Rationality – Steven Pinker and the Trouble with Being Human

Steven Pinker’s Rationality is not, despite the title, a straightforward handbook on how to think logically. Instead, it is largely a catalog of the many ways humans fail to do so. The book is less about defining rationality in abstract terms and more about exposing the cognitive traps, statistical misunderstandings, and intuitive shortcuts that repeatedly lead us astray.

In that sense, Rationality overlaps heavily with material familiar to anyone who has spent time reading about statistics, cognitive psychology, or the scientific method. There are few genuinely new ideas here if you are already steeped in these topics. Much of the book will feel like a well-organised refresher: confirmation bias, base-rate neglect, motivated reasoning, regression to the mean, and the many ways anecdotes override data in our minds. Pinker is very good at presenting these ideas clearly, and the book remains accessible throughout, helped by a light, sometimes playful tone that keeps it from becoming dry or academic.

The one section that genuinely stood out to me was Pinker’s discussion of causal networks. This was an area I had not previously explored in much depth, and it provides a powerful lens for thinking about complex phenomena where simple explanations fail. Issues like the nature versus nurture debate make far more sense when viewed as interlocking causal systems rather than binary choices. Instead of asking which single factor “causes” an outcome, causal networks force us to think in terms of interacting influences, feedback loops, and indirect effects. It is a way of thinking that feels both more honest and more useful when dealing with real-world complexity.

Pinker also touches, briefly but pointedly, on two of my longstanding pet peeves: the widespread fear of genetically modified organisms and the persistent resistance to nuclear power. Both are striking examples of how intuition and cultural narratives often overpower evidence. GMO crops are among the most extensively tested food technologies in history, yet are often treated as inherently dangerous because they feel unnatural. Nuclear power, meanwhile, is commonly associated with catastrophe despite having an exceptional safety record when measured per unit of energy produced.

What makes these cases especially frustrating is that both technologies could be powerful tools in addressing climate change. GMO crops can reduce land use, pesticide reliance, and food insecurity, while nuclear energy offers large-scale, low-carbon power generation with a reliability that renewables alone still struggle to provide. Rejecting these options on emotional or ideological grounds is not just irrational in the abstract—it may actively undermine our ability to deal with one of the most pressing challenges of our time.

Despite dealing with heavy topics, Rationality never feels preachy or inaccessible. Pinker has a talent for explaining technical ideas without condescension, and the book’s humor helps soften what could otherwise come across as a relentless critique of human thinking. I have not read a great deal of Pinker’s work before, so I cannot say whether this tone is typical for him, but it works well here.

Personally, I have long considered myself something of a rationalist, or at least an aspiring one. I have been a reader of LessWrong for years and an avid follower of Astral Codex Ten, which largely explains my interest in the book. In that sense, Rationality often feels like preaching to the choir. I suspect its ideal audience is not people already immersed in Bayesian reasoning and cognitive biases, but those who have not yet seriously questioned how unreliable intuition can be.

Even so, the book serves a useful purpose. If nothing else, it is a reminder that believing oneself to be rational is not the same as being rational—and that vigilance against our own biases is a never-ending task. Rationality may not radically change how you think, but it does reinforce why careful reasoning, evidence, and humility remain essential in a world that increasingly runs on confident misunderstandings.

The Mummy (1999): Swashbuckling Adventure in a Superhero Age

When The Mummy hit cinemas in 1999, it already felt nostalgic—like a lavish modern remake of a lost matinee serial. There was something unmistakably old-fashioned about it, closer in spirit to The Sea Hawk starring Errol Flynn than to the late-90s blockbusters it shared space with. It delivered action, adventure, romance, and—crucially—witty, rapid-fire dialogue.

At the time, the most obvious comparison was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. A full decade had passed since Indy’s last outing, and there was no clear sign that the fedora would return. Into that vacuum stepped The Mummy, swaggering confidently with sandstorms, ancient curses, and a hero who knew how to throw a punch and a one-liner.

It’s tempting to see the film as a deliberate attempt to fill the Indiana Jones-shaped hole in popular cinema—and if so, it succeeded brilliantly.

A (Mostly) Spoiler-Free Summary

Set in the 1920s, the story follows Evelyn Carnahan, an ambitious but somewhat bookish librarian with dreams of real archaeological discovery. When she acquires a mysterious key and map pointing to the lost city of Hamunaptra, she assembles an unlikely expedition. Along for the ride are the dashing but morally flexible adventurer Rick O’Connell and Evelyn’s well-meaning brother Jonathan.

What begins as a treasure hunt quickly turns into something far more dangerous. An ancient high priest, Imhotep, is accidentally resurrected, unleashing plagues, supernatural horrors, and a steadily escalating body count. The heroes must race to undo what they’ve unleashed—before the curse consumes not only them, but potentially far more.

The film balances horror imagery with comedy and romance, never leaning so hard into darkness that it loses its buoyant tone. The ending avoids nihilism in favor of classic adventure closure, the kind that leaves the audience smiling rather than shell-shocked.

Filling the Indy Gap

The DNA shared with Raiders of the Lost Ark is obvious: archaeological MacGuffins, supernatural peril, desert chases, and a charismatic rogue at the center. But The Mummy isn’t a clone. Where Indiana Jones often leans into pulp peril with a straight face, The Mummy embraces a slightly lighter, more self-aware tone. It winks without parodying itself.

Ironically, if The Mummy did help remind studios that audiences still loved this kind of adventure, we might have it (partly) to thank for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Whether that’s a blessing is debatable. Few would argue that the fourth Indy film recaptured the tight scripting and tonal balance of the original trilogy.

The Dialogue (and That Line)

Part of what makes the 1999 film endure is how quotable it is. The action is energetic, but the banter is what sticks. It’s difficult to meet anyone who has seen the film and doesn’t instantly recall:

“Hey, Beni! Looks to me like you're on the wrong side of the river!”

It’s delivered at the perfect moment—equal parts triumph and exasperation—and it encapsulates the film’s spirit: danger undercut by charm.

Rachel Weisz and the Modern Heroine

Another element that feels ahead of its time is Rachel Weisz as Evelyn. In an era when many big-budget action films still relegated women to damsel roles, Evelyn is competent, driven, and essential to the plot. She makes mistakes, yes—but they stem from curiosity and ambition, not helplessness. She is both romantic lead and intellectual engine of the story.

In retrospect, that balance feels refreshingly modern.

Did It Launch a Trend?

There’s a credible argument that The Mummy helped pave the way for Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Before Pirates, pirate-themed films had a reputation for underperforming. Yet here was The Mummy, proving that audiences would show up for swashbuckling spectacle laced with humor and supernatural elements. Replace sand with sea and mummies with cursed gold, and the tonal similarities are striking.

While it would be overstating things to claim direct causation, it’s not unreasonable to see The Mummy as part of a revival of earnest, big-hearted adventure storytelling in the early 2000s.

An Instant Classic

More than 25 years later, The Mummy remains immensely watchable. Its visual effects, while very much of their era in places, hold up surprisingly well. More importantly, its pacing, chemistry, and sense of fun remain intact.

We now live in an age dominated by superheroes—particularly after more than a decade of Marvel Studios reshaping blockbuster cinema. Fantastical spectacle is no longer rare. And yet, what feels rarer is this specific flavor of adventure: archaeologists, ancient ruins, treasure maps, and supernatural peril grounded in pulp tradition.

What wouldn’t I give for a few fewer capes and a few more expeditions into lost cities?

If nothing else, The Mummy stands as proof that sometimes the best way forward for blockbuster cinema is to look backward—to matinees, to Flynn, to Indy—and remember that adventure should be thrilling, romantic, and just a little bit funny.

The Mummy Returns… Again – Universal Confirms Sequel for 2028

According to Entertainment Weekly, Universal Pictures has officially announced a new Mummy sequel, with Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz set to return. The film is currently scheduled for release on May 19, 2028.

For many fans, this will feel both surprising and oddly inevitable. The original trilogy—beginning with The Mummy (1999)—was a defining action-adventure series of its era, blending pulp spectacle, light horror, and old-fashioned swashbuckling charm. However, the law of diminishing returns was clearly visible as the series progressed, and even more so with the spin-offs such as The Scorpion King and its sequels.

Late sequels to long-dormant franchises have a mixed track record. Some fail to recapture the tone or cultural moment that made the originals work in the first place. Others, while rarely matching the heights of the original films, can still deliver solid entertainment—Gladiator 2 being a recent example of a legacy sequel that found a degree of success on its own terms.

Whether The Mummy 4 will justify its resurrection remains to be seen. Still, there is something appealing about revisiting a franchise rooted in practical effects, globe-trotting adventure, and charismatic leads. If nothing else, a successful return could encourage studios to invest in more adventure films in the same spirit—a genre that has arguably been underserved in recent years.

For now, cautious optimism seems like the most reasonable stance. 2028 is still a long way off.

The Magos – Dan Abnett and the Long Shadow of Eisenhorn

The Magos occupies an interesting and slightly awkward position in Dan Abnett’s Warhammer 40,000 canon. It is neither a straightforward sequel nor merely a short story collection, but something in between: a substantial novel framed and contextualised by a series of shorter works. The result is a hefty volume that feels less like a single dramatic statement and more like a connective tissue binding together different eras of Eisenhorn’s long and increasingly troubled life.

The book is structured around a core novel, The Magos, supported by a collection of short stories written over many years. Most of these stories focus on Gregor Eisenhorn or the consequences of his actions, reintroducing important characters and narrative threads while quietly laying groundwork for what comes later. Some of them feel supplemental, but a few are essential to appreciating the book as a whole.

Chronologically, The Magos takes place decades after the end of Hereticus, roughly a century later. Eisenhorn is no longer merely controversial—he is officially declared a heretic. And yet, true to form, he continues his private crusade against the enemies of mankind, operating from the shadows and pursuing what he believes to be a greater good. The book leans heavily into the ambiguity of that belief.

One of the most notable differences from the original Eisenhorn trilogy is the shift in point of view. The Magos is not told in Eisenhorn’s own voice. This is both its greatest strength and its most obvious risk. Losing Eisenhorn’s internal narration means losing some of the intimacy that made the earlier books so compelling. At the same time, the external perspective raises the tension considerably. When Eisenhorn is no longer explaining himself, the reader is forced to confront the possibility that he may truly have gone too far—that some invisible but crucial line has been crossed.

Two recurring characters anchor much of the book: Gideon Ravenor and Magos Valentin Drusher. Ravenor’s presence serves as a reminder of Eisenhorn’s legacy. Having already been an intriguing figure in the original trilogy, his appearances here help bridge the gap to Abnett’s Ravenor trilogy, which takes place in the long stretch of time between the Eisenhorn books and The Magos. Reading these stories made me far more interested in finally picking up Ravenor in full.

Magos Valentin Drusher, however, is the real revelation. Introduced in The Curiosity and The Gardens of Tycho, and playing a central role in The Magos itself, Drusher is refreshingly human. He is not a hardened interrogator, a battle-scarred inquisitor, or a superhuman agent of the Imperium. He is thoughtful, fallible, and recognisably human in a setting that too often defaults to grim archetypes. These stories were easily my favourites in the collection, and Drusher’s perspective grounds the narrative in a way that Eisenhorn himself no longer quite can. I sincerely hope Abnett chooses to revisit him.

Taken as a whole, The Magos feels less like a dramatic leap forward and more like a consolidation. A great deal happens, relationships shift, and long-term consequences are clarified, but the book’s primary function is connective rather than transformative. It draws lines between past and future, reframing Eisenhorn’s journey rather than redefining it.

The short stories are not all strictly necessary, but the Drusher-focused ones in particular elevate the entire volume. Without them, The Magos would feel slimmer, colder, and more distant. With them, it becomes something richer: a meditation on legacy, compromise, and what remains of a man once certainty is gone.

If nothing else, The Magos stands as a reminder that in Abnett’s hands, Warhammer 40,000 is not just about war, heresy, and corruption—but about the slow erosion of conviction, and the cost of believing too strongly for too long.

The Dispatcher – Murder, Mercy, and the Logic of a Changed World

John Scalzi’s The Dispatcher series comes from Subterranean Press, a publisher that has earned a reputation for consistently putting out interesting, well-curated speculative fiction. In general, anything with their imprint is at least worth a second look, and The Dispatcher is no exception. The series is available in ebook form via Subterranean Press, though in my case I encountered it as an audiobook—and that turned out to be a perfect fit.

The stories are short, sharp, and heavily driven by dialogue, which makes them exceptionally well suited to narration. Rather than feeling like a compromise, the audio format enhances the material, to the point where it’s hard not to suspect that the stories were written with spoken performance very much in mind from the outset.

One Change Is Enough

The premise is deceptively simple. The world of The Dispatcher is our world, with one crucial alteration. A few years prior to the events of the story, something strange began happening: people who were murdered would not stay dead. Instead, their lives would rewind a few hours, their bodies would vanish at the moment of death, and they would reappear at home, alive and unharmed—if somewhat shaken and very naked.

The catch is that this fails roughly one time in a thousand. And importantly, the rule applies only to murder. Suicide, accidents, illness—those still result in permanent death.

Scalzi wisely avoids explaining why this happens. The stories show little interest in metaphysics or grand cosmic answers, and that restraint is one of the series’ strengths. The how and why are far less interesting than the consequences, and The Dispatcher is very much about how society adapts when death becomes conditional.

A New Profession for a New World

Out of this strange new reality emerges the titular profession: dispatchers. Licensed killers who, under tightly regulated circumstances, are allowed to kill people in order to save them. A dispatcher might be called in after a catastrophic car accident, a botched medical procedure, or any situation where death is imminent and unavoidable. Being murdered, paradoxically, becomes the safest option.

It is a darkly clever idea, and Scalzi explores it with a light touch. Despite the grim subject matter, the stories are not oppressively heavy. The tone remains brisk, often dryly humorous, but never flippant. And while murder is no longer final in most cases, it is still very much possible—you just have to be creative about it. That lingering danger keeps the moral stakes intact.

Format Matters

I have read some of Scalzi’s earlier work, most notably Old Man’s War. While I enjoyed it, it never quite hooked me. It leaned a bit too far toward light entertainment for my taste, even if the ideas were strong. I also have Lock In waiting somewhere in the reading pile.

As I’ve gotten older, though, I’ve found myself increasingly drawn to shorter fiction: novellas, novelettes, even short stories. Delivering a satisfying narrative in a limited space is, in many ways, harder than sustaining one over hundreds of pages. The Dispatcher benefits enormously from its compact format. There is no filler here—just sharp premises, focused characters, and clean execution.

Familiar, but in a Good Way

The series reminds me, structurally, of Brandon Sanderson’s Stephen Leeds stories—not in content, tone, or setting, but in format. Each entry is self-contained, yet together they gradually sketch a broader world. Lois McMaster Bujold’s Penric and Desdemona novellas also come to mind, though in my view Bujold’s character work is on another level. Her characters feel more alive, more deeply inhabited.

Still, the comparison is flattering. Scalzi understands how to build a universe through implication rather than exposition, and that restraint serves these stories well.

An Ending That Feels Like a Pause

At present, the series appears to be complete with three entries, the most recent being Travel by Bullet from 2022. There has been no news of further installments, and given the time that has passed, it seems unlikely we will see a continuation anytime soon.

That’s a shame. The world Scalzi has created here feels rich enough to support many more stories, and the format is well suited to exactly that kind of episodic expansion. If more dispatcher stories ever do appear, I’ll happily listen in.

Until then, The Dispatcher stands as a sharp, clever, and surprisingly thoughtful exploration of how a single, impossible change can ripple through society—and how even when death loses its finality, moral responsibility does not.

Baldur’s Gate TV Series in Development at HBO

Exciting news for fans of Baldur’s Gate 3: a live-action TV series is officially in the works at HBO, and it’s set to continue the story from the hit game. The project is being developed by Craig Mazin — best known as co-creator of The Last of Us and Chernobyl — in partnership with Hasbro Entertainment and HBO.

According to reports, the series will pick up immediately after the events of Baldur’s Gate 3, exploring the aftermath of the game’s ending with a mix of returning and new characters. Mazin, a longtime fan of Dungeons & Dragons and Baldur’s Gate 3, has said it’s “a dream come true” to bring the world and its characters to television, having played the game for hundreds of hours.

Interestingly, Larian Studios — the developer behind Baldur’s Gate 3 — is not directly involved in the adaptation, a fact that has sparked mixed reactions from fans and even comments from the studio’s leadership. While some hope the show stays true to the original’s character depth and branching narratives, others are cautious about how a continuation will handle the game’s many possible endings and beloved party members. 

No release date has been announced yet, and details remain sparse, but with Mazin at the helm and The Last of Us adaptation experience on his resume, this could become one of the most ambitious video game–to–TV adaptations yet.

Sources:

• Deadline
• The Verge

Dark – Time Travel Done the Hard Way

Dark is surprisingly difficult to review without spoilers. Almost anything meaningful you say risks revealing a thread that the series very carefully wants you to pull yourself. For that reason, I will limit myself to the setup established in the first few episodes, and then step back to discuss the series in more abstract terms—what it does well, why it works, and how it compares to other stories dealing with time travel.

The series is set in the small German town of Winden, a place that appears entirely unremarkable at first glance. Its only distinguishing feature is a nearby nuclear power plant—an industrial presence that looms quietly over the town and its inhabitants. The story initially follows Jonas Kahnwald, a troubled teenager dealing with the recent suicide of his father, who leaves behind a mysterious letter that Jonas is explicitly instructed not to open until a specific time.

Shortly thereafter, Mikkel Nielsen—the younger brother of one of Jonas’s friends and romantic interests—goes missing. The search for Mikkel begins in the present day, but it quickly becomes clear that this is not a conventional missing-child story. Mikkel has somehow ended up in 1986, and from that point on, Dark begins to unfold into something far more complex.

That is as far as it is safe to go in terms of concrete plot. What follows over the course of three tightly structured seasons is a story that continuously deepens its mystery while still managing to move forward. Each season builds toward a powerful climax, answers some questions, raises many others, and ends on a note that feels both shocking and earned. Crucially, the third and final season delivers an actual conclusion—something that is far rarer in television than it should be.

What makes Dark stand out is that it is a time-travel story that more or less makes sense—at least as much as time travel ever can. It establishes clear internal rules and, more importantly, respects them. The series does not treat time travel as a convenient narrative escape hatch, but as a system with consequences, constraints, and moral weight.

This is where many time-travel stories falter. They create paradoxes they cannot resolve, rely on vague hand-waving, or simply stop caring about consistency once the emotional beats have been delivered. Older examples like Lost, and more recent ones like Stranger Things, show how easily a strong mystery can collapse under the weight of its own unanswered questions. In contrast, Dark never feels like it is improvising its way out of trouble. Even when the story becomes extremely complex, it gives the impression of being carefully planned.

That planning matters, especially in a medium where satisfying endings are increasingly rare. Many television series suffer from unexpected success: what was conceived as a one-season story suddenly needs to stretch into five, and narrative coherence becomes a casualty. Others simply run out of ideas, or resort to retroactive changes that undermine earlier episodes. Dark avoids these pitfalls. It is not afraid to reveal that certain things were misunderstood or misrepresented earlier—but when it does so, it feels intentional rather than desperate.

Change and reinterpretation are not problems in themselves. Stories can lie to the audience, or allow characters to lie to each other, as long as those lies are revealed in a way that feels honest. Dark excels at this. Looking back, there is often subtle foreshadowing—details that only make sense in hindsight, and which reward attentive viewers without requiring encyclopedic note-taking.

In the end, Dark is not just a strong time-travel story; it is a rare example of one that knows where it is going and commits to getting there. It is dense, demanding, and occasionally emotionally exhausting—but also deeply satisfying. In a genre littered with half-finished ideas and unresolved paradoxes, Dark stands out as something carefully constructed, rigorously thought through, and confidently brought to a close.

Stellaris and the Long Shadow of DLC

Like many Paradox titles, Stellaris lives and evolves through an extensive DLC model. This is hardly unique within Paradox’s catalogue, but Stellaris handles DLC somewhat differently than, for example, Europa Universalis IV, and those differences matter more than they first appear.

In EU IV, DLCs traditionally focused on specific regions, nations, or political systems. Even without owning a particular expansion, you could still benefit indirectly from most new mechanics; you simply did not get the full experience when playing the nations or areas explicitly enhanced by that DLC. Over time, many once-essential mechanics—such as those introduced in Art of War or Res Publica—have been folded into the base game, making the barrier to entry much lower today.

Stellaris, by contrast, divides its DLCs into several distinct categories, each with very different impact. Species Packs—such as Plantoids, Lithoids, Necroids, Aquatics, Toxoids, and the more recent Astral Planes-era additions—primarily add new portraits, civics, traits, and cosmetic assets. Some of them, however, go further: Synthetic Dawn, for example, introduced fully playable Machine Empires, which fundamentally changed how population, economy, and ethics could function.

More significant are the major expansion DLCs. These add or overhaul core systems: diplomacy (Federations), internal politics and origins (Utopia), espionage (Nemesis), leaders and paragon mechanics (Galactic Paragons), or exploration and narrative depth (Distant Stars). Unlike EU IV, where missing DLC often feels like missing options, missing major Stellaris expansions can feel like missing entire layers of the game. The difference between playing with or without Utopia alone is substantial.

Then there are the Story Packs. These focus primarily on flavor: anomalies, archaeological sites, event chains, leviathans, and relics. While they rarely change the game’s mechanical core, they significantly enhance its sense of mystery and discovery—arguably one of Stellaris’ strongest qualities.

A single Stellaris campaign can be extremely long, even by 4X standards. The game offers extensive customization at galaxy creation: size, number of AI empires, crisis strength, technology cost, population growth scaling, and more. These settings can dramatically alter both pacing and difficulty. That said, Stellaris is a game where you do not need to finish a campaign to feel satisfied. In fact, many games become less engaging in the late stages, even with extensive automation enabled.

Personally, I find the early and mid-game the most rewarding. Exploration, surveying, uncovering ancient civilizations, and piecing together the history of long-dead empires is where Stellaris shines brightest. As the game progresses, it increasingly shifts toward pure empire management—optimizing economies, managing diplomacy, or engaging in large-scale warfare. By the mid-game, resource scarcity often gives way to abundance, with minerals and energy effectively becoming infinite if infrastructure is well developed. Strategic resources and empire-wide modifiers become the real constraints.

One area where Stellaris offers more depth than many of its genre peers is ship design. By default, the game automatically designs and updates ship classes as new technologies are researched, making it perfectly playable without manual intervention. However, players who wish to engage more deeply can design ships themselves, choosing weapon types, defenses, and combat roles. This system adds genuine strategic complexity, particularly when countering specific enemy builds.

Fleet combat, however, remains somewhat awkward in places. Naval capacity limits the total number of ships you can reasonably maintain, regardless of ship size. While exceeding this limit is possible, the economic penalties escalate quickly. On larger galaxies, this often forces players to invest heavily in naval capacity infrastructure simply to defend a sprawling empire. Early on, fleets must be split due to long travel times, making it difficult to respond to threats on opposite sides of the galaxy.

Later in the game, this issue is mitigated through advanced mobility options: Gateways, Wormholes, Jump Drives, and L-Gates significantly reduce response times and change the strategic landscape. Still, the early-game tension between geography and fleet size is very real.

Starbases and fortresses, while useful, rarely function as true defensive bulwarks in the way fortifications do in EU IV. Even heavily upgraded starbases are unlikely to defeat a determined enemy main fleet on their own. They delay, attrit, and support—but they do not replace mobile forces. There is nothing quite equivalent to a siege-based war of attrition.

In the end, Stellaris remains a game I return to regularly. Even so, I still find myself preferring Europa Universalis IV overall. Despite Stellaris being the newer title, EU IV feels more polished, perhaps because it operates within tighter historical and mechanical boundaries. Its systems change less dramatically over the course of a campaign, but what it does, it does exceptionally well.

Ironically, one of my long-standing frustrations with EU IV—the reliance on abstract monarch power—was largely addressed first in Stellaris, where leaders, institutions, and infrastructure play a more organic role. With Europa Universalis V now tackling the same issue and introducing what appear to be even more complex systems, it will be interesting to see how these designs continue to evolve.

Either way, Stellaris remains an ambitious, evolving, occasionally unwieldy but endlessly fascinating experiment in grand-scale science-fiction strategy—and one that still feels uniquely Paradox.

Torment: Tides of Numenera – Choices, Companions, and the Weight of Immortality

When Torment: Tides of Numenera was first announced, I was immediately drawn in. Billed as a spiritual successor to Planescape: Torment, it promised the same deeply philosophical storytelling, complex moral choices, and richly imagined companions that made the original such a landmark. I backed the Kickstarter early on, joining a record-breaking campaign that reflected the sheer excitement surrounding the project.

Even now, years after its release, Torment remains a remarkable experience. While some critics and players note that it didn’t fully deliver on every promise made during the Kickstarter, the game excels in areas that matter most: story, dialogue, worldbuilding, and the sense that every choice carries weight. Companions feel alive, each with their own agendas, quirks, and perspectives, and the game’s visual design—while more grounded than the abstract planes of Planescape—is polished, evocative, and frequently stunning.

One of the game’s standout systems is the Crisis mechanic, which governs tension and story pacing. Crises are high-stakes moments triggered by pivotal story beats, dangerous locations, or morally significant decisions. During these sequences, options are limited, skill checks and dialogue become more consequential, and even combat can be intensified. Success moves the story forward, often unlocking new quests, narrative insights, or powerful items, while failure—or the choices you deliberately make—can have lasting consequences. Interestingly, not all encounters are crises; many puzzles and narrative challenges can be solved without combat, and these solutions often feel more creative and rewarding.

Replacing the traditional alignment system is the game’s Tide system, a brilliant innovation that tracks eight abstract values representing facets of the player’s personality and ethical stance. Every decision nudges one or more tides, influencing companions’ reactions, narrative outcomes, and even dialogue options. Unlike a simple “good vs. evil” scale, tides provide a nuanced moral compass that encourages experimentation and replay. It’s easy to make choices that produce unexpected outcomes, and the game even allows for permanent failure very early on—a striking way to underscore the stakes from the moment you begin.

Immortality, a hallmark of the Torment legacy, is cleverly interwoven here. You can die and return multiple times, and in some puzzles, death is not a failure but a deliberate solution. This reinforces the game’s themes of identity, consequence, and the cyclical nature of actions—echoing the philosophical weight that made the original Planescape so compelling. The story begins in medias res, with your character falling from the sky, immediately immersing you in a sense of urgency and mystery.

The world of Torment is rich throughout, but Act 2’s The Bloom stands out. This semi-sentient, dreamlike environment is not only visually striking but thematically resonant, tying memory, identity, and consequence together in ways that make exploration genuinely meaningful. The attention to detail, the interplay between companions, tides, and moral choices, all contribute to a level of replayability that rewards patient, thoughtful players.

It’s worth noting that the game never received official DLC, which is a shame given the depth and richness of its world. A free post-launch update did expand companion interactions and add minor content, but the base game alone already provides dozens of hours of complex narrative and strategic choice.

While some may argue that Tides of Numenera didn’t entirely live up to the hype generated during its Kickstarter, it remains a compelling, thoughtful RPG. It demonstrates how rich narrative, meaningful choice, and philosophical depth can coexist with tactical gameplay, and it arguably set the stage for later innovations in narrative-driven RPGs, as seen in Baldur’s Gate III. For anyone drawn to story-heavy role-playing with consequences that truly matter, Torment remains an essential experience.

Brandon Sanderson, the Cosmere, and the Perils of Screen Adaptation

As reported by both Polygon and Reactor, Brandon Sanderson is once again talking openly about screen adaptations of his work—and, perhaps more importantly, about the degree of control he intends to retain over them. That detail alone makes this worth paying attention to.

Hollywood adaptations of popular fantasy and science fiction have a long and uneven history, and optimism rarely comes without caveats. Still, the idea of a Cosmere adaptation—handled with care, budget, and authorial involvement—is difficult not to find at least somewhat intriguing.

One of the more reassuring points in the reporting is Sanderson’s insistence on creative control. This is not a minor detail. Even the strongest source material can be mangled beyond recognition in the wrong hands. The Rings of Power is a good recent example: lavishly produced, technically impressive, and yet—at least to my mind—fundamentally hollow. Beautiful, highly polished crap is still crap.

Sanderson’s position suggests he is acutely aware of this risk. His hesitation to move forward without meaningful influence over the end result reads less like stubbornness and more like hard-earned realism.

That said, I remain only cautiously optimistic. We have seen no shortage of ambitious adaptation plans fail to materialize or collapse under their own weight. Patrick Rothfuss’ Kingkiller Chronicle is perhaps the most infamous example: once positioned as a multi-format franchise spanning film, television, and games, it ultimately produced nothing at all. Other projects—American Gods, The Dark Tower, and even parts of The Witcher—serve as reminders that success in one medium does not translate automatically to another.

The timing is also notable. With The Wheel of Time ending after its third season, and The Witcher approaching its conclusion with the upcoming fifth, there is a clear vacuum in big-budget, ongoing fantasy television. Streaming platforms are still hungry for “the next thing,” even if they have become more cautious after several expensive misfires.

In that context, the Cosmere makes a certain kind of sense. It is expansive, internally consistent, and already structured as a shared universe—something studios understand instinctively. At the same time, that same complexity is a risk. Worldbuilding depth is a strength on the page, but can easily become a liability on screen if mishandled.

For now, this remains firmly in the realm of “interesting possibility” rather than imminent reality. Still, if there is one modern fantasy author I would trust to push back against the worst excesses of adaptation-by-committee, Sanderson is a reasonable candidate.

You can read the original reporting at Polygon and Reactor:

• Polygon

• Reactor

If nothing else, it is refreshing to see an author enter these discussions with eyes open—and with a clear understanding that fidelity, restraint, and good judgment matter just as much as spectacle.

Darkest Dungeon – Stress, Madness, and the Cost of Survival

When Darkest Dungeon was released, it didn’t just add another entry to the long tradition of dungeon-crawling games — it fundamentally changed how failure, trauma, and psychological pressure were represented. Instead of focusing solely on hit points and loot, the game introduced stress as a central mechanic, forcing you to deal with the mental consequences of repeatedly sending people into horrifying places. It’s a small shift on paper, but one that gives the entire game a very different tone.

A Bleak Setting

The game is set around a ruined ancestral estate, long abandoned and corrupted by unspeakable forces. As the heir, you return to reclaim the land and purge the darkness festering beneath it. From this estate — known simply as the Hamlet — you recruit heroes, manage resources, and plan expeditions into nearby dungeons. The narrative framing is minimal, but effective, reinforced by the narrator’s grim delivery and the oppressive art style.

The Hamlet: Your Only Safe Haven

The Hamlet serves as your hub between dungeon runs. It’s here that you recruit new adventurers, manage stress, upgrade buildings, and decide which expeditions to undertake next. Crucially, the Hamlet is not just a menu system — it’s a strategic layer that directly affects your long-term survival.

Stress accumulated in dungeons doesn’t simply disappear when a party returns. Instead, heroes need time and resources to recover. The Hamlet offers several ways to manage this, such as taverns, abbeys, and other facilities that help reduce stress, though often with side effects. As a result, you’re encouraged — or forced — to maintain multiple parties, rotating them as others recover. This creates a steady rhythm between risk-taking and recovery, and makes long-term planning essential.

Over time, the Hamlet itself can be upgraded using resources brought back from the dungeons. These upgrades improve everything from hero training to stress relief, but progress is slow and hard-won.

Stress as a Core Mechanic

Stress is where Darkest Dungeon truly stands apart. Characters accumulate stress from almost everything: seeing horrific enemies, triggering traps, suffering critical hits, or watching party members get injured or killed. Once a character reaches 100 stress, they suffer a resolve check. More often than not, they break — gaining a negative affliction that affects performance and can spread stress to others.

Occasionally, a hero will instead “pull through” and become virtuous, gaining powerful buffs. These moments feel rare and dramatic, and while they can be influenced by certain trinkets or abilities, they’re never something you can fully rely on. This constant uncertainty reinforces the game’s themes of risk and fragility.

Dungeon Exploration

Dungeons are built as networks of rooms connected by corridors. Rooms can contain battles, curios, treasures, or events, while corridors function almost like side-scrolling spaces where traps, hidden doors, and ambushes can occur. The pacing alternates between tense exploration and brutal combat, with very little room to relax.

Different dungeon regions are “flavored” with distinct enemies, environmental effects, and resistances. This means party composition and skill selection matter a great deal, and what works well in one dungeon might perform poorly in another. This variety adds both complexity and replayability.

Combat and Party Positioning

Combat in Darkest Dungeon is turn-based and heavily dependent on positioning. Each hero can only equip four skills at a time, similar to Diablo, and many skills can only be used from — or target — specific positions in the party lineup. Some abilities move characters forward or backward, while others reposition enemies.

This system allows for deep tactical play, but it can also be punishing. If enemies shuffle your party, or if you’re ambushed during rest, your carefully planned setup can fall apart. Sometimes you’ll lose an entire round just moving characters back into positions where they can actually use their skills, which can feel frustrating — but also reinforces the game’s unforgiving nature.

Roguelike Roots

Darkest Dungeon leans closer to a roguelike than a roguelite. Heroes die permanently, and if a party wipes in a dungeon, you lose both the characters and any items they were carrying. Progress is retained only through resources brought back to the Hamlet and improvements made there. While you can always recruit new heroes, they start fresh, reinforcing the sense that individuals are expendable — but experience and preparation are not.

Atmosphere Above All

Visually, Darkest Dungeon is entirely 2D, but the art direction is exceptional. The heavy lines, exaggerated animations, and grim color palette create a constant sense of dread. The sound design and narration further elevate the experience, making even routine actions feel ominous.

Over time, some animations can become repetitive, but the option to speed them up helps maintain momentum during longer play sessions.

Final Thoughts

Darkest Dungeon isn’t just difficult — it’s oppressive by design. The game wants you to feel worn down, uncertain, and constantly on the edge of disaster. For some players, that can be too much. For others, it’s precisely what makes the experience memorable.

By tying psychological pressure, resource management, and tactical combat into a single cohesive system, Darkest Dungeon created something that still feels distinctive years after release — a dungeon crawler where survival is as much about managing fear and stress as it is about winning fights.

How to Invent Everything – A Survival Guide for the Stranded Time Traveler

At first glance, How to Invent Everything looks like it might be a prepper’s dream—or perhaps a post-apocalyptic one. Not a guide to surviving disaster as much as a handbook for restarting civilization after it has already collapsed. That distinction matters. This is less about stockpiling and bunkers, and more about rebuilding knowledge from the ground up. And no, reading it did not turn me into a prepper.

The book presents itself as an official manual meant to accompany a time machine, written by someone from the future (or at least an alternate timeline). Its purpose is simple: if a time traveler gets stranded in the past, this is the book meant to help them rebuild civilization and eventually make their way home. Ryan North, in this framing, is not the author of the manual itself, but the person who recovered it and added the introduction and editorial framing.

The tone is relentlessly humorous. The manual is filled with jokes, footnotes, puns, and playful asides about alternate timelines and paradoxes. I enjoy wordplay and clever footnotes, but this style sometimes feels pushed right to the edge. Each chapter opens with a famous quote now attributed both to its historical originator and to you, the stranded time traveler, since you will eventually travel back and say it yourself. As a joke it works initially, but repeated in every chapter it starts to wear thin. This may simply mean I am not the ideal target audience, even though the subject matter itself aligns very closely with my interests.

In hindsight, the cover probably should have warned me. The presentation clearly signals “geeky humor first, instruction second.” While I try not to judge a book by its cover, this one turns out to be fairly honest about what it is selling. North (or the publisher's marketing department) knows how to market a book, and this is very much aimed at readers who enjoy science, history, and nerd culture as entertainment.

That said, the underlying content is often fascinating. The book is packed with historical anecdotes that highlight just how fragile civilization’s accumulated knowledge really is. One striking example is scurvy: the use of citrus fruits to cure it was discovered, forgotten, and rediscovered no fewer than seven times before it finally stuck. Knowledge does not automatically accumulate—it must be preserved, transmitted, and defended against being lost.

The manual also repeatedly points out how many transformative inventions could have been implemented centuries or even millennia earlier if the right insights had been present. Many of these ideas seem obvious in hindsight, but they were unreachable without a systematic way to test hypotheses. This is where the book makes one of its strongest implicit arguments: the true invention underpinning modern civilization is not any single tool, but the scientific method itself. Philosophy turns into science the moment ideas are tested against reality.

At the same time, the book is light on practical detail. There are no blueprints, few diagrams, and very little that could realistically be followed step by step to rebuild complex technologies. That reinforces the sense that this is more a conceptual guide and a celebration of human ingenuity than a literal instruction manual. It is highly educational, but not especially actionable.

Reading it also invites some uncomfortable modern parallels. Even today, it is easy to see how people dismiss ideas that conflict with their preferred narratives. If education erodes, science can quickly lose its central role as a way of understanding the world. And while I am deeply fascinated by AI, it is hard not to worry about a future where humans gradually lose the ability to do difficult things themselves, having outsourced understanding to machines.

How to Invent Everything works best as a thought experiment and an intellectual curiosity. It is clever, funny, and often insightful, even if its humor occasionally overstays its welcome and its practical ambitions are overstated. More than anything, it serves as a reminder that civilization rests not on technology alone, but on shared knowledge—and that knowledge is far more fragile than we tend to assume.

Across the Obelisk – A Roguelite That Rewards Planning Over Luck

Across the Obelisk is a roguelite deck-building RPG published by Paradox Interactive in 2021, and one that has quietly grown into one of my favorite examples of the genre. At first glance it may look like yet another Slay the Spire descendant, but it quickly becomes clear that it is doing several things differently—and in many cases, better.

One of the most unusual features for a roguelite is that Across the Obelisk supports full co-op play. I haven’t explored this aspect extensively, but it is easy to imagine how appealing it is to share the planning, builds, and inevitable disasters with other players. It feels like a natural extension of the party-based design.

As with many Paradox titles, the game follows a long-term DLC strategy. New content is released gradually through paid expansions, often accompanied by free updates. While this model isn’t universally loved, Paradox has shown with games like Europa Universalis IV, Stellaris, and Cities: Skylines that it can sustain a game for many years. In this case, the base game already feels complete, and the DLCs mostly serve to expand replayability rather than gate essential content.

A standard run consists of three main acts followed by a fixed final act, although the latest DLC, Necropolis of the Damned, introduces an alternative ending. Each act is represented by a map filled with branching paths, events, and optional dungeons, often culminating in a miniboss before the act’s final boss. The first act is always the same, but later acts offer choices between different maps, adding strategic variety between runs.

At its core, the game revolves around assembling a party of four characters drawn from four archetypes: Warrior, Scout, Mage, and Healer. Each class has its own deck of cards used both for combat and for resolving events on the map, where card costs effectively function as a dice-like mechanic. The base game includes four starting characters, but many more can be unlocked through play. What makes characters truly distinct is their unique set of cards, which strongly shapes how each one can be built. Some DLCs even introduce dual-class characters, combining decks in ways that can become extremely powerful at higher difficulty levels.

Each character also has a talent tree that persists between runs. This is the main roguelite progression system: while your deck resets every run, talent points carry over, gradually opening up new builds and strategies. This persistence is complemented by a town upgrade system. At the start of each map, towns allow you to buy equipment, upgrade or remove cards, and otherwise fine-tune your decks. Over time, these towns themselves can be upgraded, enabling even more customization and min-maxing. The result is a game that feels far less dependent on luck than many other roguelites.

The game uses three main resources: gold, crystals, and supplies. Supplies are used exclusively to upgrade towns, while gold and crystals are spent on cards and equipment. Gold is more flexible—used for gear, pets, and services—while crystals are reserved for crafting and upgrading cards. At the end of each run, you earn gold and crystals that can be carried forward to future runs, allowing you to give yourself a head start. You can store the rewards from up to three completed runs and choose which ones to cash in when starting a new game.

After completing the game, you unlock Madness mode, which allows you to fine-tune the difficulty through a combination of madness levels and corruptors. These modifiers not only make the game harder but also increase the rewards, creating a satisfying risk-reward loop for experienced players.

All of these systems—multiple characters, persistent talents, town upgrades, map choices, and adjustable difficulty—combine to give Across the Obelisk remarkable replayability. It encourages experimentation and planning rather than brute forcing runs and hoping for good card draws.

Overall, Across the Obelisk is one of the strongest roguelite deck builders I’ve played in recent years. I spent a lot of time with Slay the Spire, but I think I ultimately enjoy this more. The deeper customization and reduced reliance on luck make each run feel more deliberate, more strategic, and ultimately more satisfying.