Pearl Abyss Europe CEO Says Critics Had Too Little Time to Explore Crimson Desert’s World, Potentially Explaining Lower Scores Than Players

Pearl Abyss Europe CEO Lybee Park believes the gap between critic and player scores for Crimson Desert may partly reflect the conditions under which reviewers played the open-world action-adventure game. In an interview with The Game Business, Park said critics received a version that differed from the final release and had limited time to assess it before reviews were published. She suggested that these restrictions could have affected their impressions of the game.

Her comments come as Crimson Desert continues to receive attention for the difference between its professional reviews and audience ratings. However, Park presented her explanation as a personal assessment rather than a definitive answer for the score gap.

LYBEE PARK POINTS TO DIFFERENT BUILDS AND REVIEW DEADLINES

Discussing the game’s reception with The Game Business, Park acknowledged that both critics and players had valid perspectives. She specifically highlighted the version available during the review period and the time pressure journalists face when evaluating major releases.

“I do believe both parties have fair points, especially for critics,”

Park said. She added that reviewers had to play a build that was

“not the exact same version of the launched game”

and had limited time to complete their assessments.

These conditions can influence how much of a large game a reviewer experiences before publishing a verdict. Reviewers typically work toward an embargo deadline, balancing their playtime against writing, testing, and other assignments. Players, by contrast, can continue playing at their own pace after launch, while subsequent updates may also change their experience.

The difference in reception is visible on Metacritic’s Crimson Desert page, where the game has a critic Metascore of 77 alongside a user score around 8.8. Those figures indicate that players have rated the game more highly on average, although critic and user scores reflect different groups and evaluation methods.

The game has also received substantial post-launch support. Pearl Abyss’s official Crimson Desert website highlights story refinements, additional voice-over languages, quality-of-life improvements, and other updates introduced since launch. The developer’s updates mean that players experiencing the game later may encounter a different version from the one critics assessed during the original review window.

Park’s explanation raises a broader question about how much time reviewers should receive to assess large open-world games. A short review window can make it harder to evaluate a lengthy release, particularly when updates arrive around launch. However, critics are still expected to assess the version available to them and report its strengths and weaknesses accurately.

The difference between critic and player scores does not, by itself, establish that limited review time caused the gap. Park’s comments offer one possible explanation, while the game’s launch state, later improvements, and differing expectations among reviewers and players remain relevant considerations.