkyx1 said:

In the end of it I don't think there is a neccisary reason to not seperate the art from the artist.

Full agree with that statement - people should not "agree" with person, we should agree with ideas and visions (or disagree of course).

Isn't it a core problem today, btw? That most people will disagree with someone just because they do not like them, not because they are talking nonsense?

[JR1911]

15 hours ago, MarkPol88 said:

I wonder how many copies were bought in spite?

 

I had never heard of the game until maybe two weeks before the release as I wasn't a Harry Potter fan but all that 'controversy' got me interested so I got it on PS5. Turned out I absolutely loved the game so I platinumed it and when the PS4 version was released a few months later I also bought and platinumed that. It's definitely my GOTY 2023.

 

I might at some point pick up the Switch and PC versions too.

[MarkPol88]

18 minutes ago, JR1911 said:

I had never heard of the game until maybe two weeks before the release as I wasn't a Harry Potter fan but all that 'controversy' got me interested

That is exactly my point - many people bought the game not despite "shitstorm" but because of it.

[TomChaai]

For me the whole LGBT rights thing is going in the wrong direction, equal recognition and rights is a good thing, but the whole effort of antagonizing and boycotting is just ideological terrorism.

 

That’s why I never paid any serious attention on these things. I’m not a huge HP fan but I can see the game is very well made, which is worth playing.

 

Now I’m playing using a borrowed disc, I might consider buying a copy afterwards.

[Sharkyx1]

On 3/17/2024 at 6:17 PM, MarkPol88 said:

Full agree with that statement - people should not "agree" with person, we should agree with ideas and visions (or disagree of course).

Isn't it a core problem today, btw? That most people will disagree with someone just because they do not like them, not because they are talking nonsense?

I guess my point to make was more that, with the level of "bad people" that any project of this scale will be introduced to, simply due to its scale, it shouldn't be expected of the audience to spend days trying to decide about the morality of every purchase. The words I used were to specifically say  "there isn't a reason to *not * seperate art from artist" to suggest that the end audience member should carry the final choice of if Death of The Artist is an idea that's meaningful to them. Not to suggest that people should look at the ideas of people individually, not unilaterally. I think there's plenty of people who I don't respect the odd time they say something reasonable after years of being terrible.

 

 

some people feel the value in  vetting the morality of their purchases though, and both those positions I think are reasonable.

 

Now it's still my belief that Hogwarts Legacy directly pays cheques to a really shitty person who uses that money and influence to try to sway the political atmosphere of today, but the same could be said of all big companies, but Rowling has held a spot in the pop culture for over a decade with her public comments and actions. So for many people it seems she is a figurehead of an anti trans movement.

 

 

EDIT : updated some formatting to make my meaning clearer