Crimson Desert looks like a perfectly fine game. I’ve not played it, and I don’t intend to, so my perspective is based predominantly on trailers and reviews from my industry peers. Which, as it happens, also generally seemed to reach a consensus of “yeah, it’s fine.” Sibling site European Gamer certainly seemed to think so, as did others. But if you ask the European CEO of developer Pearl Abyss Lybee Park, the difference between critic and user scores comes down to the fact that the former didn’t have the “the fair chance to explore” the game in full during the review period.
Speaking to The Game Business, Park explained, “I do believe both parties have fair points, especially critics. They had to play the build that is not the exact same version as the launch game. They also had limited time. Usually, the classical approach when they review the game is following the main quest line. But our unique charm is spread all over our in-game world. All those tiny details that are hidden… I don’t think critics had a fair chance to explore those during the review period.”
Watch on YouTube
Now, here’s the thing: she might be somewhat right there! Critics are often on a severe time crunch when it comes to games, frequently receiving codes for games as late as days before launch (if that, for smaller sites). This can skew your perspective on a game, especially one as massive as Crimson Desert. You’re not going to have the same experience of taking your time with a game in a way that it might want you to compared to that of the average person playing it. However, I take two issues with what Park’s saying here.
First of all, whose fault is it that critics had such little time? Could it be you, the developer of the game, perhaps? Methinks that the fault may lie there. But I don’t expect something like that to stop until nothing short of a workers’ revolt takes place in the games industry. My larger issue with the comment is that it ignores the difference between what a critic does, and what the average person does.
As a critic, when I review something, I’m going into it with the express purpose of not picking faults with it, but identifying its friction points, and the ways that it is interesting (positive) or interesting (negative). I am trying to relay to you what the game made me feel, the ideal situation being you, the reader, finding a reason to play it whether I liked it or not. This won’t be the process that everyone takes, but broadly speaking, a critic’s job is to be just that; critical.
And to be clear, I’m partial to a junkfood game here and there. I love plenty of games that are frequently derided by the masses. Some of my favourites include Sonic Adventure 2, Final Fantasy 15, and Drakengard 3. I know these games have problems! I just take my thinking cap off when I play them because they have qualities that appeal to me. A critic isn’t telling you you’re wrong or a bad person when they negatively, or even averagely review a game you like, they’re just doing their job.
