Here's the detail that made me stop scrolling this week: the reviews for Control Resonant were written on one version of the game, and people started playing another. The review embargo lifted on September 18. The game launched on September 24. And on launch day Remedy shipped hotfix 1.3.3, which cuts enemy health, lowers the stun requirement and makes Dylan hit harder. Those were some of the very things critics had been grumbling about for six days. Metacritic sits at 84 on PS5 and 83 on PC, and that number is real. It just isn't a verdict on the build you'd actually be buying today. So is Control Resonant worth $59.99 right now? My answer is mostly yes, with one catch I'll get to, and the rest of this piece is me showing my work.
Quick Rundown
- Control Resonant launched September 24 on PS5, Xbox Series X|S and PC (Steam and Epic) at $59.99, or $69.99 for the Digital Deluxe Edition. Metacritic shows 84 on PS5, 83 on PC and 81 on Xbox, with roughly nine in ten critic reviews on the PS5 page counted as positive.
- The scores split on one question: whether trading the original's slow-burn mystery for heavier melee combat was worth it. Ratings run from 100 (Radio Times) to 40 (ComicBook), with IGN and Push Square at 8/10 and GamesRadar and Eurogamer at 3/5.
- Remedy's launch-day hotfix 1.3.3 targeted the loudest complaint, spongy enemies. A PC Gamer writer even said it negated their main review complaint. It did not change pacing, the melee moveset or the switch from Jesse to Dylan, which are the complaints behind the lowest scores.
- On Steam, Control Resonant peaked above 42,000 concurrent players, well past anything Remedy has posted there before, at a moment when the studio badly needed a win after FBC: Firebreak.
- My take: if combat pacing was your worry, the patch is a real reason to buy now. If your worry was the story, the tone or the melee loop, nothing changed and the 84 is exactly what it says.
What the 84 actually means, and why it hides a 40 and a 100
Control Resonant follows Dylan Faden, the brother of the first game's hero Jesse, as he emerges from years in Federal Bureau of Control custody into a warped Manhattan at the peak of a paranatural crisis. It swaps the first game's shooting-and-telekinesis toolkit for a shape-shifting melee arsenal, wraps it in a bigger open world and leans harder into action RPG systems like talent trees and build power. That single design decision is what critics are arguing about, and you can see it in the spread. Radio Times scored it 100. Vice gave it a 10 out of 10. Slant and RPG Site each landed at 90, Gaming Nexus at 85, and GamePro Germany and the Daily Star at 80. IGN and Push Square both said 8 out of 10, while GamesRadar and Eurogamer came in at 3 out of 5. At the bottom, ComicBook scored it a 40.
Here's what I find useful about that spread: almost nobody is arguing about the world. Critics across the board praise the art direction, the traversal and the sheer strangeness of a Manhattan that folds in on itself. Push Square called out how the double jump, the light flight and a gravity-shifting ability make moving through it a pleasure. The fight is over what happens when you stop moving and start hitting things. Polygon called it "a perfectly serviceable game," and in a Remedy review that's a pretty cold sentence. GamesRadar's 3 out of 5 wished for more of the restraint and tightness of the original and its expansions. ComicBook's 40 went further, arguing the melee is hollow and repetitive and the story ends up one-note. On the other side, Gaming Nexus said the combat is a blast once the reviewer dialed things back a bit, and called Assist Mode a best-in-class accessibility system, which matters more than it sounds and which I'll come back to.
The user side is friendlier than the critic side. On Metacritic's PS5 page, players give it an 8.9 across 619 ratings, and Steam reviews were sitting around 88% positive after nearly 2,000 opinions in the first days. Players and critics agree the game is interesting. Where they part ways is how much the moment-to-moment fighting is allowed to cost the experience. And that brings us to the thing almost nobody has put next to the scores yet.
The patch that outran the reviews
Here is the timeline as I read it. Critics got the game and published from September 18. On launch day, September 24, Remedy released hotfix 1.3.3 (that's version 01.300.300 on PS5, 1.3.3.0 on Xbox and 1.3.3 on PC). In its own patch notes, Remedy said it had been reading all the reviews, watching early player data and spending a lot of time playing the final game itself, and that it wanted to fix three things: enemy health pools feeling too high, too many hits needed to stun enemies for executions, and Dylan's early combat strength not feeling powerful enough, "even if the man just woke up from a coma." PC Gamer, whose review had complained about the sheer hours of fighting, then ran a piece in which the writer said the launch-day hotfix negated their main review complaint. That's a rare thing to see in games media, and it suggests the fix was aimed at the right target.
I went through the patch notes line by line and lined them up against what reviewers actually complained about. This is my own table, not something you'll find in the notes:
| What critics said | What 1.3.3 changed | Did it land? |
|---|---|---|
| Enemies are too spongy | What 1.3.3 changedLower base health and a lower Falter (stun) requirement for most enemies, plus the Dancer and Deserter bosses. | Did it land?Yes. This is the one Remedy aimed at directly. |
| Dylan feels underpowered early | What 1.3.3 changedHigher maximum Aberrant Strength and Ability Strength, with bigger increases the further you progress. | Did it land?Partly. The boost grows toward the end, so early relief mostly comes from the health cuts. |
| Experimenting with builds is punishing | What 1.3.3 changedCheaper respecs, more Reset Items in vendor stock, and two Reset Items from the first Resonant boss, The Artist. | Did it land?Yes. It removes the fear of a bad build. |
| Stat text is confusing | What 1.3.3 changedEnglish descriptions for Build Power and Aberrant Strength rewritten; other languages to follow. | Did it land?Small win. English only for now. |
| Pacing and side-content overload | What 1.3.3 changedNothing. | Did it land?No. Gaming Nexus and GamesRadar both flagged this, and a balance patch can't fix it. |
| Melee gets repetitive | What 1.3.3 changedNumbers changed; the moveset didn't. | Did it land?No. Tuning speeds fights up, it doesn't add variety. |
Reading it that way, the patch fixed everything that could be fixed with a spreadsheet. Remedy also didn't publish exact percentages for the health cuts, so anyone quoting a specific number is guessing. And there's a wrinkle in how Remedy described the strength boost: the increases follow a curve with progressively larger gains toward the end, which means the early hours get most of their relief from the health and stun changes, not from Dylan suddenly feeling like a superhero. If your bounce-off moment in the reviews was "the first few hours drag," I'd expect that to improve. If it was "the whole loop repeats," I wouldn't.
Then there's the mess. The patch landed about an hour before launch, and on PC it triggered what Remedy called "certain platform mechanisms," forcing players who had already pre-loaded the game on Steam to download the whole 92 GB again. GamesRadar reported it, and Remedy owned it in public with a short, unfussy line: "We don't have an excuse." I respect that response more than I'd have respected a vague one. But it's also a small lesson in what patching a top complaint on launch day costs you, and console players were unaffected.
My table: where Resonant lands in Remedy's back catalog
Metacritic ranked every Remedy game it can score by Metascore, and one thing jumped out: none of them has ever cracked 90. Max Payne and Alan Wake 2 tie at 89 for the studio's best. Control Resonant's 84 makes it the fourth-best of eleven on that list, edging out the original Alan Wake, which also scored 83, and the first Control's 82 on PS4. I pulled the entries that matter for this story into one table and added my own read on each.
| Game | Metascore | My read |
|---|---|---|
| Max Payne (2001, PC) | Metascore89 | My readThe studio's best score came from its simplest idea. Bullet time carried it. |
| Alan Wake 2 (2023, PS5) | Metascore89 | My readProof that Remedy's audience will follow it somewhere strange, though it reportedly took a year and a half to turn a profit. |
| Control Resonant (2026, PS5) | Metascore84 | My readFourth-best on this list, and the first Remedy sequel judged as much on a genre switch as on quality. |
| Alan Wake (2010, Xbox 360) | Metascore83 | My readThe cult classic. It scored the same as Resonant and still felt like an event. |
| Control (2019, PS4) | Metascore82 | My readThe game Resonant is being compared to in every review, which is both its blessing and its problem. |
| FBC: Firebreak (2025, PC) | Metascore64 | My readThe cautionary tale. Everything about Resonant's launch makes more sense if you remember this one. |
The pattern I take from it: Remedy's reception has never been "universal acclaim," and it has never needed to be. The studio's best-loved games are the ones critics call mechanically flawed but incredibly interesting, which is exactly how Metacritic's own write-up describes Resonant. Seen that way, an 84 with a wide spread isn't a warning sign. It's Tuesday for Remedy.
The part reviews can't grade: Remedy needed this one
Scores don't tell you what was riding on this launch. FBC: Firebreak, Remedy's first self-published game, underperformed badly. The company booked a €14.9 million impairment charge on it, CEO Tero Virtala stepped down in late 2025, and former EA executive Jean-Charles Gaudechon took over as CEO in March 2026. When Remedy reported its second quarter in August, revenue was down 40% to €10.2 million and the operating loss was €3.9 million, with Gaudechon telling investors that Resonant was "priced attractively for an AAA title." So the pressure on this game was never subtle.
The early numbers look like relief. Before launch, the game had passed two million wishlists on Steam. On release it climbed to number one on Steam's US top-sellers chart by revenue, and it peaked above 42,000 concurrent players on Steam, according to player-count trackers, with about 34,000 on launch day per SteamDB figures. The first Control's all-time Steam peak was around 9,200. I'd be careful with that comparison, since Control reached Steam late after an Epic Games Store exclusivity window, so it isn't a like-for-like launch. But it doesn't need to be. For a studio that has spent a year explaining a flop to shareholders, a clean, well-reviewed, well-selling launch is the story, whatever the exact ratio.
Should you buy it? My buy, wait or skip guide
I built this from the review record and the patch notes, and I'm being deliberately specific about who each verdict is for.
If combat pacing was your worry
If you loved Control's weirdness and the only thing holding you back was reviews saying enemies felt like damage sponges, hotfix 1.3.3 was aimed at you. Assist Mode also lets you tune enemy aggression, incoming damage and ability recovery with sliders, and you can push it harder as well as easier.
If you're on the fence about melee
If the idea of a long action RPG built around melee makes you nervous, there's no shame in waiting. Remedy said it will keep adjusting based on feedback, and the game's price will drop eventually. A Mac version is also planned for later in 2026.
If you wanted Control 1.5
If what you loved about the first game was the slow-burn investigation and the Service Weapon, the most consistent complaint from critics is that Resonant leaves some of that behind. The patch won't change the genre. Try the first Control or its DLC instead, or watch a longer gameplay video first.
One more thing worth saying: you don't need to have played Control to enjoy this. The Daily Star's review made that point, and I'd trust it. Resonant stands on its own feet, though longtime players will catch more of the references.
A confident, strange, flawed sequel from a studio that just did the smart thing with its own criticism. The world is the star, the patch fixed what a patch can fix, and the melee loop remains the one real risk. Buy it now if spongy enemies were your only hesitation. Wait if you're unsure about the melee.
Quick answers
Is Control Resonant worth buying?
For most Control fans, yes, especially after the launch-day hotfix cut enemy health and made Dylan stronger. If you disliked heavy melee combat or wanted the original's slow-burn mystery, wait for a sale. It costs $59.99 for the standard edition.
What is Control Resonant's Metacritic score?
As of September 29, 2026, it's 84 on PS5, 83 on PC and 81 on Xbox Series X. Reviews range from 100 to 40, and about nine in ten critic reviews on the PS5 page are positive. Those scores mostly describe the pre-patch build.
What does Control Resonant hotfix 1.3.3 change?
It reduces base health and the Falter (stun) requirement of most enemies and the Dancer and Deserter bosses, raises maximum Aberrant Strength and Ability Strength, lowers respec costs, increases Reset Item stock and rewrites some English UI text. Remedy didn't publish exact percentages.
Do I need to play the first Control before Resonant?
No. Reviewers, including the Daily Star, say Resonant stands on its own. You'll recognize more references if you've played Control, but you won't be lost.
What platforms is Control Resonant on, and what does it cost?
PS5, Xbox Series X|S and PC through Steam and the Epic Games Store, with a Mac version planned for later in 2026. The standard edition is $59.99 and the Digital Deluxe Edition is $69.99.
Can I make the combat easier or harder?
Yes. Assist Mode in the Gameplay menu has sliders for enemy aggression, incoming damage and how quickly Dylan recovers abilities, and Remedy says you can also use it to make the game harder.
What was the PC preload problem?
The launch hotfix released about an hour before launch forced PC players who had pre-loaded Control Resonant on Steam to download the full 92 GB again. Remedy called it an oversight and apologized. Console players weren't affected.
