Viz Media announced its new Fall 2026 manga and book acquisitions, and among them are Beastars mangaka Paru Itagaki’s Witching Hour and manga versions of The Apothecary Diaries light novel and anime and The Amazing Digital Circusweb series. It also confirmed it will publish the biography Nobuo Uematsu: On the Record.
In the cases of The Apothecary Diaries and The Amazing Digital Circus manga adaptations, both are taking work from the original authors and productions. They each have new mangakas assisting in telling the tales for these adaptations. In the case of The Apothecary Diaries: Maomao’s Notes on the Inner Palace, Touko Shino’s character designs from the original light novel are still used, but Minoji Kurata is the mangaka. For The Amazing Digital Circus, Sakura is listed as the artist.
Here’s the full list of new Viz Media manga and book reveals. All of them have Fall 2026 release windows, but there are no exact dates for any of the releases.
Albus Changes the World manga volume 1
The Amazing Digital Circus manga volume 1
And Then There Were None manga volume 1
The Apothecary Diaries: Maomao’s Notes on the Inner Palace manga volume 1
Black Torch Complete Box Set
Call of the Night: Paradise Arc manga
Dorohedoro Illustrations: Mud and Sludge art book
Heroes, with Interiors manga
Horror Picture Book: A Bad Book by Miyuki Miyabe with Hisanori Yoshida art
Horror Picture Book: Is It There or Not by Natsuhiko Kyogoku with Naoko Machida art
Horror Picture Book: Looking at Me book by Soshichi Tonari with Junji Ito art
Jujutsu Kaisen Complete Box Set with double-sided poster
Kiki's Delivery Service: The Official Cookbook
My Hero Academia Box Set 2with double-sided poster and booklet
My Hero Academia: Ultra Artworks art book
Nobuo Uematsu: On the Record biography
One Piece manga volume 91-111 box set with One Piece Card Game play mat
Sakamoto Days: Assassin’s Blues manga
The Seaside Where Dragon Boys Dwell manga volume 1
Former staff of Enotria: The Last Song developers Jyamma Games have revealed to RPS that they’re owed months of unpaid salary, following layoffs at the company last year. They've shared an inside look at a troubled independent studio dealing with payment delays, multiple changes of direction, and general confusion that stretches back to spring 2025.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has issued a satirical “ban” on Kid Rock from entering the state, and it all started with a bizarre workout video featuring the rap-rock country singer. Newsom’s official press account on X posted a fiery declaration making it clear he was not impressed.
“I HAVE SEEN ENOUGH. AS GOVERNOR OF THE FREE WORLD, I, GAVIN C. NEWSOM, AM OFFICIALLY BANNING ‘KID ROCK’ FROM CALIFORNIA,” the post read. Newsom called the video “inappropriate, creepy, and very low energy,” specifically targeting what he called “some of the weakest pushups ever witnessed,” and added, “CALIFORNIA ONLY ALLOWS WINNERS!”
According to The Daily Beast, the video, shared by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., shows the two men doing a “rock out workout” set to Kid Rock’s 1999 hit “Bawitdaba.” They strip down, use gym equipment, take ice baths while still wearing jeans, drink milk in a hot tub, and Kennedy cycles on a stationary bike in a sauna while Kid Rock does crooked-looking pushups in the background.
Newsom’s jeans ban backfired because he was photographed doing the exact same thing in 2021
The clip sparked widespread mockery online and on various shows. One commentator asked, “This raises a question: who rubs off on who? It’s like, RFK was a bad influence on Kid Rock. Who would have seen that coming?” Another comedian branded it “senior softcore,” saying it “raises a lot of questions,” including “why does this make you feel like you dropped acid at a Cracker Barrel and then made a PowerPoint presentation?”
Newsom continued his post by stating, “I AM ALSO BANNING WORKING OUT IN JEANS, VERY STRANGE! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!, GOVERNOR GCN.” However, Newsom himself posted an image of himself working out in jeans during a 2021 campaign to promote physical exercise. Newsom has also been a frequent target of criticism from Trump, who has blasted Newsom as incompetent alongside other Democrats.
I HAVE SEEN ENOUGH. AS GOVERNOR OF THE FREE WORLD, I, GAVIN C. NEWSOM, AM OFFICIALLY BANNING “KID ROCK” FROM CALIFORNIA. HIS SHIRTLESS VIDEO WITH “SECRETARY BRAINWORM” WAS INAPPROPRIATE, CREEPY, AND VERY LOW ENERGY. NOT WHAT YOU WANT AROUND OUR CHILDREN! ALSO, SOME OF THE WEAKEST…
This is not the first time Newsom has clashed with Kid Rock. Last August, Newsom’s press account shared an image of the singer depicted as Uncle Sam, captioned “Kid Rock wants you to support Gavin Newsom,” a jab at President Trump’s use of Taylor Swift’s image without permission. Kid Rock responded with, “The only support Gavin Newscum will ever get out of me is from DEEZ NUTZ.”
Kid Rock has had a rough stretch recently, including the poor reception of his Turning Point USA alternative “All-American Halftime Show” and the cancellation of a date on his “Rock the Country” music festival tour after several high-profile artists withdrew.
Meanwhile, Newsom has been active on the international stage, speaking at the Munich Security Conference where he discussed President Trump and Europe’s unity. Some critics have called out Newsom for governing a failing state while he focuses on building his national profile. Newsom is widely seen as a top contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.
President Trump made an unexpected move by sharing a video on Truth Social featuring Kaitlan Collins, a reporter he has publicly criticized. In the video, Collins discusses a large new banner displaying Trump’s face at the Department of Justice. Collins argues the banner symbolizes an “erased” separation of powers between the White House and the DOJ.
Work crews used a cherry picker to hang the massive banner over the entrance to the Department of Justice. According to Mediaite, Collins noted that while similar banners with Trump’s image have appeared at other departments like Labor and Agriculture, this one at the Department of Justice carries a different meaning.
Historically, administrations have tried to maintain a clear line of independence between the White House and the Justice Department, with the idea that politics should not influence who gets prosecuted. Collins argues that this line has been blurred since Trump began his second term, pointing out that he has directly pressured the Attorney General to prosecute individuals he sees as political enemies or those who have led prosecutions against him.
The banner’s “Make America Safe Again” slogan makes Collins’ argument harder to ignore
The Justice Department stated that the banner is meant to honor America’s upcoming 250th birthday celebration. However, the banner also echoes a slogan Trump himself has used: “Make America Safe Again,” which adds weight to Collins’ interpretation. Some Republicans have also been pushing back on Trump’s use of executive power, with one GOP lawmaker breaking ranks to limit Trump’s pardon authority.
What makes Trump’s decision to share the video particularly strange is his very public treatment of Collins earlier this month. During a press moment when Collins was trying to ask about the victims of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Trump cut her off and called her out directly.
“You are so bad, you know? You are the worst reporter. No wonder [her previous employer] has no ratings, because of people like you. You know, she’s a young woman. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you smile. I’ve known you for 10 years. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a smile on your face,” Trump said.
WATCH: President Trump just shared Kaitlan Collins reporting on CNN about his banner outside the Justice Department.pic.twitter.com/azfgeP7xHv
Despite that exchange, Trump chose to repost her video on Truth Social, where it can still be viewed. The repost is notable given that the video contains a direct critique of his administration’s actions and the symbolism behind the DOJ banner.
Trump has also faced scrutiny on other fronts, as a new poll reveals an economic nightmare for millions of Americans despite his claims of financial progress. It is unclear why Trump shared a video from a reporter he openly criticized, especially one that raises serious questions about the independence of the Justice Department under his administration.
Andrew Alty, a business owner from Manchester,England, recently found himself staring down a colossal $55,000 phone bill, all because his daughter was watching TikTok while they were traveling. The good news is, after a bit of a battle, that massive charge has now been completely waived.
According to Dailymail, this eye-watering sum wasn’t from a shopping spree on TikTok Shop, which, let’s be honest, can be tempting enough. Instead, it was purely from data usage. Alty’s daughter, an avid TikTok user, was simply scrolling through videos on the popular platform while the family was vacationing in Morocco. It really shows you just how quickly data can add up, especially when you’re venturing outside your usual service area. This is better than some bad vacations we’ve heard of, but still bad overall.
Alty, who runs a curtains business, made the shocking discovery when he and his family returned home. He was hit with two separate and exorbitant phone bills that totaled around £42,000, which converts to approximately $56,000. Imagine his sheer panic and disbelief. He naturally assumed there had to be some kind of huge mistake.
This was not the stress-free vacation they had bargained for
“I was on my way to the desert,” Alty explained, recounting his attempts to address the issue. “I made multiple attempts to call O2, but there wasn’t much I could do. I could only assume there had been a glitch, or the account had been hacked.” It turns out his daughter had been engrossed in TikTok for about eight hours, on and off, during their trip. That means each hour of scrolling was costing him a mind-boggling £5,000.
The reason for these astronomical costs boiled down to a specific, and frankly, quite scary, clause in Alty’s phone contract. It allowed for uncapped data roaming whenever he was outside of Europe. So, unfortunately for him, the charges were technically permissible under the terms of his agreement.
Daughter nearly bankrupts British family by racking up £42,000 data bill watching TikTok on holiday https://t.co/FZnWSHmbSm
Luckily for Alty, there was a happy ending to this data drama. After an investigation into the case, the phone provider eventually decided to waive the entire bill.
Alty didn’t hold back his frustration with the situation. “They (the phone provider) made no effort to inform us, and just allowed the charges to accrue,” he stated. “I don’t understand how they expect any small business to pay that sort of bill.”
Mark Zuckerberg found himself on the stand yesterday, facing a lawsuit that claims Meta platforms like Instagram and Facebook are intentionally designed to hook kids. Before the real legal drama began, though, the judge had to lay down the law about smart glasses, specifically those snazzy Meta Ray-Bans worn by some of Zuckerberg’s team, as reported by Techspot. It seems Judge Carolyn Kuhl isn’t a fan of recording devices in her courtroom, and she made that abundantly clear.
The judge warned anyone wearing smart glasses that using their recording features would lead to contempt of court charges. She told everyone, “If you have done that, you must delete that, or you will be held in contempt of the court.” It’s a pretty serious warning, and it came after at least two people on Zuckerberg’s escort team were spotted wearing the Meta Ray-Ban glasses as they entered the building.
California Superior Courtrooms have strict rules against recording and photography. If you’re caught breaking these rules, you could face monetary penalties, get removed from the courtroom, or even be charged with contempt of court. It’s a big deal, and the judge wasn’t messing around.
This incident just highlights a growing concern with smart glasses: privacy
While Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses are supposed to show a blinking LED when they’re recording, it’s possible to modify them to hide that light. We saw a similar situation in August 2025 when a TikTok user shared her experience at a European Wax Center in Manhattan. She noticed her aesthetician was wearing Meta Ray-Bans, which understandably made her feel a bit “shaken.”
The worker claimed the batteries were dead, and the company later stated their employees keep the glasses turned off during appointments. Still, it just shows how sensitive the public is becoming to these devices and their potential for discreet recording.
Judge in Meta addiction trial warns that anyone wearing smart glasses, such as Ray-Ban Meta models, risks contempt of court charges if they use the devices to record proceedings.
The admonition came during Mark Zuckerberg's testimony in Los Angeles Superior Court. pic.twitter.com/WhGStsGrID
Back in the courtroom, the actual case, K.G.M. v. Meta et al., is much more serious than a smart glasses kerfuffle. This lawsuit involves a 20-year-old Californian identified as Kaley, who alleges that her years of using Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat as a child led to severe issues like body dysmorphia, depression, and self-destructive thoughts. TikTok and Snap Inc., which owns Snapchat, have already settled their parts of the case, leaving Meta to face the music.
During his testimony, Zuckerberg did admit that some people lie about their age when signing up for Instagram. The platform requires users to be 13 or older, but that rule hasn’t always been enforced in the same way. Plaintiff’s lawyers presented internal documents from 2015 that showed over 4 million Instagram users in the US were under 13 years old.
It’s interesting to note that Instagram didn’t even start requiring birthdays at sign-up until late 2019. Kaley, the plaintiff in this case, reportedly joined Instagram when she was just 9 years old. When asked why Instagram didn’t ask for user ages before 2019, Zuckerberg said it was due to privacy concerns. However, he never gave a direct answer when asked if Instagram was addictive.
A TikTok user is making waves after vowing to directly confront Home Depot’s CEO over what he calls ‘rampant greed,’ sparked by a surprisingly expensive bottle of water, as reported by BroBible. This isn’t just about a single purchase, it’s hitting a nerve with many who feel everyday items are getting pricier than ever before.
Rhett Palmer, who goes by @rhettpalmer975 on TikTok, shared his frustration in a video that’s now racked up over 17,000 views. He started the clip standing outside a Home Depot, clearly agitated. “Greed has run rampant, OK?” he declared, setting the tone for his complaint. Palmer, an older gentleman, explained that he went into the store with a dry mouth and grabbed a bottle of Dasani water, which he admitted isn’t usually his first choice.
The sticker shock came at the checkout. “I said, ‘$2.48? Are you nuts? For $4, I can get the case of 24 at Publix or something similar to that,’” Palmer recounted. He couldn’t believe the difference in price, especially for something as basic as bottled water. For him, this wasn’t just an isolated incident; it was a glaring example of a much larger issue in modern society.
The inflation on everyday things are getting out of hand
He firmly believes that “Greed is running rampant, and everybody thinks they can just pile on.” Palmer warned that if this trend of increasing prices continues unchecked, “The party’s gonna end suddenly.” He concluded his video by stating his intention to call out and directly contact the CEO of Home Depot about this specific pricing issue.
Now, you might be wondering why a bottle of water at Home Depot would cost so much more than at a grocery store. It’s easy to compare the two and feel like Palmer does, but there’s a reason behind it, and it’s pretty standard business practice. What Palmer experienced is called “Value-Based Pricing.” This is where a product’s price isn’t really based on how much it cost to make, but rather on what customers perceive its value to be in a particular situation.
Of course, Palmer did have other options. He could have gone to a nearby grocery store for a cheaper bottle of water, or simply chosen not to buy it at Home Depot. If he feels strongly that stores shouldn’t be able to hike prices this much, he could even advocate for government restrictions on price increases. But in that moment, he opted for the convenience.
Interestingly, while many agreed the water price was high, commenters on Palmer’s video weren’t exactly lining up to sympathize with him. Many pointed out the simple economics of the situation. One user bluntly wrote, “And yet you bought it….” Another commenter added, “Everyone needs to understand supply and demand. Stop buying it if you don’t like the price.” It’s a tough truth, but it highlights the consumer’s power of choice.
Someone else humorously chimed in, “Wait till [he] goes to a professional sporting event and that sucker is $5–$6,” reminding everyone that convenience pricing is a widespread practice.
In January 1968, British science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke wrote to Science magazine to articulate what would become the third and final principle of his now famous “three laws”, a set of observations about technology, discovery, and humanity’s relationship to them. In this, the most famous of the three adages, Clarke stated: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Starting Early
Fast forward thirty-two years, I’m six years old, and I’ve invited myself round to a friend’s house under the pretence of a sleepover.
In reality, I was there because I knew he owned a PlayStation.
Up to that point, I’d only ever had a passing relationship with videogames. A friend’s birthday party here, playing pinball on the family PC there; but outside of that, my chances to play had been slim to none.
After some debate, we settled on the latest addition to his collection: a game called Action Man: Destruction X. We slid the disc into the tray, the CRT flickered to life, and then, the sonic boom etched into the skulls of millennials the world over.
After negotiating a menu screen and the opening cutscene, the television gave way to the game itself. There was my childhood hero rendered in glorious, pixelated form - equipped with only a boomerang - facing off against a Tyrannosaurus Rex in what felt like a chasmic arena. Now, I don’t wish to be hyperbolic, but at that admittedly early point in my life, this was easily one of the coolest things I’d ever seen. To me, it was indistinguishable from magic.
It didn’t matter that the game was clunky, borderline incoherent and, on reflection, somewhat shit. What mattered was the feeling: the sense of discovery, imagination, and possibility that videogames offered in a way nothing else quite did. That moment set the tone for a lifelong relationship with games, a medium in which I could explore entire worlds built with care, craft, and creativity.
But somewhere along the way, something curdled.
If I really interrogate why I still play videogames, I’d say that they’re a way for me to reconnect with that younger version of myself, a window I can slip through to retrieve some of the wonder that came so freely in childhood, but which adulthood takes too readily. Games still do that for me, but increasingly, the culture which surrounds them seems determined to crush it.
Gamerhate
It’s not hard to see why. Today, social platforms shape much of the conversation we have about games, and those sites - Twitter, Reddit, YouTube - are designed first and foremost to reward engagement, not understanding. Invariably, then, nuance doesn’t travel; anger does, and in gaming spaces, that anger metastasises quickly.
The depressing part is that the warning signs have been there for over a decade. Flashpoint moments like Gamergate didn’t mark the advent of toxicity in games; they marked its industrialisation, with harassment campaigns masquerading as “consumer advocacy,” sustained abuse directed at developers and critics, and a lasting lesson learned by bad actors in the community - outrage is profitable. Later crossroads, like the backlash to The Last of Us Part II, followed the same template: review bombing, death threats, and petitions demanding creative works be rewritten to better align with audience entitlement. These moments matter, but not because they’re shocking. They matter because they’re no longer exceptions.
Anita Sarkeesian, one of the principle targets of Gamergate. Source: Feminist Frequency.
Where Things Stand in 2026
This pernicious behaviour is a dime a dozen today. A studio’s creative decisions are pre-emptively litigated on social media before a game even releases - for example, Bungie’s Marathon hasn’t even been released yet, and it’s already being dissected and denounced online. Developers don’t have to worry about abuse; they expect it. Marginalised players quietly disengage, not because they don’t love games, but because the surrounding culture keeps reminding them they’re not welcome. The question, then, is simple: is this the culture we want to exist within, at a time when games are pushing the medium further than ever?
Videogames today are more ambitious, more expressive, and more artistically confident than they’ve ever been. Yet the way we talk about them, publicly, performatively, online, has grown smaller, meaner, and more caustic. Games are treated less like shared experiences and more like battlegrounds where identity, politics, and personal grievance collide.
Assmongold
I’d like to apologise in advance for this next example. Earlier this week, my Twitter algorithm served up this little gem for my viewing displeasure. Go watch it, I’ll wait…
Now, to me, Asmongold is amongst the worst offenders in turning our modern gaming culture into such a poisonous place. In this clip, he neatly illustrates why. Here is a prominent streamer, with a sizeable audience, openly expressing a willingness to make the lives of strangers more difficult on a whim, and framing it as entertainment. There is no insight here, no critique, no value, just spite, amplified by a platform that rewards it.
Asmongold is not a thought leader, a cultural authority, or a policymaker. He is a Twitch streamer whose influence far outweighs the responsibility he shows in wielding it. And every time his behaviour is normalised, rewarded, or defended, the culture around games becomes a little more hostile, more fractured, and less worth participating in.
Superbold
If you’ll allow me to zoom out further for a moment, this behaviour isn’t confined to games; it reflects a broader pattern playing out across society in general. Just this past weekend, Bad Bunny performed at the Super Bowl LX halftime show, and I’ve watched as some of the world’s pre-eminent grifters and walking, talking human mudslides have used this not as an opportunity to widen their world, but instead to foment hatred along national and ethnic lines.
It’s tempting to dismiss this as a “bad fans” problem. It isn’t. It’s a systemic one.
Platform incentives reward outrage. Algorithms flatten complexity. Identity becomes tribal. Disagreement turns instantly into moral failure. In that environment, games stop being art to engage with and become symbols to defend or destroy. The loudest voices dominate, not because they’re representative, but because they’re profitable.
This all has consequences; not abstract ones, but real, human costs. Developers burn out or leave the industry entirely. Players self-censor or withdraw. The medium’s public reputation is shaped not by its best work, but by its ugliest behaviour. It only makes it easier for traditional media to dismiss videogames as immature or unserious, and why shouldn’t they when the culture surrounding them seems so allergic to reflection?
What Next?
This is the part where I’m supposed to present a solution. I don’t have one. Not a clean one, anyway. But I do know what I want.
I want a gaming culture that remembers games are made by people, that creative risk isn’t betrayal, that discomfort isn’t failure, that art doesn’t owe us validation, only honesty. I want conversations that prioritise curiosity over condemnation, and criticism that engages with craft rather than identity.
Most of all, I want us to reclaim the magic that drew so many of us here in the first place. With that in mind, I’ve compiled a list to help move the needle back to a more acceptable, more human place, a ruleset that I like to call…
Ten Rules for Being Less Awful About Videogames
Remember that games are made by people - Not brands, not avatars, not targets. Real people with finite time, energy, and feelings. If you wouldn’t say it to their face, don’t post it.
Disliking a game is not a moral position - You didn’t like the story. Fine. You hated the mechanics. Valid. That does not make you enlightened, betrayed, or oppressed.
Criticism is not the same thing as harassment. Learn the difference - “This didn’t work for me” is criticism. Dogpiling, threats, doxing, or abuse dressed up as “feedback” is cowardice, nothing more.
Art is allowed to challenge you, frustrate you, or leave you cold - A game failing to meet your expectations does not mean it has failed outright. Sometimes the work isn’t bad, and challenging you was the point.
Stop treating developers as customer service reps - Buying a game does not entitle you to control its creative direction, rewrite its story, or demand it be remade to suit your tastes.
Engagement is not truth - The loudest take on Twitter or YouTube is rarely the smartest one. Algorithms reward outrage, not insight. Don’t confuse virality with validity.
Gatekeeping kills communities - There is no “correct” way to enjoy games. If your instinct is to test someone’s credentials before welcoming them, look inward.
Punch up, not down, or better yet, don’t punch at all - Mocking the corporations that pick apart the industry is fair game. Harassing individuals, especially marginalised ones, is not rebellion; it’s cruelty.
Log off when you’re angry - You don’t owe the internet your worst impulse. No take is so urgent that it can’t wait until you’ve cooled off.
Protect the thing you love - If you care about games as art, act like it. That means curiosity over contempt, empathy over entitlement, and remembering why games felt like magic in the first place.
When all is said and done, I’d like to leave you with this.
In Blood, Sweat, and Pixels, Jason Schreier recounts a conversation he was having with a developer, after hearing about a gruelling production cycle, “Sounds like a miracle that this game was even made.”
“Oh, Jason,” the developer replied. “It’s a miracle that any game is made.”
I wish the people who claim to love games remembered that.
Time flows exactly how you think it does in Fallout 4, and while it's normally a non-issue, you may need to be in certain in-game time windows if you want to make progress with certain quests (or if you just want to skip the days/nights away). Thankfully, like in Bethesda's other RPGs, players can skip time in Fallout 4 whenever they want, provided they aren't getting mauled or shot at, and that there's an actual resting place nearby.
The suspect in the British Columbia shooting had long been posting about mental health problems, substance abuse and a fascination with weapons and online violence.
Fringe movements are using games and other online platforms to draw growing numbers of children to their causes, new data and dozens of interviews show.
LA County says the gaming company does not carry out adequate moderation and its age-verification systems are not fit for purpose, which Roblox denies
Officials in Los Angeles have said they are suing Roblox, alleging the popular online platform exposes children to sexual content, exploitation and online predators.
In a lawsuit, Los Angeles County said the company does not carry out adequate moderation and its age-verification systems are not fit for purpose.
In her State of the State address, Gov. Kathy Hochul will propose that the default setting for online platforms should ban viewing or messaging minors.
Code Violet is now available on the PlayStation 5, but its early reviews are underwhelming at best and indicative of deep, systemic issues at worst. As such, the first PS5 exclusive of 2026 launches with a whimper.
Another year, another slate of video games coming to the PS5. If everything releases as scheduled, 2026 will be a solid year for gamers. However, not every release is going to be amazing, and that includes the first PS5 exclusive of the year, which players were hoping would be a regarded spiritual successor to the beloved PS1 series, Dino Crisis.
PS5 exclusive Code Violent couldn’t scratch the Dino Crisis itch
That PS5 exclusive is none other than Code Violet, a third-person action horror game developed and published by TeamKill Media. What drew players to the game when it was originally revealed was its similarities to Dino Crisis, Capcom’s dinosaur survival horror game. According to reviews, the new release doesn’t even come close to being a worthy successor to the PS1 classic.
As of this writing, there are three critic reviews of Code Violet on Metacritic, which means there isn’t a Metascore available just yet. However, the scores are not promising. Each outlet has it rated at 40 out of 100, which is a 4 out of 10 on our scale. The review aggregate site OpenCritic has a few more reviews submitted, but still averages the same score. It seems pretty clear that this game is a huge mess.
For the morbidly curious, here is a description of Code Violet, giving players an idea of what to expect:
“In the 25th century, a cataclysm has left Earth uninhabitable, driving humanity’s survivors to Trappist 1-E. Facing extinction due to sterility, the Aion colony harnesses cutting-edge time-travel technology to abduct women from the past to be surrogates in a dark yet desperate bid to save mankind. But their mission conceals a sinister conspiracy. As Violet Sinclair, torn from your time, you awaken in the Aion Bioengineering Complex, swarming with ferocious prehistoric dinosaurs and hostile forces. Carefully manage your inventory, uncover Aion’s dark secrets, fight to survive, and escape during a chaotic evacuation protocol.”
A TikTok video that ignited the debate, where a woman’s visible disappointment over a Christmas gift from her fiancé turned a simple latte mug into a viral discussion about gratitude and relationship expectations. As highlighted by Daily Dot, the clip quickly gained traction, drawing millions of views and intense scrutiny online.
The video centers on Cloe, who posts under the username @223in2023, and her reaction to opening a Christmas gift she had specifically requested. While she asked for a mug designed for lattes, her response suggested the item she received did not match her expectations, echoing the kind of social media pile-on seen when a restaurant owner erupted over a mild three-star review and sparked a similarly outsized online backlash.
As the clip spread, viewers debated whether Cloe’s reaction was unnecessarily rude or an example of honest communication between partners. Much like the reaction to viral shopping mishaps such as when a couple ordered expensive sofas from Temu and instantly regretted it, the focus quickly shifted away from the object itself and onto the people involved.
The reaction mattered more than the mug itself
Cloe explained in the video that she had asked her fiancé for a very specific type of latte mug, describing it as a bowl-shaped mug with a wide, rounded form. She even demonstrated the shape with her hands to help clarify what she wanted. Despite the explanation, the gift did not align with her vision.
I fear I’m the cuff link guy, but side note if anyone knows what I’m talking about and has links, send them my way. Also I promise he’s not upset about this, he knew it was a shot in the dark because I was being so confusing, also I’m very grateful that he really tried to see my vision
When she filmed herself opening the present, her reaction immediately became the focal point. After asking her fiancé if he was nervous, her expression dropped upon seeing the mug. She remarked that it was not what she wanted and referred to the moment with a dismissive “whomp, whomp,” before attempting to soften her response by saying she liked it. Her fiancé responded by pointing out that she clearly did not.
The bad husband posts where the woman doesn’t want to hear it is a cultural thing. She really did not expect to be told it was bad behavior and that she should leave. For most of these women that’s probably the first time they are ever hearing something like that.
Following the backlash, Cloe addressed the situation in her caption and later comments. She acknowledged that her instructions may have been confusing and compared herself to the “cuff link guy,” a reference to receiving an unwanted but well-intended gift. She emphasized that her fiancé was not upset and that she appreciated his effort, noting that he knew the request was a “shot in the dark.”
Despite her clarification, the discussion continued. Many commenters criticized her reaction as disrespectful, with some framing it as a warning sign for the relationship. Others defended her honesty, arguing that being open about disappointment over a small gift is healthier than pretending.
A waiter was serving a couple during happy hour at a Tennessee bar. She offered to refill the man’s discounted Bud Light before the deal ended. But she quickly figured out he was trying to break a rule that could cost her job.
TikTok user Bennett (@bennett_dev) shared the story in a video that got over 14,300 views. She explained how the couple came in for happy hour, which runs from 3 to 6pm. The man ordered a tall Bud Light.
It was 15 minutes before 6 p.m. when Bennett asked if he wanted another beer at the happy hour price. He said yes, so she brought him a fresh one, according to Bro Bible. After finishing their meal, the man asked for a to-go box and a drink cup, revealing he planned to take the discounted beer with him. It’s something the bar explicitly doesn’t allow and could have put Bennett in trouble with management.
The customer tried pulling off a scheme that could cost the server her liquor license
Bennett looked at the table and saw his full beer sitting there untouched. She only saw the woman’s empty water glass, the new tall beer, and a bit left from his first one. “All I could see was her empty glass of water, your tall beer, and the little bit left of [the first one],” she says. “I know exactly what you’re doing, sir.”
Bars and restaurants usually have an on-premise alcohol license. This means they can only sell drinks that customers finish inside the building. To let customers take drinks home, they need a different license called an off-premise license.
If Bennett let the customer take alcohol in a to-go cup, the bar could lose its liquor license completely. Plus, customers can face legal trouble too since many states ban open alcohol containers in public or in cars. Bennett’s work requires staying alert to these situations, much like people who need to stay aware despite noisy distractions.
Bennett gave the man his to-go box but no cup. When he asked again, she questioned what he needed it for. He said “uh, uh, a water” and winked at her. She told him absolutely not, explaining she was on camera and would lose her job. The text on her video read: “Your $5 beer isn’t worth losing my job, sir.” She also stated in another video, “I’m not breaking the law just for a good tip.”
One person shared their similar experience in the comment section. “I had a old man try to do the same with his wine, when he asked for a to go cup I said no you can’t take that wine with you,” they commented.
“He said it’s for his wife’s iced tea which was empty. I gave him a go to cup full of ice tea and watched him DUMP IT AND POUR THE WINE IN THERE. I literally ripped the cup out of his hands and said “ it’s for her iced tea huh?” And I never felt more satisfied,” they continued.
Other servers commented on how they would have handled it. One suggested getting a fresh water cup and saying they got him a new one. Bennett replied she didn’t trust him not to pour the beer into it when she wasn’t watching, as she had other tables to serve. Her commitment to following workplace rules shows the kind of dedication that TikTok users are setting as goals for the new year.
If you’re worried about getting sick from restaurant food, you probably shouldn’t be focusing on that seafood special; a veteran chef just warned that the number one dish giving people food-borne illnesses is actually the humble salad. As per BroBible, Chef Solomon Ince of Tableaux Eats recently offered a glimpse into back-of-house reality on TikTok, explaining that unless he’s eating somewhere truly exceptional, he refuses to order greens because of how often cooks skip the crucial washing step.
In a follow-up video, Ince explained that if the lettuce isn’t washed and prepared correctly, you’re eating a bunch of bacteria like E. coli. “Salad is the number one thing you’re going to get a food-borne illness from,” he stated. Ince noted that even at some nice places he’s worked, people “throw a fit over washing some damn Romaine.”
Ince is a veteran of some of America’s best kitchens, having spent time at chef Daniel Boulud’s two-Michelin-starred flagship establishment, Restaurant Daniel, where a meal runs nearly $200 per person. While the salad risk is shocking, Ince also backed up a classic piece of restaurant advice that many diners have heard before: Stay away from the fish specials.
That’s some great insight before your next restaurant visit
He explained that a special is often just a way to get rid of stock. If a chef has too much of something they need to move quickly, they’ll rapidly invent a dish to sell it before it goes bad. “A special is something you’re trying to get rid of,” he confirmed. “If you don’t know that, it’s the truth.”
Interestingly, many viewers immediately referenced the late, great Anthony Bourdain, whose tell-all book, Kitchen Confidential, offered similar warnings about seafood specials years ago. Ince is definitely a fan, saying of Bourdain’s work, “Anyone who enjoys the grittiness of the industry will love this book. It was the first book I read that made me want to become a chef.”
Now, not everyone agrees with the “specials are bad” rule, especially when talking about high-end dining. One viewer who worked in expensive restaurants pushed back, saying their specials were always fresh and they always ordered them. Another commenter agreed, noting their high-end restaurant used to order fresh fish every Friday specifically for weekend specials. That same commenter did add one important calendar-based caveat, though: “Now on a Monday or Tuesday I may agree.”
So, how can you spot a special that’s actually suspicious? One commenter noted that if the special is a mixed dish, like a seafood stew or a medley of some sort, it’s usually built from leftover seafood they couldn’t sell but desperately need to move, such as old fish, clams, or shrimp.
Ince himself offered a great rule of thumb for judging the overall quality of the establishment. He said that specials aren’t all going to be bad, but you absolutely have to know what type of restaurant you’re at. If the menu has forty or more items and serves both Italian and Latin American cuisine, you should probably steer clear of the special board.
Conversely, if you visit a well-thought-out restaurant with only about eight items on the menu, and it’s obvious that a lot of care went into the customer experience, he suggests you’re probably in for a treat with any special menu item. That attention to detail usually translates to fresh ingredients.
