After coming off of playing Foundation, and while jonesing for the Manor Lords castle update, I picked up another medieval village-builder: Farthest Frontier. I played this game while it was still technically in Early Access (and cheaper to buy), but its 1.0 release was only a month away, so I was basically playing (and reviewing) the release version. So for once, I'll actually have a review of a game out on the game's release! (Instead of weeks or months later, when everybody has stopped caring).

Farthest Frontier is another city-builder that's been on my radar for a long time, but I always figured that it would have a hard time competing with Manor Lords. Sure enough, I don't think Farthest Frontier is a good as Manor Lords, but it does have a lot of features and ideas that I really like, and which I would love to see ported or adopted into Manor Lords (and to other medieval survival city-builders.

I feel like the winters in Farthest Frontier look worse than they actually are.

Frontier fog

If anything, I think that fans of Banished should really like Farthest Frontier, as it feels very similar to that game. Both are grid-based city-builders, which stubbornly refuse to allow building on diagonals. One of my pet peeves with grid city-builders is when they generate maps that have diagonal features, and allow road-building on diagonals, but do not allow buildings to be placed on diagonals.

Both Banished and Farthest Frontier also put a large emphasis on logistics and trade. They also both have harsh winters -- though I did not find Farthest Frontier's weather or winters to be nearly as threatening as I remember them being in Banished.

Instead, Farthest Frontier plays up its "frontier" nature by including a fog of war that conceals potential threats and hazards. Even though the weather never posed as much of a threat to my village as I expected it to, I always had to be careful about exploring or expanding into the fog of war. You just never know what's out in that fog. Builders, loggers, hunters, or foragers who wander out into unexplored territory may run into bandit camps or wild predatory animals. If you send them out at the wrong time of year, they can also potentially get caught in a summer drought or winter blizzard, which could kill them from dehydration or cold if they can't get back to the village quickly enough.

The fog of war can hide dangerous wild animals or bandit camps.

Bandits and predators can also wander into your village or outposts from the fog of war, and can attack villagers, plunder resources, or damage or destroy buildings. You need to be sure to keep visibility of the perimeter of your village and satellite hamlets, and be prepared to defend it on a moment's notice. Watchtowers are therefore very important, but keeping them staffed takes precious population away from other jobs.

Villages in Farthest Frontier also never feel like they turn into full-blown cities or metropolises, like they can in Banished (and other games). Farthest Frontier actually has a hard cap on how high the population can get. This cap can be configured in the game's options (based on your computer's specs), implying that it's a technical and performance limitation (rather than a stylistic choice), and it defaults to 500 people. So unlike other games, you'll never fill up the map in Farthest Frontier (though you may have satellite villages all over the map). This limit may be a technical concession, but it does also contribute towards the "frontier" feeling of the game.

Last month, I had 2 choices for retro indie survival horror games to play. I could play Tormented Souls or Crow Country. I chose to play Tormented Souls first, since it has a sequel coming out soon, and I wanted to play the first in order to determine how interested I will be in the sequel. I was a bit underwhelmed with Tormented Souls, and was still on the fence about whether to check out its sequel. Thankfully, the developers of the game might have made that choice easier by offering a free playable demo. So I guess I'll play that and see how it goes.

In any case, I came out of Tormented Souls still itching for some retro survival horror, and I was still waiting for a used copy of Silent Hill f (because Konami isn't getting a penny of my money after fucking up Silent Hill so thoroughly for 2 decades). I wasted no time and jumped right into Crow Country.

Crow Country is a different, but familiar take on retro survival horror.

Retro style; not-so-retro gameplay

Crow Country takes a very different approach to its retro stylings than Tormented Souls. For one thing, it comes up with an original story, instead of ripping off the story of one of the survival horror classics. It also eschews classic survival horror gameplay staples, such as the fixed camera angles, in favor of rotatable camera. Even though the camera can rotate around the character, it cannot pan up or down, so it does maintain the sense of claustrophobia and limited visibility of the old fixed-camera games. Threats can always be just off-screen, waiting for you, and enemies frequently respawn, which makes sprinting across the map very risky.

It has tank controls on the left analog stick, but I found that they were never really useful. Since the camera can rotate, and there aren't cuts to different angles as you walk around a room or down a hallway, it was easy enough to navigate with the analog stick. The analog stick is also more reactive, which made it easier to duck and dodge around enemies slinking around in the darkness just off-screen.

Instead of fixed cameras and tank controls, the retro aesthetic of Crow Country comes almost entirely from its art style, map design, and emphasis on resource-management. The graphics are very low-def. Characters look like they were pulled straight out of NPC crowds in the original PS1 Final Fantasy VII. Crow Country expertly evokes the visuals of a PS1 classic, but it also takes advantage of technical upgrades that were impossible for the PS1. For one thing, you can aim your gun freely, and targeting different body parts of enemies will have different results.

The free aim is integral to resource management.

The free aim is also an essential part of the game's novel resource-management. The maps are littered with crates and plastic bottles that may or may not contain resources. But you aren't given a melee weapon at all, and so if you want to smash these containers, you have to shoot them with a gun (and hope that you don't miss due to poor aim). You can see what resource is contained within a breakable plastic bottle, but you have no idea what (if anything) might be inside a wooden crate. There's always a cost-benefit analysis going on. Will you get something that is more valuable than the bullet you will spend to have to acquire it?

Alien: Earth on Hulu.

Boy, this show was a roller coaster of good ideas, bad ideas, and hit-or-miss execution. I absolutely hated the first 2 episodes, to the point that I really didn't want to watch any more of the show. But my partner was liking it (I guess?) and she wanted to keep watching, so I watched it with her. I'm not sure if I'm happy that I stuck it out, or not. It does get a little bit better -- for a little bit -- but then it completely shits the bed.

I wasn't keen on the show being about children's minds being implanted into android bodies. Going on to treat them like a super hero team was one of the cringiest things I've ever seen in this franchise (and that includes Alien: Resurrection and Prometheus).

But then the show starts to get into the ethics, morality, and metaphysics of putting someone's consciousness into an android body (and other questions regarding trans-humanism), and the mind-body dilemma that is inherent to such an idea. Here Alien: Earth starts to get genuinely good. Are the androids really the same people? Are the original people dead? Are the androids property of the company that manufactured them? Does that company have the right to control what that android does? Does that company have the right to wipe parts of that android's memory, or change the android's personality, in order to fix a "glitch"?

Of course, all of these questions can be adequately explored without having the gimmick of implanting children's minds into the androids. The writers could just as easily have written a story about regular androids becoming sentient, and pose the exact same questions about whether they are "property" or "people". It's been done a billion times before in science fiction, so even though these are all interesting questions, it's nothing particularly new or innovative. I think the use of children was done to make the audience more sympathetic and "human-like", because the people in charge don't have any respect for the intelligence of their audience. It could also have been a decision made in order to justify the characters doing stupid, illogical things, but I'll get to that later.

At the same time, there are completely new aliens that have never been seen in this franchise before, that get a lot of screen time. There's a creepy, parasitic eyeball alien thing that is probably the single best idea that this entire show has going for it. It's gross and disturbing on a visceral level, but also the idea of it tunneling into your brain and taking control of your body is terrifying on an existential level. Honestly, an entire show (without the Alien title and branding) about that eyeball parasite probably could have been worth watching on its own. But Hollywood is averse to new IPs and can't make anything that doesn't have a recognizable brand attached to it -- again, because executives have no respect for the intelligence of their audiences.

Alien: Earth season 1, episode 1 - © Walt Disney, Hulu

Treating these cyborg children like a superhero team was so stupid.

While the federal government continues to dive head-first into inept authoritarianism (which I will continue to say, while the government still allows me to say it), at least state governments are still occasionally doing what they are supposed to do. Earlier this week, the state of California passed a new law requiring streaming services such as Netflix, YouTube, and so forth to limit the volume of ads to be no louder than the volume of the actual content.

This may seem like a minor thing that shouldn't need legislation. Which is true. It really should not require legislation, as streaming services and advertisers should have known to self-regulate this to begin with -- especially considering that there is already a similar law for broadcast TV and radio! But then again, when does corporate self-regulation ever work? But even though this bit of self-regulation would seem like common sense, this has been a massive pet peeve of mine for years, and it still had to come down to a government regulating it.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who gets frustrated by having to turn the TV volume up almost as high as it will go, just to be able to hear and understand dialogue in a movie or TV show, only to have an ad come on and deafen me, almost blow out my speakers, shake the house, and wake up any family who are sleeping. I've been ranting and complaining about this privately, at home, for years (and have probably posted complaints about it online a few times). Now, it appears, that streaming services might finally have to address the problem.

The new California law doesn't go into effect until July of 2026, and I don't live in California, so I might still be waiting a long time to see this change in my own personal TV and movie streaming experience. In fact, it might never change at all. But I am hopeful that it will. It is quite common for corporations to implement state regulations in their products and services for all states or jurisdictions. This is because it's often simpler and cheaper to just apply the change everywhere, rather than have to have different versions for different jurisdictions. So if YouTube, Netflix, and so forth have to develop an algorithm to match the volume of ads to the volume of content, there's a good chance that new code will be applied to all their content everywhere; rather than having to specifically check and apply it only if the viewer is in California.

So there's a strong chance that, even though I don't live in California (and many of my readers probably don't either), we will all benefit from this new California law.

Thank goodness for California!

I usually try to publish my impressions of the Bears at the end of preseason. But here we are, in week 5, the Bears are taking an early bye week, and I'm just now getting around to writing the first blog post about them this season. This is mostly due to the fact that I really haven't been able to tell what to make of the Bears yet, under first-year head coach Ben Johnson. It's been a wild, up-and-down start to the season.

The Bears looked unstoppable offensively, in the 2nd preseason game. They cruised up and down the field, everything seemed to work, and they crushed the Buffalo Bills. But the Bills weren't playing many (if any) of their starters. So ... good for you ... I guess? Your first-string unit playing a heavily-scripted gameplan steamrolled the Bills' 2nd team unit running basic coverages. It was really hard to judge the Bears after that game.

Perhaps, if the first unit played similarly well against the Chiefs' defensive starters in the following week, then I could get excited. But that didn't happen. The Bears looked sloppy and had trouble moving the ball against a Chiefs team that was playing most of its defensive starters. So that was worrisome...

The Bears did manage to win both of those games (and tie their preseason opener against the Dolphins, in which neither team played any starters). So I guess the preseason at least showed that the Bears' backups can likely be counted on in a pinch. That's something.

Photo credit: Ashlee Rezin, Sun-Times.

Ben Johnson and Caleb Williams have had a rough start to their first year together.

Then the regular season started, and the first 2 weeks did not look good. The Bears got off to an early lead against the Vikings on Monday Night in the opening week, only to melt down in the second half and loose the game. Then week 2 happened. The Lions absolutely crushed their former offensive coordinator's new team, 52-21. The offense looked bad, and the defense looked worse. Could it be that Johnson and his staff did not know how to coach and call a defensive game? If so, that's really bad, because the offense wasn't looking very good either. You would hope that an offensive-minded coach would at least move the ball and score a lot of points, even if their defense is giving up a lot of points. But you aren't going to win many games if you give up 52, no matter how good your offense is.