This is ridiculous

Leaflit reacts to Eurogamer: https://www.eurogamer.net/arc-raiders-review

Support me ♥ https://www.patreon.com/leaflit
Watch me ♥ https://www.twitch.tv/Leaflit
Kick me ♥ https://www.kick.com/Leaflit
Follow me ♥ https://twitter.com/LeaflitVT
See me ♥ https://www.tiktok.com/@leaflitvt
Discord ♥ https://discord.com/invite/leaflit
TTRPG ♥ https://rpg.angelssword.com/
MERCH ♥ https://shop.angelssword.com/

I just read Eurogamer’s review of Arc Raiders where they call it a “smartly designed extraction shooter marred by one inexcusable decision.” They praise the combat, the community, the design, but still give it a 2/5—because of the software-generated voices used by the developer. I’ll break down what I love about the game, what I think about voice-tech in games, and why I believe the review’s conclusion may be too harsh for a game that otherwise shines.

In this video I’ll talk about:

What Eurogamer specifically praised: rich PvE combat, friendly player community, strong design.

What they criticised: the use of voice-lines created with machine-learning tech and how that supposedly undermines the game’s artistic integrity.

My view: game reviews should balance tech decisions with core gameplay experience. If the gameplay excels, a single “off” decision shouldn’t overshadow everything.

What the review got right

Eurogamer acknowledges the game’s strengths: the combat loop is polished, the extraction shooter genre is handled well, the player community is praised (“unusually friendly”). These are concrete positives that won’t vanish.

The reviewer also mentions that the voice-system decision is a “mar” but doesn’t claim the game is broken by design. That suggests a measure of restraint.

Why I find the review’s central criticism questionable

The core of the score drop is the use of software-generated voices. But if the gameplay is strong, the world is working, the loops are fun—can a voice-system alone justify a 2/5?

The game’s Wikipedia entry notes the voice-lines were generated from actors who were paid and agreed. If that’s true, the moral argument the reviewer raises (“lack of artistic integrity”) becomes more grey.

Many players online (forum threads) say: “Love the game, dislike voices, but 2/5 is too harsh.” Reviews are meant to assess the full experience for a consumer. If I go buy the game and spend hours, am I going to stop playing because the voices are generated? Maybe not.

The reviewer frames this as “inexcusable” and “marred the game beyond saving”. That’s a strong stance. It elevates voice-tech from a component into the dealbreaker. I believe that shifts the balance too far.

When you read reviews, check the rubric: what are the biggest deductions for? Ask: will that deduction actually affect me as a player? Don’t discount a game because of a technical choice you might not mind or even notice. Focus on gameplay, fun, longevity, replayability. Developers should strive for quality in all areas—including voices—but the gaming media should maintain perspective: a single element rarely defines the whole game.

In this video I discuss Arc Raiders review Eurogamer 2/5, reaction Leaflit Arc Raiders voice tech criticism, software-generated voices in games debate, evaluation of extraction shooter Arc Raiders gameplay design, game review voice-line tech vs game fun, why game reviewers score collapse over voice tech decision, Arc Raiders praise combat friendly community, reaction video to Eurogamer low score good game, gaming journalism voice-tech bias discussion, support for game design over tech drama, Leaflit reacts, Arc Raiders review, Eurogamer 2/5 controversy, voice-line tech in games, extraction shooter Arc Raiders gameplay, reaction video game review score, game journalist voice-tech bias, good game low score discussion, video game review critique, gaming journalism evaluation

If you are the owner of the original video and you want this video removed, please contact: [email protected]

#gaming #vtuber #reaction