Ok, when you find a site that meets that standard let me know, until then I'll happily read reviews by folks that played the game a few hours and wrote a review.
There are no sites that meet that standard because multiplayer games are fundamentally difficult to review. As I said before, there are far too many variables involved that can drastically change the experience for the reviewer. Any professional "review" of a multiplayer game is based on the limited perspective of a newb who played the game before any real community had been formed and before the game's depth and subtleties had been brought to light. This is why multiplayer reviews are completely worthless and should be labeled as "initial impressions" instead.
If there was a movie 40 hours long and you watched the first 10 of it to write a review I'd say that is enough time to write a review.
That's only a quarter of the film and is equivalent to half an hour in a regular two hour feature. So no, watching 10 hours of a 40 hour movie is not sufficient to write a good review.
And I never said that my expectations were made with business in mind. I couldn't care less about the business aspect. The business aspect is what lead to this whole ordeal in the first place. No, I'm talking about what should
be done for the sake of journalistic integrity. If I'm going to buy something based on someone's review, I expect that review to be complete, thorough and considerate of the game as a whole, not an incomplete impression of it.
Bottom line: If you are going to review something, you damn well better review all
of it. I don't care how long it takes. Bad for business? Sure. Good for readers? Definitely.