Should game reviewers finish a game before reviewing it?

I would say they should at least be the majority of the way through it. I mean, if a game is already decidedly good or bad 2/3 of the way through I don't think it would be any different for the last 1/3. Even if it were, it shouldn't change the review score drastically because a bad game is not worth playing for a good ending, and a bad ending shouldn't significantly impact a game that is otherwise excellent throughout. 

Yes unless the game falls into any of these categories:
a) Puzzle games (tetris, hexic etc)
b) MMO ( kind of impossible so...)
c) Sports games ( Gran Turismo, Tiger Woods, Super Tennis etc)
d) Any other Sim ( flight sims, train sims etc)
 
Obviously if any of the above have a narrative structure of any kind, no matter how ridiculous, it should certainly be experienced in full before any judgement is passed.

The most important part for me is the beginning. I mean... if a game can't manage to hook me in some way during the first hours it's kind of badly designed.

No, but it depends on the game.  Obviously, MMOs can't be finished since that is the nature of the genre.  Additionally, old school style games that are all about racking up points have no ending, so play Pac-Man for an hour or 12 hours it is pretty much the same experience.  Also, online-only competitive multiplayer games don't need to be finished since what is most important is the game play.  Story driven games should be completed be they action games, shooters, adventure or RPGs.  Much like a movie or a book, the ending can positively or negatively impact your overall opinion.  Is the end worth the journey or is the journey enough itself?  These are questions which should be considered by the reviewer.  For that, they need to finish the game.  
 
Then there are crap games.  I really don't need for a reviewer to work their way through all of Rogue Warrior for me to know that it is crap and not worth my money.  Some games are just level after level after level of the same crap, and I'd rather a reviewer spend their time playing something worthwhile instead of a horrible game just to be able to say they finished it.  These games are rare though, but if a reviewer has enough experience, I trust them to be able to spot a clunker when they see one.

" @sixghost said:

" It's still a good point. You could blow through ME2 or Dragon Age in maybe 10 and 20 hours respectively, but that wouldn't provide you with the experience needed to write a good review. Simply drawing the line at finished/not finished oversimplifies things. A reviewer should just play the game as long as he/she needs to get a feel for the game. If that means playing playing half the game, or playing the whole thing makes no difference. "

But that brings up another aspect of this topic.  Games such as Fallout 3, GTA IV, ME2 and Dragon Age all have diverging paths, but they all of those paths converge and end at the same, specific point.  There's always a main quest line to be followed and principal set pieces that everyone will see, regardless of their paths chosen.  Because there are these "main" aspects to the game, we can say that no game is truly 'open' and therefore those main paths should be the ones reviewed specifically.  Alternate paths and additional, optional quests should also be reviewed, but those are optional, and are not incremental to the enjoyment of the game. "

For most games, yes.

If the game is extremely story driven - yes. But in some cases it isn't always necessary to finish a game to judge it's quality, and ultimately as long as the review is transparent, and the reviewer explains how much they've played, there isn't really an issue.

If they aren't willing to commit and finish the game then don't bother trying to review it in the first place.

For certain games it doesn't matter 
 
You can't BEAT an mmo 
Racing games are often a grind to complete 
Multiplayer games can't be beaten 
Sports games

Ofcourse.

"Game time Solo - 37h 
Game time multi - 0h 
Completed - Yes 
Difficulty - Normal 
Genre experience - High 
Series experience - Complete  "

" For certain games it doesn't matter  You can't BEAT an mmo Racing games are often a grind to complete Multiplayer games can't be beaten Sports games "

Uh, yeah.  It shouldn't even need to be asked. Not finishing a game and then trying to give your opinion on the entire thing is like undercooking your meal then complaining that it tastes like shit, or watching the first half of a movie and complaining that the ending didn't resolve anything.

it depends. not finishing a story heavy game like Heavy Rain would be stupid, but for games like MW2 and Halo it doesn't matter, because no one plays them for the story anyway.

Definitely, 100%.

For almost all games, yes.  The only exception is if the game is so bad and broken that it is nearly unplayable.

look at dante's inferno.
The first two thirds had amazing scenery and great epicness even if the gameplay isn't really innovative. Any reviewer stopping at there would never know that the last one third was absolutely horrible and uncreative. The end is a chore.
 
then look at indigo prophecy.the beginining was one of the most stunning and panicful situation the player had to go through, and almost hooked everyone in. Anyone who stopped at the middle would think the game had a great story, but everyone knew that the end flopped horribly.

I think if the guy thoroughly dislikes the game the last third of the game probably won't change his mind.
 
That said, finishing the storyline/campaign can only help with credibility and forming a reasonable conclusion.

I think its ironic that people who regularly dismiss a game based on 20 minute Quick Looks would insist reviewers should complete a game before reviewing.

" I think its ironic that people who regularly dismiss a game based on 20 minute Quick Looks would insist reviewers should complete a game before reviewing. "

Should movie critics see the whole movie before they review it?

" Should movie critics see the whole movie before they review it? "

" @ryanwho said:

" I think its ironic that people who regularly dismiss a game based on 20 minute Quick Looks would insist reviewers should complete a game before reviewing. "

Those people dismissing 20 minute Quick Looks don't get paid to review video games. "

" @davidwitten22 said:

" @ryanwho said:

" I think its ironic that people who regularly dismiss a game based on 20 minute Quick Looks would insist reviewers should complete a game before reviewing. "

Those people dismissing 20 minute Quick Looks don't get paid to review video games. "

What does that have to do with anything? The  person who can watch a game for half an hour and go "not for me" obviously isn't interested to know that game x "finally gets good 20 hours in". A reviewer speaks to its audience, and if the audience has ADD they don't need reviewers that finish every sidequest and clock in 60 hours. Especially if they're just going to look at the score, one of many in the score aggregator they use to determine if a game is worth their 'valued' time. The modern consumer isn't buying three games a year based on a single magazine review like when I was a kid, reviews should reflect modern time. The average modern consumer isn't asking for, and doesn't deserve, a thorough review when all they really want is a number that aligns with their preconceptions. "

Yes, it's their job to play and complete a game then review it.

"...The average modern consumer isn't asking for, and doesn't deserve, a thorough review when all they really want is a number that aligns with their preconceptions. "