Monday 24 February 2020

Just Act Casual


2018 was the year of the skirmish game for us. We spent a lot of time playing 7TV, Doctor Who: Exterminate, and Mythic Battles: Pantheon, and even more time painting miniatures and building terrain for them. On the surface, Firefly Adventures: Brigands and Browncoats looks like another boxed skirmish game, but it really isn't -- at least, not entirely.

Like Firefly: the Game and Doctor Who: Time of the Daleks, Firefly Adventures shows that Gale Force 9 are masters at building engaging games around licensed properties, rather than simply slapping a licensed theme on an otherwise generic game design, and that they have a deep understanding and respect for the material the game is based on.

It's a cooperative game where every player plays a character from the Serenity crew, which should immediately appeal to fans of the television show. The game controls the bad guys using a simple but elegant AI that dictates what they do based on criteria such as where the closest player character is, or in some cases a pre-determined patrol route. This is interesting, but it is the game's two core concepts that really set it apart from other games of this type, and also makes playing it feel like an episode of the show.

The first of these is the idea that player characters switch back and forth between acting casual or acting heroic at various points in the game, sometimes by choice and sometimes not. A casual character can move freely about the board without attracting the attention of the bad guys, making it easier to sneak into buildings and even talk to the non-player characters. However, many actions such as attacking or breaking down doors require characters to act heroic, which attracts the attention of the bad guys, causing them to move and attack any heroic characters they can see. Each state is represented by a separate miniature, one in a casual pose and the other in a more action-packed one.


The other game mechanic that makes this game more interesting and thematic is the turn structure. Rather than just moving in turn, characters' movements are dictated by a time-based system, with different actions taking up specific amounts of time (called "moments" in the game). Each character has a counter that is moved along a track based on what actions they take, and the character at the back always takes the next turn. This is where the strategy and decision making gets really interesting, as you have to weigh the actions you want to take against how far along the time track you will move, and what characters will act before you get another turn.

The game also has a card and dice-based system to govern both breaking into buildings and talking to non-player characters. You draw a card on each attempt that gives you two choices of possible actions to take, some of which might be easier but force you to act heroic and attract the attention of the bad guys.

Game play is scenario driven, with different board setups and win conditions, which really makes it feel more like a role playing game with no game master than a tactical skirmish game. Tactics usually involve sneaking around trying to avoid a fight rather than all-out combat, and the goal is usually to escape the board with an objective instead of just defeating all opponents. There's even a campaign mode where you try to collect as much money and equipment as possible over several games.

One other thing I have to mention is the game's ingenious terrain, a series of small pre-built boxes designed to look like the converted shipping crates that make up so much of the background of the television show. The game box bottom itself is printed to look like a larger building. It's a clever way to introduce 3-D terrain, and also important for a game where staying out of the bad guys' line of sight is often the best strategy.

The only real complaint I have is that the rule book is poorly organized, making looking up rules somewhat difficult during play. As skirmish games go it's fairly simple, but there are always going to be times when you need to refer to the rules.

Rating: 4 (out of 5) A fun, innovative game that feels much more cinematic than most "move and shoot" games, only marred by a poorly organized rule book.

Sunday 23 February 2020

Some Big Boys

Hello friends!

Here are the images of the larger monster-type miniatures I mentioned previously. I finally got around to loading the photos up on the computer and now sharing them with you all. All of these figures are Reaper Bones. The giants came with the Kickstarter; the worms I bought at MillenniumCon in November 2017.

Female Stone Giant

Rear view, Female Stone Giant

Male Stone Giant


Closeup of ivory plaque and boulder

Rear of Male Stone Giant

Classic Purple Worm

Rear of Purple Worm

Same worm, painted for Frostgrave as an Ice Worm

Rear of Ice Worm

Hill Giant
I am particularly happy with his skin tones.

Heck, I even painted in his eyes.

Thursday 20 February 2020

Authentic Vs Epic


So, I tweeted out a poll last night.  If you were DMing, would you rather go for authentic or epic?

Several people responded "both" or asked what the difference was or just needed clarification.  My reply required more than Twitter's character limit could give me.

When I say "authentic" I mean a few things...

1) Realism:  Yes, it's hard to talk about realism when we're dealing with sorcerers and dragons.  Verisimilitude is probably closer to the mark.  What would a genuine romp through the campaign setting look like?  Sleeping on the ground, cooking beans and sausages in the fire, or the Disney version where sleeping arrangements aren't even considered because everyone's rushing from starship chase to disarming the nuclear fireball to dueling with the PCs' arch-nemesis.

2) The mundane stuff:  Doesn't have to be all grim and gritty and covered in filth, but it shouldn't be super glamorous.  The lived-in universe of Star Wars IV where Luke has to scrape off the carbon scoring by hand.  That's not epic.  Nor is cleaning bedpans, but someone's got to do it.  Should the PCs?  Well, not for the entire scenario, obviously.  However, would it kill them to start their adventuring life mopping the tavern floor or chasing after poop-covered chickens?

3) Things just happen:  Not much attention is paid to the beginning, middle, and end.  No inciting incident, rising action, or climax.  As you get deeper, things may get increasingly hairy, but that's just logical progression, not anything to do with a story arc.

When I'm talking about epic, I mean things that are larger than life and grandiose.  Since I'm already on a Star Wars kick, the sequel trilogy (episodes VII - IX) would be epic.  Humble beginnings quickly lead to whooping ass and taking names right in the middle of a galactic drama between good and evil (or what passes for such things).

If this were an epic D&D session, even meeting in a tavern would launch straight into a quest to save the kingdom or at least a princess.  In contrast, an authentic session where PCs also meet in a tavern might escalate into a barroom brawl before overhearing that an entrance to the mythic underworld has just been found just outside town.

Epic goes for adventure with a capital A.  Authentic reminds you that even if you score a decent haul of treasure, there's still a chance for catching a splinter while you're polishing the blacksmith's anvil, listening to the village idiot drone on about his imaginary cat.

And yes, there's a connection between authentic vs. epic and sandbox vs. pre-plotted linear adventure.  The former moves along at it's own pace, organically... usually haphazard and occasionally awkward.  The latter is sleek and stylish with thrills and chills at regular intervals, but let's face it, those adventures also feel kind of staged, plastic... artificial, even.

So, the big question!  Are these mutually exclusive or can epic and authentic go together like chocolate and peanut butter?  I'd say, yes, it's possible to do both.  And yet, exceedingly rare is the Game Master who can consistently pull off authentic and epic in the same session.  Campaigns are easier to manage authentic and epic because different adventures can provide for tonal shifts.  Even the farm boy from Tatooine can blow up a Death Star after 10 sessions of hard work.

In the end, I, too, prefer both.  However, if I had to set my sights on just one... it would be authentic because that gets you closer to immersion, which is the prime factor of roleplaying games.

VS

p.s. Want the Cha'alt hardcover?  Due to high demand, I've decided to extend the special January deal until Valentine's Day... while supplies last!

Movie Reviews: Star Wars 8: The Last Jedi (Spoilers), Battle Of The Sexes, Wonder, Coco

See all of my movie reviews.

Battle of the Sexes: It feels like forever since I've seen a movie with real, engaging three-dimensional characters, instead of the one or zero dimensional characters you get in Disney and Marvel movies.

The story starts with some background on Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. Riggs is an older former champion tennis player, a sexist but talented socialite, who is having difficulty with his family and looking for a new challenge. King is young and at or near the top in women's tennis, but disgusted that, while women's tennis draws the same ticket sales, the athletes get paid 1/8 what the men do, "because". So she starts her own league. Riggs challenges King to a battle of the sexes.

The trailers for this movie made it seem like Steve Carrell's Bobby Riggs was going to be a caricature of the real Riggs (who was certainly flamboyant). Thank goodness, Carrell, and his screenwriter and director, do a fantastic job in giving us a fully-fledged person that we can care about, even as he is, essentially, the bad guy. So, sucky trailer. Emma Stone does an equally fantastic job as Billie Jean King, as do several of the accessory and side characters, who are fleshed out in full glory (or at least as much as their screen-time allows).

The story lingered perhaps a little too long here and there on some scenes, like the initial haircut scene where she falls for her hairdresser (Carol did a better job with its similar love at first meeting scene). And maybe a little more time could have been added to the story to make it feel like a real epic. But never mind. This was a fun, fine, and satisfying movie to watch.

Wonder: From the trailer I wasn't expecting much for this movie, and in fact wasn't planning to see it at all. It seemed like a straightforward movie about a disfigured boy (Jacob Tremblay) being bullied in school, making and losing friends, and ultimately triumphing. Ho hum. So, once again, sucky, sucky trailer.

That story is, indeed, the backbone of the movie, taking up around 50% of the screen-time; if it was all there was to the movie, the movie would be as expected: not bad, but ultimately nothing special and predictable. But the movie spends the other 50% of its screen-time telling other people's stories, sometimes rolling back the same scene multiple times to view it from different points of view. We spend a lot of time with the sister, but also the mother, the sister's friend, the sister's boyfriend, and two other kids in the boy's class. And all of those stories are better and more original than the main storyline, making the movie so much more than just a story about a bulled boy.

The story is screenwritten by Steve Chbotsky (based on a book by RJ Palacio), the same screenwriter and author of The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I saw and loved that movie and wanted to read the book afterwards. The same thing happened with this movie: the movie is good, but you can see the left-out parts of the book peeking about here and there, and you really want to get more into depth with the characters.

Yes, the story is still a bit of a tearjerker, sentimental and emotional, but it is also narratively creative with some interesting, less predictable characters and story arcs. The main, predictable arc (basically told in the trailer) is raised up by being interwoven with the other stories, although it, too should have been better. Well worth a see, especially for kids and teens. Note: Chewbacca is in the movie, which makes it a candidate as an entry in the Star Wars canon, in my opinion.

Coco: Coco follows in the tradition of Moana, Brave, and Mulan in presenting not only a story of a hero's journey but a journey that is kickstarted, guided, and resolved in consonance with the literalization of a non-American cultural mythology. And I don't know how I feel about that.

A Mexican boy's (Manuel) family refuses to have anything to do with music because the great-grandfather ran off to become a musician, leaving his wife and child to fend for themselves. Naturally, Manuel wants to be a musician. It is the Day of the Dead, where everyone puts up pictures to the dead in order for the dead spirits to be able to (spiritually) visit, but of course a) there is no picture of the great-grandfather and b) Manuel doesn't want to have anything to do with his family. Manuel's idol is a famous musician, and Manuel learns, by accident, that this famous musician was, in fact, his great-grandfather. To compete in a music contest, Manuel steals a guitar from this musician's shrine and finds himself cursed into the land of the dead. Who are happily visiting the relatives who have posted pictures for them. The ones whose families have not posted pictures of them are unhappy. Manuel needs his dead family's blessing to get back to the real world, but they won't give it to him unless he promises not to pursue music. So he runs off to find the spirit of his great-grandfather.

Many of the themes, including the central theme, are reminiscent of the ones in the other movies I mentioned, and the movie also borrows some narrative elements from Up. It has a lot of "learning moments", which are familiar, and a few nice musical scenes. It leans heavy on appreciating your cultural heritage, by turning mythological aspects into real ones.

Which I find kind of bothersome. When mythology becomes fact, it is no longer a question of faith or practice or choice. While in real life there is no easy answer as to whether choosing to honor or not your dead ancestors makes you a good or bad person, movies like this imply that you have no choice not to believe in your family's traditional stories: If you don't, you are murdering or causing tremendous pain to actual beings who walk, talk, and feel exactly like any other living beings do. I'm not comfortable with that message. A mature individual recognizes that what we do to honor the dead and our traditions has nothing to do with the dead, but is about ourselves, our families, and our communities. Coco is aimed at children, sure, and this is just a children's story. But I thought that this movie was supposed to be sensitive to the cultures it was representing, not trivializing to them. You can't really have it both ways.

There are no glaring flaws with the movie, although a Mexican family rejecting all music for several generations seems a bit of a stretch. The movie is filled with pretty art, colors, and architecture which I presume represent both historical and modern Mexican culture. I'm not sure that modern children will appreciate the music, except the few numbers that are obviously meant to appeal to them. I'm not sure in what time period the movie is supposed to be; it must be modern, but no one has cellphones or computers. Is that normal for a modern, large Mexican town? Anyway, I liked it more than I did Moana, which I found derivative and boring. I'm sure that kids will enjoy it.

Star Wars 8: The Last Jedi: Star Wars once had something that was different from other sci-fi movies and worlds, something precious and important. Unfortunately, the makers of the current movies don't see that. Instead of making Star Wars movies, they are making modern sci-fi movies indistinguishable from other modern sci fi movies, with the iconography of Star Wars. Which is very painful to me. Chris Bateman bemoaned something similar after watching the Star Trek reboot, and I didn't get it, then. I think I get it now.

Update: see the end for thoughts after a second viewing.

The new Star Trek movies, the X-Men movies, the Marvel movies, the Ghost in the Shell remake, the Blade Runner movie, Looper, Valerian, Avatar, DC's movies, and many other sci-fi movies in the last 10 or 15 years  have a vast similarity to each other, in much the same way that all modern Disney, Pixar, and other American animated children's movie have vast similarities to each other. They may have different writers, directors, and casts, but they are all, essentially, dumbed down. The creators of these movies avoid complex messages, plots, and themes, throw in snarky slapstick between action sequences, fill the screen with copious action sequences at nearly the same points in the movie, present emotions and dialog that is one-dimensional and transparently representative of the characters, and hammer you with neat and simplistic moral messages in their denouements that are understandable and suitable for a 4 year old. Family is good. Be brave. Be true to yourself. Be loving to creatures, the natives, and the environment.

Star Wars 4-6 and 1-3 were not like that, at all. Well, okay, they often had one-dimensional emotions and dialog, but otherwise. Star Wars did not have tons of snarky dialog, except for Leia, and hers was not slapstick snark but a very specific kind of frustration snark. A Star Wars movie took itself seriously, because the movie was about space opera and adventure, not about instant entertainment. The message about choosing the good side of the force was given, not saved as a discovery for the end of the movie. The dark side of the force and the light side of the force were about our moral choices: people could contain both of these powers, but choosing light meant - by definition - choosing good, while choosing dark meant choosing to be selfish, and therefore evil. People could be ambiguous, but there were clear moral choices. Heroism was heroism: choose good and act on it. Every movie felt like it was part of a world that extended well before and after the movie: what you were seeing was a small part of a great epic, because the movie took time to show and make you feel time passing: Luke's daily routine on the farm represented years, his efforts on Dagobah months. The force presented an exploration of mysticism, not just firepower or "lifting rocks". The movies were NOT just sci fi movies with cool weapons and critters; they were NOT Guardians of the Galaxy, which is a close movie in structure, but just as far in feel as all the others.

The came The Force Awakens. The Force Awakens struck an iffy balance between Star Wars ala Lucas and modern sci fi movies. It felt, at times, too much like a Marvel movie. It was missing a lot of the feel of the Star Wars epic and the mysticism, it felt less like an epic and more like a sequence of events. But the characters, especially Rey, were compelling and the structure was well done, so I had hope it might move in the right direction after the makers received feedback from the fans.

Here be some spoilers, but nothing major.

This movie felt like a Star Trek movie with bits of Star Wars thrown onto it. For the first 25 minutes of the movie, I was in pain, holding my head in my hands aghast at the vast empty, non-Star Wars feel to the movie. Then we got to Rey and Luke, and it was filled with snarky scenes that were supposed to be funny, and I felt my stomach drop. It was supposed to be funny that Luke casually tossed the light saber over his shoulder? Really? It wasn't funny AT ALL, not only because it wasn't funny, but because it wasn't what Luke would do, even if he were disgusted by the force and everything it stood for. He would throw it away in disgust, perhaps, or at least show some emotional acknowledgement that this was his saber he had lost. Or ask some questions of Rey. Anything! The scene was a disaster, and I began to get a headache.

The main part of the movie is dull, with an hour long chase scene where nothing of consequence happens. Poe and Finn basically accomplish nothing in the entire movie. Instead, the entire enterprise of heroism is called into question, because, as one character puts it, we don't kill what we hate, we save what we love? What??? So heroes aren't heroes? It is implied not only that people can have both dark and light in them, but that dark isn't maybe so evil and light ins't maybe so good! What??? That destroys the entire freakin' metaphor! I don't want another vague morality movie that tells me that morality is relative. I don't want a treatise on how heroes aren't heroes, because they should follow orders. And I don't need a new lecture on how both sides are just as bad, and another on how we shouldn't treat animals badly (seriously, the movie took about twenty minutes of run time to tell us this).

The scene on the casino was a phenomenal waste of time; maybe it was supposed to be funny, but it wasn't, and it wasn't Star Wars funny. Even the pod race in TPM made more sense and had more meaning than this. And then we have a scene with Ren gratuitously without his shirt, a callback to the underwear scene in Star Trek Into Darkness. The whole movie takes place over what? Three days? So no story development. Please repeat after me: a character learning something isn't character development. It's just learning. Marvel characters learn things, too, but that doesn't make them less cartoonish. Development takes introspection, depth, complexity, time, and sensitivity.

So yeah, I had problems. Not only in the first 25 minutes, but many times after.

However .... admittedly after the first 25 minutes, some of the scenes were really great, and even really Star Wars great. The Rey-before-Snope and the lightsaber battle afterwards were beautiful, because of the shifting nature of the alliance and the confusion that the characters felt in the process. And the battle over the salt fields with the red plumes were a beautiful thing to see. I liked the dynamic between Ren and Rey, and the Luke and Ren scene, too. I liked Rose, but I didn't like most of the scenes she was in. I hated the multiple BB-ex-machina scenes, even more than I disliked the C3PO nuisance scenes in ESB.

Seen from the non-Star War perspective, the movie dragged in several scenes in the middle, but it was at least as entertaining as any other modern sci fi movie, and better because of the interesting characters of Rey and Ren. But I despair about the future of the franchise. With the exception of certain threads and scenes, these are not Star Wars movies, and for that I mourn. I like these threads and scenes; I want them to be in better, far different movies.

Also ... more spoilers ...

Callbacks: So many scenes were callbacks to TESB and TRotJ: training the Jedi, including entering the "dark side" cave, Rey giving herself up to Ren to be taken before the emperor and snatching up the lightsaber, and others. The resistance flying head on into the marching first order elephant things. And, admittedly, ESB spent mosy of its time simply chasing after the Millennium Falcon.

Things I didn't have a problem with that others might: The above callbacks. The changes in the force, such as the mindlink and the projection. Yes, it's odd that previous generations of Jedi never did these things, but they seem like the kinds of things that they would do, and I'm cool with that. This includes the water actually traveling through the mindlink and that Luke projected an image was of his younger self.

Other minor problems: If this takes place only days after the last movie, how could the republic and/or first order be in any kind of different state than it was in the last one? What happened to the galaxy? Why do they keep calling them rebels, instead of the resistance? Pick one. Since when do bombs fall in space when you release them? Fall which direction? What happened to Snoke insisting on training Ren? Or Rey? What the hell was Snoke? He shows up larger than life, he seems to be stronger than the emperor, and then he just dies? Why didn't the new admiral Holdo just tell Poe what the plan was, instead of waiting until the evacuation? Why did she wait until nearly everyone was dead before light-speeding her ship into the enemy? If that's a thing, can't you rig a bunch of ships to do that and decimate your enemies more frequently

Update: Having now seen the movie a second time, my thoughts are adjusting a bit. The parts that I disliked the first time I dislike now even more: in particular the comedy and the BB8 scenes, which are as annoying as Jar Jar but take up even more screen time. There is a difference between conversational humor, which I can enjoy, and slapstick humor directed at the audience, which I don't. I'm further down on the arrangement of scenes and the pacing. I don't like any scenes with Hux. I don't like the plot about, or even the idea that, spaceships run out of fuel in this universe. I still don't like how the director taunts the audience by not paying off stories about Rey's parents, Snoke, the R2D2 map, Chewbacca's grief, and other things.

The parts that I liked before I like even more, which is also what happened to me with TFA. However, after the second viewing,  I'm feeling a bit better about the neutral parts of the story. I don't LIKE the story - both the good and the bad guys throw away the past, Finn and Poe are reigned in as heroes instead of being heroic - but I'm okay with that being the story.

AZ 030, The Activision Decathlon!

Welcome back to the show! I hope you all enjoyed the holidays, now we're back to playing Atari 2600 games every two weeks until I screw something up. The first game of 2020 is the Activision Decathlon by the amazing David Crane. I hope you enjoy the show. Next up will be Moon Patrol by Atari, so if you have any feedback on that game, please send it to 2600gamebygame@gmail.com by the end of the day 26th January. Thanks so much for listening!

Brand new Discord server! Why
Decathlon on Random Terrain
David Crane article by Tony Tyler, Big K magazine April 1984
David Crane article by Colin Calvert, Hi-Res magazine January 1984
From the Digital Press Activision Patch page:
Decathlon Bronze patch
Letter with Bronze patch
Decathlon Silver patch
Letter with Silver patch
Decathlon Gold patch
Letter with Gold patch
Atari Age Decathlon with Driving controller thread
Atari Age Decathlon Training Suit thread
Decathlon glove on Atarimania
Bugler's Dream by Leo Arnaud

Wednesday 19 February 2020

Corpus Christi


Not about video games but about reality.


This morning, I held between my thumb and finger a small piece of bread, and with sacred words uttered in almost silence, I held Jesus Christ, my saviour, my Lord, Who loves me, Who knows me, the lot marked out for me.

I, chosen among thousands, His beloved.

What a privilege! A greater act than the creation of the universe, an intimacy even the angels do not possess. When I am tempted to hold other things, other people, other life options,
I look at Him, Who is hiding between my thumb and forefinger.

HE is Mine and I am His. And I realize that to exchange this for anything else, even the whole world, would be madness, would be folly to the utmost, because I am holding Him, my true end, my lasting good, the summum bonum.

O priest, all this is yours!

To turn away from this, is to turn away from Him.




-Fr. Mark Higginsx
x

Castle Of Illusion Starring Mickey Mouse (Genesis/Mega Drive)

Developer:Sega|Release Date:1991 (1990 NA)|Systems:Mega Drive, Master System, Game Gear

And the Super Adventures award for 'Ugliest Title Screen of 2019' goes to... that picture up there. Sorry Keio Flying Squadron 2, your title screen may be pretty ugly, but you've been outdone by this indistinct grey mess.

This week I'm playing Castle of Illusion Starring Mickey Mouse, known in Japan as I Love Mickey Mouse: Fushigi no Oshiro Daibōken. Me, I'm indifferent to Mickey Mouse. I never watched his cartoons as a kid and I didn't play his games, so he's always been roughly on the level of Ronald McDonald in my mind. But as far as Disney logo symbols go, he's second only to the Sleeping Beauty Castle!

Castle of Illusion is the first game in the Illusion series, which is pretty much four games and a remake, and I've never played any of them! Well okay, I've probably put a couple of them on for five minutes each, but I've got no nostalgia for them. On the other hand, I did play another Mickey Mouse Mega Drive platformer for the site a few years back called Fantasia, which was... not good. I can't blame Mickey for that though (plus it was by an entirely different developer), so I'm going to give him another chance to win me over here.

Read on »

Thursday 13 February 2020

Brave Browser the Best privacy-focused Browser of 2020



Out of all the privacy-focused products and apps available on the market, Brave has been voted the best. Other winners of Product Hunt's Golden Kitty awards showed that there was a huge interest in privacy-enhancing products and apps such as chats, maps, and other collaboration tools.

An extremely productive year for Brave

Last year has been a pivotal one for the crypto industry, but few companies managed to see the kind of success Brave did. Almost every day of the year has been packed witch action, as the company managed to officially launch its browser, get its Basic Attention Token out, and onboard hundreds of thousands of verified publishers on its rewards platform.

Luckily, the effort Brave has been putting into its product hasn't gone unnoticed.

The company's revolutionary browser has been voted the best privacy-focused product of 2019, for which it received a Golden Kitty award. The awards, hosted by Product Hunt, were given to the most popular products across 23 different product categories.

Ryan Hoover, the founder of Product Hunt said:

"Our annual Golden Kitty awards celebrate all the great products that makers have launched throughout the year"

Brave's win is important for the company—with this year seeing the most user votes ever, it's a clear indicator of the browser's rapidly rising popularity.

Privacy and blockchain are the strongest forces in tech right now

If reaching 10 million monthly active users in December was Brave's crown achievement, then the Product Hunt award was the cherry on top.

The recognition Brave got from Product Hunt users shows that a market for privacy-focused apps is thriving. All of the apps and products that got a Golden Kitty award from Product Hunt users focused heavily on data protection. Everything from automatic investment apps and remote collaboration tools to smart home products emphasized their privacy.

AI and machine learning rose as another note-worthy trend, but blockchain seemed to be the most dominating force in app development. Blockchain-based messaging apps and maps were hugely popular with Product Hunt users, who seem to value innovation and security.

For those users, Brave is a perfect platform. The company's research and development team has recently debuted its privacy-preserving distributed VPN, which could potentially bring even more security to the user than its already existing Tor extension.

Brave's effort to revolutionize the advertising industry has also been recognized by some of the biggest names in publishing—major publications such as The Washington Post, The Guardian, NDTV, NPR, and Qz have all joined the platform. Some of the highest-ranking websites in the world, including Wikipedia, WikiHow, Vimeo, Internet Archive, and DuckDuckGo, are also among Brave's 390,000 verified publishers.

Earn Basic Attention Token (BAT) with Brave Web Browser

Try Brave Browser

Get $5 in free BAT to donate to the websites of your choice.