It took a long time, but Marvel has finally graced audiences with a Spider-Man movie that actually looks and feels like comic-accurate Spider-Man. This is by far the best-looking costume that's been put on film, beating out both Tobey Maquire's original and Andrew Garfield's from Amazing Spider-Man 2. It has the home-made fabric look, with a tiny bit of slack that allows some folds and wrinkles here and there. The colors are bright and vivid (compared to Amazing 2, which looked darker and more maroon than red). The webbing pattern is simple black lines and not some weird, textured, reflective plastic. The eyes are small, evoking classic 60's and 70's aesthetics, but with the motorized lenses that change size and allow a small degree of emotion.

The only complaints that I have are the lack of armpit webs, and the web shooters being on the outside. But there's story reasons for why the web shooters are outside, so I get it, and am willing to let it pass. I still think it's a tactical error for Spider-Man to mount his web shooters outside the suit, so as to give away the fact that they are technological and not an innate power. Knowing that they are technological allows opponents to use that against him, and puts Spider-Man at a disadvantage. But whatever, this costume is still leagues above all the other movie costumes to date.

It isn't just the costume that looks good though. The movie, as a whole, is a lot more visually interesting than the flatter, more evenly-lit composition of Marvel's previous Spider-Man movies. It's bright and colorful, but still has contrast and shadow. This gives a lot more depth and realism to the images on screen, helps Spidey's costume to really pop, and also creates some atmospheric moodiness when necessary.

The action is also a lot more kinetic and vertical. The whole movie takes place on Manhattan island this time around (not in the suburbs of Queens or in Europe), and so action scenes are constructed around the idea of Spider-Man swinging into action. In fact, there's even a car chase through the streets of New York that feels like it was pulled straight from the Insomniac video games. But even when an action scene happens indoors, fights happen on ceilings, along the outside sides of a tall office building, and even down an elevator shaft at one point.

Brand New Day gets top marks across the board for its visual style and action setpieces. The story is a little bit more of a mixed bag. There's a lot of things that I like. It is more grounded and down-to-earth than the previous movies, with the immediate stakes being more local and less "multi-versal". Its story is a critical parallel of parts of modern day politics, and its intended message is one of love and acceptance of people who are different, and of being willing to seek help when you find yourself in an emotionally dark and dangerous place. All good stuff.

But there's also a lot of things that rubbed me the wrong way right from the start. Most notably, I think the movie's handling of MJ and Ned was horribly clumsy, and I kind of wish that they just weren't in the movie at all. But Zendaya and Jacob Batalon have to have their contractually-required screen time. But I'll talk more about that in a spoiler section at the end of this review.

Image ©: Walt Disney, Marvel

The opening montage pays homage to multiple Spider-Man comic covers or panels.

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.

The PSVR 2 has had a tumultuous first year and half. With all the uncertainty regarding the hardware, and Sony's future support for it, I wanted to spend some time sharing my thoughts about the hardware and the games that I've played on it, because I've actually really liked the PSVR2, and I think it would be a shame (and a mistake) if Sony kills it prematurely.

I've been a late adopter of VR. I played a few VR games on a few different headsets at friends' houses over the years, but never really got into it. The games were fun to a degree, but they never wow-ed me to the point that I felt I needed to run home and order my own VR headset. They also usually made me nauseous within 20 or 30 minutes of play. It wasn't until playing Star Wars: Squadrons and Ace Combat 7 on a friend's PSVR that I finally actually wanted a VR headset, and the PSVR actually felt comfortable to wear.

But I had already played Star Wars: Squadrons and Ace Combat 7 on standard displays, as well as Resident Evil VII, so there weren't any PS4 VR games that I was really eager to play. Déraciné was really the only PSVR game that I wanted to play at that point. So I decided to wait until I could get a PS5 VR headset instead.

When I actually started playing PS5, I was really liking it. In fact, I have a sneaking suspicion that when all is said and done, the PS5 might end up being my second favorite console after the PS2. The novel haptic feedback and surprisingly accurate motion sensor functions have even rekindled a long-lost love of Gran Turismo (and racing games in general), and it just so happened that Gran Turismo 7 was supposed to get a really good (free) VR update for the PSVR 2! Since I had been enjoying the system, I was a lot more inclined to spend more money to get the most out of it. I got a nice tax refund in 2023, and put that money towards a PSVR 2 headset.

The PS5 was heavily marketed as being fully backwards-compatible with PS4 games, so I would surely be able to go back to the PS4's VR catalogue and play any of the games I had missed out on. Or so I thought...

I wasn't sure about the Bloodborne board game initially. The Dark Souls board game wasn't particularly good, and I already had a pretty great Bloodborne-themed card game. But I kept seeing good reviews of Bloodborne: the Board Game, and it was designed by the same designer who made the card game, Eric Lang, who I trusted to make a compelling board game. So I bought it. And then it sat on my shelf for a couple years because my friends and I were busy playing other games, like Star Trek: Ascendancy expansions. One of these days, I'll get around to actually playing a new board game promptly after buying it... One of these days ...

A narrative-driven dungeon crawl

First and foremost, Bloodborne is not simply a Bloodborne-themed reskin of the Dark Souls board game. They are made by different companies and designers, and have totally different design philosophies. Dark Souls is built around grinding with no real purpose other than to eventually beat a single boss. Bloodborne is a much more structured and purposeful game, which is built around narrative-based campaigns. In fact, this Bloodborne game actively and explicitly discourages grinding by implementing a strict turn limit. As such, a Bloodborne session (a single chapter of a campaign) takes about 90 minutes to play or less. It won't drag on for hours, or into the next day, like some of my Dark Souls play sessions did. This, by itself, makes it a lot easier to find people who are interested in playing, and to get them to come back for subsequent sessions to finish that campaign.

Because Bloodborne: the Board Game does have narrative campaigns, I actually feel like I need to preface this review with a SPOILER WARNING. Some of the images may contain story-related cards, board configurations, and enemy placements, which may contain spoilers for the first 2 campaigns (mostly the first one). The review itself does not contain any explicit spoilers for any of the campaigns, so feel free to read on. If you are worried about potential spoilers, and want to go into the game as blind as possible, then I advise that you avoid reading any of the text on cards in any of my photos, especially cards that are labeled "Mission" or "Insight".

Bloodborne is more narrative-driven and less grindy than its Dark Souls board game cousin.

The core set comes with 4 campaigns, each with its own short story and narrative branches that take place over 3 or 4 chapters. As of the time of this review, I've only actually played the first 2 of those 4 campaigns. But I've played the first campaign multiple times, with multiple different groups of players, so I still feel like I have a pretty good grasp on the game -- good enough to give a meaningful and relatively informed review.

Each campaign has a deck of cards that provide objectives for the player to complete, as well as the occasional reward. It plays out kind of like an old Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book, with each card telling the players to draw a specific numbered card after completing the given card's objective. In some cases, the players will have a choice, or the card will have different conditions, and depending on which choice the players make, or which condition(s) is met, the card will instruct the players to reveal one card or another next.

The total of 4 campaigns is actually a solid amount of content, and each campaign can be played multiple times to see the different branching paths. But the campaigns aren't quite as replayable as they might initially seem. Each decision always has the exact same outcome, which means that once you've played a campaign once, you know what choices to make in order to get which results. Knowing the outcomes sucks out a lot of the mystery, intrigue, and threat from the game, and allows players to micro-manage their decisions to optimize their play.

Player choices can cause several branches in a campaign story, opening up different quests and rewards.

Over the years, I have frequently recommended that people stop buying new games from AAA publishers at retail. Don't buy them at all, or if you do, wait for a sale, or buy it used. This is because the massive, international, conglomerate corporations that publish these games are sleazy, scummy, or outright evil.

They underpay their employees.

They abuse their employees with cultures of crunch.

They hang the Sword of Damacles over their employees heads with the perpetual threat of layoffs.

They report record profits to their shareholders and award billion dollar bonuses to executives on a Tuesday, and then lay off hundreds or thousands of workers on Wednesday because they "can't afford" to keep them.

Some publishers even have active cultures of sexual harassment and abuse of female employees, which their HR departments are happy to cover up or sweep under the rug.

They harass and ostracize transgender employees and hold their healthcare hostage.

They fight against unionization.

They overcharge for their products.

They sell un-regulated gambling to minors.

They sell half-baked or broken products at full price.

They cancel promising upcoming products with little-to-no rhyme or reason.

They want to take away the consumer's right to own the media that we buy.

The list goes on...