Should Reviewers have to finish the games they play?

Yes, sometimes I even wonder if they even played the game.

*Looks at IGN's poor review of that football manager game that got pulled off the site due to the reviewer's inability to figure out what the game is like as he gave it a 2.0*

On most occasions reviewers should finish the game assuming the game actually had an ending. That was the way it was when I started reading game reviews back in the late 80's and throughout the 90's. Reviewers played and finshed the games they reviewed. There were usually more than one reviewer to best cover play and review times.

Nowadays, games as a whole seem to be shorter. I don't see why it would be a problem to finish a game unless the reviewers themselves have become as casual as most games nowadays have become.

Yes of course they should have to listen to the whole thing.

Same with a reviewer of music albums or movies.... You cant just stop half way thru and give it a score....

What if the gfame/movie or album takes awhile to get going and has an amazing 2nd half?
I think its just a slap in the face is a reviewer reviews a game without giving it all a try.