Dead Rising 3: Apocalypse Edition Review

  • First Released Nov 22, 2013
  • PC

"Kinemortophobia," and then some.

GameSpot may get a commission from retail offers.

In the world of Harry Potter, where the laws of natural selection seem to favor whichever genes carry the most whimsy, there exists a species called a Boggart which takes on the appearance of your greatest fear, and is defeated by laughter. Unfortunately for the poor Boggart, there's also a spell that's laser-targeted on its ironic weakness, as Harry & co. discover in class. With the wave of a wand and the incantation "riddikulus," a Boggart in the assumed form of a giant spider gets shod with eight roller skates. A snake Boggart gets magically transmogrified into a Jack-in-the-box, which is actually kinda creepier, really. Alan Rickman ends up in a dress for some reason. I haven't read the novels, so the movies are a bit confusing for me. But the lesson of the Boggart is a familiar one all the same--you can master the object of your fear by rendering it absurd.

Our Boggarts are all zombies these days. "Walkers" in The Walking Dead, "infected" in Resident Evil, "vampires" in The Strain...all scary in their own right, certainly, but a zombie outbreak also tends to reflect back to us our fears about modern society. We watch our umpteenth cubicle-dweller swallowed up by the horde and think--have we become too sedentary? We stare, as fragile alliances of survivors fracture over who should make the run for the flare gun in the pickup's glove compartment--would we sacrifice ourselves for our loved ones? Could the government be *that* corrupt? Has the selfie generation become too self-absorbed to survive the apocalypse? It's all getting a little heavy and a bit overwhelming and then--

No Caption Provided


--suddenly there's Dead Rising, running zombies over with a lawnmower, hitting them with a gumball machine, jamming a shower head into their scalp that causes them to emit cranial fluids through the nozzle. Since the start of the last console generation, Capcom's brawler series has been one big clown nose on face of the undead, now three entries deep. The latest release--last year's Dead Rising 3--has been newly minted on PC, putting keyboard & mouse users in the jumpsuit of one Nick Ramos, Los Perdidos mechanic and nascent zombie-slayer. While the Apocalypse Edition is not the most lovingly crafted PC port around (locked at 30 frames per second and a tad jittery), the quality is agreeable enough, it supports controller or keyboard well, and the game's four downloadable content missions come bundled in.

The city of Los Perdidos is in a bad way. It's been all but given over to reanimated corpses, and as we join Ramos and his small band of leftovers, they're attempting to jury-rig a mode of transportation that'll get them out of Dodge. They're up against a fairly tight clock, but unless you're playing on the included "Nightmare Mode," it's not so tight as to prevent Ramos from indulging in a copious amount of assorted clowning and speciously relevant errands for the city's other survivors. Collect three spray cans, find that lost briefcase, and could you stop by the pharmacy on the way back? Games with this sort of laissez-faire attitude on direction tend towards morally inconsistent, strangely acquiescent protagonists, and Dead Rising 3 is no exception. Take Ramos' innocent, almost puppy-love sort of affection for a fellow member of his group, named Annie. When Annie flies the coop, he volunteers to capture and deliver her to a shadowy figure who wants her for some unknown end. A few scenes later, when it's revealed that Annie's part of a rebel band of "Illegals" (a real-world analogy that's invoked, then summarily ignored), Ramos is back by her side, and never a question is raised.

The game is saddled with deeply sexist and mean-spirited overtones.
The game is saddled with deeply sexist and mean-spirited overtones.

Ramos may only be marginally more perceptive than the shambling remains of the rest of the populace. But fortunately for him, the horde is less a threat than it is a slowly shifting, listless object to be acted upon--electrocuted en masse, perhaps, or paved over with a steamroller. As far as raisons d'être go, that's not much, even if Dead Rising 3's zombies get second billing to its unusual arsenal. The thrill of squishing them wears thin when you realize the extent of their haplessness--stand at the top of a ramp, and one after another will trip over the incline, forming a pile of dead undead without you so much as revving your chainsaw. Even a resurrected corpse deserves a little more agency than this, if only to make besting it a bit satisfying. Dead Rising 3 feels over-tuned to accommodate the player’s activity. Firing a weapon into the space between two zombies seems to consistently result in one of them getting hit. Player button presses feel prioritized in a way that makes the zombies appear almost deferential when you wade into their midst, brandished swordfish a-swingin'. It’s also quickly revealed that Ramos is immune to “the bite,” and you could say that this old chestnut represents a final breakage of the “there but for the grace of God” connection between survivor and shambler. Dead Rising 3’s zombies, thusly neutered and fully divorced from their status as once-humans, can more comfortably sit in the crosshairs of say, a leaf-blower that fires "personal massager" missiles.

Not your cup of tea? Perhaps the sledgehammer with grenades duct taped to its head, then? How about the vehicle that shoots fireworks that pierce zombies and launch them into the sky? At one point I stumbled across a dictionary that can be weaponized. Well played there, Dead Rising 3: you know everyone's got that one item they'd like to hit people with. There's a wonderfully diverse arsenal lying about, begging to be picked up and brandished by a curious player, and ad hoc weapons and vehicles can be thrown together with a few clicks of the mouse. It's a shame that these imaginative combinations can only be made once unlocked via collectible blueprints marked on your map, however. The tidy, rationed flow of blueprints kills the potential for creative discovery in favor of more prescriptive rewards. "Here's a traffic cone" Dead Rising 3 says, like a tween's exasperated parent, "Go do something with the traffic cone."

Remember to change your oil every 3 months or 5,000 zombies, whichever comes first.
Remember to change your oil every 3 months or 5,000 zombies, whichever comes first.

There's something of an evocation of Los Angeles' sprawl--four clusters of low-rise urban landscape connect via knotted highway ramps. But it feels too staged, too self-contained, and it quickly begins to feel like you're a lab rat, cycling around the same track, turning in the same colored blocks for the same pieces of cheese. Take a ride on one of the long-spanning causeways, and you can see the dead-zones to either side: empty plots of land at the corners of the intersections, cordoned off by barricades. There's a wearying amount of roadblocks in the playable space too, and they rarely divert you into interesting areas. Mostly they break up the flow of driving, which becomes immediately obnoxious when some errand inevitably forces you to commute back and forth between multiple districts. There is some clever staging, like an open-air fireworks store you just might blow through while driving a low-rider full of loose fuel tanks. But these exceptions make the larger blandness all the more conspicuous.

But hey, there sure are a lot of zombies. Many of Dead Rising 3's most enduring images come when you stand atop some burned-out car, surveying the field of hundreds of on-screen undead with their arms outstretched. You're a post-apocalyptic rock star, sometimes, and maybe you're even wielding a proper axe. Yet Dead Rising 3 reiterates the common lesson of zombie fiction: that in a world where the majority of the population eats brains, the salient dangers are still posed by your fellow man. In the long view, that danger comes from the power-mad general who'll be nuking Los Perdidos in six days. But in the here-and-now, the biggest threats come from the game's various human bosses. "Psychopath battles," as the game dubs them.

These fights are demonstrably harder than any zombified creature Ramos runs up against. There's even a cutscene where a new, frankly terrifying zombie type is revealed, and, lo and behold, when control is handed back to you it's mysteriously gone, later revealed to be a new enemy type that simply populates the streets--marginally tougher than the normal fodder, but equally susceptible to a flame-throwing steamrollercycle, as it turns out. The humans you fight, by contrast, are veritable bullet-sponges, and just intelligent enough to employ frustrating stun-locks that bounce Nick around the battleground, or charge moves that home in with a will. They all seem to pack multiple health meters. Scary stuff.

As far as items and weapon combinations go, there's something for everyone.
As far as items and weapon combinations go, there's something for everyone.

They're uniformly miserable encounters, and it isn't just because they're chock full of clumsy, tired mechanics that overtax Dead Rising 3's loose, brawler controls. One psychopath is a Chinese man, bearded and dressed as a monk, fought in a temple garden, who attacks you with a medieval polearm and kung fu. The game stops just short of playing "Chopsticks" as an accompaniment (but it does ring a gong). One is a sexualized policewoman wearing a Halloween-costume version of the uniform. One is a female bodybuilder that the developers, through Ramos, gleefully misgender. Another is a chap-wearing bisexual man in a pink cowboy hat. He has a phallic flamethrower.

Is there a Harry Potter fan in the audience? Maybe one with a good command of the series' bestiary? Because I think what we have here is a Boggart, reflecting back someone's subconscious fears about minorities. And to conquer those fears, they've cast a mean-spirited spell to turn the things that frighten them into ridiculous caricatures. It's a cruel portrayal, and superfluous besides: in a game that's ostensibly about zombies, shouldn't the zombies be scary enough on their own?

Back To Top
The Good
Weapons, and combinations thereof, showcase clever, varied designs
The Bad
Plot is more of a protracted errand through drab, gray streets that are a chore to navigate
Psychopath boss battles wed frustrating mechanics to backwards stereotypes
Imprecise, overly generous controls
About GameSpot's Reviews
Other Platform Reviews for Dead Rising 3

About the Author

Nick Capozzoli played through Dead Rising 3's normal mode and downloadable missions over the course of two weeks. He is afraid of things that wear weird masks, but don't move or speak. Like that dog with the mask in The Unborn. Did anyone see The Unborn? That dog was creepy.
880 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for joesguy

The fact you felt it fit to insert this BS social justice wankery into the review just shows how irrelevant these review sites are becoming. I bought it to spite you, and it's actually pretty decent.

Avatar image for naryanrobinson

Are the people who complain about this view implying this game was good?

Avatar image for Karmazyn

@naryanrobinson: game is awesome dude. Dead Rising 3 on Xbone got 7/10, PC version with all DLCs and better frame rate is scoring 3/10. It is clear that reviewer do not like this type of games. Its a great sandbox zombie slasher. The DR 4 is looking almost the same as this one so if you can wait for a good price of DR 4 just grab 3 and have some fun.

Avatar image for Sablicious

Horrible game. Absolute garbage. If the earlier DR's were little more than brain-dead deadite decapitations, DR3 is the lobotomise version thereof.

Both design-wise and technically, the game is shovelware. The city is too small and constricted; weapons are boring; zombies are more annoying litter than anything threatening; limited vehicle selection; lock doors aplenty, making it feel even more linear; tacked-on co-op functionality; runs like Batman Arkham Knight on a ColecoVision console...! The game really has zer0 redeeming aspects. DR3 is not only a step back in an already shallow, albeit amusing, franchise, but a self-immolation.

Moral: Whenever Crapclown release an IP on a new game engine, AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE. DR3, RER2, SFV -- the irrefutable proof of their curdled puddings is in projectile vomit tasting.

Avatar image for punksterdaddy

This is in a Steam Sale, I wanted to pick it up but thought I'd check out the review for it first... I am now more confused than I was about buying the game.

I agree with the vast majority of the comments on this one, I just do not see anything resembling a valid review for the game.

This was a painful read.

EDIT: 10/5/16

Having bought the game to try for myself I can confirm that the game was simply unplayable! My PC is more than capable of running it, it was over the recommended specs and yet the Frame Rate was flickering between 5 and 15 FPS, but when I encountered the first real threat of more than 5 zombies, the game refused to run. What a disaster of a port it is.


Avatar image for zhing_wong

And the game being a horrible did not make it to the bad list? This review also gets a 3 out 10.

Avatar image for willzihang

May online magazines' free-fall into obscurity come more swiftly, with this kind of pitiful excuse for a 'review'.

Any of your feeble nonsense about stereotypes can be instantly torpedoed by simple stating: "It's a ridiculous game, it's MEANT to portray stereotypes."

Avatar image for envoy23

I think gamespot and reviewers need to rethink their approach to reviewing games for gamers, when you guys rate 3 and users rate it 7.5, it shows you guys are out of touch with gamers. I rely on gamespot to review a game in a way in which it helps me decide to buy it or not, I need to know if the game works as a modern game should (graphics, controls, glitches, length etc.) rather than a lengthy essay on your thoughts, big question is did this shooter/action game deliver what it advertised itself to be, Well yes it did (7.5 rating by gamers)

my review would include check boxes > 1st person or 3rd person or switchable, auto aim or cursor aim, choice of playable characters, etc I would comment on controls when shooting and when driving cars etc

I would end my review by saying its a silly game but fun, ( if the game's contents are not taken seriously), and yes it delivered what one would expect from a silly/fun shooter/action game by supplying good modern controls and gameplay

Avatar image for punksterdaddy


I just read some of those reviews and there is a good reason as to why there is such a huge difference between the two.

First off, they User Reviews covers all platforms it is available for. Secondly the ones that were reviewed on PC were done by new accounts and have nothing but that review and rating tied to their profile, which is suspicious enough and their ratings are 10.

I realise this is an old comment you have likely long since forgotten about but I too was curious as to why there is such a huge difference, especially when the version I played (PC) was unplayable.

Avatar image for Gelugon_baat

The DLC packages are about throwaway characters. :/

They are poor value.

Avatar image for Liquid_Snake2

Looks like this game isn't PC enough for this SJW *****t

Avatar image for wolfpup7

Good review, very interesting. Brings up sooo many interesting points I'd love to talk about. Regarding the difficulty, I found the first game impossible, though I'm not sure if that's just because I didn't understand how to play it yet, or if it was just broken. 2 finally "clicked" for me and I started enjoying it (particularly when I realized it was more about time management and making sure you collected as much money and experience as possible, not about wasting time fighting zombies). I actually played the version with Frank West first, on the PS3, and am now playing through the PC version of the original release. I wonder if 3 is like 2 where you're really needing to restart it a couple of times before the boss battles are remotely doable?

Even if that's the case, it's still a VERY weird way to design a game!

And interesting points about offensiveness. I wonder if it's worse than 2 in that regard? I'm not sure how I feel about the whole thing. Even calling the bosses "psychopaths" is kind of questionable. 2 at least, I guess I just take it in a certain has a certain...I'm not sure quirky is the right word, but WEIRDNESS to all the characters, and the bosses are just absurd as characters.

Not sure if 3 has a different feel, nor how to feel about what sounds like some real problematic material. I mean is it meant to be taken seriously in that way? Do the developers actually feel like that, or is it just trying to be stupid/absurd? Either way a certain segment of the population won't be mature enough to take it in the right context.

Anyway, I bought it for Xbox but haven't played it yet...may end up actually playing it on PC. Not sure how I'll feel about it (COMPLETELY agree that the boss fights really strain the game's controls/systems in 2).

Regardless, I'm both looking forward to trying it, AND love this review! Brings up a ton of great points that are certainly valid things to talk about, and I LOVE that Gamespot and the critic didn't feel the need to give it a 7-10 just because it's a big, popular game.

Avatar image for kadaverhagga

@wolfpup7 As a DR fan I was dissapointed in this game. It is dumbed down and you don't have to learn the game and be good at it to finish it. You do not have to worry about time in normal mode here. Nightmare a little more worry but not like the older games. This game even on nightmare is a cakewalk. You get way to OP weapons and vehicles very early in the game.

It can be fun to just mindlessly slaughter zombies with a friend but it is short term fun only. The bosses are boring bulletsponges and easy.

It is worth a playthrough though if you lack anything better but not on the xbox one.

You're doing the right thing to opt for the pc version, I actually managed to get a full refund for my x1 copy as it ran so poorly dipping into the teens in frames constantly. It was completely unplayable for me. I don't know if they fixed it with a patch now (bought it at launch) but it still looks like crap and all the blurry textures, poor drawdistance and grey and brown does not help it one bit.

The pc version is a crappy port for a pc release but atleast it still will run in full 1080p and all the pc graphics extras like AA etc. The pc launch version could not run at solid 60 even on my beastly rig so it is poorly optimized but it will run at rock solid 30 with no dips so it is atlast better than the xbox version even though it's not a good pc port. Again I don't know if there is a patch or mod out now to rectify the 60fps problem.

Avatar image for MrYaotubo

And then you wonder why critics like Totalbiscuit have huge audiences while your own are in a massive decline.

This has to be one of the most pitiful excuses of a "review" I´ve ever seen.

Avatar image for anakvunky

I know this game was not good, but this review is just...................... WTH gamespot did you guys already dry for reviewer?!?

geez.. even that girl didnt review this bad... forgot her name sorry...

Avatar image for robbiejones

he opened up with Harry potter?? lmao

Avatar image for joesguy

@robbiejones: Desperate attempt on his part to appeal to millennials. They always use either Pokemon or HP.

Avatar image for Anigmar

Yes, alright, now where's the game review? Not your personal view on morals, the game review. I thought that is what I'd find here.

Avatar image for wolfpup7

@Anigmar This is review. A critic is giving their take on something, not some magical "absolute score" that doesn't exist. It's personal opinion, and he brings up a ton of valid points.

If this is like 2 (I haven't played 3 yet), I suspect I'll enjoy it a lot, but even still the points he raises certainly apply to 2, and regardless I'm thrilled Gamespot and this critic didn't feel the need to appease people who don't understand that professional reviews of any sort are ultimately personal takes on a piece of art from someone knowledgeable about the art form.

Avatar image for CocoaPistolero

The only part of this review with which I disagree is the score. Everything else is valid criticism. For some reason I have trouble imagining that I'm not in the minority on this... Clearly, based on these comments, the average gamer expects something else.

This review does raise the question: can a technically/mechanically competent game can be "bad" solely on account of the abhorrence of its content?

What if a game that were blatantly racist or sexist, was otherwise an incredibly fun game to play and had breathtaking production values? Does it deserve a high score for succeeding in so many key areas, or is racism or sexism enough to knock the score down significantly? Am I really in the minority by thinking about this?

Avatar image for wolfpup7

@CocoaPistolero All excellent points. It matters too the context that (for example) racism or sexism are presented in, since of course just presenting something doesn't necessarily mean a work is advocating for it (can be quite the opposite in some cases).

I've played 2, which I really enjoyed, and own but haven't played 3 yet. And I'm really not sure how I feel about 2's characters...certainly everything he mentioned in the review applies to 2, and I'm not sure if 3 is tonally different or not.

It may be that I'd take 3 in a different, kind of absurdest context, I'm just not sure (and may not be sure even after I play it LOL)

There's zero doubt that even if I end up feeling like the game is playing with tropes or pointing out racism or whatever, there would still be a lot of...less sophisticated people who would take it seriously/literally.

At any rate, you bring up great points, as does the review. I'm amazed and thrilled that Gamespot and the critic were willing to give a big game such a low score. We need that in games criticism! I can't believe how many people seem to be personally offended by a score not matching up with what they want it to be. It's like professional critics of anything are giving an educated look at a work and personal opinion, which can both inform someone as to whether they want to experience, and also be an interesting start to a conversation. The point of a review is NOT to validate that "THIS GAME IS AWESOME!" or whatever, that's worthless, and I'm sick of game reviews being unwilling to use the whole review score range, unwilling to tick off people who don't understand what a review IS.

Avatar image for halBU

Cool story, bro.

So, is there something good or bad about this game that we should know? I was sort of expecting a review of the game on this page.

Avatar image for Sablicious


-runs like crap (both on XB1 and PC)

-is dumbed down to autistic toddler level simplicity

-is more linear than it's predecessors, despite being an 'open city'

-its entire hand is shown in the first 10 minutes of the game -- the rest being rinse-repetition

-its boring

-it has no replay value beyond 30 minutes of play time

Avatar image for Silicoln

What the heck did I just read? I could have sworn Gamespot did game reviews by gamers, did something change?

WAIT! I almost forgot! If your intent was to unite the comment section against you, then bravo good sir! Fantastic job!

Avatar image for Roastt

Sorry, I was looking for the Dead Rising 3 review but all I could find here was a load of uninformative and pretentious drivel from some liberal bedroom activist.

This is terrible. I hardly know anything about this game from this. I'll have to go elsewhere to find a an actual review on this game, preferably one that doesn't talk about Harry Potter for half of it.

Avatar image for BlazeKingz

look at the avarage user rating, then look at your score and then go and ask your boss to fire you.

Avatar image for Vodoo

Was this a review for Harry Potter or Dead Rising 3? Whatever the case, it fails miserably at both.

This is an excellent game that just got steamrolled by the writers pseudo psycho hysteria of society.

Avatar image for hobotech64

@Vodoo Looking at past reviews for the Harry Potter games, they got better scores than this.

Avatar image for ChiefFreeman

Isn't this the type of overtly negative review that gets reviewers fired from Gamespot? We all know why Tom and Carolyn aren't here anymore...

Seriously, this review should be taken down. It's terrible.

Avatar image for Sablicious

@ChiefFreeman: Garbage should be judged on merit, not according to lowbrow fanboy shilling sub-standards.

Avatar image for joesguy

@Sablicious: And SJW nonsense. That's the important part of any game review, if this one is anything to go by. ;D

Avatar image for maartencruze

So they fired half off there staff to hire this dude ? thx CBSI.

Avatar image for Vault_Dweller83

Dear reviewer:

Avatar image for obsequies

I'm not sure

Avatar image for blackbetty1974

What a load of pretentious, self important crap. Remember when gaming journalism was populated gamers? Now it's been hijacked by pretentious hipsters with liberal arts degrees who see themselves as the next Hemmingway. Listen, I'm sorry that you failed at life, ok, but YOU WRITE PRODUCT REVIEWS! Do your job. Tell me what features it has. What are the mechanics? Are the controls implemented well? When I buy a vacuum, I don't want to be lectured on the social significance of air flow, or if the hose is a metaphor for my dad's member. Keep your hangups to yourself, and perform the job you were hired to do.

Avatar image for superpauwau

@blackbetty1974 Well said.

Avatar image for Vault_Dweller83

@blackbetty1974 Sadly, this is what passes for gaming journalism these days. An entire game is discredited because of the presence of (supposed) sexism. It's sad.

Avatar image for wolfpup7

@Vault_Dweller83 @blackbetty1974 Umm...huh? A game is a work of art, it isn't a vacuum cleaner.

Every single point raised certainly applies to 2, and I can say that despite the fact that I really enjoyed 2. He raises excellent points, and this is actually a demonstration that maybe the industry is growing up. A review isn't supposed to be an affirmation of what YOU want it to be. Go write your own review if you want to , but don't insult someone for giving their take on it.

I mean if a review honestly had no connection to the work at all, that would be one thing, but this clearly does, and I think is really interesting.

Avatar image for joesguy

@wolfpup7: "A review isn't supposed to be an affirmation of what YOU want it to be."

How about what it NEEDS to be. Are you seriously arguing that this diatribe of libtard nonsense is integral to this review? It's not the sign of an industry "growing up." It's the sign of a writer wishing he hadn't failed as a bestselling fiction author.

Avatar image for Virdentaucent4

@wolfpup7 @Vault_Dweller83 @blackbetty1974 The big problem is a reviewer is ultimately meant to be an objective viewer upon a game's merits. There's no reason why he/she cannot place their own views as side notes, but they have to put their own bias and ego aside to properly tell buyers what is IN a game, not try to tell them what they'll enjoy because of how the reviewer felt.

Objectivity is key, and this reviewer has very little.

Avatar image for jedediahpelland

LOL, Im not sure what the point of this article was, to review the game or completely baffle and confuse me? As for some of you calling for the reviewers resignation, I think reading through these comments will be punishment enough.

Avatar image for xberserkx

I cannot believe Gamespot actually approved this article. It's pathetic what passes for journalism these days.

Avatar image for aliafterhour

Lol for once I couldn´t agree more with the other comments this was the worst review I ever read, you did not even give the game a chance. If it´s a review you should not be as biased and trashtalk the whole game just because you´ve allready made up your mind and in the end you start to interpret things that clearly weren´t meant that way because you were allready opinionated. You have clearly no idea of game journalism, the dead rising game franchise and Japan

Avatar image for pastasauce87

Why does this reviewer keep mentioning harry potter? what the actual ****?

Avatar image for mkdms14

Soo does the game even run? I mean just because you find the content object able is no reason to score it soo low. These bias reviews are the main reason I stopped visiting Gamespot on a regular bases a while ago. What happen to the objectable honest review Gamespot. Now we get "this game made me feel bad or it offended me -3 out of 10." No just wait I am sure they will fine a way to make a negative score part of there normal score soon.

Avatar image for wolfpup7

@mkdms14 What the heck do you mean by "bias review"?

Giving a game a score YOU want instead of giving the critic's take on it is the exact OPPOSITE of an "honest review".

By "objectable" I assume you meant "objective", which is absurd. When evaluating any work of art there's no such THING as "objective", that is to say "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions". That doesn't even make SENSE. If that's what you want, read the marketing copy for the game. Read the back of the box where it tells you how many players it is and what resolution it supports-that's the only "objective" you can get for game (or any other) criticism.

The job of any critic is not to appease YOU, it's to give their take and thoughts on a given work of art. If instead they're forced to give an artificially high or low score and ignore things they liked or disliked about it, then they're NOT BEING HONEST, and it's no more "objective" than a review that is being honest.

Avatar image for SanalFikret

I logged in to Gamespot after a very, very long time, just to say that this was one of the worst reviews I've read in a long time. Not just on Gamespot or anysite, this here is a very good example for writing a bad review... Making analogies from a stupid children's book for a game which is clearly targeted for a mature audience, missing how J-developers focus on different aspects on such games... You know what, just watch TotalBiscuit's review of this game. Maybe you can learn a thing or two from him.

Avatar image for anakvunky

@SanalFikret ah so totalbiscuit done this game a review... *searching*

Avatar image for shalashaska88

Ah generating revenues from angry comments and hits.

Dead Rising 3 More Info

  • First Released Nov 22, 2013
    • PC
    • Xbox One
    Dead Rising 3 places players in the role of Nick Ramos who must find a way to escape a city full of zombies before an impending military strike wipes the city of Los Perdidos, California, and everyone in it, off the map.
    Average Rating279 Rating(s)
    Please Sign In to rate Dead Rising 3
    Developed by:
    Capcom Vancouver
    Published by:
    Capcom, Microsoft Game Studios
    Action, Adventure
    Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
    Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Sexual Content, Strong Language, Use of Alcohol