The hours behind a review are bounded by the review window, not by the size of the game. That constraint explains most disagreements between reviewers and players.
The window is set by the publisher
Code typically arrives one to two weeks before the embargo lifts. Everything the reviewer will ever say has to be produced inside that period.
The period also has to contain writing, editing, video capture and any technical testing. Playing is perhaps two-thirds of it.
A sixty-hour role-playing game reviewed in ten days therefore requires an unusual schedule, and outlets that manage it are visibly playing at a pace no ordinary player would.
Playing fast changes the experience
A game designed to be played across two months in evening sessions behaves differently when compressed into a week. Pacing problems disappear and repetition becomes more obvious.
Progression systems tuned to feel generous over time can feel slow when experienced continuously. The reverse also happens with games that front-load their content.
Neither reading is wrong, but they are readings of different experiences. A reviewer who names the pace they played at gives the reader something to adjust for.
Some sections are effectively unreviewable
Endgame content, long-term economies and repeatable activities are designed to be reached after dozens of hours. A reviewer rarely arrives there before publication.
Multiplayer modes present the same problem in sharper form, since pre-launch servers hold reviewers rather than players. Balance under a real population cannot be observed.
Honest reviews mark these gaps rather than covering them. A verdict that discusses long-term systems it could not have seen is describing intentions.
Publishers structure the build the reviewer receives
Review builds sometimes include accelerated progression, unlocked content or save files placed at chosen points. The stated aim is to let reviewers see more within the window.
The side effect is that the reviewer skips the friction a player will experience. Progression systems are exactly what an unlock removes from view.
This is why some reviews of games with heavy progression read as generous. The reviewer never met the grind that shapes the retail experience.
Post-launch revisions are the correction
Outlets increasingly publish a review in progress, then a final verdict once servers are live and more hours are logged. The two often differ.
Where the difference is large, it usually concerns content the window could not reach rather than opinions that changed. The reviewer saw more, not differently.
Readers get more from a review that states its hours and its stopping point than from one that reports a score. The number is a summary; the hours are the evidence.