I think some games should be played in full though I don't think it should be forced as some games are just that long. I mean you wouldn't expect someone to complete an epic RPG game just to review it as some will keep them there none stop for hundreds of hours before they do it. Seems like an unnecessary need, as long as they play the game long enough to get used to the gameplay, see a few levels and perhaps any glitches that occur thats enough to be honest. Really at the end of the day it's only a review score.

Personally I definitely agree that reviewers need to play a game FULLY before giving it a review (including online/multiplayer features). However, there are certainly games that don't allow for this.

I'm afraid Demon's Souls will most likely be one of those games that is so brutal that a reviewer will not be able to finish in a timely manner. In fact I would lump a good majority of RPG's in that category. Because let's face it, most reviewers don't have 50-100 hours to spend playing the game before the review is due. A shooter on the other hand only takes 6-12hrs on average.

I prefer a reviewer to be straight up, and admit if a game wasn't able to be completed in time for the review to be written. I would rather that, then the person trying to scalp reviews off the web and passing it off as their own experience.

As an amateur reviewer, I openly admit that I've reviewed games without even completing them. Sometimes you're cutting low on time; sometimes the game is so bad you can't complete it.

For example, I reviewed Resistance 2 a month before I actually beat it, but I beat Gears of War 2 and got 100% and then reviewed it... they both came out in the same week.

Similarly, with Saints Row 2, I simply summarized what it's about and avoided talking about the ending. I had a glitch that did not allow me to beat a mission, halting all progress. I proceded it 8 months later.

Its not that simple, you cant always expect reviewers to finish the games, especially rpgs. If its something like Batman, ok, thats not a long game, but something like Persona 4, thats not fair. I believe a review should be written when the game's basics are completely understood and that the story should be delved enough that you understand the flow.

I don't think a reviewer should be expected to complete a game. It's just not feasible.

Say a pro-reviewer has to review one game a week. It isn't realistic to expect him to be able to play every game more than 12-15 hours tops.

Hate to break it to you guys, but most professional reviewers do not play the games THAT much. It's just not feasible for someone who does it professionally.

I think for some one who has played a lot of games in there life, they should be able to get a good enough feel for the game with only 5-8 hours of play, to be able to review it.

Just my opinion.. .

Unless it is so bad you can't complete it you should. And if it is that bad well there is your review, "so bad I couldn't stand it anymore".

What are you on about?
A profesional games reviewer gets paid to play the game the least he could do is complete it.
Fair enough for things like zero punctuation because those kind of reviews are just for fun but if a review is released in a magazine or something like that and the reviewer doesn't play through the whole game that's pretty lame because you really can't give a fair verdict on a game you havn't even finished.

Even hard core RPG's can be completed with a couple of days of playing the game properly so it's just complete lazyness if the reviewer doesn't finish it. If he/she can't complete it in time get someone else to do it.

An OFFICIAL review shouldn't be able to be given unless the game has been completed.

I'd suggest they complete at least 1/4 of the game. By then, the story should have gotten going, and much of the gameplay elements should be available by then (with only the advanced stuff left to learn). You'd get a good idea as to how good the game is, audio, visually, story, and gameplay wise by then.

The online environment should be experienced AFTER this point. One needs to be familiar with the core gameplay before they should venture into the online (unless it happens to be a sequel and the gameplay is virtually identical).

Basically, it's like playing 2 or 3 missions in a FPS (or about 1 act/chapter). About oh, 6 to 15 hours of a RPG (some RPGs are just really long).

If the game is just awful though, then yeah, play one or two missions (or an hour or so) for posterity, and just bash it >_>

I've read Electronic Theatre's review principles (I have a copy of their staff manual!) and it generally states that all games must be completed to the extent of the story and alternative modes. The example they give is Halo 3 vs Final Fantasy XII, in which Halo 3's campaign must be completed and a couple of ranks should be levelled-up in multiplayer, yet with FFXII the main story should be completed but it isn't neccessary to do all the side missions 100%. I think that's pretty fair personally...

I think the reviewer should be obligated to try their hardest to complete the game in the time they had. In a FPS for example, the Singleplayer can easily be rolled over in a single sitting, and able to get a good hands on with the multiplayer and Co-op just as fast. In a RPG through, things should be a little more lenient. Barring side quests and such, I think a reviewer should still try to get at least two thirds done. They could always alternate with a friend if they have to.

This probably won't work with MMOs though.

Literary reviewers speed read or read segments of books in teams in order to meet their deadline so I don't think there's anything wrong with the same standard being applied to video games. Good enuff fer books; good enuff fer gaems.

Should reviewers have to complete a game (provided it's completable) before reviewing? Yes.

Is it necessary to accurately assess a game? Not always. Case in point, RTS titles.

Should publishers stop being jerks to smaller sites like Neoseeker and send games out earlier so a reviewer doesn't have to speed through a game (sometimes under 12 hours) to reach a reasonable deadline? YES. Holy shit, YES.

I stand corrected.

The reviewer should at the least make it clear what percentage of the game they have played to make their judgment on.