It’s a great time to be a Resident Evil fan, and while we have had a good amount of clarity on the roadmap for fresh releases, there have been lingering questions about the future of its remake initiatives. Fans have been extremely curious to know the next candidate for receiving a similar treatment. We believe that there’s a great chance that it’s going to be Resident Evil: Code Veronica, and there are plenty of reasons as to why that might be the case.

You see, the conversation around a potential Resident Evil: Code Veronica Remake is not just about catering to the wishful thinking from fans – but it’s also backed by a steady stream of both official and unofficial signals that come together to suggest that something meaningful could be in the works. At the time of writing this feature, nothing has been formally announced by the developer – so you should note that this is one of those rare cases where anticipation is being fueled by a mix of ground truth and carefully interpreted speculation.

Resident Evil: Requiem has been absolutely great with stellar critical and commercial reception, raking in numerous praise from fans and selling millions of copies. We already know that the developer likes these games to breathe, so there’s little sense in expecting a brand new release or reveal when a steady stream of post-launch content is already planned for Requiem as of now. But internally, priorities have already been shifted and the developer is already looking into future projects.

On the official side, the developer’s stance has been telling but tight-lipped. Back in October 2022, the developer addressed the possibility of a Code Veronica remake, stating that there were no concrete plans at the time. However, they notably left the door open for discussions with statements such as “maybe”, and that response has aged in interesting ways, given the recent direction the franchise has taken. Jump to December 2023, and the developer confirmed that it intends to continue producing remakes within the Resident Evil series, though it once again stopped short of naming specific projects. That alone doesn’t confirm anything, but it does establish a clear intent that remakes are not slowing down anytime soon.

Understandably, talking about unnamed remakes doesn’t give away much about their existence, but there’s more to it. For instance, the developer in June 2023 asked fans which Resident Evil titles they would most like to see remade – and there’s a high chance that Code Veronica would have easily topped that list given that the initial classics have already been remade. While the results were never formally broken down in detail, Code Veronica has consistently ranked among the most requested entries in community conversations – so there’s reason to believe that this is indeed going to be the case. Of course, the question by the developer doesn’t confirm anything – but it strongly suggests that they are aware of and actively measuring demand for its next moves.

Where things become more concrete, although still unofficial, is in the wave of reports that began surfacing in early 2026. One of the most notable came from VGC, which reported in January that the next major Resident Evil remake is expected to be revealed sometime in 2026. More importantly, the report stated that it also “understands” that both Code Veronica and Resident Evil Zero are currently in development. This particular report comes from reputable sources, so one should take this piece of information beyond the regular rumor territory.

That same report was further reinforced by industry insider Dusk Golem, who has a long track record of reporting on the franchise. According to him, the remake slated for reveal in 2026 would be Code Veronica rather than a more commercially obvious choice like Resident Evil 5. This aligns with the developer’s recent pattern of revisiting older, more structurally dated entries such as Resident Evil 3 Remake and modernizing them for a contemporary audience.

Another piece of reporting comes from NateTheHate, whose claims were later amplified by major outlets like Insider Gaming. According to these reports, the rumored Code Veronica remake is currently in deep development and is targeting a release window in the first half of 2027. In addition to this, reports by the aforementioned Dusk Golem also suggest that Code Veronica will be arriving first and Resident Evil Zero should follow soon in 2028. While these timelines are far from confirmed, the consistency across multiple reports adds a layer of credibility that’s hard to ignore.

What’s more interesting is that the rumors haven’t just been about timing, but they have also begun to touch upon the design philosophy. Shortly after the release of Resident Evil: Requiem, Dusk Golem also suggested that the remake will retain all major enemies, locations, and narrative beats from the original Resident Evil Code: Veronica, but with significant reworking of those mechanics in new and interesting ways. The claim is that nothing will be cut but rather expanded – particularly the roles of Chris Redfield and Claire Redfield. If it ends up being true, this would align with the developer’s recent remake strategy which is to preserve the core identity while enhancing pacing, characterization, and mechanical depth.

That said, it’s important to distinguish between what is likely and what is actually confirmed. The safest conclusions right now are relatively straightforward, and the bottom line is that the developer has clearly stated that it intends to continue making remakes. Code Veronica is one of the most requested titles in the franchise’s history. Multiple reputable outlets are now pointing to it as the next major remake, and that’s speculation. Beyond that, however, specific release windows, narrative changes, development timelines – everything still falls under informed speculation rather than verified facts.

You also have to understand that the reason Code Veronica keeps resurfacing in these discussions isn’t just because of rumors, but also because it makes strategic sense. Unlike more recent entries, it hasn’t benefited from modern reimaginings or widespread re-releases in the same way. It also occupies a unique place in the series timeline, bridging narrative threads between earlier and later entries while featuring two of the franchise’s most recognizable protagonists. All in all, it’s the most logical candidate to receive the remake treatment.

On an interesting note, the remake has been teased in Requiem. A closer look at Wrenwood’s hotel register through photo mode has sparked fresh speculation among fans, with one detail in particular standing out: Alyssa isn’t merely listed as the final guest, but as the ninth guest, a detail some are reading as a deliberate nod to Resident Evil 9. The intrigue does not end there either, because another name on the register, “Veronica,” has also drawn attention for its possible connection to Code Veronica.

Further details from the lkes of DuskGolem, and ScreenFire Germany reveal that the remake will have darker horror tone, a more Claire driven story, fully playable opening with stealth elements, expanded roles for Rodrigo and Wesker, and heavier engagement with the Ashfords’ history. At the same time, the more ambitious gameplay claims, especially the semi-open Rockfort Island, motorcycle traversal, and broader structural remixing, are exactly the sort of details that make fans wary, so treat those elements with skepticism.

There’s also the matter of historical performance, which also adds business sense to the conversation. According to the developer’s own data, Resident Evil Code: Veronica X has sold around 1.40 million units, while the original Dreamcast version reached approximately 1.14 million. These numbers don’t rival the series’ biggest hits, but they’re strong enough to justify revisiting the title, especially when you factor in the sustained fan demand. In the modern market, where remakes can dramatically outperform their originals, Code Veronica represents both a nostalgic asset and an opportunity for reinvention.

While Resident Evil: Code Veronica Remake has not been confirmed in an official capacity, but the sheer volume and consistency of recent reports related to the matter suggest that it is more than just a distant possibility. It sits at the very convenient intersection of fan demand, strategic logic, and credible insider claim which is a really strong position for a project that technically doesn’t exist yet.

And that’s what makes this prospect so compelling; this isn’t just another rumor cycle built on vague hints and wishful thinking. It’s a convergence of signals pointing in the same direction. Until the developer steps forward with a formal reveal, there will always be an element of uncertainty – but all signs point towards Code Veronica Remake’s existence not being a question of if but a question of when.

Silent Hill Townfall

Silent Hill has made a grand comeback as of late, and Townfall takes the iconic franchise in a more experimental direction – focusing heavily on psychological storytelling and building atmospheric tension. Early teasers suggest a strongly narrative-driven experience that leans into surreal horror and several plot twists, and that will be coupled with thrilling exploration and mind-bending puzzles – and it’s definitely one of the hottest games of the near future.

At first glance, Pragmata’s brand of action resembles the sort of cinematic science-fiction adventure that has become increasingly common in big-budget gaming over the last decade. But the deeper you dig into what the developer has shown so far,  it becomes apparent that Pragmata’s merits might just lie in its ability to combine familiar ideas rather than discarding them entirely. It doesn’t reinvent sci-fi from scratch, but remixes mechanics and character dynamics in a way that feels surprisingly rare in the current AAA landscape.

Many contemporary sci-fi games lean heavily into the element of grand spectacle with expansive futuristic cities, massive space structures, and sweeping cosmic skies dominating the genre. Games like Mass Effect, Cyberpunk 2077, and Starfield treat the player with enormous universes filled with lore and cinematic storytelling. Combat exists, of course, but it frequently serves the role of reinforcing the spectacle rather than fundamentally defining the experience. It works in their case because they lean more towards open-world exploration, so having a convincing world that’s filled with interesting scenery is an important aspect of the experience.

Pragmata, on the other hand, appears to take a different approach. From what has been revealed, the core hook centres on controlling two characters simultaneously: astronaut Hugh Williams and the mysterious, android-like girl Diana. Rather than allowing the player to simply walk through beautifully rendered environments while absorbing story beats, the focus is on constant mechanical engagement, where survival and progress depend on juggling multiple systems at once.

And that distinction matters, because most cinematic sci-fi adventures require players to spend significant stretches moving through spaces that are designed primarily for visual storytelling. Exploration often involves absorbing environmental details, listening to dialogue, and active elements of the experience, such as combat or player creativity, play second fiddle to these exploratory affairs. Pragmata’s early demonstrations suggest a rhythm that could feel much more interactive. Hacking isn’t merely an optional mechanic – it appears to be fundamental to both traversal and combat. Diana’s hacking interface overlays enemies with puzzle-like grids that must be manipulated quickly in order to weaken defenses or disable threats. Instead of separating narrative exploration from mechanical engagement, the game seems to blur those boundaries which should give the name a strong sense of ludonarrative resonance.

The combat design also hints at a different philosophy than that of straightforward action games. Most modern action titles are built around the fantasy of achieving total mastery, be it the stylish combos of in action games or the relentless aggression of first person shooters. Most games usually place the player in control of a single powerful avatar whose abilities grow stronger over time, and the challenge lies in learning that character’s tools and eventually dominating every encounter through speed, skill, or precision. Pragmata seems to pursue a more layered form of decision-making. Hugh provides mobility and conventional firepower, navigating the environment and fending off hostile machines. Diana, meanwhile, manipulates enemy systems through hacking mechanics that function almost like quick tactical puzzles layered on top of combat.

The resulting experience is where power doesn’t just come from raw aggression but rather coordination. Players won’t simply be reacting with reflexes; they’ll be splitting attention between movement, targeting, and system manipulation. That dual-character structure encounters are about juggling responsibilities rather than perfecting a single attack pattern. It’s the difference between controlling a lone warrior and orchestrating a partnership. In a genre where many games chase increasingly elaborate combat combos, that emphasis on layered coordination makes Pragmata stand out from the crowd.

The relationship between Hugh and Diana also sets the game apart from the way companion dynamics typically function in modern games. Companion characters are extremely common across contemporaries, but they often exist primarily to support the main protagonist as opposed to complementing or completing them. In The Last of Us, for example, Ellie enhances the emotional narrative while contributing occasional combat. Whereas other games, the companion provides little combat support and puzzle hints but the main characters remains the one who’s just slashing and thumping through monsters. These relationships are powerful storytelling devices, sure – but that companion rarely defines the structure of gameplay itself.

Pragmata appears to fix those criticisms with its approach to combat synergy. Diana isn’t simply there for narrative texture or occasional assistance, but her abilities form the backbone of how the game functions. Without her hacking capabilities, Hugh would struggle to bypass enemy defenses or manipulate the environment effectively. That makes the partnership feel less like a protagonist with a junior helper and more like two halves of a single system. The emotional bond between the characters could still play a major role in the story, but mechanically speaking – Diana may be just as essential as Hugh.

Another intriguing aspect of Pragmata’s design lies in how it might fuse puzzle mechanics with action. Many games keep these elements separate for the sake of clarity. A player might spend one section fighting enemies, then enter a quiet room where the challenge shifts to solving environmental puzzles. This structure works well because it provides a clear distinction – moments of high-intensity tension followed by moments of low-intensity reflection. However, it can also make puzzle-solving feel like a break from the core gameplay rather than an extension of it.

Pragmata seems to take a more integrated approach here as well. The hacking interface shown in trailers appears directly during combat encounters, forcing players to think strategically even as they deal with incoming threats. Instead of pausing the action to solve a puzzle, players must quickly manipulate hacking nodes while maintaining awareness of their surroundings. That creates a hybrid rhythm where success not only depends on just aim and timing but also on how quickly players can interpret patterns and choose the right hacking route which sounds rather fresh in a sea of homogenized combo-based combat systems.

The tone of the game also distinguishes it from many other mysterious sci-fi projects. Science fiction games often lean toward philosophical abstraction, presenting complex themes through cryptic storytelling or dense lore. Titles like Death Stranding or Control embrace ambiguity and metaphor as central pillars of their narratives, and they can often flood the player with oodles of codex entries and explanatory cutscenes (looking at you Hideo Kojima) to make some sense out of this world.

Pragmata certainly appears mysterious, but its core narrative hook feels more immediate and grounded. You see, our protagonists, Hugh and Diana, find themselves stranded in a lunar research facility after an apparent catastrophe, and their goal is simple: make it back to Earth. That urgency provides a clear goal, where the characters are navigating an unfolding crisis that demands action instead of exploring an abstract mystery for hours on end. The mystery of what happened on the Moon still looms large, but it obviously plays second fiddle to the immediate objective of getting out alive.

And having that streamlined focus on not overtly stretching out the world and forcing lore upon the player is great because of two primary reasons. The first is obviously because the combat is the star of the show, so everything apart from that should obviously just exist to enable that mechanic. And secondly,  the developer that’s exactly known to do well in lore-heavy situations. It’s best titles Resident Evil or Street Fighter do have long and complex lore, but ask most fans and they would probably not be all that fond of those stories due to corny dialogues and stretched out character arcs.

It’s also important to note that there’s also a lot of risk involved in launching a new IP of this scale – especially when business sense suggests relying on recognisable formulas, but Pragmata appears to resist that instinct. Its central mechanic – balancing action combat with real-time hacking puzzles while controlling two characters doesn’t neatly align with any single genre template. Instead, it sits somewhere between action, puzzle solving, and narrative adventure. That hybrid identity is inviting to fans, and that’s an important factor that could help Pragmata carve out a unique space for itself in the market.

Of course, uniqueness alone doesn’t guarantee success. For Pragmata’s design to resonate with players, its systems must feel intuitive and satisfying rather than overwhelming. Balancing dual-character mechanics while maintaining the fast pace of an action game is no small challenge. The hacking interface must remain readable even in chaotic encounters, and the relationship between Hugh’s mobility and Diana’s hacking abilities must feel natural rather than cumbersome. It’s a careful balancing act, but if the developer manages to strike that balance – this could be a huge breakout hit.

What ultimately makes Pragmata so intriguing is that it doesn’t rely on a single gimmick to stand out. Its potential is all about how multiple ideas intersect. Each of these supposedly unique elements might exist individually in other games, but their combination creates something that feels rather fresh and showcasing that strong sense of ludonarrative resonance is an extremely rare occurence in the current AAA landscape.

If Pragmata ultimately delivers on the promise suggested by its early footage, it could become one of the most distinctive science fiction experiences in recent years. And in a market crowded with sequels and predictable formulas, that willingness to experiment may be exactly what allows Pragmata to stand apart and hopefully end up being one of the year’s biggest hits.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.

For most of us, Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2 was the game that defined this particular brand of co-op carnage last year. Players would fondly remember the familiar feeling of slashing through hordes of enemies, teammates going down at the worst possible moment, and clutching through crucial moments with nothing but a sliver of health left. And if you are looking for a new game to satisfy that very itch, look no further than John Carpenter’s Toxic Commando.

Set to release on 12th March, Toxic Commando is all about creating and maintaining the rhythm of shared carnage. The clutch revives, the desperate reloads, the last-second saves that turn into stories you retell the next night. Space Marine 2 delivered that feeling with a sense of discipline and weight as players had to choose between different functioning classes and play out a specific role in the heat of chaos. But if you’re looking for the next obsession to simply keep your squad busy, John Carpenter’s Toxic Commando might be aiming at the same dopamine loop from a completely different angle. Where Space Marine 2 is controlled brutality, Toxic Commando looks like personality-driven chaos, and that contrast is exactly what makes this game worthwhile.

Space Marine 2 also hit so hard because of its weight. Every step felt heavy, and every swing was purposeful. Beneath the very inviting veneer of an ultra-violent game was a movement system that was purposefully heavy, which urged players to hold their ground and build micro-level strategies about handling waves of pressure. That feeling of being purposefully heavy also extends to the feedback loop where the sound design reinforced the fantasy of being an unstoppable war machine with heavy weapons kicking back and enemies staggering hard to melee strikes. Even when you are sprinting into a swarm, there is a sense of mass and momentum that makes every encounter feel grounded.

Then there is the co-op glue. Space Marine 2 is great at creating a state of constant pressure, with waves of enemies forcing squads to hold ground together. Priority threats demand focused fire, revives require taking risks. The game rarely allows one player to carry everything solo; survival depended on awareness and coordination. 

There is a very careful balancing act as you carry out roles and responsibilities in the heat of battle, and the journey of achieving that can be really addictive. The cycle of dropping in, smashing through a mission, extracting by the skin of your teeth and running it back rarely stops being so interesting. Space Marine 2 understood that great co-op isn’t just about kills – it’s about moments. It built encounters that escalated, peaked, and released in a rhythm that made you want another round. The missions felt authored without feeling restrictive, which meant every run had room for improvisation.

That’s where Toxic Commando enters the conversation. On the surface, it’s a tonal opposite. Instead of gothic war chants and disciplined formations, it leans into B-movie chaos with all the corny over-the-top personalities proudly hanging on its sleeve. You play as a crew of misfits rather than genetically engineered super-soldiers, but beneath that tonal shift lies the same formula – survive overwhelming odds together and enjoy the rollercoaster of laughs and screams along the way.

If Space Marine 2 sells the fantasy of elite soldiers executing a grim campaign with precision, Toxic Commando appears to sell the fantasy of barely holding it together in a world drowning in mutant chaos. Where Space Marine 2 thrives on structure and weight, Toxic Commando seems poised to thrive on unpredictability and personality. The fun may not come solely from perfect execution, but from figuring things out on the way and improvising strategies.

At their core, though, both games share the same pillars that define great co-op shooters. Firstly, we have a combat system that starts off strong and rarely lets its foot from the gas. Toxic Commando’s gameplay appears to follow a similar philosophy, and its chaotic swarms and environmental hazards are all about being mobile in large arenas. Staying still is a surefire way to get killed, so maintaining a forward sense of momentum is essential for survival

The second aspect is readable chaos. Co-op breaks down when players can’t parse the battlefield. Space Marine 2 excelled at clear enemy silhouettes, obvious priority threats, and clean visual feedback. Even at peak intensity, you knew where to hit and who to hit first. Toxic Commando appears to share that same clarity, and it’s a lot more important because the game thrives on runaway chaos. For co-op to feel right, players must instantly recognize danger, coordinate targets, and understand their role in the chaos.

Lastly, there’s the element of generating clutch stories; emergent narratives that are personal to the player. Space Marine 2 was brilliant at creating those “you had to be there” moments – the last magazine you emptied into a charging brute, the desperate revive while another player body-blocked a swarm, or the final stand at extraction. These weren’t scripted cutscenes; they were systems interacting with one another and creating dynamic stories. Toxic Commando’s operates on the same pillars, so it should also produce similar stories. 

The element of game juice is rarely talked upon, but it silently carries the utmost impact on how the game feels to play and how enjoyable it remains on a moment-to-moment basis. Space Marine 2 set a benchmark for weight, and while Toxic Commando doesn’t need to mimic that exact heaviness – it looks to be delivering that same punch in a different way. Enemy reactions, readable hit confirmation, and satisfying weapon handling should carry the same intensity to really sell the feeling of being stranded in a never-ending battle.

Mission flow is equally critical to creating a great co-op game, and Space Marine 2 worked because encounters escalated with rhythm. Toxic Commando can’t rely solely on throwing more enemies at players, but needs to put together varied objectives and environmental twists that keeps players engaged run after run. 

Progression is obviously the final piece of the puzzle. One of Space Marine 2’s quiet strengths was its accessibility. You could jump right in and have fun without feeling buried under the pressure of having to unlock upgrades to have fun. Sure, having a few upgrades enhanced the experience but didn’t dampen the core thrill. Toxic Commando should take note, and make efforts towards making it a game that’s drop-in friendly. 

All of this is why the pairing makes sense. For players that have spent hours grinding through Space Marine 2’s structured brutality, Toxic Commando could become the alternate game – the same thrill but louder and lighter. Think of it as a rotation of sorts, where one week, you might crave disciplined power fantasy but the next you are soaking knee deep in chaos and B-movie tropes. If your group loves Space Marine 2 for tight teamwork and high-stakes revives, Toxic Commando offers a space to test that coordination under a different kind of pressure. Instead of armored stoicism, you get frantic improvisation. 

For Space Marine 2 squads watching from the sidelines, there’s a simple checklist to keep in mind when Toxic Commando finally lands. Does the weapon carry weight and personality? Are threats readable even in the thickest chaos? Do missions evolve beyond simple extermination? Can friends drop in without friction and immediately contribute? While there’s no way for us to know that for sure right now, all signs are definitely looking pretty positive.

Ultimately, the appeal isn’t about replacing Space Marine 2, but rather enriching it through the luxury of choice. After all, you don’t just want one experience forever but clever spins on the same formula. You want new arenas to re-establish the same sense of camaraderie, and new battlefields for the same inside jokes. 

Space Marine 2 proves how powerful disciplined co-op can feel when it’s firing on all cylinders, and Toxic Commando appears to be chasing the same co-op dopamine loop with a different kind of chaotic flair. If it nails impact, mission variety, and time-respecting progression, it could absolutely become the next obsession for squads that loved Space Marine 2.

The month of March isn’t just another date on a crowded release calendar, but a proving ground for developers. Within a span of just a couple of weeks, players will already be juggling choices between major launches like Marathon from Bungie and Monster Hunter Stories 3: Twisted Reflection. There’s also the PC release of Death Stranding 2: On the Beach, a sequel that has already proved its worth with the PS5 release last year. Stacked between these juggernauts is the upcoming Crimson Desert, which is set to release on 19th March, 2026 – and there’s a strong case to be had for this title ending up becoming one of the biggest games of the year.

For starters, the argument for why Crimson Desert could become the biggest game of the year isn’t about ticking boxes on a feature comparison chart – but the type of cultural and critical impact it has the potential to generate. In a year that’s dominated by sequels, spiritual successors, and new IPs from reputable developers, Crimson Desert arrives without the safety net and the baggage of upholding a legacy. That absence is not a weakness, but a leverage. Established franchises often operate within clearly defined boundaries; they must honor mechanics, tones, and expectations that have accumulated over the years.

A new IP, by contrast, can enter the stage unburdened, and it can define itself in real time. It can surprise and pivot itself, and it can also establish its own language. When players step into Crimson Desert’s world, they won’t be comparing it against five previous entries. Rather, they are stepping into something that’s totally fresh and devoid of any previous baggage. Of course, comparisons to other contemporaries are inevitable but it still gets the freedom of being itself which can be really advantageous for a new title.

Crimson Desert was always pitched as a more traditional experience where you would pay a one-time fee and get a complete package without the microtransaction shenanigans that have come to define this era of modern gaming. The kind of experience Crimson Desert aims to share is ripe for implementing a live-service model, but the developers have clearly stated their stance against microtransactions and doing things the old-fashioned way. By emphasizing a more traditional premium structure, Crimson Desert sets a tone of confidence. It’s a strong war cry from the developer that the core experience itself is the selling point, not an evolving platform that’s dependent on long-term microtransaction ecosystems. 

Of course, clever positioning is only half the battle won – a game only sells by what it offers. Crimson Desert’s early showcases have heavily leaned into cinematic action, large-scale battles, dynamic traversal, and a richly detailed medieval setting filled with political tension and emergent encounters. It’s taking cues from the likes of Breath of the Wild, and the focus on letting the large open space dictate emergent narrative threads is something that fans have started to resonate with deeply in recent years. In an era where ghost train rides and strictly linear missions are commonplace in the open-world genre, having the freedom to choose your own path and carve out your fun is something that should help Crimson Desert stand out.

And that strong focus on making the open world the central aspect of the experience is important, because winning the relevance battle in the short term isn’t really enough. Crimson Desert has a lot of tough competition up ahead with Pragmata and Forza Horizon 6 looming over in the next month. And if that’s not enough, 007 First Light and Saros will also be competing for the spotlight – so Crimson Desert has to impress and stay relevant in the long term if it wants to end up becoming one of the biggest games of the year.

Crimson Desert’s developers have repeatedly implied the existence of systemic designs where dynamic day-time cycles and freedom of gameplay should help in players carving out their own fun stories – such as the time they were hiking through hills and came across a giant dragon, or the time when they had to improvise a combat strategy on the fly to defeat a particularly difficult boss or the time when they found a little treasure buried in the depths of nowhere. 

The best open-worlds of recent years, such as Elden Ring or Breath of the Wild, thrived on these kinds of stories; they invite conversation among players, which help them remain in the mindshare for far longer than contemporaries which by extension, nets them huge awards and sales. Crimson Desert is taking cues from the right places, and we hope that it uses those inspirations judiciously to craft something that feels fresh and recognizable at the same time.

Despite technology enabling larger and more complex worlds, we don’t really get to see developers making good use of that power to create dynamic systems that thrive on player creativity and true player agency. Of course, there’s no way to know whether Crimson Desert’s systemic open-world will live up to the standards set by its contemporaries – but it is definitely a differentiating factor that should help it stand out from the rest of the crowd.

Another advantage lies in genre positioning. While its release window is crowded, its direct competition within the same tonal and mechanical space is surprisingly limited. Marathon targets competitive multiplayer audiences, while Monster Hunter Stories 3 leans into turn-based RPG design and a distinct aesthetic. Death Stranding 2 is still operating under the same framework, but it’s still very different from what the developer is trying to do. Forza Horizon 6 occupies the racing sandbox lane, and 007 First Light aims at cinematic espionage action.

Crimson Desert, meanwhile, is the only candidate if you are looking for single-player storytelling, open-world exploration, action-heavy combat, and RPG progression systems. That intersection of genres also grants it a massive appeal, as it can attract players who crave narrative immersion as well as those who prioritize mechanical depth. By catering to the broader audience, the game gets a really broad stage to shine, which is obviously advantageous for a new IP with no pre-built audience.

However, Crimson Desert’s path to becoming the biggest game of the year rests on what impact it can bring to the table rather than clever timing or positioning. Marketing genius or trailer hype can get only get you a little far; the final product must feel definitive. It must offer players a world worth inhabiting and mechanics that are worth mastering. It must deliver a solid sense of spectacle without sacrificing depth. If it does, the crowded calendar surrounding its release wouldn’t be anything more than a slight concern – but ultimately a testament to its sheer quality.

To conclude, Crimson Desert has a solid opportunity to define itself from scratch and capture a lighting in a bottle moment. It has a lot of great tricks on its sleeve, and it also has the novelty of mainstream hype. As such, the stage is set for the developer – and all that remains is for the developer to translate this opportunity into strong sales or solid reviews. If that happens, Crimson Desert won’t be just another name in a crowded release calendar – but a dark horse that emerged out of nowhere and ended up etching its name onto the hearts of gamers as one of the best experiences of 2026.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.

Grand Theft Auto 6

Rockstar’s upcoming return to Vice City is easily the biggest open-world release on the horizon, and the perfect candidate to start off the list. Grand Theft Auto 6 promises a living, breathing world packed with dynamic NPC routines, reactive law enforcement, and an unprecedented level of environmental detail. The dual protagonists inspired by the adventures of Bonnie and Clyde look to be a promising storyline filled with several emotional moments. Of course, missions, side activities, and emergent mayhem are also important pillars of the experience – so we are definitely looking forward to this one.

The Last of Us

The Last of Us stands tall as one of the defining experiences of the PS3 era, known for expertly blending survival horror gameplay with deeply humane storytelling. Naughty Dog’s post-apocalyptic adventure follows Joel and Ellie across a ruined post-apocalyptic America, and the gameplay balances tense stealth encounters with quiet, character-driven moments that keep you glued to the edge of the screen at all times. Combat feels desperate and grounded, emphasizing judicial use of resources and quick thinking. What truly elevates the game, however, is its writing and performances, which help it be relevant to this date.

Forza Horizon 6

Forza Horizon 6 looks set to continue Playground Games’ mastery of open-world racing, building on one of the most consistently polished franchises in the genre. Set against the gorgeous backdrop of Japan, Forza Horizon 6 takes players across an even more dynamic map, deeper seasonal systems, and expanded social features – and of course, plenty of race events. With stunning visuals and an ever-growing roster of cars, Forza Horizon 6 feels like a dream of motorheads come true.

Arknights: Endfield

Arknights: Endfield represents a major shift for the franchise, expanding its tower-defense roots into a full-fledged action RPG. Real-time combat, squad-based mechanics, and large-scale environments are just a few highlights of the experience, but there’s a lot more to get excited about as well. Despite the stark change, the game retains its distinctive art style and emphasis on world-building. Arknights: Endfield already received great critical and commercial reception on PC, and it is definitely worth checking out.

With such a diverse history, it’s only natural that Resident Evil would have a couple of offshoots (both successful and unsuccessful, of course), and one of them has to be Resident Evil Outbreak which garnered just enough critical and commercial success to warrant a sequel. Outbreak 2 was released in 2005 for the PS2 and didn’t fare well in terms of critical and commercial reception.

And that got us thinking, how would Resident Evil Outbreak 2 rank in the modern gaming hemisphere? Will players resonate with these ideas, or will it continue to wail away in mediocrity to this date? With this feature, we will be doing just that as we try to score Resident Evil Outbreak 2 in 2026 and try to assign a final review score to this game without taking into consideration its historical importance or nostalgic connection.

Much like what came before, Resident Evil Outbreak 2 revolves around the same scenario-based survival loop as the original. You are dropped into a self-contained disaster scenario somewhere in the familiar yet terrifying Raccoon City, and you need to gather resources, solve environmental puzzles, avoid or manage combat encounters, and attempt to escape before the risk of infection escalates or enemies start to overwhelm you. Unmistakably, this is a slow game at its core – you’re going to find yourself constantly scanning rooms for items, listening for audio cues that signal danger, and weighing whether it’s worth engaging with enemies at all. That gameplay loop still works remarkably well today, and it’s also refreshing to some extent – especially for players tired of horror games that lean too heavily into action. Resident Evil Outbreak 2 doubles down on this sense of fragility – the constant reminder that everything can go wrong pretty quickly – and this remains one of the game’s strongest qualities.

What continues to shine is how this gameplay loop feeds into the co-op mode. Playing solo is okay, but the game is clearly designed around multiple players sharing the burden of survival. Resources are scarce enough that hoarding becomes a liability, and reckless behavior is punished swiftly. Every action feels communal, whether that’s unlocking a door that benefits the group or wasting ammunition that everyone might later need.

We have seen action-oriented co-op horror games like Left 4 Dead where players find the beauty of co-operation amidst the chaos, but Resident Evil Outbreak 2’s approach to teamwork is about being prepared and making decisions together – and there aren’t many games that tackle this element of shared responsibility this efficiently. The constant feeling of tension doesn’t come from enemies alone, but from the knowledge that one poor decision can doom the entire team.

Resident Evil Outbreak 2 is built from the same DNA as its predecessor, so the tank-style controls return which can be off-putting to modern players at first. Add to that fixed camera angles, and there’s no getting around the fact that this design choice introduces friction. But it’s not all bad either; movement ends up being deliberate rather than fluid, aiming requires patience, and camera angles often obscure threats until it’s too late. The lack of immediate responsiveness reinforces a sense of vulnerability, making every encounter feel riskier than it would with modern controls. It’s still a silver lining, though; these controls do take a bit to get used to – and many newcomers would feel almost alien to them and would most likely give up on them.

Inventory management also suffers from the same aging problems as navigating item screens can be painfully slow, combining or trading items takes effort, and there’s little in the way of quality-of-life conveniences. These elements add to tension, but they can also interrupt pacing, especially for players accustomed to streamlined interfaces. The game’s user interface communicates is barely adequate when it comes to showcasing information, and these elements can culminate to be a pain point to the overall experience.

But it’s not all bad either, Outbreak 2 also has plenty of merits to its name. For starters, there’s no traditional progression system – no skill trees or stat upgrades, and mastery comes from understanding characters, scenarios, and systems. Each playable civilian has subtle strengths and weaknesses that influence how they contribute to a team, and learning to leverage those traits is crucial. Combat remains intentionally limited. Weapons are unreliable, ammo is scarce, and enemies are best avoided when possible. This keeps pacing slow, but it also means repetition can set in over long sessions. Once you understand optimal strategies for certain scenarios, some of the mystery dissipates, and the game risks becoming more procedural than frightening.

Level and mission design is another aspect where Outbreak 2 isn’t as great as its predecessor. Scenarios are more varied than in the original, with a stronger emphasis on environmental hazards, multi-step objectives, and branching paths. Backtracking is frequent, but it rarely becomes bothering. Figuring out what you need to do can be cumbersome since objectives are not always clearly communicated and clues are quite scarce. Compared to modern games, this lack of clarity feels less like an intentional design choice and more like a piece of outdated design. Checkpoints are sparse, and failure can mean replaying large chunks of content which can be a frustrating affair.

Visually, the game is unmistakably a product of the PlayStation 2 era, but it hasn’t aged as poorly as raw fidelity alone would suggest. Pre-rendered backgrounds and fixed camera angles allow for carefully composed scenes that still hold up surprisingly well to this date. Character models are stiff, animations are limited, and textures are muddy by modern standards – but the overall art direction helps in covering up those flaws. All in all, the game still communicates its moods in a rather convincing fashion, even if it no longer impresses on a technical level.

Audio design fares slightly better with age. The soundscape remains effective, with ambient noises, distant groans, and sudden audio spikes keeping players on edge. Much like Outbreak, background music is used sparingly which gives way to silence and heightens anxiety. Voice acting is uneven which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has played a Resident Evil game before. Some performances sell panic and desperation well, while others veer into awkward territory – but that’s not a really big issue in the grand scheme of things. Crucially, sound cues still function as an essential gameplay tool, alerting players to off-screen threats in an organic manner.

Switching gears to the story, Outbreak 2 shares its predecessor’s grounded approach to storytelling. The premise is simple: ordinary people trying to survive extraordinary circumstances during Raccoon City’s collapse. Characters are quite shallow with not a lot going on in terms of personal development, but that choice works in the game’s favor. The focus is on situation rather than personality, on survival rather than drama. Pacing can be quite uneven, with some scenarios feeling narratively thin while others feeling stretched out – but the overarching theme of helplessness in the face of systemic failure still resonates through and through.

In terms of content completeness, Outbreak 2 offers a substantial amount to engage with, even without modern expansions or DLC. Multiple scenarios, difficulty variations, and character combinations provide replay value, though much of that value hinges on co-op play. Some scenarios are clearly stronger than others, and not all are essential, but taken as a whole, the package feels reasonably complete.
When compared to modern co-op contemporaries, Outbreak 2 feels both dated and oddly timeless. Its controls, interface, and technical limitations are undeniably a product of its era, but some elements of its core philosophy such as shared vulnerability or refusal to give a power fantasy remains compelling. Many contemporary titles chase spectacle or accessibility at the expense of depth, but Outbreak 2 sticks to the formula and rarely pulls out.

In 2026, Resident Evil Outbreak 2 is not a hidden masterpiece, but it is far from mediocrity. It’s a flawed but ambitious survival horror experience that rewards patience, cooperation, and a willingness to engage with old-school design. Players seeking smooth controls, cinematic storytelling, or solo-friendly progression may want to look elsewhere. But those who are interested in the concept of it all and willing to accept rough edges will find plenty to appreciate here. If we had to assign a score to this game in 2026, I would give it a 7 out of 10 for its rights and wrongs.

Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, GamingBolt as an organization.