A Crimson Desert executive believes critics gave the game lower review scores because they lacked enough time to play it, leaving one to wonder whose fault that is.

Pearl Abyss CEO Says Crimson Desert Reviewers Lacked Time While 35% of Marvel's Wolverine Sales Were Physical

Background: a fine-looking game and a score gap

Crimson Desert appeared, based on trailers and the reactions of other industry writers, to be a perfectly fine game. The original perspective did not come from playing it directly; it came from watching how peers described the game, and the general consensus was that it was fine. European Gamer, a sibling site, also seemed to share that view, as did others.

The discussion then moved from impressions to scores. According to Lybee Park, European CEO of developer Pearl Abyss, the gap between critic scores and user scores can be traced to the review period. Park said critics did not have the fair chance to explore the game in full before scoring it.

Development Process: Pearl Abyss explains the review problem through The Game Business

Speaking to The Game Business, Park said both sides had fair points, especially critics. The version critics played was not exactly the same as the launch game, and they had limited time. Park described a common review pattern: following the main quest line. That structure, Park argued, does not fully reveal what makes Crimson Desert distinctive, because the game’s unique charm is spread across the in-game world and hidden in tiny details. In Park’s view, the review period did not allow critics enough opportunity to find those details.

This part of the debate is understandable. Game critics often work under severe time pressure. They may receive review codes only days before launch, and sometimes less for smaller sites. That schedule can distort the experience of a large game, especially one designed to be explored slowly. A reviewer forced to move through a main path may not encounter the same atmosphere as a player who has no deadline.

Latest Progress: the author pushes back on who controls review time

The response from the original author did not stop at agreeing with Park. The author pointed to two problems with the explanation. First, the author asked who is responsible for critics having so little time, suggesting the developer could share that responsibility. The author also expressed a broader expectation that the pattern of tight review periods would not change unless there was a workers’ revolt in the games industry.

The second criticism was about the role of the critic. The author argued that Park’s comment treated critics as if they were ordinary players, but that is not the same job. A critic’s task is not simply to find faults or praise. It is to identify friction points, note what makes a game interesting in positive or negative ways, and communicate what the game felt like to the reader. The goal is to help readers decide whether they want to play it, regardless of the critic’s personal preference.

The author also made clear that critics can like flawed games. Sonic Adventure 2, Final Fantasy 15, and Drakengard 3 were named as favorites, despite problems that are often discussed. The point was that a negative or average review of a beloved game does not mean the critic is calling the reader wrong; it is a description of how that game failed to work for the reviewer in that review context.

The source also carried a separate line: 35% of Marvel’s Wolverine sales were physical, as a Zelda reveal boosted Switch 2, and invited readers to watch on YouTube.

Current Stage: what readers should take from the score gap

At this point, the discussion is not about whether Crimson Desert is a bad game. It is about why different people may reach different conclusions from the same release. Pearl Abyss’s position gives one answer: critics lacked time and access to the full version. The author’s position gives another: critics are not supposed to experience games exactly as casual players do, and their job is to evaluate what they can under the conditions they are given.

For readers, the useful takeaway is to treat a review score as a signal, not a verdict. If a game’s appeal depends on hidden details, open-world exploration, and a slower pace, a time-pressed review may miss part of what players later enjoy. If a game has friction, a critic may still enjoy other parts of it, and a reader may still find reasons to play it. The debate shows why scores can diverge, even when the game itself seems perfectly fine.