Pretty sure most reviewers actually do complete the main game and do a bunch of the side stuff before publishing.
Its why they get review codes early.
Even a 60 hour game can be done in 2 weeks.
Yes its alot of hours to pump into a game over 2 weeks, but its your fucking job....so just do it.
Do they 100% the game I highly doubt it, sometimes you dont need to 100% a game to have a good enough understanding of it to give a proper review of it.
Maybe
Karak
could give some insight into his process when it comes to these massive open world games.
Sure
I can speak for myself and maybe clear a bit up.
This will sound harsh but I want to say it a certain way so that people understand exactly the context in which I am trying to describe things. FYI I have 3-4 videos on this on the channel as well as the podcast on Fridays have covered this a number of times with reviewers from other groups, YouTubers, and such as well if you are interested. ACGOntwitch on Fridays(plugging it and ya I don't care because knowledge is needed)
First, the OP has a fairly large false equivalence in the realm of "I liked the movie of Braveheart and you didn't so, therefore, you don't know what you are talking about and didn't watch after the first battle" Hyperbole example aside its been used here as an example because frankly, everyone likes different things for longer or shorter times and explains them differently. If the OP's description was a review I would say it was terrible and if it was the reflection of a viewpoint it was negligent in proving anything at all if not just completely unacceptable which funny enough swings back to any content being allowed online without requirements overall.
I am using like-for-like language as the OP and its tone NOT because I actually have an issue with a damned OP post lol but because it helps in people seeing the reaction to something and how overwrought it can become.
Why?
One part of gaming no one wants to mention or talk about is...sadly talent.
I can play Badminton for 12 hours and still not be able to tell you what I just did because I do not have the skill to translate what happened. Not all people are equal and we learn. We are all shit when we start but as we learn more we SOMETIMES take that and put it back into the coverage like banking interest. I bring up talent because the talent of a twitch streamer may not be a YouTubers, a written website owner may not be the same as either of those. Open critic, metacritic and the internet as a whole don't and SHOULDN'T require some kind of resume on coverage. It's not a lack of it as much that sometimes we all have different skills. The reviewer instead should give CONTEXT. Want proof of that? Go work in Education and you can find a plethora of people with IQ that is staggering that can't get a coffee machine working.
Secondarily,
It's a reviewer's job to describe their context for WHY they liked something. In this case apparently all of Valhalla or enough to say they suggested purchasing it. That is what is being missed here apparently.
This particular game I did not love, I didn't even really LIKE it all the time. And I got heat for that. This indicates another problem with using % of those who like or dislike something on a website like open critic as meaning something. While I am in the smaller percentage of those that dislike it that means...nothing. Nothing at all. It's a number placed there that indicates the sample base but DOES NOT actually reflect even close to the number of people who played the game early as many don't end up doing reviews, or decide to cover a game a different way, and so forth. it does not reflect the words in the review, it does not say that "hey I had tech issues but it was a blast or hey I didn't have the tech issues others did and therefore I loved it."
But just because the OP and I agree on Valhalla not being the special present others do we have nothing else in common. We are not gifted with the truth nor wrong. Context is needed and for example, the context given in the description is incredibly poor for proving lack of worth as well. I bring that up because its attempting to find a reason why disagreement happens and instead of identifying the context in which it happens it's identifying collusion as the reason. Collusion is a group effort and it would be required for this particular thing to occur. The chances of that are far lower, if actually 0, compared to...reviews not giving context.
The review process itself.
While I try to cover difficulty and testing, gfx, male-female story points, and so forth it's not always possible. That's just me and what I want to do. Some others don't but might play it in another way, both are fine however again context as to what they are doing is the gateway into understanding their coverage.
That being said. I think most try to beat a game. I do and if I don't I just say so in the review in progress(which is how I treat those since maybe the story might crater in the last half). Or I do an impression or I just say fuck it and do it later like Persona Strikers and such.
I have even dropped off on my number of reviews a bit year and the tail end of last year BECAUSE I couldn't get the time due to personal life and other things eating up the timeframe. We see that for sure with others as well which therefore again throws that complaint into the meatgrinder of proven examples that don't support it as many reviews come after the initial date.
This also of course can be a result of timing for code and your own availability. I run 2 schedules, and I have no issue playing a game as long as I want if it's for review because I did that PRIOR to reviewing. Some are just doing 8 hours a day. Again...context, but also personal lives just being different. I did a 24-hour live stream for No Mans Sky, not everyone would have the time or the stupidity to do that.
NOW sometimes you can tell. In some reviews, someone will say "there isn't a skill for this or that or a fast travel for this or that..." And you are like ok either they didn't play it, or...they are just REALLY fucking bad.
I am sure some don't finish a game, and I am sure others do. For example, if someone played Cyberpunk and had a horrible technical time impacting the fun factor if they were clear in their context for not finishing a title I would have no issue looking at that review and staying "for that person that makes sense as a score"
In the end, context will always be king, and if you are not finding it from those that you follow that is more important than anything else.
Disclaimer- Also I am not nor ever excusing stupid behavior that EVERYONE including myself has done in the past, or just a bad review. I am not condoning Cyberpunk chair videos or even taking games or trips from publishers without figuring out a way to remove the well-researched and completely backed up by science physiological changes it makes. The number of people who gave Cyberpunk a pass and then...somehow snuck in podcasts or later videos sort of throwing it under the bus or flatly saying...hey man ya probably wouldn't review it the same way if I could do it again. That's just...well shitty.
IF you are asking why I just wrote that...well that's because someone could read all this and be like...but but...there is always a but but again why context is the only weapon in clearing out confusing and clarifying details for consumers purchases to be made. KNOWING that they too are completely responsible as life itself dictates that you may not like the second movie in a trilogy even if you liked the first and everyone told you it rocked.