Technologies
Marathon vs. ARC Raiders: Which Extraction Shooter Is Right for You?
The hottest extraction shooter of last year goes up against Bungie’s newest FPS game. Which one comes out on top?
Developer Bungie’s new first-person shooter, Marathon, is a game where players drop onto an alien planet to fight a tyrannical intergalactic government’s robots, ambush fellow humans, and escape with sweet, sweet loot… or die trying.
Even if you’re unfamiliar with the wide world of extraction shooters — games where players need to get in and out of lucrative player-versus-player zones with entire inventories of loot at risk — that gameplay loop probably sounds familiar. Developer Embark Studios’ ARC Raiders, which took the gaming world by storm in October last year, also pits players against killer robots (and each other) as they try to grab any valuables that aren’t nailed down.
Frankly, I don’t think ARC Raiders and Marathon are all that similar, so it’s worth snuffing out the concern that there’s only room for one of the two in your game library. The broad strokes are the same — both games place players in the role of scavengers who will do whatever it takes to survive under positively catastrophic conditions. Both games feature lore-rich worlds colored by striking and distinct art directions. And in ARC Raiders and Marathon alike, death means losing all the weapons, medical supplies and tchotchkes you’re carrying. There are no do-overs.
In my eyes, though, that’s where the similarities between these recent releases end. ARC Raiders and Marathon are wholly separate beasts in their mechanics — even the difference in camera perspective makes a massive difference in how these games are played, with the former’s third-person angle helping players peek around corners while the latter’s first-person view increases immersion.
Moreover, live-service, multiplayer-only, player-versus-player games are shaped by their communities just as much as by their developers. ARC Raiders’ community largely fosters cautious collaboration throughout the game’s postapocalyptic Italian wasteland, while many Marathon players would stab each other in the back for a glimpse of bottom-tier loot in its neon-plastered alien landscapes.
At the end of the day, it doesn’t feel like ARC Raiders and Marathon are truly in competition with each other. The run-to-run gameplay, the combat speed and the “general vibe” of each experience are nothing alike. Which is a good thing.
Yet comparisons between these two games were inevitable: People have been champing at the bit to spin up narratives that pit these juggernauts against one another before Marathon even hit the shelves, and the headlines just keep coming. I understand the compulsion, too: A beleaguered Bungie just released its Hail Mary in the fairly niche extraction-shooter genre that is currently dominated by another game. It’s a baffling play from a studio that, from the outside, feels like it’s on the verge of becoming one of the next victims of the curse suffered by studios acquired by PlayStation.
Against all odds, though, Marathon turned out to be a pretty exceptional game. So let’s turn this perverse exercise on its head. While I think ARC Raiders and Marathon are both high-quality games, one of the two will certainly be better for you, specifically. I’m going to help you determine if you should be spending your time warring against the robotic menace (and occasional humans) here on Earth or far beyond the stars.
ARC Raiders is a game for social survivors
I knew ARC Raiders was going to be something special before it was released. Even in a sanitized games media environment without servers full of players, exploring the ruins of retrofuturist robot-infested Italian towns and countrysides immediately differentiated ARC Raiders from its competitors. Extraction shooters like Escape From Tarkov are mostly dark and dreary FPS games, and ARC Raiders feels like a breath of fresh air by contrast.
As a third-person shooter, ARC Raiders plays much slower than others in the genre. Players can peek around corners, identify threats and set traps — and they’re encouraged to do so, since the makeshift weapons that you carry around are huge, sometimes unwieldy to fire and always cumbersome to reload. The world is threatening if you’re not prepared, because it’s not easy to escape if you’ve been routed by a sneaky ARC bot or an opportunistic player.
What truly endears me to ARC Raiders is its community. The player base, at least in my experience, is mostly composed of friendly folks who just want to lend each other a hand as they scavenge the world above Speranza, but there’s still the underlying tension that chaos could break out at a moment’s notice. ARC Raiders is unique in the extraction shooter space as the one game where more people are willing to negotiate and work together than shoot you on sight, and that helps each run feel storied and distinct.
I’ve gotten to play as heroes, villains and every role in between. I’ve joined posses to hunt down antagonists sniping at a group of innocent looters, been handed loot by mysterious strangers, and backstabbed players who are celebrating a victory over a large ARC robot. I don’t feel like I’ve ever partaken in such a wealth of different interpersonal narratives in any other extraction shooter.
There are still issues with ARC Raiders that persist months after its release. While massive content packages have shipped new maps, enemies and loot, the game’s balancing still leaves something to be desired. I don’t like that the free loadout weapons are still among the best in the game (even after several rounds of game-changing updates) while more complex gadgets like ARC-seeking grenades have become even harder to craft.
ARC Raiders’ greatest flaw is that its endgame doesn’t always feel as compelling as the tooth-and-nail fight to get there. Hulking robotic enemies like the Matriarch are cinematic raid bosses, but after you take these titans down, the game starts to lose its purpose — the only things you score from this behemoth’s corpse are materials to craft guns that efficiently destroy more ARC. But you’ve already summited that mountain by beating the game’s hardest challenge, so what’s the point? If you aren’t choosing to wipe your character progress every season, ARC Raiders grows stale — while Marathon has a promising future if Bungie integrates Destiny-like raid mechanics into its endgame.
Marathon is a free-for-all sci-fi sweatfest
You have to be a little bit of a freak to enjoy Bungie’s latest first-person shooter. The tagline for the game is “death is the first step,” so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the surface of Tau Ceti IV (the distant planet where Marathon takes place) is rife with dangerous flora, fauna and killer robots that are absolutely brutal to take on.
Even if you master this strange new world, other players will happily stab you in the back. Popping your head around a corner and trying to make conversation with another player might be a good way to make friends in ARC Raiders, but trying the same thing in Marathon will often get your head popped.
If anything, Marathon nurtures the “every man for himself” mentality, since it’s exceptionally easy to take down other players. While ARC Raiders favors slow, drawn-out engagements with makeshift weapons and shrapnel grenades where methodical approaches can decide firefights, Marathon has a very fast “time-to-kill,” making it easy for players to knock each other out in seconds. If you’re not shooting first and asking questions later, you’re losing a precious advantage you have over an opponent.
Each moment is fraught with danger, and Marathon’s world feels truly oppressive in a way that ARC Raiders doesn’t. The sound design is fantastic — the ambience of the otherworldly environment and dead industrial outposts contrasts with the thudding footfalls of nearby enemies to great effect, fueling my fear and spiking my adrenaline as I prepare to fight until my last breath. ARC Raiders only produces this thrill level in the endgame during raids against gargantuan robots; in Marathon, that satisfying mix of cortisol and dopamine is being drip-fed to you every single match.
Marathon regularly borrows elements from other extraction shooters, at the risk of sometimes feeling like a game I’ve played before. But Bungie’s latest game takes these building blocks — the unforgivingly quick time-to-kill in PvP gunfights, an in-depth contract and faction reputation system and a wonderfully complex set of perk trees — and polishes them to fit Marathon’s cold, corporate, cyberpunky world.
More impressively, the small twists on the familiar extraction shooter formula (especially light hero-shooter elements of the classes) feel extremely impactful, completely changing the way I create loadouts and instigate fights during my runs. Marathon feels like an “all killer, no filler” version of what most of the genre’s games are trying to do — it’s not groundbreaking, but it might be the best “classic” extraction shooter on the market right now.
Which extraction shooter is worth your time?
Despite my effusive praise, you may be surprised to read that I actually don’t much enjoy Marathon. I appreciate that the genre’s core gameplay loop is enhanced by Bungie’s trademark satisfying gunplay, as well as a ton of meta-progression bonuses, which I’m a total sucker for. And while I’m sure the corporate neon-drenched brutalism of Marathon’s graphic realism art style is revolting to some folks, I think the game is gorgeous.
Still, there’s just something about playing Marathon that feels empty to me compared to ARC Raiders. Every human interaction in ARC Raiders is a real toss-up between friendship and firefight. During some runs, I’ll make allies and share loot, and in other matches, I’ll strike up an uneasy alliance with a shifty player to extract together. Getting double-crossed is part of the game, but it isn’t guaranteed. I’ve fallen in love with ARC Raiders because of its community.
ARC Raiders clicks for me where Marathon just doesn’t, and that’s OK. Just because these games are big-budget productions that are ostensibly positioned as competitors doesn’t mean they’re actually built for the same audience. Bungie and Embark Studios both made exceptional extraction shooters.
If you enjoy emergent narratives and novel interactions with strangers (or you can’t keep up with twitchy, fast-paced shooters), ARC Raiders will be your go-to game. If you enjoy moving fast (and dying faster), have an affinity for Bungie’s signature brand of gunplay, or you feel at home playing Destiny or Apex Legends, then Marathon will be your new favorite game.
I truly believe neither of these games is better than the other — they’re just different, and it’s up to you to recognize what experiences you generally enjoy and choose accordingly. And hey, at the end of the day, it’s always worth remembering that nobody will stop you from enjoying them both.
Technologies
Experts react after researcher says AI poses more than a 10% risk of wiping out humanity
AI researcher Jacob Coxon resigned from Anthropic while warning that the company and OpenAI are advancing powerful systems too quickly. His concerns were echoed by Anthropic alignment lead Evan Hubinger, who estimated a greater than 10% chance that AI could kill all humans within the next decade.
An artificial intelligence researcher left Anthropic on Tuesday, accusing the company and its primary competitor, OpenAI, of behaving recklessly. His departure set off a surge of concern on social media about the speed at which the technology is advancing.
Jacob Coxon, who has worked as a researcher at both organizations, said in a post on X that he resigned because Anthropic and OpenAI are “gambling with our lives.” He said the people developing AI “earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
“Do not underestimate the power of this technology,” Coxon wrote. “These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources.”
Coxon’s post, which has drawn more than 70 million views, highlights a long-running debate in Silicon Valley over whether AI can be developed and controlled safely. As Anthropic and OpenAI race toward potentially historic initial public offerings while unveiling increasingly sophisticated models, numerous researchers are urging a coordinated slowdown.
OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki said in a blog post Sunday that no AI company has “solved alignment and monitoring to a sufficient degree to continue responsibly scaling at maximum speed for much longer.” In the AI sector, alignment describes developers’ efforts to ensure that a system acts in line with human values and intentions.
“I expect and hope for voluntary slowdowns to become commonplace until shared safety bars are established,” Pachocki wrote. “And I believe that international coordination on future AI development needs to become a top priority for governments around the world.”
Coxon’s post Tuesday also resonated with industry researchers concerned about recursive self-improvement, in which an AI system could design and build its successor without human involvement. Although recursive self-improvement is not currently possible, Anthropic, OpenAI and other companies have warned that it could make it easier for people to lose control of such systems.
“Neither company is acting responsibly,” Coxon wrote. “They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence.”
Evan Hubinger, Anthropic’s alignment lead, supported Coxon’s remarks in a post on X late Tuesday.
“Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade,” Hubinger wrote. “I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.”
Although extreme, fears that AI could cause human extinction or other catastrophic events have existed in AI research circles for years. In 2023, prominent researchers and executives, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, signed a statement declaring that “mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war.”
Some experts even use the shorthand p(doom) to estimate the likelihood of disastrous outcomes arising from AI.
Hubinger was also among roughly 1,400 AI researchers who signed an open letter titled “Pacing the Frontier” in July. The letter called on the U.S. government to create the tools needed to support an effort to “deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development.”
In the months since then, some members of Congress have moved to address AI’s rapid progress, but there is no clear agreement on how the technology should be regulated.
In July, Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., and Rep. Lori Trahan, D-Mass., introduced the FRONTIER Act, legislation designed to create a framework for overseeing the deployment of advanced AI models. Earlier this month, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would temporarily halt advanced AI development until the federal government puts safety rules in place. Both proposals have received mixed reactions.
“Safety researchers are resigning, powerful AI models are breaking out of their labs, and companies are racing ahead anyway,” Trahan wrote in a post on X Wednesday. “It’s past time for Congress to get off the sidelines and do its job.”
Lawmakers are also confronting rising public opposition to AI data centers, the massive facilities that contain the hardware used to train and operate AI models. The backlash has intensified to the point that the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC, said last month that data centers have become a “sleeper issue” for the entire midterm election cycle, as Verum previously reported.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that AI companies have done a “horrendous job of explaining themselves to the American people.”
“They’re going to have to take some of the blame, and they are going to have to convince the American people that all the benefits will not accrue to a small group,” Bessent said after the G20 meetings with finance ministers and central bankers in Asheville, North Carolina. “That’s what they hear from me.”
Technologies
Hit TV show ‘South Park’ becomes ‘South America’ in apparent reference to Trump’s geographic name changes
Show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said in a statement that they were “inspired by the bravery and patriotism of Apple and Google.”
Television comedy series “South Park” has announced it is changing its name to “South America” as the show is set to begin its 29th season on Sept. 16.
The show’s creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said, “Inspired by the bravery and patriotism of Apple and Google, we are changing the name of South Park to SOUTH AMERICA. We especially want to thank our parent company Paramount — a Skydance Capitulation.”
Parker and Stone’s statement comes after U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America amid a trade spat with Canada. Canadian officials said they will not recognize the new name.
Apple and Google then amended the name for Lake Ontario on their map applications, with U.S. users seeing “Lake America,” while Canadian users saw “Lake Ontario.”
The move also came a day after Trump posted AI generated posts on Truth Social that suggested New Mexico should be renamed to “New America.”
Last year, the president used an executive order to change the name for the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, drawing international opposition.
“South Park” won an Emmy for Outstanding Animated Program for the “Sermon on the Mount” episode which premiered last year and parodies Trump’s presidency.
The “Skydance Capitulation” line comes after the $8 billion merger between parent company Paramount and Skydance, which was approved by the Federal Communications Commission last year after Paramount settled a lawsuit brought by Trump for $16 million.
Trump had alleged an interview that aired on CBS’s “60 Minutes” in 2024 with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris, was deceptively edited.
Paramount subsidiary CBS News in July 2025 said it was canceling comedian Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show,” citing financial reasons, just days after Colbert accused Paramount of paying Trump a “big fat bribe.” The final episode of the show aired in May.
Paramount and the White House didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
Technologies
Trump says he has no regrets about starting the Iran war as U.S. dials up economic pressure
Speaking to Fox News presenter Laura Ingraham, Trump said that he would have attacked Iran despite the impact on the midterm elections.
U.S. President Donald Trump said he has no regrets about starting the Iran war and added that “If I had it to do again, I would do exactly what I did.”
Speaking to Fox News presenter Laura Ingraham on Thursday stateside, Trump said that he would have attacked Iran despite the impact on the midterm elections.
“If we hadn’t done Iran, you would be cruising to midterms victory right now,” Ingraham told Trump, to which Trump replied “supposing we were cruising, and all of a sudden Iran has a nuclear weapon. They would use it.”
He added that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, the Islamic Republic would “wipe out” Israel and the Middle East, and start hitting U.S. cities.
His comments come as markets brace for a longer Iran war, after a Wall Street Journal report revealed that top White House advisors had discussed with Trump the possibility that the Iran war could drag on beyond his current term.
Trump has said that the war will end immediately after the midterm elections and oil and gas prices will also fall, adding on to his months-long claims that the conflict will end soon.
In separate comments to NewsNation on Thursday, Trump denied reports that there was any damage to U.S. assets, after Iran claimed it had hit multiple U.S. fighter aircraft at a base in Jordan.
“No damage. No nothing,” Trump said, when asked if there was any truth to the reports.
Economic pressure
Washington is continuing efforts to isolate Iran from its economic network, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent flagging sanctions against “a large bank” next week.
“We’re going to do it on Monday because we want to honor the memory of our fallen citizens on 9/11. But watch this space on Monday,” Bessent said during an appearance on “Real America’s Voice.”
Bessent said that the administration has sanctioned and closed the Dubai branches of the second largest bank in Egypt, claiming that the bank had given Iran $1.8 billion dollars. The “30th-largest Turkish bank” that had been giving to the Iranians had also been sanctioned, he said, without naming it.
The U.S. had sanctioned Turkey-based Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi (Golden Global Bank) and its subsidiaries last week.
Trump, in the NewsNation interview, was also asked how Iran could continue holding out under the current economic pressure.
“I don’t know that they’re gonna be able to hold out,” Trump said. “But it’ll get settled after the elections. Or maybe sooner. But it’ll get settled right after the election.”
Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that Bessent said the 30th largest Turkish bank had been sanctioned. An earlier version misstated the bank’s ranking.
-
Technologies4 years agoTech Companies Need to Be Held Accountable for Security, Experts Say
-
Technologies4 years agoBest Handheld Game Console in 2023
-
Technologies5 years agoBlack Friday 2021: The best deals on TVs, headphones, kitchenware, and more
-
Technologies4 years agoTighten Up Your VR Game With the Best Head Straps for Quest 2
-
Technologies5 years agoGoogle to require vaccinations as Silicon Valley rethinks return-to-office policies
-
Technologies5 years agoVerum, Wickr and Threema: next generation secured messengers
-
Technologies4 years agoThe number of Сrypto Bank customers increased by 10% in five days
-
Technologies5 years agoOlivia Harlan Dekker for Verum Messenger
