Title II Forum

Hell is Us: The Great Game That 2025 Buried (And I'm Still Sad About It) Hell is Us, a grimdark semi-open-world action game, was crushed by Hollow Knight: Silksong's same-day 2025 launch. Horrible timing, brilliant game. Ever shown up to a party only to realize you're wearing the same outfit as the host, but the host is a literal rockstar and everyone is screaming their name? That's basically Hell is Us in 2025. I played it, I loved it, and then I watched Hollow Knight: Silksong drop on the exact same day and absolutely obliterate the internet. Now it's 2026, and I'm still here, nursing a grudge and a save file. Hell is Us is Rogue Factor's greatest creative leap so far. It's a grimdark, semi-open-world action game that refuses to hold your hand. No map markers? Check. No quest arrows? Check. Just you, a weird drone, and a world that wants you dead. It's the kind of game that makes you feel smart when you figure something out, and then immediately stupid when you walk into an ambush. But that's the charm. It rejects traditional open-world design with passion and panache, as the reference article says. And I agree. It's respectable and fascinating. But here's the thing: 2025 was an absurdly packed year. Every month felt like a new blockbuster. Kingdom Come Deliverance 2? Great, but forgotten. Death Stranding 2? Wild. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33? A masterpiece. And then there's Hell is Us, a brand-new IP with no established fanbase, launching into a hurricane. I'm not saying it's a tragedy, but it's definitely a 'what if' scenario. Now, let's talk about the elephant in the room: Horizon. Remember Horizon Zero Dawn? Gorgeous game, new IP, launched five days before The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Five days! And then Horizon Forbidden West launched a week before Elden Ring. A week! Talk about bad timing. Here's a handy table: Game Release Date Competitor Competitor's Release Date Horizon Zero Dawn Feb 28, 2017 Zelda: Breath of the Wild Mar 3, 2017 Horizon Forbidden West Feb 18, 2022 Elden Ring Feb 25, 2022 Hell is Us Sep 4, 2025 Hollow Knight: Silksong Sep 4, 2025 Notice a pattern? Hell is Us didn't just compete with Silksong; it shared the same birthday. And Silksong wasn't just popular—it literally broke Steam. I tried to buy it on launch day and got stuck in a queue longer than my morning commute. Meanwhile, Hell is Us was sitting there, looking cool, but nobody had time. The real kicker? Hell is Us and Silksong appeal to the same demographic. We're talking grimdark, semi-open-world, no hand-holding, 'figure it out yourself' energy. If you love Silksong's obtuse Metroidvania structure and labyrinthine world design, you're probably the target audience for Hell is Us. But if you bounce off Silksong, you're not going to suddenly love Hell is Us. So there's no 'well, I'll just play the other one' escape hatch. It's a direct collision. So where does that leave us in 2026? Hell is Us is a good game. Not a masterpiece, but an 8/10 that tries something different. It's not perfect—I could complain about the combat for hours—but it's memorable. And the Horizon games eventually found a strong foothold despite their stiff competition. Maybe Hell is Us can do the same. Maybe in a year or two, people will discover it on sale, or through word of mouth, and realize they missed out. Or maybe it'll just be that game that got crushed by Silksong. Either way, I'm glad I played it. And hey, if you're one of the few who skipped Silksong (are you okay?), give Hell is Us a shot. It's weird, it's frustrating, and it's got a drone that beeps at you. What more do you want? If you're planning to circle back to a game like this months later, timing the purchase can be almost as tricky as the game itself. Prices bounce between storefronts, regional discounts pop up without warning, and a good sale can disappear in a day. That's the gap DealNest fills. Rather than manually checking every launcher and key seller, you can use [this price tracking tool]( to monitor price history, set alerts, and grab a deal when it finally lines up with your backlog. It won't make the release calendar any less crowded, but it can make catching up a lot cheaper. https://dealnesthq.com

This question comes up constantly once organizations complete an accessibility audit. Someone runs a scan, finds out they have 30,000+ PDFs sitting in a document library or LMS, does the math on manual remediation, and realizes that finishing everything one document at a time could take years. So how are organizations actually getting through this without a multi-year backlog? A few patterns show up consistently in the ones that pull it off. 1. They stop treating every PDF the same Not all 30,000 documents are equal. The teams that move fast triage first: High traffic, high complexity (course materials, public forms, financial reports) → gets full attention, often human-reviewed High traffic, low complexity (simple flyers, single-column text docs) → near-fully automatable Low traffic, low complexity → automate and batch, don't overthink it Low traffic, rarely accessed archival content → may legitimately qualify for an archive exception depending on the applicable regulation, instead of full remediation Doing this sorting up front is what turns "30,000 documents" into "actually, 22,000 of these are simple and can go through automation almost untouched." 2. AI handles the mechanical 80%, humans handle the judgment 20% This is the actual unlock. Today’s modern document remediation platforms use AI to automate: Structural tagging (headings, lists, tables of contents, reading order) Alt text generation for images at scale, including specialized content like STEM diagrams, charts, and math notation Table structure detection and tagging Form field tagging Some platforms report automating roughly 90% of the tagging work this way. That's the difference between "a person opens each file and manually tags every element" and "a person reviews and approves what the system already did." One is measured in minutes per document; the other in hours. Humans still matter, reviewing AI-generated alt text for accuracy, handling genuinely irregular layouts, and doing final QA before anything ships. But they're reviewing, not building from scratch. 3. They stop outsourcing 1:1 and start batching Sending every file to a vendor for individual manual remediation doesn't scale any better than doing it in-house manually, you're still paying for human hours per document, just someone else's. Orgs that get through large backlogs faster typically use a hybrid model: self-service automated remediation for the easy majority, with outsourced expert remediation reserved for the genuinely complex minority (scanned documents, dense multilingual content, heavily irregular tables). 4. They build it into the pipeline instead of doing a one-time sprint The backlog only gets bigger if new inaccessible documents keep getting added while you're working through the old ones. Orgs that actually close the gap add automated remediation/tagging at publish time going forward, so the "thousands of PDFs" problem doesn't regenerate itself every semester or fiscal year. What this looks like at scale, in practice Publishers dealing with legacy content libraries in the millions of documents have reported turnaround times cut significantly and throughput increased by an order of magnitude when shifting from manual, post-production fixes to AI-driven workflows integrated earlier in the content pipeline, this is showing up right now with publishers racing to get ahead of the ADA Title II vendor requirements. Similarly, government and municipal document libraries, think meeting minutes, budget reports, public forms, are increasingly being processed this way rather than farmed out page-by-page. We've seen more organizations moving toward AI-assisted remediation because manual workflows simply aren't keeping up with document volume. Is that what you're seeing too?