According to Forbes, Eurogamer just published a two-star review of ARC Raiders that’s dramatically impacting the game’s reception. That score translates to 40/100 on Metacritic, making it the game’s lowest rating by far. The review itself contains mostly positive commentary about the game’s actual mechanics and social experience. However, the reviewer dedicated nine full paragraphs to criticizing the game’s use of generative AI in voicework. This focus on AI ethics appears to be the primary driver behind the unusually low score, which has already lowered ARC Raiders’ overall Metascore and sparked intense debate across gaming communities.
The AI ethics dilemma
Here’s where things get really messy. The review acknowledges that some voice actors actually signed over their rights for this specific use case – their voices being mixed and matched with AI for in-game lines. But the ethical argument against this “approved” AI usage is that it sets a precedent that could pressure other voice actors into similar arrangements or risk losing work entirely. Basically, it’s the “if you don’t let us AI-fy your voice, we’ll find someone who will” problem. And that’s a legitimate concern in an industry where voice work is already precarious for many.
Review as protest
But here’s the thing – is a game review the right place for this kind of ethical stand? The Forbes contributor, who admits being “firmly anti-genAI” themselves, thinks this approach might actually hurt the anti-AI cause more than help it. When you take what sounds like a genuinely fun game and hammer its score into the ground over one specific production element, it can come across as performative rather than persuasive. The reaction online hasn’t been “wow, I never thought about AI in games before” – it’s mostly been an inferno of people calling the review misguided or outright stupid.
The broader context
This reminds me of other situations where critics tank reviews over production practices rather than the actual product. Like giving a great game a terrible score because the studio used crunch time. Is crunch bad? Absolutely. Should we talk about it? Definitely. But does turning a review into a protest vehicle actually help anyone? I’m not so sure. It often just alienates the very audience you’re trying to educate while giving pro-AI folks easy ammunition to dismiss legitimate concerns. And honestly, it doesn’t help that the same writer gave the much-maligned Concord a higher score – that comparison is just gasoline on the fire.
Where do we go from here?
Look, Eurogamer has every right to score games however they want. Nobody should be worrying about Metacritic averages when writing honest reviews. But there’s a difference between incorporating ethical considerations and letting them completely override everything else. Maybe the better approach would have been to review the game on its merits while writing a separate, in-depth piece about the AI voicework issue. That way, you’re educating people without creating this divisive “protest vote” situation that’s currently setting the gaming world on fire. The conversation about AI in games is important – we just need to have it in a way that actually moves the needle forward.
You can follow the discussion on Twitter or catch more analysis on YouTube.
