Crimson Desert's Review Gap: CEO Blames Limited Review Time

Ever wonder why critics and players sometimes seem to be reviewing two different games? That's exactly the question swirling around Crimson Desert, where the critic score sits at 77 on Metacritic but the user score soars at 8.7. According to Lybee Park, CEO of Pearl Abyss' Europe branch, the gap might come down to one simple thing: time.

Park told The Game Business that critics often had to play a build that wasn't the final version, and they were on a deadline. "Usually the classical approach when they review the game is following the main quest line," she explained. But Crimson Desert's main quest isn't where the game shines brightest. "Our unique charm is spread all over our in-game world," Park added. "All those tiny details that are hidden, all [the] freedom you can actually explore even further, beyond the common expectations... I don't think critics had a fair chance to explore and experience while it was the reviewing period."

It's a fair point. When you're racing to hit an embargo, you don't have the luxury to wander off the beaten path for hours. And Crimson Desert is a sprawling open-world game that practically begs you to get lost. The main story was even patched with the Enhanced version after launch, which tells you Pearl Abyss knew the narrative needed work. But the real magic, according to Park, is in the world itself—the little discoveries that make exploration rewarding.

The numbers back up the idea that players are loving it. On Steam, Crimson Desert Enhanced has 83% positive lifetime user reviews and 77% positive recent reviews. That's a solid reception, especially for a game that's been through a major overhaul less than a year after launch. Our own review gave it 4 out of 5 stars, so we definitely saw the potential.

Of course, this isn't the first time critic and user scores have diverged. Games like Mixtape had a huge gap, with 87% positive Steam reviews against a 5.9 Metacritic user score. Critics play dozens of games a year, while the average gamer buys only two or three. Tastes and expectations are bound to differ. But Park's argument is more specific: it's not about taste, it's about how the game was played during that limited review window.

I've been reviewing games for 13 years, and I can tell you: I don't play review games the same way I play for fun. Deadlines change everything. You can't spend 240 hours savoring a 45-hour RPG when you've got a deadline looming. So while I don't entirely agree that critics missed the pot of gold, I absolutely agree that longer review periods benefit everyone. More time means a more authentic experience, and that's better for readers and developers alike.

In related news, Crimson Desert's DLC Charting the Unknown has been delayed by two weeks as Pearl Abyss seeks "a more polished and stable gameplay experience." So if you're waiting for more content, you'll have to hang tight just a little longer.

What do you think? Do reviewers need more time with big open-world games, or should they just play smarter? Let us know in the comments!