Do you believe reviewers have to end a game before reviewing it?

Reviewing  games have always been around but I don’t remember —  back in the days —  that being a “make or break” factor, or having the impact that it does now. Usually if the game had potential, add to that immaculate marketing and if the overall concept of the game intrigued me — I’d — or my mom (lol) would buy it. Now, these days reviews seem essential, they serve as a guide on many choices that are ultimately in the consumer’s hands. We’re always questioning ourselves,  “is this game worth it”? Sometimes we know and sometimes we need a little guidance, in comes the reviewer.  So I looked at several things.

Gears of War 3 gets a 9 (reference IGN)  Batman: AC gets a 10 (reference OPM). But would you respect the score any less if you knew the reviewer didn’t finish the game? Wait, before you answer, let me throw you a curve ball, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim  is releasing soon  and the way that game is built it could probably give you upwards of  a 100 hours of      gameplay — or more. Do you expect the reviewer to actually play through what seems like an endless amount of  content and gameplay?  If your answer is yes are you willing to wait months for the verdict? What about ‘sports titles’ ? Should the reviewer go through the whole playing  season and all the modes to give a credible review? Even in the case of  a “Little Big Planet” how should that game be reviewed?

There probably has been many, many discussions and arguments about this particular subject all over the world. ‘Integrity vs no integrity’ when it comes to the art of  reviewing. Some may feel cheated if the reviewer doesn’t go through the whole experience. Some may feel you get all you need to know about the game in the first couple of hours. I know it gets complicated and that’s why I implore the gaming community.

So the question still remains “Do you believe reviewers have to end a game before reviewing it”? CCU wants to hear from you.