A few weeks ago (or I guess more than a month ago, at this point -- geez I'm slow at writing these), Firaxis released it's "Test of Time" update for Civilization VII. Civ VII players can now finally play as the same civilization throughout the entire game, which addresses one of the player base's biggest criticisms with the game. The internet is now abuzz with the question of whether or not this patch "fixes" or "saves" Civilization VII. From what I've seen so far, it seems to be very well-received, with many internet pundits saying (or implying with their YouTube thumbnails) that Civ VII is "fixed".

Test of Time certainly is a good update. The biggest change is that players now have the choice to play as any civilization in any age, and can choose to play as the same civilization for the entire game, if you choose. To accomplish this, Firaxis gave every civilization an "apex age" in which they are the most powerful. During the apex age, their abilities are the strongest, and they have access to all of their unique units. During non-apex ages, each civ has less powerful versions of their ability, and they are stuck with stock units.

Players can now choose to keep the same civilization when transitioning into a new age.

This approach is similar to Humankind, which also gave players the option to stay as the same culture when progressing to a new era. The big difference is that in Humankind, staying with the same culture would give that culture the same generic bonus every time; whereas in Civ VII, each civ still has a unique ability, it's just a weaker version of their apex unique ability. So Civ VII's approach is a little bit more flavorful in that regard. Basically, Humankind's version of this feature was (as far as I can tell) just a fall-back option if all the good cultures have already been selected by other players. If you don't want any of the available cultures, you can just stay as the same culture, and continue to field their unique units and build their unique infrastructure, and get some small buff. In Civ VII, by contrast, sticking with the same civ is framed as a more assertive decision. You choose that civ because you want their abilities, not simply because you don't want the other civs.

Personally, I still prefer Humankind's method of culture-switching over Civ VII's. I prefer how it is tied to the individual civilization's progress through the eras, and doesn't stop the game at arbitrary points to force everyone to switch. I also like how there's a competitive, first-come-first-serve aspect to switching cultures in Humankind, which lights a fire under the player's butt to make sure to advance fast enough to get a prime pick of the upcoming era's cultures. Humankind's approach feels like a much more organic and natural part of the game that doesn't interrupt the game's pacing at all (but in fact, adds to the pacing). This is in stark contrast to Civ VII's design, which feels forced, arbitrary, and exceedingly "game-ified".

But perhaps a full analysis of Humankind's culture-switching compared to Civ VII should be the subject of another essay, similar to what I did with Civ VII and Ara: History Untold... For now, I want to talk about Civ VII specifically.

In addition to being able to play civs outside of their apex age, Test of Time completely replaces the Legacy paths with new, more granular and more varied "Triumphs". These are smaller goals and milestones that unlock dedication bonuses for the next age. This is intended to add more variety to each age, and make it so that players don't feel like they're following the same rote steps to achieve the same 4 goals every time they play.

Legacy paths were replaced with more varied and granular Triumphs.

Again, this is a good change.

The biggest piece of video gaming news this past week was Sony's announcement that it would end production of physical game discs in January of 2028. This won't just affect any potential upcoming PS6 console. This decision will affect future PS5 games as well, which as of 2028, will no longer be available in physical disc formats.

If it were just a simple matter of transitioning from ownership of physical media to ownership of digital media, I would be all for it!

Games being digital only would mean that publishers wouldn't have to mine for materials, pollute the environment with manufacturing discs, or burn gasoline (and emit greenhouse gases) from having to transport those discs across oceans and continents to retailers. It also means they won't end up in landfills. These would all be positive changes for the environment, which I think would outweigh the downfalls of physical discs being un-available. The biggest problem with digital-only ownership would probably be distribution for people with limited (or no) internet access. I do think that is a problem which should be addressed. Poor rural gamers deserve to be able to play new games too. But a digital-only ownership model would be, I think, a net positive.

The problem, of course, is that Sony (and other media companies) are not switching to a "digital ownership" model; they are forcing consumers into a license-leasing model. They are stripping away consumers' right to own the media we purchase. All digital purchases can be revoked from our libraries at any time, for any reason (or for no reason at all), completely at the whims of our wannabe corporate overlords. Worse yet, as far as I can recall, courts have generally upheld that "buying" a digital good is, in fact, a temporary lease of a license. I did a quick Google search for a case precedent, but couldn't find anything specific. So take that with a grain of salt, but I remember reading about some case in which Amazon (or somebody) won a lawsuit involving the revocation of digital purchases.

In fact, California is further codifying this with a consumer protection law that requires retailers to clearly disclose that the customer does not own the media they are buying. This sort of disclosure is good, but I think what the laws should be doing is codifying that the consumer does, in fact, own the purchases media, and that the retailer cannot prohibit the consumer from copying or preserving the media for personal use. But we live in a corporate dystopia that only cares about protecting corporate profits instead of the rights of the public.

I may have posted a written review of Return To Silent Hill, but there were still other things that I wanted to expound upon that I did not feel were appropriate (or in the scope of) a simple movie review. So I decided to adapt my extended thoughts into a video critique. I was planning on doing after having seen the movie in theaters and writing the review, but things kept coming up, and I kept pushing it back until eventually it got to the point that the movie was already available on DVD and streaming.

I decided to split the critique up into 2 separate videos. The first video is already available on YouTube. It is specifically about the sexist and chauvinistic attitudes and biases that I felt underlined many of the creative decisions that went into butchering Silent Hill 2's stories. More specifically, I compared and contrasted how Christophe Gans chose to adapt the characters of Harry Mason (from the first game) and James, and how these adaptation decisions seem to reveal those underlying sexist attitudes and biases. I used this video to vent some long-standing frustrations that I had with the first Silent Hill movie, and its gender-swap of single father Harry into married mother Rose.

Obviously, I don't have a problem with gender or race-swapping in adaptations of media. But, as I explain in the video, I felt that the character of Harry Mason presented a golden opportunity to present a competent single father character in a medium that is largely devoid of such examples. The gender-swap from male-to-female, in this particular case, and the reasons that director Christophe Gans cites for having made the casting decision, only serve to reinforce out-dated gender stereotypes, while also missing out on an opportunity to present a particular demographic that is under-represented in popular media.

The second video is about the other characters in the movie, with an emphasis on Mary -- considering that she is basically the only other character in the movie.

It looks like Star Trek video games might be having a bit of a renaissance. As soon as I finished a video about how there's been a dearth of Star Trek games in the past decade or so, multiple studios announced new Star Trek games.

As I was finishing up the editing of that video series, both Star Trek: Voyager: Across the Unknown and Star Trek: Infection were announced. And now, not even a year later, 2 new Star Trek games have been announced: Shadow Frontier and Outposts Unknown.

I had specifically talked in my video about how there haven't really been any true Star Trek-themed RPGs. Yeah, sure, there had been the point-and-clicks, which fill a similar niche. Across the Unknown might be the closest to an RPG so far, with quests and characters who gain experience and level up skills. But more strange is that 2 of my favorite game genres are horror and city-building. 2 of these new games are horror games (one of which is in VR!), and the other is a city-builder. Well, more technically, it's a "colony-builder"

This isn't to say that there haven't been any Star Trek games at all. It's just that most of the Star Trek video games in recent memory have been mobile games or console versions of mobile games. This includes the likes of Legends and Fleet Command. Arguably, Voyager: Across the Unknown also fits this description.

I finally had a few hours to play some VR while the kids were out of the house a few weekends ago. I only had a limited amount of time though, so I decided to go with a short game that I could hopefully finish in a single sitting, instead of trying Aces of Thunder again. I was looking forward to Aces of Thunder (literally counting down the days till its release), but after a couple days of playing it after release, frustrations with the controls and lack of any tutorials put me off of playing it. I decided to put it off to the side in the hopes that it would be updated with a tutorial or more accessibility options.

Not having the time to learn Aces of Thunder, I settled on a game that's been in my back-log for quite a while: the slice-of-life, BAFTA-award-winning indie game Before Your Eyes. This is a novel VR experience that is controlled entirely through eye-motion and blinking. No controller needed! The core conceit is that the game is made up of a series of slice-of-life vignettes, and when you blink your eyes, the game advances to the next vignette. As such, the protagonist's life literally "flashes before your eyes".

Maybe I'll be able to come back to Aces of Thunder next week, when my 4-year-old is with his grandparents visiting my sister out of state?

Life moves quickly, and often feels like a series of "blink-and-you-miss-it" events.

Blink and you miss it

I was expecting a game about witnessing a person's entire life, seeing relationships come and go, children grow up, pets and loved ones growing old and dying, and so forth. It was pitched to me as emphasizing the idea that life happens fast, and that there are moments that feel like you "blink and you miss them". Like one minute I'd witnessing the birth of a child, and 2 blinks later, that child would be going to the first day of school, and then a couple blinks later, graduating high school and going off to college. Before I know it, I'd be seeing the birth of grand children. I'd be left wondering what happened to all the time in between. It would supposedly be about living in the moment and trying to treasure the time you have as you're experiencing it, because that time will be fleeting and gone before you know it. And maybe there would be branching plots based on unconscious decisions such as whether your gaze lingers on certain things, or how long you stay in a particular vignette.

I was expecting something along the lines of a VR version of The Inner Light.

How would life be different if you studied instead of playing video games all day? (Or vice-versa?)

The game is still about these things, to some extent, but it goes in a direction that I totally did not expect. I was expecting a story that is sentimental and maybe nostalgic, and just a general vision of the highs and lows of life in general. What I got instead was something that was a lot more specific and a lot more heartbreaking.