I would rather them just release their review when they're done. Make one editorial on why they do it that way (to review a fully fledged online component for example) and refer people back to that article explaining why reviews aren't out right away if they complain in the comments. To be clear I'm saying 1 article explaining the general reasons not one for every game. That makes less work for the site but explains it for everyone and is easily referred back to.

Id rather the reviews in progress were left like that, just a review in progress, without a number of conclusion tacked on, if people cant make a choice on buying a game based off of that then you have to ask yourself how much hand holding the press really does.

Indeed for the IGN apathy. I do not psyche myself up whenever their reviews start rolling out.

However, to the OP, for someone like IGN, having the review as early as possible makes this a necessity. So many people count on their opinion, so they provide part of the finished product. If I am running sosomething as big as IGN, I would go for it. However, where I stand now as a gaming journalist, I would rather take some additional time and hold off on the writing to review the complete product itself.

The want to test the online in a real world enviroment so it is understandable, but i have to wonder if it would have been better to do one score for singleplayer and one for multiplayer, although these days online has also invaded singleplayer

Click baits, cash grabs, more posts = more money. Nothing simpler.

This.  Why produce a review when you can give progress reports on your 'review' cashing in on every click.  Everyone else on the mfing internet managed to turn in a review... 

Wow, this is the first time I've ever heard of reviews in progress. Why can't the reviewer finish the game before publishing the review? Do these reviews at least complete the campaign of a game?

If I was looking for a general consensus about a new game among players, I wouldn't disregard a player's first impression of the game or is halfway done with it (campaign/single player). I think in the first few hours you get an overall feel for the game and at worst or best the game would differ a point or two in a scale of ten by the end.

However, a lot depends on what game is being played. If it's a typical shooter, what I wrote above applies (I feel). A player will know if a game "feels" right (controls, gameplay, etc.). However for other genres that won't always be the case. I just finished Danganronpa 2 on the Vita and dear God does that game REALLY become astronomically awesome (despite it maintaining a good overall feel before the last few chapters).

On one hand, they seem like a skeevy way to suck the most amount of views out of one review.
On the other hand, it does give more information and it is better than reviewing a game without beating it.

Seems like a good way to get more clicks while sounding altruistic and genuine.