Resident Evil: Revelations reviews are go, all the scores here

Monday, 20th May 2013 11:30 GMT By Dave Cook

Resident Evil: Revelations is heading to PS3, Wii U and Xbox 360 from May 21, and we’re rounding up all the review scores here.

It’s a touched-up version of the 3DS game which launched last year, coming with new enemies, characters and more, so it’s not just a straight HD port by any means.

Here are the scores:

OPM – 7/10
Eurogamer – 7/10
CVG – 8/10
Destructoid – 7/10
Videogamer – 7/10
Nowgamer – 7.5/10
Metro – 8/10
OXM – 9/10
ShopTo – No Score
Godisageek – 8/10

Got a score we’ve missed? Post it below and we’ll add it when we can.



  1. Clupula

    I hate that a 7/10 is somehow considered bad, these days.

    And the only thing the review says is bad is the aiming and the enemy designs. I’m not sure how that translates to it not going smoothly.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Hirmetrium

    Considering the aiming was designed for the retarded 3DS controls and the enemies were pixelated 3DS messes, its not surprising they didn’t translate well. The game is still solid none the less.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. FabioPal

    @1 Well, if the SHOOTING is bad in a Resident Evil game, well, then the game itself is bad…

    #3 2 years ago
  4. KrazyKraut

    “enemies were pixelated 3DS messes”

    Did you play it? RE:R has sometimes better graphics than Vita

    #4 2 years ago
  5. rbevanx

    “And the only thing the review says is bad is the aiming and the enemy designs. I’m not sure how that translates to it not going smoothly.”

    Do you actually play games dude?

    #5 2 years ago
  6. YoungZer0

    @4: Well if the shooting is bad in a Resident Evil game, then it deserves the title of Resident Evil. The only Resident Evil with competent shooting mechanics is actually Resident Evil 6.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Hirmetrium

    @KrazyKraut – they were still pretty bad. Could barely tell where their heads were most of the time!

    #7 2 years ago
  8. The_Red

    So true but it’s not our fault. Sites like IGN have ruined the whole scoring system by limiting every single non indie game to a range of 5 to 10. It’s horrible? 5 out of 10. It’s not horrible? 8+ confirmed. It’s decent? 9.5 Editor’s choice!

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Clupula

    @10 – I always bothers me that they do that. I mean, a 5 should mean that a game is okay. Not mind-blowing, but okay. A 7 should mean it’s really good, but not amazing. A 9 should be almost perfect except for one little thing here and there.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. Mjorh

    @11 By my experience , scoring system of most websites are kinda in this way :

    under 7 , it means the game is utterly bullshit !

    7-8 , Good!

    8-9 Amazing !

    9-9.5 Superb

    9.5-10 Masterpiece !

    Btw i’m not confirming this scoring systems but it is what it is !

    #10 2 years ago
  11. jon_

    And then, they deleted the review. God bless the embargo dates…NOT

    #11 2 years ago
  12. The_Red

    Couldn’t agree more. A score of 5 out of 10 shouldn’t be called “horrible”. It’s 50-50, so half the game must work. Too many 8s and 9s have truly turned 7 into a “bad” score.

    While not the best, GameSpot of 90s and early 2000s was more careful and when they dished out 9s, it was for really special games. Edge also used to be a bit better but they were more of a random crackshot than perfect users of 1-10 scale. Still, they are better than the most in terms of pure score (analysis / Reviews themselves are another matter).

    #12 2 years ago
  13. salarta

    I’ve quickly learned reviews from major sites don’t mean a damn thing starting this generation unless it’s a completely unknown game getting rave reviews, or an insanely overhyped game getting savagely and universally panned. If it’s not one of those two, the reviews don’t matter. If it’s a flagship game of a major company, or a game a major company is trying damn hard to promote, then it won’t get proper criticism. In the rare case where the reviewer actually critiques a game meaningfully, they’ll still ultimately give it 9/10 or some other absurdly high rating.

    I had growing suspicions, but I think what nailed the coffin on this was 3rd Birthday’s undeservedly high marks as it openly insulted the Parasite Eve franchise with a slew of blatantly sexist changes to the core franchise and Aya Brea. It became very obvious after that, that people don’t seem to give a damn about quality, standards and precedent, only whatever gives them their personal kicks. Every overhyped reboot and sequel of existing IPs to come out since then, especially the ones starring female protagonists, has only further proven this issue.

    #13 2 years ago
  14. Dave Cook

    @15 “If it’s a flagship game of a major company, or a game a major company is trying damn hard to promote, then it won’t get proper criticism”

    In most cases I’d dispute that.

    Note: ‘most’. You are right about some reviews.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. salarta

    @16: It may be different here, but what I’ve seen in general suggests otherwise. If the story sucks, the reviewer will emphasize the gameplay. If the gameplay sucks, the reviewer will emphasize the story. If both suck, then unless it’s irredeemably abysmal, it’ll be written up as about average while other good elements such as the music or the quality of graphics is talked about more.

    This may or may not be a result of intentionally watering down reviews; it’s very possible, perhaps even most likely, that most reviews are completely genuine. I’m only able to say this because I think a lot of reviewers are influenced by the hype surrounding a game and to some extent want to believe the game is good regardless of any glaring flaws. There’s a reason that the courts (at least in the United States) try to avoid the opinion of their juries getting tainted by public opinion. I also wonder how many cases there are where a person that gave a preview based on a publisher or developer giving them a special session ended up doing the review as well. I haven’t seen this happen at VG247, but for places where it does happen, I think it would be an obvious conflict of interest. You naturally associate the good feelings of dealing with the people who promoted the game with the game itself, just like the misattribution of arousal bridge study, and these feelings would easily carry over into wanting to forgive the game’s flaws rather than judging it fairly.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. Dave Cook

    @17 “I think a lot of reviewers are influenced by the hype surrounding a game”

    I’ve known people who have done this in the past. There was no malice or corruption though, just people foolishly letting their excitement get in the way of objectivity.

    Example: One guy I knew wanted to give AC: Brotherhood 10/10.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. YoungZer0

    @14: Dunno about you guys, but I still check games out that have a 5 out of 10. Don’t care much about a scoring system anyway.

    @18: “One guy I knew wanted to give AC: Brotherhood 10/10.”

    I hope that means you cut all ties to him after that. ;P

    #17 2 years ago
  18. Joe Anderson

    Here’s our review

    Resident Evil: Revelations HD – ShopTo

    Ta :)

    #18 2 years ago
  19. Logion

    I don’t think people should get hung up over review scores. I played the demo and I liked it.

    #19 2 years ago
  20. seagull


    ( first post ever ) (:

    #20 2 years ago
  21. Valky3it (Italy) – 8/10

    #21 2 years ago
  22. seagull



    #22 2 years ago
  23. YoungZer0

    Played the demo a few days ago. Gameplay-wise I’d say it’s a huge step back. RE6 might have been a shitty game, but the shooting mechanics were the best in the series.

    At least you can walk and shoot, but the aiming is absolutely atrocious. If I didn’t knew better I’d say it’s broken.

    #23 2 years ago
  24. salarta

    Atmosphere and tone > gameplay mechanics for series that are meant to be survival horror. See Silent Hill.

    #24 2 years ago
  25. Wezzulus

    Bit of a stupid thing to say. Ofcourse it needs great Atmosphere and tone, but the number one priority is gameplay mechanics, after all u are playing a game which have to work well. And if the gameplay mechanics are bad, the game itself is bad.

    #25 2 years ago
  26. salarta

    @25: Not really. If you’re playing one of those interactive novel games, is the decision to play that game based mainly on being able to choose an option and the story comes second? As in, is a really bad story in an interactive novel perfectly fine so long as they’ve done a good job of providing options to choose?

    Different genres have a different core focus. For some, the gameplay is the most important part, such as in fighting games. For others, like JRPGs, story matters more. That doesn’t mean the gameplay is worthless, I never said that, but it’s not always the most important thing in a video game. Therefore, the gameplay being bad for certain genres does not mean the game as a whole is bad, which applies to survival horror games.

    This is why I pointed out the old, good Silent Hill games. The gameplay of those games is technically bad, but the gameplay of how easy it is to hit a monster with a crowbar (note: it wasn’t easy) wasn’t the reason people played those games and still rave about them today. It was all about the atmosphere and tone. The gameplay, like with all true survival horror games, is less about the ease of using a weapon and more about walking around and interacting with a creepy world where anything can attack you at any moment.

    #26 2 years ago
  27. YoungZer0

    @24: I doubt you have played, at least not on the PC. How are you supposed to hit the targets head if the cursors skips 2-4 pixels?

    Answer me that question.

    #27 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.