Hogwart's Legacy

[Zenfoldor]

I still don't get how they figured the average person uses 141 rolls of toilet paper each year. That's like 1 roll every 2 and a half days? The heck are those people doing with that stuff...

I have plenty of thoughts on that, lol, but I'll save the thread from them and not post them here, lolol.

I wonder what spell in hogwarts replaces tp? Expelliarmus!

[NoiseTank13]

I still don't get how they figured the average person uses 141 rolls of toilet paper each year. That's like 1 roll every 2 and a half days? The heck are those people doing with that stuff...

There are other uses for toilet paper, even if not efficient. Noses, cleaning faces, etc.,

[Katchii]

It leaked WHEN she removed, because she had no way to store, so it went to the ground, its not because after she did it kept leaking away forever, until its a husk, the Guardian did not became one and neither kept leaking




It don't need to it, its obvious of how the interactions goes and how they made this to be a drug and an addict scenario, you don't need to see someone taking drugs many times to know they died of overdose because they did too much.

I'm done. You're arguments boil down to "nuh uh! Because I said so!" That's not productive. Believe whatever you want.

[Darththeo]

I'm done. You're arguments boil down to "nuh uh! Because I said so!" That's not productive. Believe whatever you want.

Which is pretty much classic Syeg. Even if we take all his "evidence" as 100% facially valid (which it isn't), he still can't get to his conclusion of "Multiple casts are more likely" because none of it proves that without assuming that in the first place. And for some dumb reason he cannot see it.

He think he understands the narrative more than I do, despite saying "She had no way to store it" while she was literally holding a jar and put the dark traces in said jar, said it is "not a spell" despite Isidora calling it a spell, and that she was going to take more from Niamh and was stopped from doing so, but that doesn't mean Niamh interrupted the spell.

[Katchii]

Which is pretty much classic Syeg. Even if we take all his "evidence" as 100% facially valid (which it isn't), he still can't get to his conclusion of "Multiple casts are more likely" because none of it proves that without assuming that in the first place. And for some dumb reason he cannot see it.

He think he understands the narrative more than I do, despite saying "She had no way to store it" while she was literally holding a jar and put the dark traces in said jar, said it is "not a spell" despite Isidora calling it a spell, and that she was going to take more from Niamh and was stopped from doing so, but that doesn't mean Niamh interrupted the spell.

My issue was that they're saying they're right and everyone else is wrong. The narrative doesn't support that stance. That doesn't make them wrong either, it's just as you said, they can't seem to accept that other ideas are just as feasible as theirs and all of them (including theirs) has holes.

[Darththeo]

My issue was that they're saying they're right and everyone else is wrong. The narrative doesn't support that stance. That doesn't make them wrong either, it's just as you said, they can't seem to accept that other ideas are just as feasible as theirs and all of them (including theirs) has holes.

He seems to be thinking I am arguing for a particular explanation, when I am merely arguing against his being more likely.

The narrative doesn't need to have a specific number of casts. The story is literally the same whether it is one cast or more. The only difference is you either assume she cast the spell more than once on a person or the spell has an effect on the people it is casted on that isn't instantaneous.

All the evidence equally supports both options, it comes down to what you assume is more likely. I literally do not care which it is, because it doesn't matter. If I had to choose, I prefer the single cast that leads to an effect that isn't instantaneous because that actually makes the magic far more dangerous because there would be no way to safely use it. But, the multiple casts are fine too.

[Katchii]

He seems to be thinking I am arguing for a particular explanation, when I am merely arguing against his being more likely.

The narrative doesn't need to have a specific number of casts. The story is literally the same whether it is one cast or more. The only difference is you either assume she cast the spell more than once on a person or the spell has an effect on the people it is casted on that isn't instantaneous.

All the evidence equally supports both options, it comes down to what you assume is more likely. I literally do not care which it is, because it doesn't matter. If I had to choose, I prefer the single cast that leads to an effect that isn't instantaneous because that actually makes the magic far more dangerous because there would be no way to safely use it. But, the multiple casts are fine too.

My only issue with this is that the game directly supports one stance and not the other. Not saying it's impossible multiple casts is the way it worked, but that the game never discusses or shows multiple casts being done. It's an assumption with no supporting evidence within the game. Whereas the single cast with long term effects is pretty heavily implied as being the cause.

One stance requires additional head canon and assumptions and the other simply takes the information provided within the game at face value.

Again, not saying that the multiple cast option is impossible, but it's going to take a lot more than someone's explanation for why their headcanon and assumptions make sense for me to accept it as the canon scenario.

[Darththeo]

My only issue with this is that the game directly supports one stance and not the other. Not saying it's impossible multiple casts is the way it worked, but that the game never discusses or shows multiple casts being done. It's an assumption with no supporting evidence within the game. Whereas the single cast with long term effects is pretty heavily implied as being the cause.

One stance requires additional head canon and assumptions and the other simply takes the information provided within the game at face value.

Again, not saying that the multiple cast option is impossible, but it's going to take a lot more than someone's explanation for why their headcanon and assumptions make sense for me to accept it as the canon scenario.

I do love that I asked him for evidence he is correct and he gave me an argument that you have to presuppose his conclusion to get the answer he wants.

Canon literally doesn't care whether it is a single cast or multiple ones. I just wish he stopped misrepresenting the narrative in his argument.

[Syegfryed]

I'm done. You're arguments boil down to "nuh uh! Because I said so!" That's not productive. Believe whatever you want.

And your arguments are "no! you are wrong and im done",

and yes, i will believe in what i want, duh.

The creator literally said most of the world uses wandless magic. Its harder than magic with a wand, but it is not rare.

I said wandless SPELLS, the ones that need a wand and incantations, done without wands, are rare and difficult, count how many of those you saw in the movies/books. Jesus, you are a force of moving goalpsots, misunderstanding things just to be right once.

Now it seems like your bullshit moved from ''this is not evidence" to "the evidence does not support you" ridiculous, next step is "its does not support fully" gonna ignore the rest cause it seems like you wanna ruin the thread trying to be right and making me wrong when knowing nothing about it..

And Natty states that she has an easier time with wandless magic than wand magic as it is more natural for her. So, it is possible the difficulty is cultural rather than innate to wandless magic.

That is obvious bullshit made for the game, its another issue that its not related to the subject we are talking about.

[Darththeo]

I said wandless SPELLS, the ones that need a wand and incantations, done without wands, are rare and difficult, count how many of those you saw in the movies/books. Jesus, you are a force of moving goalpsots, misunderstanding things just to be right once.

I am sorry, I am using the canon term. Which is wandless magic, there is no moving of the goalposts because outside of magical effect, magic that is cast is a spell. Wandless Magic and Wandless Spells are synonyms. Only in your head canon are they "totally different things." So, when you say "Wandless spells" you are either using head canon, or using a synonym for wandless magic; there is no other option.

Now it seems like your bullshit moved from ''this is not evidence" to "the evidence does not support you" ridiculous, next step is "its does not support fully" gonna ignore the rest cause it seems like you wanna ruin the thread trying to be right and making me wrong when knowing nothing about it.

Let me spell it out for you. It isn't evidence that multiple casts happen unless you assume that multiple casts were required. So, the evidence doesn't count as evidence. I am clarifying it for you because you tend not to understand things. Like how She-hulk could get a car or how a character could get out of a prison via magical means.

That is obvious bullshit made for the game, its another issue that its not related to the subject we are talking about.

It predates the game, Syeg. It is from JK Rowling. The Wand was brought from Europe to the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the word uses wandless spells.

[Syegfryed]

I am sorry, I am using the canon term. Which is wandless magic, there is no moving of the goalposts because outside of magical effect, magic that is cast is a spell. Wandless Magic and Wandless Spells are synonyms. Only in your head canon are they "totally different things." So, when you say "Wandless spells" you are either using head canon, or using a synonym for wandless magic; there is no other option.

They are different, you liking or not, you can make magic effects of flying, making something dissapear, without a wand.

But to do a spell like expeliarmus, you need a wand, and its extremely difficult to do expeliarmus, and other spells, without a wand, and it is rare in the franchise.

Let me spell it out for you. It isn't evidence that multiple casts happen unless you assume that multiple casts were required. So, the evidence doesn't count as evidence. I am clarifying it for you because you tend not to understand things. Like how She-hulk could get a car or how a character could get out of a prison via magical means.

Sorry m8, you do not get to decide what is evidence or not

It predates the game, Syeg. It is from JK Rowling. The Wand was brought from Europe to the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the word uses wandless spells.

Rly funny when you say "you tend to not understand things" and miss the whole point, hypocrisy goes of the charts here.

[Darththeo]

They are different, you liking or not, you can make magic effects of flying, making something dissapear, without a wand.

But to do a spell like expeliarmus, you need a wand, and its extremely difficult to do expeliarmus, and other spells, without a wand, and it is rare in the franchise.

No, they aren't. The term in canon is wandless magic, this is a fact. You pretending that wandless magic is different than wandless spells is wrong, there is no other option. They are literally synonyms in the canon.

And wandless magic isn't "rare" in the series at all. House Elves, Goblins, and many witches and wizards are seen using wandless spells and magic through out it. You are wrong on all counts here.

Sorry m8, you do not get to decide what is evidence or not

No, basic logic determines that. Nothing you have presented points exclusively to your belief or limits the possibility of the other explanation. Therefore, it isn't evidence. The only way your evidence works as evidence is if presuppose the conclusion inside the "evidence." You are begging the question, Syeg.

Rly funny when you say "you tend to not understand things" and miss the whole point, hypocrisy goes of the charts here.

I am pointing out that Natty saying it is easier here was because it was established before the game came out for where she is from by Rowling.

You stated "That's obvious bs made for the game" ... despite it predating the game. Yeah, you can't even pay attention to what you say let alone anyone else.

[Syegfryed]

No, they aren't. The term in canon is wandless magic, this is a fact. You pretending that wandless magic is different than wandless spells is wrong, there is no other option. They are literally synonyms in the canon.

And wandless magic isn't "rare" in the series at all. House Elves, Goblins, and many witches and wizards are seen using wandless spells and magic through out it. You are wrong on all counts here.

You keep being wrong, despite knowing the difference, but you want to double down it because you don't want to admit it, its hilarious

house elves, goblins and other magical creatures don't do wizard spells, they don't cast avada kedrava, expeliarmus, or incendio, you need wand to cast spells, to do those without a want, is difficult and rare.

I am pointing out that Natty saying it is easier here was because it was established before the game came out for where she is from by Rowling.

You stated "That's obvious bs made for the game" ... despite it predating the game. Yeah, you can't even pay attention to what you say let alone anyone else.

If what she said was truth, there would be no fucking point in having a wand, it was a bs made for the game. you are confusing again, magic and spells

i know it is a hard concept for you to grasp, but keep it up.

[Darththeo]

You keep being wrong, despite knowing the difference, but you want to double down it because you don't want to admit it, its hilarious

house elves, goblins and other magical creatures don't do wizard spells, they don't cast avada kedrava, expeliarmus, or incendio, you need wand to cast spells, to do those without a want, is difficult and rare.

No, Syeg, you are wrong. Like you always are. You do not need a wand to cast spells at all in canon. Why do you make obviously false claims? Wands assist in the casting, which the European witches and wizards find to be easier than wandless magic.

You keep pretending without evidence that "spells" and "magic" are complete different. Tell me, do you ever see the spell for apparition cast in the movies? Seriously, your argument here is "I am right, you are wrong." Magic and spell are used interchangeably in the series. And given you didn't accept Isidora casted a spell on Niamh, you aren't remotely the expert you think you are. All a spell is is casted magic, so when someone says wandless magic it means a spell cast without a wand.

You are being deliberately obtuse because you are so obviously wrong here.

If what she said was truth, there would be no fucking point in having a wand, it was a bs made for the game. you are confusing again, magic and spells

I know it is a hard concept for you to grasp, but keep it up.

https://www.wizardingworld.com/writi...nth-century-en

"The Native American wizarding community was particularly gifted in animal and plant magic, its potions in particular being of a sophistication beyond much that was known in Europe. The most glaring difference between magic practised by Native Americans and the wizards of Europe was the absence of a wand.

The magic wand originated in Europe. Wands channel magic so as to make its effects both more precise and more powerful, although it is generally held to be a mark of the very greatest witches and wizards that they have also been able to produce wandless magic of a very high quality. As the Native American Animagi and potion-makers demonstrated, wandless magic can attain great complexity, but Charms and Transfiguration are very difficult without one."

Wands aren't needed. Like this is a canon fact. Wands make magic more precise and powerful. Most of the world uses wandless magic for spells. And it 100% makes sense for someone who grew up where wandless magic was the norm to find it easier or more comfortable.

And notice, in this source from JK, magic is used as a synonym for casting a spell.

https://www.wizardingworld.com/writi...owling/uagadou

"The wand is a European invention, and while African witches and wizards have adopted it as a useful tool in the last century, many spells are cast simply by pointing the finger or through hand gestures. "

Spells 100% can be cast without a wand. It's canon. It isn't rare at all.

This entire aside is because you know you are wrong so you pretend that "I am using a completely different term." Like it altered what you said. You clearly don't understand what wandless magic means, and are getting pissy because you can't actually counter my argument against your head canon. You can't prove anything you say. You have misrepresented scenes constantly. Like you couldn't be more wrong at this point. It is embarrassing that you even think you understood the narrative when you made objectively false statements.

You clearly didn't even pay attention to scenes.

TLDR: You're so obviously wrong that a blind deaf comatose lobotomy patient could see it.

[Syegfryed]

TLDR: You're so obviously wrong that a blind deaf comatose lobotomy patient could see it.

Again, show me once, an evidence of goblins, house elves and wizards doing the SPELLS we see in the movies/books, without wands. Actual proof of spells that need wands, Experilarmus and others, that need wands, be done without wands.

The spells done without wants in those places, are other type of spells, and still need hand gestures, lmao, just like i said previously, a spell need intent and incantations.

You clearly are bullshiting because you are talking apples and potatoes here, already moved goalposts, because you want to "win" the fake debate you created, like, tis even on the link you posted:

Wands channel magic so as to make its effects both more precise and more powerfull.

as the Native American Animagi and potion-makers demonstrated, wandless magic can attain great complexity, but Charms and Transfiguration are very difficult without one.

[Rennadrel]

The story writing is probably one of the best aspects of the game. I do like that there are references to things like the Deathly Hallows and even the Slytherin girls bathroom having a Field Guide that hints at the Chamber of Secrets. It has a dark enough tone to fit in with existing Potterverse lore, and while choices don't really feel consequential, at least there's some writing that indicates that certain actions are definitely wrong.

[ClassicPeon]

I would not be too quick to bring up BG3 as example of anything.

I have high expectations of it, but I still remember how DOS2, despite being an amazing game shipped with rushed and incomplete final Act and zone, that took a year to refresh and bring up to speed to the rest of the game.

There are really no miracles here - every project has deadlines and budget and BG3 too. So I'd not be hasty here before I actually see the whole game - I sure hope that Baldur's Gate city won't be Arx 2.0 on DOS2 launch.

I was simply responding to the "Every game has to meet deadlines ".

I know BG3 technically has a release date now - but 3 years in EA is close to a crime IMO. Unless its being trated like 7days or something where they arent actually holding back stuff from the players until whenever they decide to release the game.

[Syegfryed]

Another video with more easter eggs, dude found out a memento for the actor that did Hagrid

[Itisamuh]

TLDR: You're so obviously wrong that a blind deaf comatose lobotomy patient could see it.

I FEEL your anger master.

[Mace]

I find the use of pronouns ANNOYING - one guy starts a sentence talking about his little sister, then proceeds to use the pronoun "they" instead of she - feels soooo FORCED - and totally unrealistic especially for the 18th century. Such pronouns should ONLY be used if a character is trans, rather than universally.