Did IGN's Initial 6/10 for *Crimson Desert* Really Get It Right?

Give it a 6. I’m not surprised at all.

After the review embargo for Crimson Desert was lifted, IGN tossed out a 6 even after playing for 110 hours and without even finishing its full review. That alone says a lot: it’s not that the game lacks content, but that it has too much of it—and too many problems. By the later stages, it feels less like playing a game and more like stress-testing a system.

IGN’s take is pretty straightforward: Crimson Desert tries to cram in the flavor of The Witcher 3, Red Dead Redemption 2, The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, plus Grand Theft Auto V. Sounds intense, right? But then again, when you stitch together too much, it’s easy for the end result to become “a little bit of everything, but nothing truly solid.” It feels like some of those late-era PS2 blockbusters—system menus piled up like a JRPG encyclopedia, yet once you actually start playing, everything feels flimsy.

Ironically, the most reliable part of the game is also the one that needs the least exaggeration: the visuals. IGN specifically called out Pearl Abyss’s open-world presentation this time, the PC optimization, and the environmental interactions. In particular, NPCs have their own real-time daily routines. With that level of detail, at least the world doesn’t feel lifeless.

Unfortunately, a shiny exterior doesn’t mean a solid core. IGN’s harshest criticism was aimed at the narrative and combat. The story is messy and awkward, and the backstories of the three protagonists are hard to connect with. Put simply, if the characters don’t land, then even the biggest open world is just an elaborate backdrop.

The combat issues are even more typical. The pacing drags, enemies swarm you in groups of dozens, the boss difficulty curve swings wildly up and down, and on top of that it throws in some “Soulslike” elements. The problem is that the game’s overall action style doesn’t really fit that design. It’s like suddenly inserting Demon’s Souls hit detection into the rhythm of Devil May Cry—it just feels awkward and mismatched.

What’s even more ridiculous is the logic behind some of the design. The inventory is small, there’s no storage, and players are forced to throw away gear. Seriously? It’s already 2026, and putting out a design like this feels like digging up an unfinished quest chain from the PS3 era. The puzzles aren’t much better either—IGN even mentioned that in some places, you basically have to rely on something close to bug exploitation just to get through.

The technical side is no less worrying. Over the course of 110 hours, the reviewer ran into multiple crashes and corrupted saves, and some key quests failed to trigger, forcing them to continue using a coworker’s save file. So how are you supposed to recommend that? For an open-world game, the worst thing isn’t mediocrity—it’s when you’re just starting to get invested and it wipes your save first.

IGN’s final verdict, I think, was pretty accurate: this is a game with “an extremely high ceiling and an extremely low floor.” The good parts are eye-catching, and the bad parts are bad enough to make you laugh in disbelief.

If you’re the kind of player who loves digging into massive open worlds and can tolerate awkward systems and technical issues, you can keep an eye on the full review—especially how future patches perform. But if you care more about story progression, combat feel, and overall stability, then I’d suggest not rushing into a day-one purchase. Veteran players all know this: whether a game can be fixed later has never had anything to do with how amazing its launch trailer looked.