Did *Red Desert* stumble on the details? Don’t rush to pit it head-on against *Red Dead Redemption 2*.

I usually only feel comfortable giving an opinion on open worlds at the 120-hour scale. From what I’ve seen, the controversy surrounding Crimson Desert feels more like a clash between different design schools. After launch, it was pulled into detail comparisons with 2018’s Red Dead Redemption 2. The buzz was definitely high, but the comparison itself feels a bit like pitting a dragon-summoning JRPG against a Western movie simulator over who does everyday life better.

First, the source of the controversy. Earlier, someone from Pearl Abyss mentioned that the open world of Crimson Desert is at least twice the size of The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, and that its overall scale even exceeds Red Dead Redemption 2. Recently, though, comparison videos started circulating on social media, putting the two games side by side in terms of NPC behavior and cloth physics. In RDR2, railroad workers hammer in nails one by one, finish one section, then move on to the next, with the whole process following clear logic; in Crimson Desert, some NPCs have been criticized for repeatedly striking the same rock, with obvious animation looping and even clipping issues.

If you only look at this kind of day-to-day detail, Rockstar’s performance system is indeed still stronger, and its cloth physics are more polished too—like an old-school max-level character that has fully spec’d into passive skills. Once you start nitpicking, it’s hard to beat. But that’s exactly where the debate comes from: are you comparing whether “the world feels truly alive,” or are you comparing “what players can actually do in that world”?

On the collection side—or more broadly, in terms of system density—Crimson Desert is clearly not going for pure realism. Players in the community have pointed out that the game lets you ride dragons, pilot mechs, and use jetpacks, on top of magic, sieges, and elemental control. Its gameplay dimensions are built from a completely different formula than the grounded gunplay of RDR2. One feels like a variation on the FF series’ crystal-themed style, trying to pack in every possible attribute; the other feels like Rockstar polishing a Western film into an interactive stage, with the goal of making everyday actions feel believable.

The gap in investment also says a lot. Red Dead Redemption 2 had a budget of roughly $370 million to $540 million, with more than 3,000 developers involved; Crimson Desert reportedly had around $133 million invested. With that kind of resource gap, I don’t think it’s fair to put a single category of detail under one-to-one judgment. Quite a few players in the comments aren’t buying that comparison either. Their core point is simple: each game has a different design focus.

As for side content, while people are still fixated on NPCs hammering rocks, what I care more about is whether Crimson Desert can eventually tie all these high-concept gameplay elements into an experience that actually feels convincing. An open world isn’t validated by being “big” alone, and next-gen doesn’t just mean cloth swaying nicely. What matters is whether systems, presentation, and exploration rewards can be twisted into a single cohesive whole.

One suggestion for players still on the fence: if what you love most about RDR2 is that slow-burn sense of realism, don’t set the wrong expectations for Crimson Desert right now. But if you already enjoy high freedom, hybrid fantasy systems, and are willing to pay for spectacle, then it’s still well worth keeping an eye on. On a side note, some players have also complained that RDR2 still hasn’t received a 60fps update, which says something too—even the strongest myths of detail perfection don’t mean a game is beyond criticism in every dimension.