But what about the title that explores his later days? And does so with a lot of great additions to the franchise’s stealth-action gameplay loop? Metal Gear Solid V: Phantom Pain, being Kojima’s last instalment in the franchise before his infamous split from Konami, is quite the solid experience and has been quite a successful outing in its own right.

We thought it best to give you a rundown of what each respective title gets right and perhaps doesn’t, pitting them against each other to see which one comes out on top in crucial areas of the experiences they offer. It’s time to dive in.

Stealth And AI

Comparing the stealth mechanics on offer in the two titles is a great place to start when thinking about which one of them is a better Metal Gear Solid experience. Let’s take a look at Delta first, and the manner in which its improvements have made the experience originally on offer in MGS3 feel more modern, and perhaps better in the process.

It must be said that Phantom Pain has been a positive influence on the remake, with many of its more modern trappings making their way to Delta. However, stealth in the remake does feel a little raw, but much more natural, a reflection of the fact that it is still a 2004 title at heart. Naked Snake’s infiltration of Volgin’s forces is a lot better in Delta when you consider how the new camera angles and the ability to seamlessly blend into the environment create an experience that’s quite riveting in the moment.

Snake Eater’s camouflage system and classic timer-based Caution/Evasion states add constant tension. While TPP uses the same framework, it pushes much of it behind the scenes, keeping you unsure of when the search will end. TPP’s stealth is more systemic and emergent, something its often sparse open world benefits from, where your tools and buddy choice shape every infiltration. Delta, by contrast, is more “man-against-the-jungle”: your camo and positioning matter, and enemies blend into the environment as well as you do. Both approaches are excellent, and both games are stealth masterclasses, but TPP just sneaks ahead thanks to the freedom it affords in missions.

An improved enemy AI is also on display in Delta, with enemies proving to be a lot more deadly when compared to the original title. They have quicker reaction times and have better hearing senses; however, Phantom Pain makes good use of the eleven years and several other titles before it, bringing additions to the franchise’s gameplay loop that give it a distinct edge over Delta as far as its stealth mechanics are concerned. Infiltrations are a lot more realistic, a fact made possible by a dynamic weather cycle, a very refined enemy AI, the ability to map out enemy routes and patrol changes, and so much more, which all lend an element of strategy to the experience that Delta simply cannot match. Heck, enemies in TPP even adapt to your playstyle: rely too much on headshots and they’ll start wearing helmets, infiltrate too often at night and they’ll equip NVGs!

As far as stealth and AI are concerned, Phantom Pain takes the win despite a very solid effort to breathe new life into MGS3’s aging mechanics by Delta.

Combat, Boss Battles, and Tools

In the event that you’re spotted by enemies, indulging in a shootout or a melee showdown does become crucial to surviving before you can get back to the shadows. In terms of its combat, Delta does ensure a smooth experience, but Phantom Pain offers a tighter, more focused experience that lets it steal the advantage from the more recent remake, not to mention it has a massive arsenal of weapons compared to Snake Eater.

However, the enemies that both Naked Snake and Venom Snake confront with their abilities are just as integral to the experience, leading us to the bosses they encounter throughout their respective adventures. On that front, Delta continues to be an undisputable champion, considering how the Cobra Unit, Volgin, and The Boss each bring a unique skill set, compelling back stories, and a lot of personality to the table in their encounters with Naked Snake.

Phantom Pain, on the other hand, does come with its own unique set of antagonists, but none of them are as memorable, or dare we say imposing, as their counterparts in Delta. The battles against the Skulls were nothing but bullet sponges, and you don’t even get to fight Skull Face, given the theme the game was going for. While the fight against Sahelanthropus and Quiet is certainly one of the franchise’s best encounters, Konami’s remake is the clear winner as far as the boss fights it offers versus Phantom Pain are concerned.

That brings us to another important aspect of the Metal Gear Solid experience: the tools you are given to use over the course of your adventure. While Phantom Pain might be the obvious choice here, considering how Venom Snake has a literal army at his disposal whom he can call on for help alongside a wide variety of tools that he uses with ruthless efficiency (the Phantom Cigar being our favorite), there’s a case to be made for Delta and the manner in which its comparatively limited selection of tools is put to use.

That’s because Delta is a more linear sort of adventure in which Snake’s options at any given point in a mission depend on the optimal use of his arsenal. To that end, his tools are a tad more limited, but are rendered all the more useful because of those limitations. It’s a tricky balance between offering up a challenge and giving players cool stuff that a stealthy spy would use in the field, and we would say that both games do a great job of offering up options based on the varying experiences they bring to the table.

As far as tools are concerned, it’s a tie between the two games. But what about their stories?

The Story, Animations, And Graphics

Pitting the narratives of Phantom Pain and Snake Eater is made tricky thanks to the unique situation that the former game faced over the course of its development. Kojima and Konami’s differences led to Phantom Pain coming under fire for feeling “incomplete”, a sentiment that was echoed on a critical front.

Despite bringing Cipher, XOF, Venom Snake, and a slew of new characters together for a story that was every bit as explosive and full of twists and turns as the titles that preceded it, Phantom Pain’s tendency to favor lore drops over exposition might give it a distinct disadvantage when it’s compared to Snake Eater, a title whose story could be seen as a legendary addition to the franchise’s canon.

Despite both titles following Big Boss, Delta’s explorations of the character’s origins as Naked Snake, made all the more immersive with Konami’s visual overhaul of the original release, are simply more polished, focused, and dare we say complete. It also helps that its cast remains as iconic and memorable today as they did back in 2004, and that the story is presented more directly than it was in Phantom Pain.

Of course, Episode 51 and its absence from Phantom Pain is an aspect that must be touched upon, considering how it feeds into the idea that there was a lot of content intended to make its way to the game but was ultimately left out of it. On the narrative front, it seems that Naked Snake’s journey towards becoming Big Boss takes the lead against Venom Snake’s representation of the character.

Although The Phantom Pain’s story, once understood, is simply amazing, we can’t help but give Snake Eater the win here, given that it tells a complete story, from start to finish.

In terms of pure animation quality, both Delta and The Phantom Pain shine. Delta borrows much of TPP’s polish to deliver a huge leap over the original MGS3, but the difference in move sets reflects who Snake is in each game: Venom Snake in TPP has a broader repertoire, while Naked Snake in Delta is earlier in his journey, so his moves are intentionally leaner. Even so, movement, CQC, and transition work look excellent in both; call it a tie on animations.

However, in terms of visuals, Delta is a class apart. Phantom Pain still looks fantastic a decade on, enjoying the advantage of having nearly eleven years of the franchise’s other titles to draw on, refine, and present to players when compared to MGS3. But Delta isn’t merely forced to bridge the gap between the original release and current-gen standards—it clears it. The character work, especially Snake’s model, facial rigging, and gear detail, sells the leap. Despite TPP’s enduring strengths, on visuals, Delta is the clear winner.

Naked Snake or Big Boss?

While all of these comparisons might make one title seem like the better one over the other, it does become essential to remember that Delta and Phantom Pain are vastly different experiences, made for successive generations of consoles with different goals in mind.

It can be hard to straight-up declare that either one of them is the better Metal Gear Solid experience overall, considering how each one adds a new layer to Big Boss on both narrative and technical fronts.

Choosing between the two would need to account for another crucial aspect of the experience: each player’s personal tastes and what they would like to take away from their time in a Metal Gear Solid game. That’s a subjective front, and one that comes with too much variance to be able to accurately measure and predict.

Putting ourselves under the same subjective scrutiny, we’re calling this one a tie. Delta, Naked Snake’s early days, has been an absolute treat, blending nostalgia with current-gen goodness in a way that brings back fond memories of the original release while ironing out a few of its flaws to present a vastly improved experience. At the same time, TPP’s systemic freedom and depth still impress. Each game edges the other in different categories, but never by much, enough strengths on both sides to make this too close to call.

Given how well the Snake Eater remake holds up after so many years after its original release, perhaps even Big Boss would look back and smile fondly at a time when things were a lot simpler, if a little harrowing, for his character.

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 adventures of an insectoid warrior in a land devastated by an unknown epidemic won over many players, myself included, with its charming take on a desolate world. With a world that kept expanding in every direction, and a lot to discover and do within its confines, Hollow Knight quickly caught my attention, and rarely lost it thanks to its charming visual style and excellent combat design.

However, with eight years of little to no updates about its sequel despite a lot of hype, Team Cherry’s recent shadow drop of Hollow Knight: Silksong’s release date has me very excited for what is shaping up to be another success story for the studio. From what I’ve seen of its gameplay, Silksong could very well take the fight to some of this year’s best titles, too.

As a game that was originally meant to be a DLC chapter in Hollow Knight, whose size and scope increased to make it a sequel, the hype surrounding Silksong is clearly justified. But what makes it so special in comparison to its predecessor?

Let’s find out!

Familiar But Fresh

One of the first reasons that comes to mind is the game’s choice of protagonist. By choosing Hornet as the central character of the game’s new setting, Team Cherry has cleverly tied its two games together in a way that can allow returning players to feel a sense of continuity, while newcomers could be curious to know what makes Hornet such a crucial part of the franchise.

As the former Princess, her martial skills are beyond question to anyone who faced her in the first game. Her origins are as compelling as her motivations, and it will be interesting to see how her adventure is taken forward in the new game as she takes on whatever threats are in her way.

Her abilities also make her the perfect choice for exploring a larger, more complex world. I’m very curious to see if we’re going to uncover more about her past and her relationship with characters from the first game with whom she has deep ties to.

But Hornet’s only one part of the equation when it comes to what has me convinced that Silksong is going to steal the show in 2025.

New Fights to Face

Hollow Knight’s excellent combat mechanics were made even better by the enemies its players were using them against. There was a staggering variety in some of enemies that the Knight faced down in the first game, and some truly creative enemy designs that pushed my skills to the limit, thanks to their clever designs and intuitive use of the environment during those epic battles.

Silksong seems poised to cleverly build on that key strength, and it’s a decision that could spell out very good news for the upcoming title. Pharloom is set to house more enemy types, bosses, and benches for Hornet to discover, spread out over a world that is also significantly larger than the one that came before it.

It’s a sequel where ambition has been carefully balanced against insightful explorations of everything that was great about the previous title, and Team Cherry’s excellent designs and visual style are sure to keep things very engaging in meaningful ways.

Hornet’s speed and agility, showcased in gameplay demos, already point towards a more refined, offense-based combat loop that encourages an aggressive approach even more than the original game. With specific mechanics being tweaked to encourage a more approach from its players, Silksong has the potential to overtake its predecessor in ways that even the most diehard Hollow Knight fan might not have expected.

But the core design philosophies that made exploring Hollow Knight 1 such a treat continue to underline the new game. Simply tweaking the way they are executed this time around makes me believe that Hollow Knight: Silksong could very well be the culmination of a journey that Team Cherry started nearly eight years ago.

But wait. There’s more.

Balancing Continuity and Change

Yet another reason for why I’m absolutely stoked to play Silksong is the manner in which Team Cherry has tweaked its systems to present a more refined experience.

Take the new Rosaries, for example. Replacing Geo from the previous game, you collect them from defeated enemies only to lose them in the event of your defeat. That’s now a fairly old way of punishing defeats that has found its footing in many great titles today. But Team Cherry has added a twist to that particular tale, adding in a mechanic in which using a string to tie your Rosaries together prevents you from losing them when you die.

On its own, that might seem like a fairly uninspired way to attract players who worry that their skills may not let them enjoy the experience in its entirety. But when you consider the larger world and improved enemy roster, it’s a change that signifies a more balanced approach to character progression, presenting a challenge while also mitigating a lot of the frustration that could arise from having to redo difficult segments in a world that’s as large as Pharloom.

It’s equally likely that the Soul mechanic from the first game remains untouched, which is great since facing the Shade enemy was quite entertaining and will continue to be in the new game. Once again, it’s a great way to blend the old and new, with Team Cherry playing to its franchise’s strengths while mitigating potential weaknesses.

The Shell Shards are another intriguing addition. They’re slated to be upgrade mats to be used on crests and tools, which might be Silksong’s version of the equippable perks that we got to see in the first game. Team Cherry has made these items craftable now, and if my guesses are correct, that could give players a lot of control over their build.

If the game allows repeccing via the use of Shell Shards, it could mean that Hollow Knight: Silksong could feature a build variety that puts the 2017 title on its back foot, allowing players to have more ways to adapt to any given situation. That’s another win when factoring in the new enemy types and bosses, many of which might need a respec or two before you get it right.

All of that has me quite excited for Silksong, and the best part about my optimism for the title is that I’m not alone.

A Community of Fans

The importance of Hollow Knight’s success cannot be overstated when analyzing the hype surrounding Silksong in the long run-up to its release. With that being said, the game has received a lot of positive attention every time it made a public appearance, with E3 2019 being a great example.

Reactions to a playable demo of the game echoed many of the sentiments that I’ve expressed here, with a lot of praise directed towards the manner in which the game improved on what came before it in meaningful ways that directly impacted how the experience felt to its players.

It was arguably why the game received the Most Anticipated Game at the 2021 edition of the Unity Awards, and is perhaps why it received similar feedback to E3 2019 at Gamescom 2025. It’s evident that Team Cherry has used the intervening years to add polish to an already refined experience, making Silksong a potential benchmark in visual and graphics quality in addition to a solid gameplay loop.

With the game sitting on the wishlists of around 4.8 million users on Steam, it’s clear that it has garnered a lot of hype among players as well. And with a $20 price tag, making it all the more accessible, it’s clear that Team Cherry has taken a very comprehensive look at the value proposition they aim to deliver with Hollow Knight: Silksong.

Considering that the game is going to be bigger than the original title, and perhaps take longer to beat, along with multiple endings potentially making a return, Silksong is going to be quite the entertainer at a price point that would absolutely justify its presence among 2025’s greatest hits.

While I’m always cautious around games that generate this much hype prior to their release, I think it’s safe to say that Silksong could recapture the magic of its predecessor and build on it in ways that make the new title all the more special. We’ll have to wait and see if all the fuss was worth it, but I just know that it’s going to be quite the entertainer, and perhaps the greatest performer of the year.

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.

While Naked Snake’s debut adventure, which set him on the road to becoming Big Boss, is a great choice for introducing the franchise to a potentially new demographic of players while giving veterans a heady dose of nostalgia balanced with current-gen goodness, choosing another title for the same treatment could be a tricky venture.

Despite a dearth of options at its disposal, the viability of each title in the Metal Gear Solid lineup brings several variables that could pose problems for Konami – a factor that could be further exacerbated by Hideo Kojima’s absence from its ranks.

With that being said, there are a few options that Konami does have that could work, but with caveats. Simultaneously, there are others that the studio would be hard-pressed to bring to the current generation of gaming hardware, despite their potential, as they would need quite a bit of work and may not be profitable for the studio.

What are the constraints that Koami could face with each potential title? Which one of them could be the one that serves its purpose best? That’s what we’re here to figure out.

What Could Go Wrong?

It’s quite tricky to consider the cons of remaking any title from a franchise that has brought a smile to so many players over the many years of its existence. Each Metal Gear Solid game has something to love about it, and is sure to have at least a few fans who would swear by what it brings to the table.

In such a scenario, dashing those hopes about a potential remake is a decision that Konami is sure to consider very carefully, just as we have done. But with years of great video games behind us, and a lot of innovations made towards creating experiences that pull players in, and the big budgets that have made such an evolution possible, there are a few choices that would be quite challenging for Konami if it decides to attempt to usher them into the current era of gaming.

An obvious choice would be 2010’s Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker, considering that it features Naked Snake as Big Boss, showcasing his journey after the events of Snake Eater while also touching upon The Boss’s story after her time in Russia. It would be an excellent option considering how eager players are to see more of Naked Snake, who will be sure to have many moments of sheer awe at his eventual evolution into Big Boss, and the events that led him there. It’s quite a logical choice on paper.

However, we must point out that it was a game made specifically for the PlayStation Portable, and as such, would require quite a bit of work to bring it to life on current-gen consoles while ensuring it maintains the narrative, visual, and sheer overall quality of Snake Eater.

Releasing it as a remake would require that the studio recreate its comic-book cutscenes, for starters, to better match the expectations of an increasingly discerning crowd of current-gen gamers. That’s especially true after the stellar job that the studio has done with respect to Snake Eater.

In Kojima’s absence, that may not be a necessity but will require a lot of careful evaluation on other fronts. While those cutscenes were a smart choice for the PSP, considering its low storage and processing power, it’s hard to imagine how they would bring value to the experience on a modern console.

Along with Portable Ops, which was a prequel to Peace Walker, Konami would be hard-pressed to create a remake that includes enough quality-of-life changes and additions to both titles to make them worthy of a remake. It would also require a lot of effort and resources that could be better spent remaking other popular titles in the franchise.

Ruling out the two titles that would continue Naked Snake’s adventures leads us to another couple of games that may be viable options, but perhaps far too ambitious.

The Sins of the Father

If continuing Naked Snake’s story as Big Boss isn’t an option, Konami could choose to pass the torch of carrying the Metal Gear Solid franchise to his son. Solid Snake and Big Boss’ rivalry is certainly an option, with a remake of the original games: Metal Gear from 1987 and Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake from 1990.

Those two games are among the shortest in the series, and repackaging them into a single release would be a dream come true for many in the Metal Gear community. Solid Snake’s eventual confrontation with his father is also a solid narrative choice, pun intended, since it allows Konami to tie things together with Delta and potentially bring the entire saga full circle.

However, given that both games are over 35 years old at this point, the studio is likely to face even more constraints as its PSP titles require the reworking of its assets, animations, and perhaps even story elements on either title to make them worthy of a current-gen remake.

That’s a problem that’s more prominent with Metal Gear Solid, considering it was a 1998 release that simply cannot match the quality of modern releases in terms of its gameplay loop, controls, and the way it presents its story. A remake would be a very ambitious undertaking, bringing in sweeping changes that let the classic title resonate with a generation of players who take superior quality in their games for granted.

Breathing new life into such an old classic is no small task, especially with the weight of expectation from a passionate fanbase. It’s the kind of project Konami would have to approach with extreme care.

While Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots is also a great choice for a remake, considering that it does showcase the final days of Solid Snake’s life, it wouldn’t be much of a remaster, considering its stellar gameplay loop and graphics. As the final chapter of a very long story, it could be a viable choice later down the line, but would fall flat without an early adventure involving Solid Snake to familiarize players with the character before witnessing his swan song.

Guns of the Patriots is also rumored to feature in the Master Collection Volume 2, making a remake quite redundant. Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes and The Phantom Pain could also be ruled out for the same reasons, although there’s a case to be made for a remaster that includes the cut Episode 51 content as a bonus mission. However, re-release just for that bonus would not make sense, not to mention the fact that it’s a fairly recent game, and the amount of effort it would require to update would be far too ambitious.

Should Konami Take A Road Less Travelled?

The simple answer is yes. While past or recent titles involving Naked Snake/Big Boss could be safe bets, a studio like Konami would be better served by taking it slowly and working on a game that won’t make them change things drastically.

While it would be great to see Solid Snake introduced to the modern generation of gamers in the same chronological order that the franchise has established, Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty is the option that best balances the risk versus reward ratio for the studio.

Kojima’s absence from its ranks is sure to be a factor that takes some value away from any attempts to remake Metal Gear Solid. But given how good Delta: Snake Eater turned out to be,  Metal Gear Solid 2 is something that the studio could potentially handle, applying all of the lessons it learned from the recent remake to recreate the title, bringing Solid Snake into the fold.

Although it may feel abrupt to jump to Solid Snake’s fourth outing, from a development standpoint, remaking Sons of Liberty makes the most sense. The visuals still hold up incredibly well, and it’s hard to believe they date back to 2001. While the gameplay would need modernization, Delta has already proven that the team is capable of such an upgrade.

Its linear progression could even work in its favor, allowing Konami to focus on a complete remake without worrying about having to add additional level sets to Big Shell, the stage for the game’s events.

While we would love a proper remake of the original Metal Gear Solid that brings Solid Snake into the fold with all of the power that current-gen platforms offer, his fourth adventure seems like a more practical and logistically viable choice for Konami.

Or maybe, just maybe, the studio has already weighed the pros and cons of reintroducing Solid Snake through his very first mission in the original 1987 Metal Gear, and decided that revisiting his debut adventure is a risk worth taking to reignite interest in the iconic franchise. 

It’s still too early to know for sure, but it would be exciting if Solid Snake became the centerpiece of Konami’s next wave of remakes. Then again, the studio could always throw a curveball and surprise fans with something entirely different, perhaps even a long-awaited sequel to Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance.

But for now, we’re going to just enjoy Naked Snake’s origin story and hope that Konami does the character’s legacy justice in the years to come.

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.

Rogue Factor’s attempt to bring a new way to create immersion in its gameplay loop is sure to be quite the action-adventure game, bringing its protagonist to a land filled with horror, mystery, and an insightful spin on how war can tear apart the lives of those whose lands it touches.

If you’re on the fence about diving into the adventure next month, here are a few things to keep in mind before you dive in.

1. A Story of Strife and Self-Discovery

Hell Is Us follows Remi, a United Nations Peacekeeper who goes rogue, travelling to the country of Hadea to learn more about the fate of his parents. However, Hadea has been ravaged by a war, and things an event called the Calamity has caused further havoc within its borders.

Reme’s quest follows his attempts to make sense of what has happened to his homeland while uncovering clues as to his parents’ whereabouts. Along the way, he must fend off terrifying enemies while learning more about their origins from surviving NPCs he encounters as he travels.

2. Exploration

Reme’s efforts are achieved by exploring Hadea and finding clues that explain its current dire circumstances. The land is littered with things to find, dungeons to uncover, secrets to tease out, and lore drops to dive into.

Rogue Factor has been emphatic about creating a world in which each playthrough can be largely different from another, with its players having a lot of agency in controlling how their adventure unfolds for them. Moreover, the game encourages you to keep your eyes and ears open as you go along, ensuring that you do not miss out on subtle hints it is trying to give you.

3. Excellent Visuals

Those subtle hints form a major part of the game’s excellent graphics, with the environments you explore becoming a character on their own, and an important one at that. Early previews of the game showcase a haunting world filled with ethereal beauty contrasted against the devastation that Hadea’s conflict has wrought.

It’s a world that speaks to its players not just through its stunning landscapes but with details in its environment that are designed to indulge your curiosity and have you wondering what taking the path you see in front of you could dig up.

4. Hadea Wants To Be Discovered, Not Just Explored

Rogue Factor’s determination to revamp how action-adventure games are explored ensures that the visually stunning world encourages you to pay as much attention as you can to every detail that you find in its nooks and crannies. Hadea is a land that hides all of its secrets well, sometimes in plain sight, or in obscure corners of its territory.

Remi’s adventure has been designed from the ground up around a concept called “player plattering”, which Rogue Factor describes as every player loading up their plate with discoveries essential to their experience and progress. It’s an approach that does away with waypoints, markers, and the like, requiring you to find your own way through Hadea as you learn more about its complicated past.

5. Secret Dungeons To Discover

Making your way through Hadea is likely to bring you to the doors of secret dungeons, which contain loot, lore drops, bosses to take on, and so much more. Rogue Factor insists that each of these dungeons brings something unique to the table in their showcase, and we’re inclined to believe them.

However, finding them all is sure to be a challenge considering just how opaque the game’s map is designed to be. Remi certainly has his work cut out for him if he wants to learn every little detail about what happened to his homeland in his absence.

6. Every Conversation Has Potential

You’re going to want to pay attention to every NPC you meet and what they have to tell you as you explore Hadea. That’s because each line of dialogue has been crafted to include important information about the world, and perhaps point you towards a new objective or side quest.

NPCs in Hell Is Us aren’t just there to provide exposition. They are an important part of Remi’s journey and an added layer of immersion in a world that already has it in spades.

7. “Reddit-Tier” Puzzles and Secrets

In a conversation with But Why Tho, the developers were quite enthusiastic to elaborate on how environmental puzzles could vary in their difficulty, coming in four tiers. While puzzles in the lower tiers could be quite straightforward, the highest tier was internally referred to as the “reddit-tier”, a tongue-in-cheek allusion to how gamers lean on each other to solve obscure mysteries in modern gaming.

It could be a good idea to join the game’s subreddit when you begin your adventure, and enjoy it with the rest of the community that could thrive from Hadea’s many mysteries.

8. Approach Combat With Caution

While Rogue Factor has been quick to assert that Hell Is Us is not a Soulslike title, its combat certainly resembles the challenging loop that the genre is known for. You will need to master your weapons while managing your stamina when facing down its various threats. The lower your stamina in battle, the weaker your attacks and possibly defences.

While there is variety in the weapons you can wield, the game’s many threats could make using them effectively very challenging, but rewarding. It’s safe to assume that combat in this game is likely to come with a learning curve that could be well worth the effort.

9. The Healing Ring

If you’ve seen any of the game’s previews, you might have spotted a white ring around Remi whenever he manages to land a hit on an opponent. That is the Healing Ring, a unique healing mechanic similar to the Ki Pulse from the Nioh games. Instead of the latter’s restoration of your stamina, however, this mechanic is a great way to restore your health in the midst of battle with a well-timed button press.

It could be a very nifty addition to the game’s combat loop, considering its utility, and we can’t wait to see how it plays out when the game is in our hands.

10. Your Drone Companion Is Your Best Friend

While Hadea’s denizens may not be the best fit for tackling its many threats, that does not mean that Remi is alone on his adventures. Rogue Factor has given him a drone that is at his side in the field, with a lot of useful functionalities befitting the game’s sci-fi elements.

These include lighting up darker areas, which there are a lot of, and also acting as a distraction in combat, drawing the attention of enemies while Remi dishes out some damage. The drone is sure to expand its capabilities the more you explore Hadea, and perhaps be the only friend you need as you discover more about the calamity.

11. Deadly Enemy Types

If the game’s previews are any indication, there are a ton of enemies in the game, each with their own unique animations, attacks, and vulnerabilities for Remi to exploit. We were quite impressed with the ways in which every enemy managed to stand out as a threat and reflect the Calamity’s surreal effects on the world.

It’s highly likely that many of them hold even more secrets about the world at large, requiring that you take them down in order to uncover the mysteries surrounding their origins. That’s an excellent incentive to get into a few fights and engage with the game’s combat mechanics, although their designs could be an even bigger draw on that front.

12. Mystery Baked Into the Audio Design

An early mission in the game requires you to find an abandoned APC by following the sound of wind chimes to the north. That’s a perfect showcase of how the game’s audio design works hand in hand with its visuals to present an immersive experience in which you will need to listen for sounds that lead you down a path to new content.

The developers have been quite enthusiastic about the subtle clues that the game’s soundstage presents you with while you explore Hadea, with even its music adapting to the situation at hand to increase the immersion that it offers.

13. The Hollow Walkers and The Haze

Hell Is Us includes enemy archetypes that are largely spread across two categories: Hollow Walkers and the Haze. They are interconnected, with the Haze being the “physical manifestation of a human emotion” such as grief, wrath, and so on. The Hollow Walkers act as vessels for the Haze, with their attacks likely being influenced by the emotion they are driven by when you encounter them.

Those emotions play a part in other ways, other than influencing what an enemy brings to the fight as well.

14. Emotion-Aligned Weapons and Upgrade Glyphs

Just as enemies could be driven by various emotions, your weapons come with strengths and weaknesses tied to specific emotions. A unique upgrade system introduces Glyphs that could perhaps boost your weapon’s effectiveness against a particular emotion, making build variety an impressive addition to the game’s systems.

It will certainly be interesting to see how these emotion-aligned systems play out in the game, and to witness what its players manage to create as a result.

15. System Requirements

If you’re looking to play the game on PC, the minimum requirements that Rogue Factor recommends for Hell Is Us include a 64-bit processor, Windows 10 64-bit, an Intel Core i7-7700K/AMD Ryzen 3 3300X, 16 GB of RAM, an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070 8GB/AMD Radeon RX 5600 XT 6GB graphics card, 30 GB of SSD storage, and DirectX Version 12. That should get you 30fps at a 1080p resolution.

The recommended specs include a 64-bit processor, Windows 10 64-bit, an Intel Core i7-11700k/AMD Ryzen 5 7600, 16 GB of RAM, an Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11GB/AMD Radeon RX 6750 RX 12GB graphics card, 30 GB of storage, and DirectX Version 12, and an SSD if you want to play with upscaling enabled. You can achieve 60fps at 1080p with this setup.

The specs for a high level of detail and performance take things up a notch, requiring an Intel Core i7-11700k/AMD Ryzen 5 7600, 16 GB of RAM, and a Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 Ti 10GB/AMD Radeon RX 6800 RX 16GB graphics card while all other specs remain the same which should net you 1440p at 60 fps with high settings enabled.

To achieve similar results with Very High settings enabled, you will need a Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 Ti 24GB/AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT 16GB graphics card under the hood.

Finally, achieving 4K resolution at 30fps with Ultra settings enabled will require that your graphics card be a Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 Ti 24GB/AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX 24GB.

We must note that many early preview builds of the game on PC did suffer a few performance issues, although it’s likely that Rogue Factor could iron out those kinks in time for the final release.

If you’re a PS5 Pro owner, know that the game is PS5 Pro Enhanced, although there is no information on what those enhancements are at the time of writing this article.

And that’s a wrap on the most important details you should know before you decide on whether Hell Is Us is an adventure you would like to take on. Will you be diving into Remi’s adventures as soon as you can? If yes, we’ll be sure to see you in Hadea!

As of right now, these consoles are the primary consoles PlayStation and Xbox sell; their supply issues, which were protracted and lasted for almost two years, in no small part due to the global supply chain and production disruptions in the havoc wreaked by COVID-19, are beginning to recede. They are, finally, almost thirty months after first being introduced, beginning to get some great, next-gen exclusive titles.

This means that as of right now, these machines are in the full swing of things. Or they should be, but Xbox is struggling, in part due to a lack of supply for the higher end Series X console (which seems to be what the market wants more of, rather than the cheaper, lower end Series S), and in part because Microsoft has thus far failed to make a convincing case to buy the Xbox Series consoles that has resonated with the broader market (this comes down to the lack of must have games, but that is an oft had discussion that this is not the place for).

But the PS5, the PS5 is now finally hitting its stride. As Sony’s flagship console at the moment, it is selling with all the momentum, volume, and pace that a successful PlayStation console in the prime of its life does. We are, finally, past all the caveats of generation transitions, launch shortages, and the COVID disruptions, and we can finally start to assess PS5 sales on their own merits, and ask the obvious question: is PS5 going to outsell PS4 in the long run?

Every company obviously wants every new system to do better than the last one, but that situation is inherently unrealistic – there are only a finite number of customers in the addressable market, and only finite resources. Just because your previous product sold a certain amount does not mean that the follow up will match or exceed it. And, in fact, the games industry is filled with such examples – Nintendo went from 154 million units of the DS sold to 75 million units for 3DS; Sony went from 156 million PS2s, to 80 million PS3s. And, on the flip side, we see reversals in the opposite direction, such as the Switch selling more than 120 million units (and counting), coming right after the Wii U, which sold under 14 million.

Put simply, each console’s sales are ultimately a product of the circumstances and broader market conditions that it finds itself in, and the performance of a predecessor, while certainly instructive, has limited use in informing discussions about how successors or subsequent follow ups might do. In other words, just because the PS4 sold 115 million, it does not necessarily mean the PS5 will do that as well.

There is a reasonable (though not overwhelmingly likely) chance that the PS5 ends up falling short of the PS4’s final tally. If this were to happen, it would come down to a fair few factors – the PS5’s higher entry point will serve as a barrier for the broader mainstream to adopt the console, once the enthusiast rush dies down (the broader mainstream market is what takes a console from being reasonably successful, like the Xbox One or Nintendo 64, to being a 100 million plus massive success, like the PS4 or Nintendo Switch, so it cannot be ignored in this discussion). Especially given the context of the broader global economy, and how it continues to circle the drain with more impending recessions, and runaway inflation, the PS5’s price could end up being more and more prohibitive as the mass market constitutes a larger and larger portion of the system’s sales.

Of course, Sony will by then reduce the price – but by how much? The PS4 never got a major permanent price drop (it went down from $399 to $299 and then stayed there), and in general, it appears the broader strategy across the market right now is to hold console prices to the extent possible, outside of some smaller, limited time promotions or offers. In fact, one could even argue the industry is likelier to increase prices rather than drop them right now – just in the last two years, we saw Nintendo increase the price of the Switch $50 via the OLED model, and we saw Sony go one step further and raise the price of the PS5 by $50 in all markets around the world except the U.S., without revising or updating the hardware.

Assuming, however, that at the very least a PS4-style cadence of price drops and discounts is possible, the PS5’s price should not be a significant deterrent in the long run. It will certainly be a factor for some proportion of its would-be buyers, but on the whole, it shouldn’t factor in as much.

What does factor in is that the PS5 is fighting in a far more crowded field than the PS4 ever did. The PS4’s competition was the Wii U, which is one of the worst selling consoles of all time, and the Xbox One, a console that fumbled its launch so badly, the brand is still trying to recover from the aftereffects to this day. Eventually the Switch launched, and the PS4 did have to content with it, but the Switch launched three and a half years after the PS4 did; it had a clear playing field for almost half its life.

The PS5, on the other hand, is facing… well, it’s still not facing any meaningful competition from the Xbox side of things, to be fair, but it is facing far more credible and meaningful competition from Nintendo and the Switch. Now in its seventh year, the Switch is putting forth an unprecedented run of sales, and continues to routinely divert customer spending towards it over the PS5 in most major markets even now. Without getting the chance to be the only console there is any meaningful customer spend towards in markets such as Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, or even the UK, the PS5’s sales pace is naturally impacted to at least some degree by the presence of the Switch. Assuming the Switch can maintain its momentum until whenever Nintendo decides to launch the successor, the PS5 may never get a totally clear playing field to itself, which by definition reduces the slice of the addressable market that it gets to sell to for itself.

And while some nonsensical classifications by the CMA in the UK may have ruled that Switch is not really competing with the other two, ultimately that’s not really true, especially not at the broader level of mainstream sales necessary to achieve the kinds of scales we are discussing here. Millions of people bought a cheap PS4 to play Minecraft and Fortnite and FIFA; right now, if they can, instead of a $550 PS5, get a $200 Switch and still get to play those games, plus other mass market friendly games such as Mario Kart or Animal Crossing or Pokemon, then they absolutely will pick that cheaper option with more games that appeal to their segment. Yes, the Switch versions look or run worse, but they obviously don’t care about that. If the performance or graphics were a consideration, the Switch would never have sold that much to begin with.

There is also the fact that there will certainly be some level of “spillage” of the customer base for PS consoles with the PS5; put simply, with Sony porting their games to PC with a frequent regularity now, and third party PS exclusives increasingly available on PC and Switch, there may be many who decide they simply don’t…need the PS5, and that what they do want from it can be addressed with a PC; the PC getting an increasingly console-like experience thanks to innovations such as the Steam Deck also means that PC gaming is no longer as intimidating or friction inducing as it once was. While the broader console market is never going to be swayed by PC gaming, no matter what Valve or anyone else does, a small but significant chunk might be – and that might be what keeps the PS5 from reaching PS4 numbers

All of this might make it sound like the PS5 is not going to match or exceed the PS4, but as I mentioned, it’s likelier that it does than not. At the very least, I think matching the PS4 is a given. Fundamentally, I think this will come down to one reason – while the factors I mentioned previously all hold true, I think collectively, they won’t actually impact the PS5’s final tally that much. I can see it shedding some 10-15% of its audience from the PS4, which would still bring the console in the 100-105 million units sold range; and that difference, I think, can be easily covered up for by the fact that I think this is going to be a longer generation than the previous ones.

While the past two PlayStation generations have both been seven years long each (eight and seven years for Xbox), I think this generation is going to go on a bit longer. The aforementioned geopolitical and global circumstances, such as the economy, the supply chain and shortages, the pandemic, all of that, I think, means that Sony, Microsoft, AMD, and Epic will all want to keep this generation going a bit longer than usual so they can recoup their investments and R&D costs better. This is not at all unprecedented – we already saw this happen in the Xbox 360 and PS3 era, which went on eight full years before their respective successors were introduced (as opposed to the 4-5 year window for new console generations that had been the norm until then), because of the 2008 recession severely impacting and disrupting market dynamics globally. Sony very literally just needs to keep the PS5 going for 1-2 years more than the PS4; meaning, not introduce the PS6 until 2028 at the earliest, and maybe even 2029; and that 10-15 million projected shortfall compared to the PS4 is easily accounted for right there; in fact, that is probably enough for the PS5 to mount a small lead over the PS4 of its own.

All of which is to say, while the PS5 faces a far more challenging environment than the PS4 ever did, I think its broader success is assured, and that it will manage to at the very least match the PS4’s final numbers, if not exceed them, regardless. This comes down to a longer generation for it, yes, but also because of the sheer brute force of its success, and the success of the PS brand as a whole, where even with so many difficulties, the PS5’s sales pace has not been blunted nearly enough to have any real impact. While it is unlikely the PS5 will match the PS2, DS, or Switch, we can, at the very least, expect it to end in the same tier of sales as PS4 and the Game Boy – and that’s a very great success for it regardless.

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.

Ahead of the launch of the game later this month, we would like to present this transcript of an interview from a press event that GamingBolt was invited to alongside several other outlets on the eve of the demo’s launch. We discuss a lot of things with the developers of Outriders, including their plans for post-launch content, their focus on the story, what has caused the multiple delays the game has suffered, and more.

So we’ve seen a lot of releases this year and some of these releases haven’t gone according to plan, whether that be due to COVID or other reasons. How is the team preparing Outriders for a successful launch?

So, I wouldn’t like to talk about the other companies, but we can talk from our perspective, and from our perspective, COVID didn’t… it would be easy to say we delayed and we postponed because of COVID, everyone would probably be happy with the answer, but I think that was not true. We were proactively prepared for the change from office work to the remote work, because we are working with different people in different parts of the world.

So we already have the pipelines, we already have the system for it. So COVID was, of course a little bit, but not so big [a] problem [as] for other industries. Overall, we are happy that we are in game development, we had this possibility to move to [working from] home. So that wasn’t a big deal, we basically moved the release day because we hadn’t finished with some crucial things for us that we would have had to fix after release with patches. We decided that it’s not fair for the buyers. We want to release the whole package altogether as we are asking money for it, so, we have to do our best to basically deliver as finished a product as possible. So that’s why that’s why there was a decision for us and Square to delay a little bit, to finish the things and prepare the launch to be as successful as possible.

Could you be a bit more specific as to what those things were that you wanted to improve with the delay, with the additional time?

Overall, it was the feel of gameplay and feel of the game; [it was] some small things, not one huge thing, that was missing, and that changed everything. Towards the end of the production, it is hundreds of the small irritations that all together, become an unpleasant experience. So we are trying to remove as much as possible these irritations to give basically the good experience that people will feel, “okay, the game is good.” That was our main goal.

Of course, there were some bigger or smaller adjustments to the already existing features, and some other stuff. But I want to point out that we wanted to basically polish [problems] that we knew there are enough of that the overall experience could be destroyed, and people who would be commenting, “this game is bad, because it is lacking this feeling… as a game, playing it is not fun enough.”  Some polishing, bug fixing, adjusting the feel. Some tutorials not being specific enough…

Kind of along several lines. The challenges of developing a cross generational and cross platform game have kind of been in the spotlight since Cyberpunk 2077. Did you run up against similar challenges when developing Outriders and if so, what were they? And how did the team ultimately end up overcoming them?

Well, I don’t know exactly what challenges [CD Projekt RED] had with their game. We see the results, and they were not as expected, but [we are not aware] about the exact things. It’s hard to say, that’s the first thing.

Second, of course, we have our own problems that we need to overcome. And looking at the game as it plays on the consoles right now, I don’t think we have similar challenges to overcome, and the game just works on consoles. [Whether] on the previous gen, on the current one, we are covered. So yeah, I don’t expect as having similar issues like other developers.

Can you possibly talk about the next generation enhancements that you are planning for PS5 and Xbox Series S and X. How will the game be better? Higher frame rate, better graphics?

Yes. We are still working on and trying to make good use of all the functionality that the new generation brings. So there are some things that I can confirm, and some that I don’t want to say right now. From the things that I can confirm, 4K, 60 FPS, that’s something that we should have. And other smaller functionality, like cross saves from PS4 to PS5, Activities used for the Timeline, for example. So the timeline follows the story that players have in game, [such as] trophies with progression, shortcuts, things like that. So those are the things that I can confirm right now. But there are quite a few other things we are working on. But I don’t want to confirm it and promise them for the release.

So that includes haptics for the PS5 controller?

I cannot confirm it.

There is a demo releasing tomorrow. They’re coming to all platforms. Except for Stadia, is that correct? Is it.just not ready and optimized for Stadia yet. Is that why?

We cannot talk about he subject, we are not the correct person to ask about that.

I’d like to follow up on some of your questions about post launch support. Now, you earlier said that you are striving to have the game be complete content complete when it comes out. You previously said you’re not going to make it a life service game. So I wanted to get some clarification about what approach you’re taking to post launch content. Will they be things like new classes, new locations, raids, that kind of thing.

So in general yet, our goal was to deliver the complete package for the release, and when talking about the things that may come later, it really depends on the player. So how they will react, if they will be interested, if we will build a huge player base… we have ideas, of course, but for now, there was nothing we can promise and say, “we are doing things that will come.” So, if people are interested, we have some ideas how to develop it, but it’s more like adding new elements than adding the things that are missing from the game that we have right now.

Along those same lines, putting aside the larger scale stuff like DLC or new classes, things like that, something, I think of that comes to mind as the game that wouldn’t really be considered a service game by many, but does have a large player base that’s retained for a long time is Diablo 3, they’ve kind of kept that by kind of tweaking the meta for builds, along with seasonal characters and leaderboard resets. Would the Outriders team consider anything along those lines, if players are vocal about wanting something to kind of extend their playtime a little bit or kind of keep things fresh?

We can adjust the meta, but in general I think that the game is more stable than that. But if [players ask for it], we have to do that. And we are prepared for such cases.

Would you be able to confirm how long an average play-through for Outriders might be?

That depends on what you understand as such, because you can follow just the main story. You can follow the main story on the lowest difficulties, of course, it will last much, much shorter. But for us, the average time played that we are considering is, I play the main story, I’m also interact with side quests. I’m also using the systems to try to find something that fits my skill, my build. So considering that, I would say it’s 20 to 40 hours of gameplay time. But that’s how we are estimating, again, it’s really hard to estimate because if someone is rushing through the content that he already knows, of course, that could be a shorter run. Still, for us, the average, I would say it’s closer to 40 hours.

You have announced expeditions as the kind of post campaign content that’s meant to challenge players. Can you discuss a bit about how the team designed expeditions to be something that can continue to entertain players even after beating the game for a long period of time?

While doing the story, the story component and the systems components are, let’s say, even. So they are equally important. Of course that it’s the DLC part is more focused on the systems, and it’s more focused on challenging yourself and looking for the perfect build, for the items you can gather, for the ideas for your build. And we believe that the endgame content will fit those players who really go deeper into the systems. And the difficulty that goes in expeditions should grant a lot of gameplay time for those who want to reach that final point.

So with expeditions, we believe players should just go! Not just the best items and increasing the numbers, but also, they have a goal. Of course, for some, that goal can be even prolonged that because they will try to achieve better scores in the expeditions, since they are time based. So your time taken can be measured, along with to also collecting all the items. So, there are elements that can be, and I believe will be, interesting for those who want to go deeper and play it longer. 

For the endgame content, do you know if the loot is going to be just random? Or is it tied to, for example, specific ask expeditions or specific bosses?

We are not limiting the loot to specific bosses or levels. But it’s limited by the difficulties on which you are grinding. It’s not so much that you need to constantly kill a specific boss over and over to get a specific item, it is trying to reach a certain difficulty. And at that point, you can find that item. So we have gone there with that approach.

Okay, and let’s say you’re playing as a technomancer, will the loot that drops be more for technomancers, or-

Everything that drops, it’s for you. So there are no cases that you will have an item from a different class. So in general, everything that drops, it’s for you. There are items that are technomancer specific, of course, but if you are playing a different class, you will not experience that. There are also the items that are universal. So those can drop for every class.

Exchanging those items between classes, if you if you decide to have other characters of other classes, and you want them to have that item, we have a stash. So if you find a universal item, and you want to give it a different character you made, you can. You can even trade class-specific items between your characters that have different classes. There is probably no point, because let’s say you find an item as a technomancer that is technomancer specific, and you send it to a devastator character you make, for that character it will have no use. Still, there is crafting in the game, so players may find uses for class-specific items that don’t apply to their characters. They may find some tricky combinations, by exchanging  items between classes, and do crazy things, but that’s a very, very long term goal for players who want to dig deep into the– go deeper into the mechanics, and look for such crazy solutions and combinations. 

Is there going to be trading between players? Like can you trade items? 

Nope, nope, nope. That’s not something we want.

One thing I’ve been wondering about is the ability to play Outriders single player, since all the synergy of the game seems to come from the different players in co-op. Could you describe what the single player experience would be like and how it might differ from the co-op experience?

So first of all, the game can be played solo, as well as multiplayer. It offers different experiences, but both are viable and are fun. Yeah, there are some mechanics that will shine in multiplayer. Still, the way we build our mechanics is building them from pieces. For example, in multiplayer, you have the technomancer, combined with the devastator, and the two can work together to debuff and attack an enemy. Now, in singleplayer, it will be that the player, say playing as a technomancer, will themselves debuff the enemy, and the damage mechanic to the enemy will benefit from that.

Because we are building it that way, even in a single player playthrough, you can combine all these mechanics, you can play with them. So we really believe playing solo will grant you as much fun, with working with the different builds, as you may have in the multiplayer mode. Of course, there are some aspects in multiplayer that are unique, such as reviving downed players or using the team mechanics, stacking DevOps, and so on. So I would say multiplayer just opens more options, sometimes it’s easier because you don’t need to have universal coverage like you would as a single player. As a single player, if you go for the challenges on Impossible and Survival, you need to have universal coverage and be prepared for different enemy types, different combat scenarios, and so on. In multiplayer, I can rely on my friends and say okay, different players fill different roles, and I can focus on specific aspects. So obviously it’s a little bit of a different approach.

Still, both ways are viable. And that was really important for us. And we achieved that, I really feel we achieved that point where both options are available and are fun. So, yep, give it a try as I feel players will be really happy with the decision that we came with. 

Can you max your build when the first play-through is there going to take multiple playthroughs in order to do that?

Oh, well the question is, what counts as a single playthrough? Because we have a lot of mechanics and content that repeats, for example, every sidequest is repeatable. So every sidequest, you can repeat as many times as you want, if you’re the person that wants better rewards, sidequests are the places that drop great items. So you may decide okay, I’ll repeat sidequests for better gear. On the the other hand , finishing the campaign helps you climb the heirarchies and grows the difficulty. So it really depends on how we measure that single playthrough. Never repeating the sidequests, never using the timeline tools that can allow you to repeat parts of the game, never dying? My answer is, if we are talking about the perfect single playthrough without repeating parts, I guess it will be hard to complete everything, because there are a lot of items and mods and so on you need to gather. It’s possible in theory if you get super lucky that you end up getting everything you need in your first and only attempt. But when I am talking about a playthrough here, I am talking about playing through the campaign, and then going for the expeditions, because when you finish the campaign like that, I doubt you will already have a finalized build based on Legendary items. 

On the other hand, in theory, I can repeat things, spend a lot of time to farm elements, and finish the campaign with some really good builds. Still, in expeditions, you can increase that and make it even better. I know I’m complicating things a a bit, but it’s so many factors that impact that, for me, it’s not easy to answer. 

Do you have a favorite class and build yourself?

It varies. One day, I like pyromancer and that is my build, but another day, I’m starting with the technomancer. So here, it’s more or less the preferred way of playing. I’m the guy who likes to play from longer distances. So Devastater and Trickster are harder for me to play because it’s not my mindset. So Pyromancer and Technomancer are my first picks. Still, I met some cool players, with the trickster, for example. And I love it, it’s just a different mindset, different way of playing. And then of course, we have the people in our company who have a completely opposite approach. And they play only Trickster or Devastater. So I’d say all classes are fun, and it really is connected with the approach of how you want to play the game.

The demo is going to attract people who are either hardcore fans of the genre, or maybe just are just trying it out, because it looks cool, since it’s free to try at least for now. My question is, is there a build that you would recommend to A) people who are new maybe to the genre and want something a little easier to understand, and B) vice versa? Is there a build or subclass that you’d recommend to someone who wants a challenge, and is going to be very rewarding to master?

Yeah, so first of all, our demo will start at the beginning of the game, and it will end at a certain point in the story and the progression of the game. So you will need to be aware that not all the tools for advanced builds will be available. So in the demo, we cannot experience, for example, crafting, because we introduce mechanics over the course of the game, and crafting is introduced later. 

So answering your question about builds, I will suggest that at the beginning of the game, just play like you want and challenge yourself and say: Okay, can I build the character that way? But from the point of view of someone who wants to experience endgame builds, it won’t be in the demo. The demo is more to explain what our game is, what our mechanics are, and also what the stories are, that’s the other important thing for us, and what we want to achieve with the demo, too. We want to involve all type of players with our demo and show them different aspects of our game, because there are players who want to just have an easy comparison and say, yeah, it’s a game like a looter shooter or it’s story driven game or it is a typical shooter. And you want to invite them to the demo and show them the other elements. So there is a story, but look at all these mechanics. Or there is loot, but have a look at the story. But I hope, the players who are interested with game mechanics will see the elements that are there with endgame potential. But it will be hard to experience them in the demo. 

So one thing I was wondering about was actually the story and narrative which you just brought up. Given the structure of loot games and how you’ve described the structure of Outriders, I wanted to know how much of an emphasis you place on narrative in Outriders. Was having a stronger story than loot driven RPGs usually have one of the reasons you wanted to stay away from a games as a service model?

I’m not saying that was the reason. But definitely, having a good story was super important element for us. And that is because of our experience as the player, in games with interesting mechanics,  but for some reasons, they are lacking in the story, and we believe it’s super important for games like that. That’s we put a lot of effort into the story component.

I wanted to ask about the lack of in-game chat. At least I’ve read that there is no in-game chat. Right? So a lot of  fans are already asking to see if you could add it in the future. Is that something you are discussing, or at least bringing some system, some way for players to communicate?

So definitely, we are aware of that. In fact, we had that element some time ago. But let’s say that from the technical, legal side of things we had to remove it. But definitely we’ll try to figure out something because we fully understand that’s the missing part that should be there. It’s not there because of several different aspects that we need to consider here. But we know it will be helpful. We are aware of this, let’s say that.

There are no microtransactions within the game, what made you decide to go that way versus maybe putting in a battle pass or something similar in that sense?

We decided to go the old school approach, where we are just finishing the game and giving it to the players, not thinking about the microtransactions, game passes, and things like that. At some point, it was easier for us to think about the game that way, just delivering the whole product. We believe players will like that proposal, that they’re just buying something. Of course, it doesn’t close for us the option in the future to just add a battle pass or other similar content, but not like microtransactions, it would be more like the bigger components that can help those players who want to go deeper into our world, play in that world. But until then, we will have what we have created, and that is enough. Do we want to build on our world and mechanics, sure, but not in the form of microtransactions.

Is there anything there in the demo that players should look out for that you would consider to be well hidden or secret? And just in general, how much can players expect to find, if they go off the beaten path while exploring Enoch?

Well, if it’s hidden, do not want to spoil! While not spoiling, I think some people will be sharing interesting things they found in the demo on forums. 

Xbox, on the other hand, puzzlingly seemed to downplay the importance of exclusives around that same time, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to put at least some of the blame for Xbox One’s misfortunes over the years on the fact that there was very little impetus to pick it over a PS4. Once Phil Spencer took over, however, he resolved to address the situation. It’s taken him a very long time – the Xbox One is now last gen, and its successor is on the market – but over the last few years, Microsoft has purchased literally dozens of studios to add to their stable of developers, IP, and publishing labels. The end result is that, in terms of sheer numbers, Xbox now has the biggest first party on the market, with 23 studios (significantly more than PlayStation or Nintendo), and literally orders of magnitudes more IP than either of its competitors.

So at this point, what is the state of the three console manufacturers’ first party stable? It’s safe to say there has been a disruption of status quo, of course, but has it changed anything? Has Xbox made up the difference?

When comparing first party portfolios, we need to get the elephant in the room out of the way first – Nintendo. It goes without saying that Nintendo’s first party software is very literally in a league of its own. Nintendo has dozens of world class IP built up over the decades, and they remain the only company in history to be able to sell expensive hardware on the promise of nothing but their own games. Super Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Super Smash Bros., Animal Crossing, Mario Kart, Pokemon, Splatoon, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Metroid, Xenoblade, Luigi’s Mansion, and so many more, are franchises from varied studios that single handedly can compel people to buy new Nintendo hardware, sell so many dozens of millions of copies that the list of bestselling games is dominated by Nintendo (in spite of their games being available on just one system, unlike most other titles on the market), have routinely delivered some of the most celebrated and acclaimed games of all time, cover pretty much every single genre under the sun, and have cultural cachet that is very literally unmatched by almost any other game (and certainly by no other first party’s titles). It is obvious, axiomatic, a given, that Nintendo’s first party is the best – when people spend hundreds of dollars to buy often undesirable hardware by the millions to just play the newest Mario Kart, the point is self evident. They’re playing on a different field than the other two.

The battle, then, is not for first place, but for second place. And here is where PlayStation has ruled the roost, especially in the last decade, slowly building up a reputation for consistency and excellence, and closing the once unfathomable gap that used to separate it from first place. The value and cachet of first party PlayStation games has been slowly rising, and Sony’s traditional studio driven strategy, combined with their recent emphasis on cultivating IP, has given rise to an enviable slate of award winning games that have comprised one of the longest unbroken streaks of consistent high quality we have ever seen.

But Sony’s rise isn’t a clean upward curve – this period has seen loads of studio closures (Guerrilla Cambridge, Evolution Studios, Sony Liverpool, Japan Studio), has seen a severe contraction of output in quantity, and has seen a definite emphasis on certain kinds of games and genres over others. Where once Sony used to put out all kinds of games, including fighters, multiplayer shooters, 2D platformers, and whatever the hell Tokyo Jungle was, they now mostly seem to emphasize third person action adventure titles. This isn’t to say that those are the only kinds of games they put out, as titles such as Dreams or Astro’s Playroom will easily and readily attest to, but it is undeniable and incontrovertible that the third person action adventure title comprises a significant majority of Sony’s output, and gets all of Sony’s marketing money and push. The fact that several studios responsible for more unique titles in Sony’s portfolio, such as Studio Liverpool with Wipeout, and Japan Studio with things like Gravity Rush, are now closed means this homogeneity may be likelier to continue, especially in the AAA console space (Sony’s VR efforts are, to their credit, generally varied and unique).

On paper, Microsoft has Sony beaten. This is true, no matter how much certain people may want to gnash their teeth over it. Theoretically, Microsoft has more than double the studios, two to three times more IP, and some of the biggest and most recognizable brands, across a multitude of genres, and with decades of history, now tied to Xbox – The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Wolfenstein, Halo, Forza, Fable, Gears of War, Minecraft are all Xbox games. Bethesda Game Studios, Ninja Theory, id Software are all Xbox studios. While without Bethesda, I think this would be a very clear PlayStation win (albeit Xbox would obviously be closer than it was before Spencer went on his shopping spree), the addition of Fallout and The Elder Scrolls alone means we are looking at some of the most popular games of all time now being Xbox first party titles.

While Uncharted, The Last of Us, God of War, and Horizon are obviously great, valuable IP with millions of fans, nothing Sony has comes close to matching the caliber of Fallout or The Elder Scrolls, except Spider-Man, and Spider-Man is a licensed IP.

Theoretically, Xbox is also covering a broader range of genres now – fighting games, racing games, RPGs, horror games, immersive sims, first person shooters, third person shooters, third person action adventure games, survival games, real time strategy games, simulation games, platformers, and more. Again, this is significantly more than Sony covers – actually it might be significantly more than even Nintendo covers at this point, especially when one considers that Nintendo has nothing, for example, in the immersive sim arena. In terms of sheer variety and breadth, theoretically, Xbox is now the top dog.

If I were to go by this analysis as painted above, then yes, Xbox takes the second place crown from PlayStation, with Nintendo still leading the pack (and Xbox actually beginning to trade blows with Nintendo in several areas, such as genre variety). This, again, is on paper. The fact of the matter is, all this is now contingent on Microsoft and Xbox properly executing and following through on all the acquisitions they have made. That means they have to manage these studios and IP well, not interfere with the creative process, and have them put out games in line with the expected quality from them prior to the acquisition. The issue is, Microsoft has not been known to do that in the past – consider how badly Rare was mismanaged, or how terribly Microsoft handled IPs with as much prestige as Halo or Gears of War. The one exception to the rule so far has been Minecraft, which under Microsoft, became bigger than it ever was prior to their acquisition, but we have far more examples of Microsoft mismanaging their game output than otherwise. And while some people might be tempted to point out that the examples of mismanagement are from before Phil Spencer took over as head of Xbox, which is fair, the bulk of them are still from a time when Phil Spencer was at the very least in charge of Microsoft’s first party lineup, if nothing else.

So has Microsoft closed the gap? On paper, sure. On paper, they are now way ahead of Sony, and within kissing distance of Nintendo (who maintain a thin first place lead). The jury is out on whether or not this actually translates into anything substantive in the real world. It all depends on how Microsoft manages its first party portfolio from here on out, as well as on whether or not Sony continues to decrease the breadth of its own first party as they have been in the past few years. In the here and now, though? Nintendo maintains first place, Sony is still second, and Microsoft is still third – but the battle is now closer than it has literally ever been before.

And that’s already a big change from status quo.

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.

On the face of it, this statement might appear to seem odd. After all, we still see big Japanese titles such as Resident Evil Village, Elden Ring, Samurai Warriors 5, and Tales of Arise announced for Xbox platforms. And this has been off the tail of a generation that saw major titles such as Monster Hunter World, Dragon Quest XI, Devil May Cry 5, Resident Evil 2, Ace Attorney Trilogy, Valkyria Chronicles 4, Nier Automata, Kingdom Hearts 3, Final Fantasy XV, and Ace Combat 7 all hit Xbox platforms (with the Xbox debuts of quintessentially Japanese IP such as Monster Hunter and Dragon Quest, which had both studiously avoided Xbox platforms until now, being especially of note). This is the generation where we saw back catalogs of formerly PlayStation associated franchises, such as Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, and Yakuza, all come to Xbox. Given all of that, why would one choose to comment on a possible decline of Xbox with the Japanese development and publishing community now?

The answer is that the broader trend that is beginning to manifest around Xbox and Japanese games is showing us that, more than even the relatively slim pickings for fans of Japanese titles on Xbox consoles, the presence of a lot of Japanese titles on Xbox seems to be coming to an end – other than efforts by Microsoft to incentivize third parties putting their games on Xbox and Game Pass.

This is actually self evident if one just goes about the conversation on a publisher-by-publisher basis. Let’s start by looking at Capcom, who are actually among the more prolific supporters of Xbox platforms (and who get credit for being among the first big Japanese publishers to pivot to the Xbox 360 at the dawn of the HD Era). Not only did Capcom release almost all of its games this last generation on Xbox platforms – so Resident Evil 7, Resident Evil 2, Resident Evil 3, Devil May Cry 5 (which even had Xbox marketing), Mega Man 11, Ace Attorney Trilogy, Marvel vs Capcom Infinite, and Monster Hunter World – they even had some pretty major Xbox exclusives to begin with. Dead Rising 4 was a timed Xbox console exclusive, while Dead Rising 3 still remains exclusive to Xbox consoles and PCs to this day. 

And yet, something has clearly changed. Don’t get me wrong, Xbox is still clearly getting all the big multiplatform Capcom titles – we know, for example, that Resident Evil Village is coming to Xbox One and Xbox Series S and X. However, consider that Capcom is now focused squarely on the Switch rather than Xbox, with Nintendo managing to get multiple Capcom exclusives between Monster Hunter Rise, Monster Hunter Stories 2, the upcoming Resident Evil Outage (which is at least a timed Switch exclusive, based on the recent high-profile Capcom leaks), as well as smaller titles such as Ghosts and Goblins Resurrection.  Based on those same leaks, titles such as The Great Ace Attorney HD are also going to be skipping Xbox, and going to PlayStation, Nintendo, and PC only (with the same leaks suggesting dismal sales of The Ace Attorney Trilogy on Xbox One as being responsible for the decision). So even with multiplatform games, at least smaller ones, it looks like Xbox isn’t guaranteed full Capcom support (though here to be fair, it seems like that can be said of all three consoles – PlayStation, Xbox, Nintendo all seem to miss out on some Capcom game or the other, it feels like).

Then there is Square Enix. Not so long ago, Square Enix used to be known for going all in on one console, and releasing all their games for that one console only (PlayStation most recently, Nintendo long ago). Since then, their strategy has been… scattershot? They still dabble in exclusives, but there doesn’t seem to be a pattern. Typically, Kingdom Hearts seems to stay PlayStation exclusive, Dragon Quest Nintendo exclusive, and other games more spread around, though even there, we have started seeing multiplatform releases across those franchises in the last few years (as mentioned, the last Dragon Quest and Kingdom Hearts releases were both multiplatform).

But this last generation Square started achieving some consistency with Xbox. Final Fantasy 15 came to Xbox One day and date, and the entire Final Fantasy back catalog from 7 to 12 got ported to Xbox too. Kingdom Hearts 3 came to Xbox day and date, and The Story So Far got ported to Xbox too. Nier Automata and the upcoming remake of Replicant are both on Xbox. Dragon Quest marked its Xbox debut with Dragon Quest 11 S. So far, so good, right?

But now things seem to be trending in the opposite direction almost right away. Final Fantasy seems to have returned to being at least a PlayStation console exclusive (at launch, if nothing else). Final Fantasy 16 is announced only for PS5 (though a PC version leaked). Final Fantasy 7 Remake launched only on PS4. Even with Final Fantasy 14, which finally confirmed an Xbox version last year, Square seems to have walked back on the commitment, and it is possible that the popular MMO will never come to Xbox, and remain PlayStation exclusive.

Even outside of Final Fantasy, we find Square being much more willing to make exclusives for PlayStation or Nintendo, but not Xbox. PS5 was debuted with a brand new Square Enix IP headed for it, Project Athia, while Babylon’s Fall is also PlayStation exclusive. Meanwhile, Switch was debuted with a brand new Square Enix IP headed for it, Project Octopath Traveler, that went on to become the hit Switch-exclusive JRPG Octopath Traveler in 2018. Bravely Default 2 is a Switch exclusive. Switch got another new IP from Square Enix announced at the recent Nintendo Direct with (and I really hope they change the name) Project Triangle Strategy.

There appear to be a lot more Nintendo/PlayStation multiplatform games from Square than Xbox/PlayStation ones as well. NEO: The World Ends With You is coming to Switch and PS4, but not Xbox. Trials of Mana and the upcoming Legend of Mana are both Switch and PS4, but not Xbox. Dragon Quest Builders 2 was Switch and PS4, but not Xbox. SaGa Frontier is Switch and PS4, but not Xbox. There is a very clear and definite pattern here that we can see.

Then there is Tecmo – again, one of the pioneers of Xbox support as far as Japanese companies are concerned, before even Capcom jumped on board. Remember, the original Ninja Gaiden reboot was Xbox exclusive. Ninja Gaiden 2 was Xbox 360 exclusive (at least at first). Dead or Alive 3 and 4 were both Xbox and Xbox 360 exclusive. 

Things appear to be significantly different now. Tecmo has, seemingly, no trouble with putting out PlayStation exclusives – the NiOh franchise is the most notable example here – or putting out multiple Nintendo/PlayStation multiplatform games (such as the Atelier series), whereas Xbox does not actually get included in that party anymore. Even franchises that once were PlayStation/Xbox multiplatform and excluded Nintendo, such as Dynasty Warriors, are now no longer excluding Nintendo, which means Xbox is actually the least supporter console by Tecmo at the present moment.

The major publishers aside, you can look at the smaller ones and see the pattern continuing – Atlus, for example, loves putting out PlayStation exclusives (the mainline Persona games, VanillaWare titles such as 13 Sentinels), Nintendo exclusives (the mainline Shin Megami Tensei games, Etrian Odyssey), PlayStation and Nintendo multiplatform games (Catherine Full Body, Persona spin offs, SMT re-releases)… but no actual Xbox games. In fact, in their surveys asking their fans about what systems Atlus should release games on, even Stadia got acknowledged before Xbox did. Stadia!

NIS has studiously ignored Xbox in large part, and stuck to making Nintendo and/or PlayStation games; Falcom develops exclusively for PlayStation, with arrangements with other companies (such as XSEED or NIS) to bring their titles to Nintendo and PC later (but still very rarely Xbox). Marvelous seems to be okay with mostly sticking to Nintendo and PlayStation. The list really goes on, and collectively the trend that manifests is indisputable – more and more, we are seeing Japanese developers and publishers fall off the Xbox bandwagon, with PlayStation, Nintendo, and PC apparently being deemed as an adequate addressable market by all of them.

With all of this said, however, there are two notable, salient exceptions to the trend, two Japanese publishers who are publicly doubling down on Xbox, and reaping benefits as a result. The first of these is Sega – as mentioned already, for example, Yakuza, a franchise with a long PlayStation association, seems to have aligned itself with Xbox of late, and Sega seems to be very happy with how that has turned out (not just for Yakuza either, but for the general success they have found on the platform, in large part due to Game Pass).

The other is Bandai Namco, who continue to put out their games on Xbox, and not just put them out on Xbox, but go with Xbox as the lead platform for marketing and branding with almost every major release – Dark Souls 3, Elden Ring, Scarlet Nexus, Tales of Arise, Jump Force, Dragon Ball FighterZ, the list goes on (and clearly, this is working out for them, since they are sticking with the strategy). Interestingly enough, these are also the two Japanese publishers who have so far avoided dabbling in the Switch more than absolutely necessary, which also seems to indicate they are absolutely happy with the current status quo, and the market they have found on the Xbox.

But Namco and Sega stand out starkly in particular because they are the exceptions that prove the rule. At this point it is becoming more and more clear that Xbox is beginning to lose the traction it has variously managed to gain with the Japanese development and publishing community almost entirely, and that we are looking at a future where the platform may get fewer Japanese developed titles than ever before. I don’t quite know what Microsoft can do to reverse the trend – I think they at least have the right idea in terms of using Game Pass to guarantee a level of revenue and returns to Japanese publishers for putting their games on Xbox, if nothing else – but given how much I feel Japanese titles add to the depth and dimension of a system’s library, I sincerely hope we see Xbox address this problem before it takes such root as to become irreversible.

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.