CRIMSON DESERT 😡 JE SUIS EN COLÈRE !!!

CRIMSON DESERT 😡 JE SUIS EN COLÈRE !!!

by Julien Chièze

Humanities, Social Sciences & Thought Media & Information JBCTMedia studiesJBCT4Media studies: journalism
🎙 Julien Chièze 👥 941K 📅 March 19, 2026 ⏱ 23 min 👁 250K 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-08-06
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

Crimson DesertMetacriticgame reviewssubjectivitygaming community

Summary

In this video, Julien Chièze expresses his anger over the controversy surrounding the Metacritic score of Crimson Desert, which received a 78. He argues that the focus on a single numerical score overshadows the game’s actual qualities and the subjective nature of game appreciation. He points out that many reviewers may not have fully explored the game, which is immense, with a main story of 120-150 hours and potentially hundreds more for full completion. He criticizes the bias and confirmation bias in the gaming community, where scores are used as weapons to validate personal opinions. He highlights that a 78 is not a bad score, comparing it to other well-received games like Black Myth: Wukong (81) and Stellar Blade (80). He also criticizes IGN’s 6/10 rating, noting that the game is likely to be remembered long after, unlike other games with higher scores that faded. He emphasizes his channel’s philosophy of not giving scores, instead focusing on strengths and weaknesses to help viewers decide if a game suits them. He concludes by reiterating that the game’s massive scope is both a strength and a weakness, depending on player preferences.

189 words

Critical Evaluation

The video presents a passionate and well-articulated argument against the overemphasis on numerical scores in game reviews, specifically regarding Crimson Desert. Julien Chièze effectively highlights the subjectivity of game appreciation and the potential for bias in both reviewers and the gaming community. He supports his points with examples of other games and references to his own testing experience, which adds credibility. However, the video is primarily an opinion piece and lacks empirical data or systematic analysis. The argument relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and personal perspective, which may not be fully convincing to a scientific audience. The creator’s stance against scores is consistent with his channel’s philosophy, but it does not offer a rigorous framework for evaluating games. The discussion of the game’s scope and the potential for reviewers to not fully explore it is relevant, but it is not backed by concrete data on reviewer habits. Overall, the video is valuable for its critical perspective on the gaming community’s reaction to scores, but it is not a scientific analysis. The title accurately reflects the content, and the video does not mislead viewers. The public comments largely agree with the creator’s viewpoint, indicating a receptive audience. The video’s strength lies in its clear communication and relatable examples, but its scientific rigor is limited.

213 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the video's content, as the creator expresses anger about the focus on Metacritic scores.

Quality & Reliability

7/10

The video is an opinion piece by a well-known French gaming YouTuber. It provides a critical perspective on the Metacritic score controversy surrounding Crimson Desert, arguing against the overemphasis on numerical scores. The creator supports his argument with examples of other games and references to his own testing experience. However, the content is subjective and lacks empirical data or verifiable sources, limiting its scientific reliability.

Key Moments

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

Cited Sources

Concurring Sources

  • Metacritic — The platform where the 78 score was aggregated, central to the video's discussion.
  • OpenCritic — Another review aggregator mentioned in comments, relevant to the score controversy.

Dissenting Sources

Contribution & Novelties

The video contributes to the ongoing debate about the role of numerical scores in game reviews, specifically highlighting the case of Crimson Desert. It argues that scores can be misleading and that the gaming community often overreacts to them. The creator’s perspective is that a game’s quality is subjective and that reviewers should focus on providing detailed analysis rather than a single number. This adds to the discourse on game criticism.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • Metacritic — Official site for aggregated scores, relevant to understanding the controversy.
  • IGN’s review of Crimson Desert — The specific review criticized in the video, providing context.
  • Digital Foundry — Known for technical analysis, relevant to the objective aspects of game performance.

118 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows high scores in quantity of information and fiabilité, but lower in technical level, reflecting the video's focus on opinion and commentary rather than technical analysis. The overall fiabilité is moderate, consistent with the subjective nature of the content.

Reliability 6/10

💬 Positive and supportive: The majority of the 30 comments analyzed agree with Julien's stance against score-centric reviews, praising his honesty and nuanced perspective. Many express excitement for the game and appreciation for his no-score approach.