Seems it is a technical marvel on PC... and doesn't work on Intel GPUs
I'm maybe 10-12h in, and will wait for some patches as crashes are just too annoying but what I'm seeing and playing is up to my liking so once they fix it, this is a game worth playing (so far)
Runs incredible here. Graphics are some of the best ive seen for an open world game. The waterfalls are some of the ugliest i have ever seen though.
I get it that people dont like the controls, i guess i have played, and still play, my share of games with strange controls so not a huge deal, i adapt quickly.
Some complaints are weird, like the character and how it moves. I love how the character feels really weighty, connects great with the surface which makes it feel far less floaty than something like Skyrim etc. In that way it reminds me a bit of RDR 2 but a bit more responsive, but yes not as responsive as super floaty games maybe.
Combat, feels cool. Better than something like Witcher 3, not as a good as Dark Souls or Elden Ring, pretty much how i expected it to be.
Just my first impressions though, i really just wanted to get a feel for it. Now i will probably wait, like i always do with new games.
The waterfalls are some of the ugliest i have ever seen though.
yeah what is up with these
rest of the game looks pretty good, and then we have waterfalls from morrowind
haven't tried the game myself but I can't jive with a lot of the complaints either i wanted to day 1 it but i'm bankrupt guess waiting for patches will help anyways
Graphics are some of the best ive seen for an open world game.
Are you blind .
It's PS4 era graphics. There are also a lot of annoying graphical glitches (at least with dlss quality) that are very annoying. The only thing that's impressive is the draw distance. Kinda reminds me of what just cause was doing in the past sacrificing quality for FPS and a huge open world.
Still given the performance of the game and the ting they are going for it's well done. It's better to make a game that works on older hardware. And the people with better machines just want to yank everyting up and are gonna complain when a more demanding game stutters.
The devs understand how retarded 2026 gamers are. For instance renaming high to ultra and introducing "cinematic" settings. Just so that people can say I can play this in 4k in ultra at 60FPS
Hardly PS4, looks phenomenal apart from the waterfalls. Lightning is great, and detail in distance is unsurpassed i think. Water physics is cool, destructible stuff everywhere, not something you see for open world games a lot. Clearly above average. Name something (open world with no loading) better, AND with this amount of attention to detail, with good performance. It reminds me mostly of RDR 2 i would say, another great looking game.
Take into consideration you can also fly, fall from immense heights. A lot of games can not pull that off, you would have severe hitching, RDR2 etc, they can not handle it.
I don't like the pop-ups of small things like rocks, seems like its happening too close and they are not done with a fade in, which is how it should be done. I did not see glitches.
You can enter homes etc with no loading, and basically there doesnt seems to be a lot of "fake" houses which are there just for graphics, you can go into them. Feels a bit like Gothic 3 in that way, another really great open world game (only if modded though, it was another super ambitious open world game, ahead of its time).
Have you seen in the indoors lighting? Have you seen the indoor lighting when you have your lamp is on? Have you seen the lighting in forests at night? Have you seen the lighting in forests at night when your lamp is on?
Overall the graphics are nice, but they are also glitchy as fuck in the most immersive breaking way.
This immersive open world game is designed with an extremely limited inventory space (because progression) and doesn't have a chest to deposit items in it. For how long was this in development, 6-7 years?
There are so many oversights of this kind and other weird design choices that chip away from the game. They should have hired some people with proper experience in creating vast open worlds. A little guidance here and there would have made wonders.
The same goes for the storytelling. You are putting back together a band of people that you should know and care about. Yet, as the player, you have no freaking idea who these people are. Chapter one should have been a tutorial prologue designed to make you learn the basics of the game and at the same time get to know these people. RDR2 prologue did this pretty effectively.
Last edited by Nodrim on Sun, 22nd Mar 2026 10:24; edited 1 time in total
The facial animations for instance are very poor ps4 era quality. Water looks awfull. The quality of buildings is very poor. The foilage, as a plus it's a lot, looks weird and cheap. The abyss looks like any other AA generic scifi game. Most AAA games do this better.
Not that i'm hating on the game or anything. They cut corners to save budget and performance and they did a great job optimizing the game for current hardware given the scale of the game. But this is far from the best looking open world game.
Graphics are some of the best ive seen for an open world game.
It's PS4 era graphics.
It is. PS4 graphics with a lot of shit on the screen with some post processing and a huge draw distance. Just look at the facial animations. And the artstyle is very generic.
And it's full of glitches, at least at my settings (1440p dlls quality, no ray reconstruction). It just looks very bad at times.
I'm in Chapter 5 and I was wondering when this Crimson Desert will be mentioned.
IGN's score is very close to reality, during its best moments this game is a 7. But most of the time is a 6 - 6.5.
The youtubers have been ass-kissing this prior to its release with all these "it's real" videos, just to generate hype. But people around here were too busy talking about woke journalists coordinating their attacks against the game.
Is IGN's score close to reality? Really? By which metric? Cause it is definitely not their own.
Same publication gave Veilguard a 9. Gave Dustborn a 7. Gave Concord a 7. That's the real problem, and you can pretend all you want this stupid bias doesn't exist cause of various political agendas. But if you think any of those 3 games are better, or many of the other potential examples are as good or better, then I don't know what to tell you.
I haven't really played Crimson Desert, but I haven't been impressed from what I've seen. Could be a 7, could be even lower in my own scoring really, but none of the other games I mentioned are even 5s.
Is IGN's score close to reality? Really? By which metric? Cause it is definitely not their own.
Same publication gave Veilguard a 9. Gave Dustborn a 7. Gave Concord a 7. That's the real problem, and you can pretend all you want this stupid bias doesn't exist cause of various political agendas. But if you think any of those 3 games are better, or many of the other potential examples are as good or better, then I don't know what to tell you.
I haven't really played Crimson Desert, but I haven't been impressed from what I've seen. Could be a 7, could be even lower in my own scoring really, but none of the other games I mentioned are even 5s.
Let me explain to you how publications work. They have multiple reviewers, each with their own expertise, preferences, biases, etc. Each reviewer scores the game as they think or as the marketing team tells them based on commissions. Do with this information what you will.
You do realize that there are editors overseeing all writers and that for any review to have any worth you should have some sort of framework for what is a 7, right? If any fucking writer can just give any game whatever they feel like, then having a number is meaningless. Which to be fair, is correct anyway, numbers are dumb for review purposes. But you should at least try to be somewhere in the vicinity of reality.
Not to mention that all of the big publications have been completely misaligned with the general public for ages, so what use are they?
You're not almost defending them, you just flat out are and are making dumb excuses. If you write a review where you give Veilguard a 9 you should be fired and the editor that decided that was good to publish should follow you, since neither of you have any place rating video games.
I hardly doubt the editors play the game to the degree the reviewer does, if at all.
Rating games isn't all that objective of an endeavor to begin with and as I implied early, the experiences can vastly differ from one person to the other based on many factors. That's not to say Veilguard or Dragon Age 2 are a 9 (different publications). But they shouldn't be uniform either.
I didn't read their review, I don't really care. But for one reason or another, their score for this is where I would say it should be.
Main argument for what? I was responding to Nodrim who mentioned IGN, and how "right" their rating was. What the fuck do you want me to talk about? All your point is "Who cares?". Which can basically be applied to any argument if you want to be a daft cunt, like you're being right now.
There seems to be some discourse aroung this game not flagging and "AI components" because apparently some small pictures in a few houses were generated by AI
WTF do people expect? This is a massive game, I fail to see the issue with devs making their lives a bit easier and spending time where it actually impacts the game?
“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
- Albert Camus
There seems to be some discourse aroung this game not flagging and "AI components" because apparently some small pictures in a few houses were generated by AI
WTF do people expect? This is a massive game, I fail to see the issue with devs making their lives a bit easier and spending time where it actually impacts the game?
True. This is efficient game design using AI for adding some visual stuff noboddy is gonna care for.
Devs are gonna use a lot more AI content then this in the near feature for these type of games, those people that are bothered with this now are gonna have a bad time.
its retarded. old games ripped off (copied without permission) magazine covers, old paintings.. The use of stock photos as textures and stock sounds was (and is) common. At least with AI the artist can change it until it looks similar to something he thought was fitting for the game. Anti-AI people are special kind of stupid.
it's funny how they're fighting something which 100% is going to be the norm and in many ways already is. It would be like fighting 3D when it came out, or electricity, internet, computers - many people did, it did not age well, they use it like everyone else.
Main argument for what? I was responding to Nodrim who mentioned IGN, and how "right" their rating was. What the fuck do you want me to talk about? All your point is "Who cares?". Which can basically be applied to any argument if you want to be a daft cunt, like you're being right now.
Chill. Its clear he disliked your stance and that is the only thing that mattered, hence the immature replies. He might be an idiot, but even a bumbling idiot knows you didnt mention IGN first
Sure Wolfie, I'll bite.
Extremely petty insults lol, maybe you dislike my 'stance' of not thinking this is some type of magnum opus shit like it was advertised. Or that it may become good but currently isn't worth full price. Or maybe you do enjoy IGN reviews and hate that I tell you to not care about their scores (because who does?).
Very extreme views, I know. I'm not as biased as you are, you can enjoy it in every way you want, but if this was a smashing 8.6+ hit I would've clearly said so and possibly bought it myself though it is clearly not finished enough and needs 1-2 years.
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
They have multiple reviewers, each with their own expertise, preferences, biases, etc. Each reviewer scores the game as they think or as the marketing team tells them based on commissions. Do with this information what you will. 
