One review of ANOMALITH exists: Noisy Pixel scored the PS5 version 6 out of 10, labelled "Fair", on 21 October 2026. Metacritic has that single review on file and shows no Metascore yet, because the site waits for four critic reviews before publishing an average.
The only score so far
| Outlet | Platform | Score | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Noisy Pixel | PS5 | 6/10 — Fair | 21 October 2026 |
| Metacritic | PS5 | 1 critic review, no Metascore | live |
A 6/10 from one outlet is a data point, not a verdict. It is also the only professional assessment anyone can read before launch, which makes it more useful than the dozen previews that avoid numbers.
What the reviewer liked
Noisy Pixel's positive list is short and specific: atmospheric environments, satisfying gunplay, and excellent Japanese voice acting. Those three match what previews said about the same build — the liminal spaces and the shooting are the parts everyone agrees on.
That consensus matters. When a reviewer who found the systems undercooked still praises the atmosphere and the shooting, those are the parts of the game you can count on.
What the reviewer criticised
The negative list is longer: disconnected gameplay systems, underdeveloped survival mechanics, inconsistent difficulty, and underutilised characters and abilities.
The body of the review explains the second point in a way that directly contradicts the marketing's tension. In the reviewer's words, the storage system "rarely forces you to make sacrifices", the upgrades "can eliminate much of the challenge", and "even failure doesn't set you back very far". That is a criticism of the extraction loop's teeth, not of its design.
The difficulty complaint, in context
"Inconsistent difficulty" is the criticism most likely to divide players, because the game ships with adjustable difficulty and the reviewer played on PS5 at launch settings.
The other evidence points the same way. Noisy Pixel's own preview said resource management "doesn't really feel like it's on the cards", while AUTOMATON's hands-on praised the design for rewarding aggressive play. Both descriptions fit a game that wants you to shoot rather than conserve — which is a design choice, and one that some survival horror players will bounce off.
What 6/10 means here
"Fair" on Noisy Pixel's scale is not a pan. The reviewer finished the game, praised its craft and criticised its systems — the profile of a game with a strong surface and a thin economy, not a broken one.
The developer's own survey data
FuRyu published the results of a closed test questionnaire on its special page. 74.6% of respondents rated the game positively, with 43.2% choosing "enjoyed it very much" and 31.8% "enjoyed it".
The same survey is more interesting in its weak spots. Combat feel drew 68.9% "average or better", which leaves roughly a third who found it mediocre or worse. Combat difficulty landed at 43.8% "just right", with 27.1% finding it somewhat difficult and 23.4% somewhat easy.
That is a studio's own numbers saying the difficulty curve does not fit everyone, which is consistent with the review's complaint and with the game shipping an adjustable difficulty setting.
Why there is only one review
Review copies went out late and narrowly: one outlet published on 21 October, a week before release, and the aggregate sites have nothing else. That is normal for a mid-budget Japanese release launching alongside a second title from the same publisher.
It also means the first wave of reviews will arrive after launch rather than before it, from outlets that buy or receive copies on release day. The picture will be much clearer within a week.
What to do with one score
Treat it as a strong signal about the economy and a weak signal about everything else. A single reviewer's complaint that the survival mechanics are underdeveloped is worth taking seriously, because it is the kind of criticism that gets more true the longer you play.
For the parts a review cannot settle — how the shooting feels in your hands, whether the paranoia lands — the demo is still downloadable and costs nothing. Two hours with it answers more than a score does.
What the previews said about the same build
Two hands-on impressions frame the review's complaints before the score arrived. Noisy Pixel's own preview noted that resource management "doesn't really feel like it's on the cards", which is the same observation as the finished review's "underdeveloped survival mechanics" — in preview form.
AUTOMATON's hands-on went the other way and praised the design for rewarding aggression: shooting restores the energy that powers skills, so combat keeps moving instead of stalling behind cover. Both impressions describe the same system; they disagree about whether the result is generous or toothless.
What the score does not cover
A single review covers one platform, one difficulty setting and one playstyle. It says nothing about how the Switch 2 version runs, how the game holds up on a second run, or whether the late-game zones are stronger than the hospital the demo shows.
It also says nothing about the PC build's controls, which previewers criticised separately: menus bound to Tab and C, glyphs switching between Xbox and PlayStation layouts. That is a different complaint from anything in the score.
Where the next numbers come from
Metacritic publishes a Metascore once four critic reviews are on file. With one review logged, the aggregate is a placeholder showing the single 60 rather than an average.
OpenCritic works differently and has no entry for the game yet. When both sites fill in, expect divergence: mid-budget Japanese releases often split along platform lines, with the PC version scored separately for technical reasons.
How to read a single score
The number matters less than the split between what the reviewer praised and what they criticised. Atmosphere, gunplay and voice acting were the strengths; the survival systems, difficulty curve and character use were the weaknesses.
If the strengths are what you want from a horror game, 6/10 is not a warning. If you were buying this for a tight extraction economy, the review is telling you the economy is not tight — which is the more useful piece of information in it.
What the beta survey adds
The closed-test survey is the only other quantitative signal, and it points the same direction with different emphasis. 74.6% of respondents rated the game positively overall, a figure high enough to suggest the game lands with the audience it is aimed at.
The weak spots are specific: combat feel drew 68.9% average-or-better, difficulty 43.8% "just right". Those numbers are consistent with a reviewer finding the challenge uneven and a player survey finding it mostly fine — different audiences, same underlying tuning.
What would change the picture
Three things would: a second and third review landing on the opposite side of the score, the PC build drawing separate technical complaints, or a patch that tightens the resource economy after launch.
None of those has happened yet. When they do, this page gets the second paragraph it currently lacks.