Automatic n-gram based metrics such as ROUGE are widely used for evaluating generative tasks such as summarization. While these metrics are considered indicative (even if imperfect) of human evaluation for English, their suitability for other languages remains unclear. To address this, we systematically assess evaluation metrics for generation both n-gram-based and neural based to evaluate their effectiveness across languages and tasks. Specifically, we design a large-scale evaluation suite across eight languages from four typological families: agglutinative, isolating, low-fusional, and high-fusional, spanning both low- and high-resource settings, to analyze their correlation with human judgments. Our findings highlight the sensitivity of evaluation metrics to the language type. For example, in fusional languages, n-gram-based metrics show lower correlation with human assessments compared to isolating and agglutinative languages. We also demonstrate that proper tokenization can significantly mitigate this issue for morphologically rich fusional languages, sometimes even reversing negative trends. Additionally, we show that neural-based metrics specifically trained for evaluation, such as COMET, consistently outperform other neural metrics and better correlate with human judgments in low-resource languages. Overall, our analysis highlights the limitations of n-gram metrics for fusional languages and advocates for greater investment in neural-based metrics trained for evaluation tasks.