In his post, Howe said that he was in charge of creating a shot-for-shot recreation of one of the game’s early cutscenes as part of the pitch to show Sony what it would look like. He has also made it clear that the cutscene’s recreation was not commissioned by Sony, and the PlayStation maker had no involvement in the proposal. Further in the comments for his post, Howe also credits Sanzaru Games senior character artist Tyler Bronis for his work on the animated short.

“A long while back, a team was assembled to pitch a remaster of Jak & Daxter. I was asked to animate an IGC shot-for-shot, to show what this updated version would look like,” wrote Howe. “To be abundantly clear: this was NOT commissioned by Sony, nor did they have any involvement in our proposal — this was essentially a fan pitch to try and gain their permission.”

The cutscene’s recreation is quite an impressive one, seemingly making use of modern technologies to render things like the fur on Daxter’s body, and more modern implementations of things like particle effects, which were much harder to render on the original’s PS2 hardware.

In his own post about the project, Bronis revealed that the pitch was worked on back in 2019. His own involvement at the time revolved around remaking Jak’s model, along with environment art and lighting, and the camera work and editing.

The video has seen a positive response, with former Naughty Dog writer and narrative designer Josh Scherr commenting about how well it was pulled off. Scherr had worked on the Jak and Daxter games, and was an animator on this scene in particular.

“This is wild – I was the animator on the original scene way back in 2001,” wrote Scherr. “Y’all did a great job! On the original game each cinematics animator had to churn out 30 seconds of animation per week, so it’s nice to see it looking more polished.”

Currently, the Jak and Daxter series is essentially missing. The last time we got any official word on the franchise was back in 2021, with Naughty Dog co-president Evan Wells confirming that a new Jak and Daxter game was not in the works. In a discussion with Insomniac’s Ted Price, Wells was asked whether Naughty Dog still gets requests for a new entry in the franchise.

“We do, in fact,” he replied. “We’ve had a couple of Twitter campaigns where people have been tweeting us every single day [saying] ‘I want a new Jak and Daxter, I want a new Jak and Daxter’, and they aren’t just simple 280-character tweets, they have Photoshopped memes and everything they’re including on a daily basis, and the effort has got to be significant.”

“And I hate to break it to them, [but] we do not have Jak and Daxter here in development right now.”

As outlined by Ace Combat Wiki (via Ikcatcher), references to Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War have been added. On the surface, this is interesting because it only ever launched on the PlayStation 2 back in 2006, so a contemporary port may be on the way. The fact that it’s part of Ace Combat 8’s listing may point towards its availability as a pre-order bonus.

It wouldn’t be the first time that Bandai Namco has offered such benefits, much less in the Ace Combat franchise. Pre-orders for Ace Combat 7: Skies Unknown, for instance, included a copy of Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War.

However, that’s not all. A closed network test is also seemingly on the cards for Ace Combat Online, which could be Ace Combat 8’s online PvP mode. While these updates don’t indicate a release timing, it wouldn’t be surprising to see an update at a major showcase like State of Play (rumored for the week of February 12th).

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.

Some of these titles were bold to a fault, attempting ideas that audinces and technology simply weren’t ready to fully embrace. One such game is Resident Evil: Outbreak, released in 2003 for the PlayStation 2. It’s definitely different from what fans were used to from a Resident Evil game, but it’s something that deserves a lot more appreciation.

And now that we are seeing a slew of great Resident Evil games both new and remade, there’s always an urge to look back to these entries and think about whether they would survive in the current gaming landscape or not. This feature runs down this very thought as we try to look at Resident Evil Outbreak – not from a lens of nostalgia but pitting it against what we have today to understand it’s strengths and weaknesses.

Resident Evil Outbreak has a rather different way in how it goes about telling the story. Even in the year 2026, the game’s titular narrative restraint feels purposeful rather than lacking in spirit. Unlike most games in the franchise which overtly rely on exposition-heavy storytelling, Resident Evil Outbreak uses subtle cues and snippets to tell its story. The story is scattered across overheard radio chatter, abandoned notes, and environmental clues, which lends a strong sense of character to Raccoon City. Each scenario represents a snapshot of the outbreak from the perspective of ordinary people trying to survive as the city collapses around them, rather than portraying a single protagonist as a knight in shining armor. This narrative approach also lends the narrative a documentary-like quality, grounding the game in horror.

Outbreak trusts the player to piece together what happened and why it matters, and that gives this game a resemblance to Dark Souls. The environmental storytelling is supreme, and each location tells its own story through layout and clever prop placement. You understand what went wrong, not because the game tells you but because you’re standing in the aftermath of that destruction. At a time when most commercial games dilute a narrative to placate the lowest common denominator, Outbreak’s minimalism feels refreshing and quite appropriate for a survival horror experience.

This narrative philosophy feeds directly into the game’s approach to survival horror. Outbreak is fundamentally about limitation – limited resources, limited information, limited time. You are not equipped to dominate your surroundings, and the game doesn’t spend much time convincing you otherwise. Survival horror here is not about mastering combat mechanics or finding the optimal build; it’s about restraint, caution, and making decisions under pressure. Every door you open could lead to safety or disaster, and every bullet you fire is one you might desperately need later. The constant threat of infection acts as a slow-burning reminder that survival is temporary, turning even successful encounters into white-knuckle challenges.

Unlike later entries that gradually empower the player, Outbreak maintains its tension by refusing to let you grow comfortable. Enemies remain dangerous throughout, not because they scale aggressively, but because you never truly outgrow them. Zombies are slow, but they’re persistent. A single mistake can turn into a culmination of constant panic, wasted resources, and accelerated infection.

The scenario-based structure is one of Resident Evil Outbreak’s most quietly genius ideas, and it’s central to why the game’s tension never fades out. Rather than guiding the player through a single, continuous journey, Outbreak splits that experience into self-contained crises, each with its own rules, pressures, and priorities. One scenario might emphasize crowd control in tight interiors, another might revolve around environmental hazards, timed escapes, or protecting vulnerable NPCs. Items don’t carry over in a comforting, power-building way, and knowledge from one scenario only partially applies to the next. As a result, players are constantly forced to rethink strategies such as how aggressive they can afford to be, which resources are truly essential, and how much risk is acceptable in the moment. Just as you begin to feel competent, the game pulls the rug out from under you and demands adaptation all over again. That perpetual state of uncertainty is what keeps Outbreak from ever settling into a groove, ensuring that survival remains dynamic.

Resident Evil: Outbreak has the same tank controls as the originals, and this might initially feel uneasy, but ultimately serves the game’s intent. Movement requires commitment and turning can take time, and that friction creates a sense of vulnerability that you start to appreciate as you keep on playing through the game. You can’t instantly react to threats or spin the camera to gain perfect awareness like a decked-out super soldier, but instead have to think two steps forward to ensure that you make it out alive.

Of course, appreciating these controls requires a shift in mindset since this is not about technological limitations, but rather building mechanical tension into the very heart of the experience. The fixed camera angles intentionally obscure danger, forcing you to advance cautiously rather than charge forward. Hallways feel narrower, and rooms feel more claustrophobic. What might be considered clunky in another genre becomes a source of dread here, and it almost feels that these foreign controls are a part of the language Resident Evil Outbreak uses to communicate fear.

Player progression in Outbreak is subtle and intentionally restrained. There are no traditional upgrade trees, no stat boosts, and no escalating arsenal designed to turn the tides of battle in your favour. Progression is expressed through knowledge of the game’s layouts, learning enemy behavior patterns, figuring out puzzle solutions, and smart resource management. This approach to progression not only serves to accentuate the feeling of survival horror but also neatly carries over from one scenario to another. Furthermore, this also aligns perfectly with the game’s narrative focus on portraying its protagonists as ordinary people rather than action heroes.

Combat, as a result, is something to be engaged with reluctantly. You fight not because it’s fun or empowering, but because it’s sometimes unavoidable. Weapons feel appropriately unreliable, ammunition is scarce, and healing items are precious. You have to pick your fights – learning when to run, when to barricade, and when to accept damage as the cost of progress.

The co-op design itself remains one of Outbreak’s biggest achievements, and it’s something that sets it apart from what came before and also after. Communication is intentionally limited, encouraging players to read situations rather than issue constant instructions. This helps in building a sense of shared vulnerability that few modern co-op games replicate. Success feels collective, and failure likewise feels communal. When someone sacrifices themselves to buy time for the group, it feels meaningful leading to emergent narratives that are personal to the player. Even today, that design choice feels bold in an era where co-op games often prioritize accessibility over tension.

All of these elements – narrative restraint, survival-focused gameplay, deliberate controls, and understated progression come together to create an atmosphere that remains remarkably effective. Visually, Outbreak is unmistakably a product of its era – but some beauty still buried under the PS2-era muddy graphics. Pre-rendered backgrounds allow for dense, carefully composed environments that drip with decay and despair, but they are still no competition to what the current-gen offers.

Sound design fares a lot better – distant moans echo through empty corridors, doors creak ominously, and sudden crashes shatter moments of uneasy calm. Music is used sparingly, often giving way to silence that heightens tension rather than relieving it. The result is an atmosphere that presses in on the player, making even brief moments of safety feel fragile.

Revisiting Resident Evil Outbreak in 2026 makes it clear that this was not a misguided experiment but something that was ahead of its time. Few survival horror games, even today, commit so fully to vulnerability, cooperation, and restraint. When viewed from a modern-day lens, Outbreak stands as a reminder that horror is often most effective when it limits the player rather than empowering them.
It may not have received its due in 2003, but in the modern landscape of co-op horror, its influence and ambition are impossible to ignore. It’s still not a perfect game by any stretch of the imagination, and most players would probably give up on the game on account of those tank controls and brutal survival horror mechanics – but those who stick with it in the long run would be able to appreciate its strengths. And if we were to rate it today – it would rank up as a 8 out of 10.

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.

The current generation of gaming hardware has also proven that well-made remakes can also do quite well. We thought about a number of games that brought unique premises or features to the table, and remembered one from back in the day that did both. Cold Fear’s unique take on survival horror isn’t for the light-hearted, and might even push away people with queasy stomachs.

But its innovative take on the genre literally makes the game’s stage become its most unpredictable adversary, requiring you to be as dextrous as you can when you’re making your way through the adventure it presents. Why, then, did a game with such a unique premise fall into an obscurity so deep that its innovations have been lost to time?

Take a walk through memory lane with us, and revisit a game that might have been a classic of the horror genre if it had done more to iron out its quirks. The adventure that is Cold Fear awaits.

The Eye of the Storm

The premise of Cold Fear’s story is simple. You’re a member of the US Coast Guard, instructed by the CIA to investigate mysterious occurrences on a Russian fishing boat caught up in the middle of a storm. With your entire team wiped out on arrival by unknown monstrosities, a panicked bunch of Russian mercs running around, and little to no information available to you about what’s happening, you set out to make sense of it all. But there’s a catch.

Remember that storm we mentioned? It’s probably more of a threat to your character than the mutated Exos, horrific humanoids corrupted by an experimental virus that makes them zombies. But why would an absolutely normal, natural phenomenon be a threat as opposed to a gloomy, atmospheric setting for a game? Well, in its effort to be as immersive as possible, Cold Fear rocks the boat (pun intended) to make the storm part of the journey.

Staying upright is going to be quite a challenge, with the boat clearly at the mercy of the turbulent waters below. Making your way through the game’s levels is going to be quite a trip. Assailed by the Exos and terrified mercenaries while you’re fighting to keep your balance in a title that’s designed to have you fraught with tension every step of the way is a recipe for a jolly good time, is it not?

Your player, character, enemies, and environmental objects are all a part of the storm’s chaos, and it affects the gameplay loop in a myriad of ways. In open areas, you’re going to want to avoid picking fights near railings and the like lest the rocking of the ship throw you overboard. You only have a limited amount of stamina with which you hold on to the side and try to climb back on board, failing which you’re going to be lost to the sea. And if you’re unfortunate enough to be on the deck when a wave hits it, you’re in for a world of hurt.

Being strategic about navigating the ship becomes a crucial part of the adventure, as you’ll need to avoid damaged wires and other such obstacles that could hurt you if you’re not careful. And with the game’s very stage trying to throw you into the hazards it has created, every facet of this adventure can make it seem like the world is designed to kill you. Even the game’s camera bounces around with the storm, adding to your disorientation and further selling the illusion that you’re actually on the ship.

It’s what made successfully navigating the game’s levels feel so satisfying. It was rewarding in a way that was so unique, it’s quite surprising that the concept hasn’t really been attempted again, especially with new technology like haptic feedback and adaptive triggers on controllers, and ray tracing on systems, all of which could work very well to add on to Cold Fear’s unique USP.

But how did developer Darkworks manage to craft such an immersive experience? With a fair bit of innovation thrown in, it turns out.

The Calm Before the Storm

Cold Fear’s rocky levels come from a relatively stable blend of technological wizardry and a team that dared to dream. The Darkwave Physics system was created to give Cold Fear its unique spin on survival horror, bringing a custom game engine designed to mimic a ship in a storm to the table. It was designed to affect the entire game, creating the scope for an insane number of player animations, a reworked camera that required its own inertia system to prevent it from going through walls, and physics that made a great attempt at replicating the motion of objects on an unstable surface.

It was a daring bit of technical innovation that lent Cold Fear its ability to make its very world a threat to both the player and enemies in a title that brought the scope for its systems to work well together. But it was those very systems that ultimately led to Cold Fear’s poor commercial response. Stiff movements on the player’s character made navigating the rocky ship quite jarring, which led to the novelty of it all wearing away and robbing the experience of what made it unique.

It made combat encounters feel clunky as well, creating the space for frustration instead of scares and thrills in a game that was meant to thrive off the latter. The hybrid camera system did not do very well in cramped spaces, making it an enemy instead of an ally in encounters where having a good view of the action mattered.

The fairly generic story also brought environments in its latter half that were decidedly free of any sort of rocking movements, diminishing the value of the game’s biggest asset. Tom Hansen doesn’t stand out from other great protagonists, but uncovering the events that led to the game’s dangerous situation doesn’t really hit as hard as it could have in the hands of more effective storytellers. It’s a largely predictable experience that kind of clashes with how volatile the minute-to-minute gameplay on offer in Cold Fear.

Dated presentation and poor enemy variety were also strikes on Cold Fear’s record, squandering all of the advantages earned by a unique premise and an intriguing opening. Which is all a pity considering how no other horror games had, or have attempted to craft an experience where you’re actively managing both the environment and the threats you face, all at the same time. It makes even basic actions like walking, aiming, or climbing quite challenging in a way that makes sense both narratively and contextually, making this a very immersive, if flawed title.

Missed Opportunities

It’s a damn shame that Cold Fear failed to capitalize on its very distinctive take on survival horror. However, that does not take away from the fact that it’s an excellent design experiment that was only held back by poor execution and the technological limitations of the era in which it was released.

The idea of having the very environment you explore take such a passive-aggressive approach to life forms within its confines, both player-controlled and otherwise, could be a potent tool for immersion and engagement if the rest of the game it works in behaves as intended. While Cold Fear failed to use its own best strengths to their fullest, that was its biggest hindrance to success.

While its unique motion-induced gameplay loop might have been very welcome if it had been more consistent across the board, its poor implementation back in the day is no reason for a talented studio to revisit the concept, perhaps repurposing it to fit a new title with a premise and gameplay loop better designed to accommodate the unique gameplay loop it brings to the table.

The potential for a remake is also there, allowing for a much better experience with the power of current-gen hardware helping the game deliver on its original vision with aplomb. It’s puzzling why Cold Fear has languished in obscurity despite being as distinct as it is, but the horror genre could benefit from what it brings to the table.

That’s especially true considering how modern titles are already making great use of current-gen tech to bring very immersive, truly horrifying games to our screens. It’s easy to imagine what an innovative concept like this one would look like today, and the kind of thrilling gameplay loop that such a game would bring.

Here’s to hoping that a very creative flourish on the survival horror genre’s formula is not lost to the annals of time, and perhaps comes back even better than the first time in the near future.

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.

He noted that, while Grand Theft Auto 3 was slated to be a major breakthrough title, both for Rockstar Games itself as well as the industry at large, no one outside of the company was celebrating just yet. At the time, the studio was worried about running out of money.

“I think all of the team felt with GTA 3 – which was the big breakthrough one in 2001, and we were very much running out of money at the time as a company – I think all the team thought, ‘this could be amazing. There’s something really magical about this,'” Houser said, going on to note that, as development continued, “it had these moments of real innovation and [it] felt like the future, in a way.”

As for the hype behind Grand Theft Auto 3 back in 2001 when it was first coming out, Houser noted that no one really cared at the time. The game’s eventual release later in the year, however, would lead to incredible word of mouth and positive reviews, which in turn would help make the GTA franchise what it is today.

“Until it came out, no one outside of our company was very excited by it,” he said. “So that came out just after 9/11 in late 2001, and as it came out, people suddenly got more excited about it.”

Houser had previously spoken about his time with Rockstar Games, as well as the mark he left on the industry thanks to his work on the Grand Theft Auto and Red Dead Redemption franchises. In an interview from earlier this month, he also revealed that Red Dead Redemption 2 protagonist Arthur Morgan and Grand Theft Auto 4 protagonist Niko Bellic where his favourite lead characters out of the games he worked on.

“I think he’s the best lead character,” said Houser when asked if Arthur was the best one he had created. “You know, the lead characters are different from the side characters, and I think he’s the most rounded and works the best. Him and Niko are the two I like, you know. They were the two most ambitious. So, for me, it’s always sort of a toss-up, you know?”

On the subject of side characters, Houser spoke about Dutch, and how the character truly came to life despite having very few lines when he first showed up in Red Dead Redemption. The voice actor for Dutch, Benjamin Byron Davis, performed the role so well that Houser felt like he properly started understanding the character right there.

While Houser left Rockstar Games back in 2020, the studio has been hard at work on its upcoming title, Grand Theft Auto 6. The latest entry in the GTA franchise is slated for release on November 19, 2026.

Released in 2023 (and winner of our Game of the Year award), Alan Wake 2 follows up on the original by offering two protagonists: Wake and Saga Anderson. The latter is an FBI special agent investigating mysterious murders in Bright Falls and eventually connects with the former. Boasting incredible production values and storytelling, the sequel sold over two million units as of February 2025.

But that’s not all. To celebrate The Last of Us Day on September 26th, PlayStation Plus Extra and Premium members can experience The Last of Us Part 2 on PS4 and The Last of Us Part 2 Remastered on PS5. In terms of PlayStation Classics, Premium members can look forward to the addition of Tekken 3 (PS One), Soulcalibur 3 (PS2) and Tomb Raider: Anniversary (PS2) later this year.

In an interview with PC Gamer magazine (via GamesRadar), Okamura spoke about how he sees the upcoming Metal Gear Solid Delta as both a replacement to, and a companion for the classic Snake Eater. This, he explains, is why Konami made the original Snake Eater available on all modern platforms through the release of Metal Gear Solid Master Collection Vol. 1.

He explained that younger players and those new to the Metal Gear franchise might feel more comfortable playing the remake rather than the original, owing to the classic’s more esoteric control scheme and the remake’s modern visuals. Long-time fans of Metal Gear, however, might find it better as a companion piece to the original.

“For new users who are just getting started with the MGS series, MGS Delta may be more familiar. For long-time MGS series fans, the Master Collection version may feel superior,” he said. Ultimately, however, Okamura believes that “we would like to leave that decision up to the players themselves.”

As for Hayter, he doesn’t have a firm opinion on whether or not Delta acts as a replacement to the original Snake Eater. He does, however, note that he recently played the original Metal Gear Solid – first released back in 1998 – and pointed out that it’s still a fun and engaging game. In that regard, Hayter seemingly believes that the original games still stand firm on their own merits.

“I was literally playing the original Metal Gear Solid a couple days ago, and it’s still a banger,” he said, going on the ponder, “Will [Delta] replace [MGS3]? I don’t know. I just think it’s a different, upgraded version.”

Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater is coming to PC, PS5 and Xbox Series X/S. While it is slated to be largely faithful to the 2004 original, the remake is also going to have a number of extra options for modern players, including the ability to pick between a modern control scheme and the classic style of controls. The game will also mark the return of Secret Theater – a feature from the original Snake Eater that featured joke cutscenes with the game’s characters.

However, Konami has confirmed that the Secret Theater feature in Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater will not feature the same upgraded visuals as the rest of the game. Rather, they will retain the PS2-era visuals from the original. Creative producer Yuji Korekado revealed that this decision was made because the cutscene director believed the gags to be funnier in the original art style.

While you wait for the release of Metal Gear Solid Delta: Snake Eater, here is everything you might need to know about the game. Also check out details about the remake’s new online Fox Hunt game mode.

In an interview with Game File, Maguire spoke about high engagement rates for PlayStation Plus, revealing that the more expensive tears of the service – Premium and Extra – have been seeing more and more players sign up. “Engagement in Plus has never been higher than it is right now,” said Maguire.

While PlayStation Plus as a service had originally existed even in the PS3 days, it only started becoming necessary for online multiplayer with the release of the PS4. At the time, the subscription service also rewarded players with free games that they could add to their libraries. The current form of the service with its different tiers was introduced back in 2022, and Maguire has noted that this rework “surpassed our expectations”.

“It’s really given us a new way to reach the audiences with these games, and it’s given new value to partners to find new people to play their titles,” he said. “And just the engagement we see from it is really positive, in terms of the number of people choosing that Catalog and coming back month after month.”

Maguire also noted that, while Sony is continuing to reinvest into the service to attract new subscribers by adding in additional features – like game streaming on PlayStation Portal – he also notes that the company still isn’t keen on releasing its first-party titles on to the service on release. Rather, Sony wants to stick to its current strategy of bringing in three or four third-party (often indie) titles to PS Plus, and bolstering the catalogue with an older PS5 title.

“Our strategy of finding four or five independent day-and-date titles—and using that to complement our strategy of bringing games in when they’re 12, 18 months old or older—that balance for us is working really well across the platform,” Maguire said.

When it comes to the availability of classic PlayStation games from previous console generations through PS Plus, Maguire also spoke about the difficulty in bringing in PS3 games, since the unique hardware of the console means that its games can’t natively run on PS5 hardware. Rather, PS3 titles are often available through cloud streaming.

“Through streaming, we’ll still continue to look at those ones,” noted Maguire about PS3 games. “We haven’t ruled them out. The opportunities are there. But there are a lot of PS3 games already streaming.”

Ultimately, Maguire notes that, despite some negativity in the comments for PlayStation Plus game announcements, the company plans to continue investing in the service.

“I think we’ll continue to listen and learn about what gamers want and try to bring more value in for them,” he said. “We’re very proud of what we’ve delivered in the last few year. And excited to sort of see the response and the engagement we get from players coming in.”

Twisted Metal 3 and 4, the former launched in 1998 and the latter in 1999 for PlayStation One, debut on July 15th. Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, both critically acclaimed survival titles, will debut later this Summer.

Of course, you need the right tier to play Classic titles, which is PlayStation Plus Premium/Deluxe. It costs $17.99 monthly and $49.99 quarterly; the yearly membership currently retails for $107.19, a 33 percent discount until June 6th.

Subscribers can avail all the benefits of previous tiers, including free monthly games, the PlayStation Plus Extra catalogue, Ubisoft+ Classics, Share Play, and much more. Stay tuned for more announcements on other Classics coming to the service in the coming months.