*Red Desert* scores 79 on Metacritic! Is it really solid this time?

The media review embargo for Crimson Desert has finally lifted, and at first glance, a 79 is actually a very telling score. It’s not the kind of universally acclaimed 90+ masterpiece, nor is it teetering on the edge of failure. Instead, it’s a textbook example of a game with “clear strengths and equally clear weaknesses.” Metacritic currently lists reviews from 51 outlets, including 38 positive, 12 mixed, and 1 negative, so the overall sentiment leans positive.

Looking at the takes from several representative outlets, the divide in opinion is basically centered on one core question: do you see Crimson Desert as a narrative-driven blockbuster, or as an open-world action game focused on exploration, combat, and immersive environments? Gameliner gave it a straight 100, praising its vibrant open world, strong visuals, solid performance and soundtrack, plentiful exploration content, and challenging puzzles and boss fights. Forbes, meanwhile, awarded it a 95 and even said: “If the question is whether Crimson Desert can really be that grand in scale, really play that well, and truly keep you immersed throughout, then for me, the answer is unquestionably: yes.”

On the other hand, the criticisms from mid- to low-scoring outlets are also fairly concentrated. GamesRadar+ gave it an 80, making its point quite clearly: the systems are a bit messy, but once you understand the mechanics and accept the flaws, it works better as a sandbox than as a story. Screen Rant gave it a 70, noting that while the game is undeniably ambitious and does have standout moments, a lot of errand-running and travel padding drags down the pacing. Even harsher was Critical Hits’ 45, which almost completely tore apart the narrative, characters, mission design, combat depth, controls, feedback, and bugs.

This makes it feel very much like a typical “high-spec action sandbox”: the visuals and sheer scale set expectations sky-high at first glance, but what really determines whether you buy into it is the pacing and the level of system polish. For players who enjoy action, boss fights, and map exploration, a 79 isn’t bad news at all—it at least suggests the core foundation is intact. But if you care more about strong storytelling, dense mission design, and steady pacing, then this score also means it’s wise to temper expectations.

From the platform information available, some of the outlet reviews mentioned in the article are based on the PC version. So for PC players, the most important question right now isn’t really “can it run well,” but rather “what kind of open-world experience do you prefer?” If you’re okay with a story that’s pieced together more through fragmented background details and are willing to spend time digging into the mechanics, then Crimson Desert will most likely be the kind of game that gets more addictive the more you play. On the flip side, if you can’t stand meaningless map traversal and padded content, it’s probably best to wait for more hands-on impressions and player feedback.

My take is pretty straightforward: a 79 is basically in line with the first-wave performance of this kind of ambitious project. It doesn’t look like a “masterpiece in the making,” but it also clearly isn’t “marketing fraud.” If player impressions later confirm that the combat, exploration, and performance are really as solid as the high-scoring outlets claim, then Crimson Desert could very well become one of those sharply divisive action games that core players absolutely love. Do you think this 79 is higher or lower than expected?