This is a question that has popped up a lot lately as I've been getting into playing games with the intention of reviewing them. The kinds of games that I'm labeling as "unbeatable" are ones that either rely on being replayed to get value out of them, or ones where the main singleplayer components are a very small piece of the game.

I recently bought Lumines: Electronic Symphony for example, a game whose main mode can last for more than an hour, but is played for high scores and therefore it is encouraged for the player to replay it. I thought that perhaps, in reviewing a score-based game of this nature, it is necessary to at least replay the vanilla puzzle mode until you get a good feel for how the game is played, and then try all the others so that you have a good knowledge of what is and isn't good about the game. I find it very difficult to decide whether or not I'm going to write a full-blown "review" on the game, simply because I don't believe I'll ever truly "beat it". Would you trust a review of Lumines from someone who had played all of the games modes once (even when doing so could take no more than a couple hours?). I'm thinking of reviewing the game after I've unlocked all of the songs and have tried all of the modes enough to make educated commentary on them, but perhaps I don't need to get so caught up on this when my review most likely will be seen by a handful of people.

Fighting games run into a similar issue to Lumines, or any score-based game which encourages replay-ability for that matter. Sure you could complete the arcade mode and go through a few of the character trials in Street Fighter 4, but you would only have scratched the surface of the game. I've put more around 50 hours into the various SF4 iterations (barely anything compared to the real fanatics), and with this time I've tried to wrap my head around 1 character, and he's probably the easiest to learn (can you guess who?). I've played the arcade mode countless times, as well as completed a healthy chunk of character trials. I've played split-screen multiplayer with friends, and had my ass handed to me in the few online matches I tried. So my question to you is: Would you trust my opinion if I wrote a review of Street Fighter 4? Granted, not all fighting games follow the same blueprint. Mortal Kombat 9 is a good example of a fighting game with a lengthy story mode, which gives players the opportunity to try out the games entire roster (correct me if I'm wrong on this one). There are tons of multiplayer options, as well as a huge challenge ladder. I would say to review MK9 you would have to complete the story and try a healthy chunk of the other modes.

Perhaps it would be good to explain what I perceive to be the difference between these examples, and other game which are "beatable" in the strictest sense of the word. Story driven experiences like the Uncharted and Silent Hill series' fall into this category, as well as puzzle games which aren't meant to be replayed endlessly for scores, like Pushmo. Huge RPGs like The Elder Scrolls games are beatable, but I think to review one of these games you would have to complete the main story and give quite a variety of the sidequests a try (though not all because that would take a very long time). I would say MK9 falls into the "beatable" category as well, along with really any game that has a campaign mode which is presented as the "primary way to play the game". Any feedback would be greatly appreciated as I'm sure many people will disagree with the points I've made. Or maybe this is a dilemma that no one else has, and I simply don't properly know my way around game reviews yet. Either way, how would you say a reviewer would have to play a score-based, replay-able game like Lumines for to make an educated assessment of it's quality (some other examples could be any Tetris game, Super Hexagon, or Pac-man Championship Edition). Same goes for fighting games.

Thanks for any responses! :)