How this assessment is built
Every judgement here traces to a named outlet or to the publisher, and nothing is asserted from the aggregates alone. The named sources are the IGN and Game Informer reviews published on 8 October 2026, the Bloody Disgusting review of the same day, the Metacritic page captured on 12 October 2026, and the Saber Interactive support FAQ.
- Build assessed
- Release build, 8 October 2026
- Review platforms
- PS5 and Switch 2
- Aggregates captured
- 12 October 2026
- Full playthrough by this site
- None; synthesis of attributed reporting
The distinction matters because the two published score sets disagree, and neither is a substitute for the specific claims underneath them. The aggregate is a summary of opinions; the complaints and praise are the evidence.
Critic aggregates and player scores
The critic and user figures on the same aggregator sit at opposite ends of the scale, which is the single most useful fact on this page.
| Source | Metric | Value | Captured |
|---|---|---|---|
| Metacritic | Critic average | 69 from 34 reviews, rated Mixed or Average | 12 October 2026 |
| Metacritic | User average | 8.7 from 216 ratings, rated Generally Favorable, 85% positive | 12 October 2026 |
| GG.deals | Metascore restated | 75, conflicting with the aggregator page itself | 12 October 2026 |
| Game Informer | Single outlet | 4.5 out of 10 | 8 October 2026 |
The GG.deals restatement of 75 is a reminder to read a score from the aggregator page rather than from a storefront summary. Where a third-party site reproduces a number that the origin page does not show, the origin page wins.
These are not our scores. No figure on this page is an assessment by this site. The critic average, the user average and the single-outlet score are reported separately so you can weigh the outlets you trust.
Combat
The combat is the most consistently judged element, and the judgement is qualified rather than glowing. IGN called it derivative but solid enough to serve a satisfying amount of slaughter, which is the fairest single summary of the consensus.
The criticism that follows from that is behavioural rather than structural: the same review found the enemy behaviour easy to manipulate, so encounters lose threat once you learn the pattern. That is a design ceiling rather than a bug.
If you are deciding whether the moment-to-moment fighting will hold you, the mechanics themselves are broken down on the combat page, including the resource costs and how the box abilities interact with melee and ranged actions.
Exploration, puzzles and pacing
Puzzle design draws the most unambiguous praise. IGN described the puzzles as memorable, and they are the part of the campaign that reviewers describe in terms of what they did rather than what they endured.
Pacing is the counterweight. The same review put the campaign at roughly nine hours and said the later stretch suffers from more bloat than it needs, and it singled out boss fights and chase sequences as repetitive. The publisher's own figure is around 8 to 12 hours.
Two conclusions follow. The run is short enough that a mid-campaign dip is a real share of the total, and the puzzle content is concentrated enough that it is worth playing for directly. The step-by-step help lives on the puzzle page, and the length breakdowns by playstyle are on how long to beat.
Presentation, bugs and platform limits
The harshest single verdict came from Game Informer at 4.5 out of 10, which described the PS5 build as technically troubled and called the overall experience miserable. That is a minority position, but the technical claims inside it are specific and worth separating from the score.
- Store items were reported to switch from purchasable to unavailable without explanation, which reads as a systems bug rather than a design choice.
- A Switch 2 review reported a progression-blocking bug, meaning a defect that stops story progress rather than merely degrading it.
- The same Switch 2 review still scored the game 8.5, which is a useful illustration of how far the score spread runs.
Positive coverage exists on the other side. Bloody Disgusting called the game one of the more committed horror shooters in recent memory, praising it for not holding anything back, and community video reviews split between calling it the year's most surprising release and a disappointing mess.
Platform caveat: the 4.5 out of 10 applies to the PS5 build. Frame-rate targets differ by console, and a build-specific defect is not evidence of a defect on every platform. The documented targets are compared on the console comparison page.
Length and price
At $39.99 for the Standard edition and roughly nine hours for a story run, the value question is whether the campaign justifies a full-price purchase rather than whether the game is long. IGN's note that the later hours feel padded is the relevant criticism here, because it is precisely those hours that a length-per-dollar argument leans on.
The official estimate of 8 to 12 hours overlaps the reviewed figure, so the disagreement is about how the hours are spent rather than about how many there are. Current prices by platform and store are listed on the price page.
Who this suits, and who should wait
Three priorities explain most of the disagreement between the scores, and they point in different directions.
- If atmosphere and gore are the draw, the reports are favourable: this is the part of the game that the positive reviews describe as uncompromising rather than excessive.
- If tight encounter design and sustained tension are the draw, the criticisms are consistent and unlikely to be patched, because they concern design rather than defects.
- If you plan to play on one specific console, check the documented targets and the build-specific bug reports before buying, since the technical picture is not uniform.
Before buying for a household that includes younger players, read the mature-content disclosures on the content warnings page; the material is graphic in ways the score debate does not capture.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Metacritic score for Hellraiser: Revival?
When captured on 12 October 2026 the critic average was 69 from 34 reviews, rated Mixed or Average, and the user average was 8.7 from 216 ratings, rated Generally Favorable with 85% positive.
Why do the critic and player scores disagree so much?
The praise concentrates on atmosphere, gore and puzzle design, while the criticism concentrates on pacing, enemy behaviour and technical finish. Players weighting the first group land high; critics weighting the second land low.
How long is the game?
The publisher states around 8 to 12 hours, and IGN put its run at roughly nine hours while noting that the later stretch feels padded.
Are there serious bugs?
The launch build drew reports of store items becoming unavailable without explanation on PS5 and a progression-blocking bug on Switch 2. Those describe the launch build; patch status after 12 October 2026 is not established here.
Is this a review you wrote after playing?
No. This page synthesises attributed hands-on reporting from named outlets and the publisher, and states which build and platform each claim applies to.
Where to go next
Critic average 69 from 34 reviews; user average 8.7 from 216 ratings. Source: Metacritic game page. Checked .
Combat verdict, enemy behaviour, puzzle praise, nine-hour runtime, pacing criticism. Source: IGN review. Checked .
4.5 out of 10 on PS5, technical complaints, store availability defect. Source: Game Informer review. Checked .
Positive assessment and the not-holding-back framing. Source: Bloody Disgusting review. Checked .
Restated Metascore of 75, conflicting with the aggregator page. Source: GG.deals game page. Checked .