Did *Crimson Desert*'s 78 ignite controversy — was this score really unfair?

When a game gets stuck at the 78-point mark, the discussion is often no longer just about judging quality, but about a matchup in expectation management. For many players, 80 feels like the passing line, while 78 feels like a miss. But the problem is, scores have never been checkmate in chess—they are more like an endgame, where every move carries a cost, and every move reflects a stance.

The media review embargo for Crimson Desert was lifted yesterday. This open-world RPG developed by Pearl Abyss currently holds a 78 on Metacritic, failing to enter the so-called “80-point club,” after which the player community quickly split, with some people clearly expressing disappointment. This reaction is actually not hard to understand, because once a high-profile title goes through a prolonged marketing cycle, players naturally start placing it in the category of a “generation-defining work.” Then, when the score finally lands, the psychological gap gets magnified many times over.

From a systems design perspective, industry insiders’ responses have hit right at the heart of the controversy. Moon Studios CEO and Creative Director Thomas Mahler publicly defended Crimson Desert, arguing that many of the negative reactions essentially stem from expectations being too high, with some people even hoping for something close to Elden Ring—a game that redefined its era. I don’t think that assessment is unreasonable at all. After all, the industry is indeed plagued by excessive hype right now: the bigger the marketing push, the higher player expectations are raised, and in the end, a 78 gets treated as “not worth playing,” which is honestly a waste.

Thomas Mahler also suggested that players give Pearl Abyss more time to continue polishing and updating Crimson Desert, and said the project still has potential worth paying attention to. In terms of strategic depth, I strongly agree with the idea of “look at the potential before judging the version,” especially for open-world RPGs, which naturally depend heavily on later optimization, balancing, and content fixes. A launch score is just the opening, not the endgame.

On the other side, Palworld publishing manager John “Bucky” Buckley offered a more down-to-earth view. He said he had already played for 7 hours, mostly focusing on free exploration rather than pushing the main story, and that the game really suited his tastes. At the same time, he also understood the outside criticism and believed it would not be for everyone. His comment that “one person’s 77 might be another person’s perfect score” is honestly very grounded—game experiences have never had a single universal answer.

But the real issue is that what players truly care about is not whether “a 78 is playable,” but whether Crimson Desert is worth jumping into right now. My advice is very clear: if you enjoy open-world exploration, can accept that the game will continue to be updated and refined, and won’t force it into a head-on comparison with a benchmark like Elden Ring, then it’s worth continuing to watch Steam feedback going forward. But if you demand extremely high launch completeness and system stability, then it may be better to wait through one or two rounds of updates first. After all, for strategically minded players, the biggest fear is not a low score, but making a hasty move when information is still lacking.

At the end of the day, what this 78 for Crimson Desert has triggered is not just another dispute over media scores, but a broader imbalance of expectations between players and marketing. It may not have achieved true brilliance yet, but it is also far from being in a position where a single score determines life or death. What is really worth watching is not whether it crossed 80 today, but whether Pearl Abyss can bring this game to life in the moves that come next.