While a review that finished Spec Ops would have a more complete take on its story (obviously), the other main parts of the review (largely gameplay, performance, graphics, level design) would still remain the same. Reviews aren't just about a game's story, and if a reviewer didn't feel compelled to finish Spec Ops because one of, or all of, those components of the game was off-putting and they felt they had a complete enough picture of the game the that's a completely valid review
No video game story retroactively makes mediocre gameplay suddenly feel great
Reviews are most definitely not just about a game's story but I don't think you would argue they aren't a part of the finished product just as gameplay, graphics, and level design are. In fact, different people care more about certain aspects you've outlined more than others. Opinions and all of that. So, someone might care more about the story aspects of their games compared to graphics or performance and vice versa. Neither of those opinions are wrong because they are subjective preferences. But a critic's job is to fully understand and critique the product for their published work, as far as I'm concerned. That would include finishing the story.
And, to finish the story does matter for the things you named! They cannot be looked at in a vacuum. The game might play buttery smooth for the first 2 or 3 levels (which definitely happens frequently enough to comment on because the first levels are typically ones that are optimized and iterated the most) but later the graphics and performance and sound might take it hit. A reviewer who doesn't play through the game fully never knows this. The opposite can happen as well, although I personally think it's less common for things like performance.
But games definitely can get better in categories like gameplay as it goes along. That's
often the case, even. As a person becomes more familiar with the game's mechanics, understands better what the devs are trying to do, and when they introduce certain mechanics that make the game more enjoyable.
As an example the game Hollow Knight is a slog at first, for me, because you have to essentially build the map features you would normally just expect to have in a metroidvania game in 2019. I personally hated this purposeful design decision but having played 12 hours of it I would never even dream of reviewing the game. Think if I decided it was correct to review Hollow Knight based on my first 12 hours where I struggled to put my map UI together. Would that be fair to the devs of this game?
That is just the first example that popped into my head but I contend any game whatsoever presents these problems when a critic decides they can publish a review without finishing it.
it is not valid. a review of something should never take external issues like someone's job security or their fucking bonuses into account
if you think this is a valid point it's pretty evident you don't actually care about the act of criticism at all
You misunderstood what I said. I said they should do their jobs objectively and fully because other people depend on them to do their jobs objectively and fully. You think I said they should do their jobs subjectively based on the fact that other people's jobs depend on them to do their jobs subjectively. I hope you understand the nuanced difference there. If you reply with something that makes me believe you don't, I'll have to bow out of the convo here.
