I am peer reviewing a very, very difficult game (the impossible game) and I cannot get more than like 30 seconds into it.  At that point I dont get far enough to warrant any saving activity, so I dont yet know if the game would crash because I pulled the MU.  Given the developer of the game says he doesn't have an MU this is definitely an aspect I'd like to check. The rest of the game plays fine.

Should I refrain from reviewing?
Can I pass it if I see someone else saying in the review forums that pulling the MU is ok?

Nobody stops you from passing the game if you think that you have carefully reviewed the game and also think that you haven't found
any problem which warrants you to fail the game.

At the point that more than two peer-reviewers have thought that such features in the game are grossly confusing or frustrating,
the game will be immediately pulled from the queue.

You have your own memory unit. You had an intention to check the game's saving capability, but you couldn't. Your confusion was
enough to bring you to this forum. So nobody stops you from failing the game.

Also, if you think that you can't pass or fail because you haven't done your scrutiny enough, you can refrain from continuing your
peer-review.

It's really up to you.

Runway 360:

So nobody stops you from failing the game.

Actually failing requires a good reason.  "I couldn't beat the game, so I can't test it." isn't a good enough reason, imo. 

Passing on the other hand is completely voluntary.  If you do not feel that you gave the game a thorough review, you are certainly allowed to just move on.  If you feel the game has been tested well enough and you didn't find any fail points, then you are welcome to pass it.  It would be nice if everyone tested every single feature, like MUs, but it isn't required, nor is it always possible.

Eckish:

Actually failing requires a good reason.  "I couldn't beat the game, so I can't test it." isn't a good enough reason, imo. 

Good point. Sorry, I was giving a wrong advice to the original poster.
Frustration coming from being unable to do peer-review along the reviewer's plan was quite another type of frustration.

I'm a little ashamed of making such a silly mistake...

Nobody expects people to finish a game - some games it would be impossible - so you are expected to play for a resonable amount of time and cover as much as possible. Personally i think thats 20-30 minutes. We encourage people to add level skip etc in playtest so you can get test coverage and expose potential reviewers to your whole game. Remove it for peer review.

However if you can't get far enough into a game to actually feel like you tested a representative part of it then post that feedback and then neither pass nor fail the game. If it turns out that its just a genre you are no good at (e.g. me and fps games) then others who are good can pass. If it turns out the game is so hard that nobody can get that far then everyone will ignore it.

I think what ZMan said is right.

Since you have no obligation to either pass it or fail it, you can decide to simply not vote on it.  But it will be a good ideas to let the developer know that you found the game too hard to play.  Maybe the developer really need to readjust the game play (well if its in peer review its a bit late, it should have been reported while in play test though).

The ZMan:

We enoucarage people to ad level skip etc in playtest so you can get test coverage.

I agree with this line of thinking.  It's common to add debug modes for your testing teams, and as developers we should treat playtest the same way.

I've got a similar question that has probably been answered, but I can't find it in the forums. Am I allowed to review games if I don't have memory unit nor 4 controllers? Maybe should I wait until someone says those issues work well and then review the game?

Yes you are allowed to. Personally I would note at the end of my review comments that you are unable to test those things. Then other people can shoose to put extra effort into it.

Since you are a developer writing games  I'm surprised you dont have them. You should aquire them as soon as you can, developers shouldn't be using other people to test these things since they are relativly cheap and its your job to make sure all of these things work properly before you go to per review.

The ZMan:

Since you are a developer writing games  I'm surprised you dont have them. You should aquire them as soon as you can, developers shouldn't be using other people to test these things since they are relativly cheap and its your job to make sure all of these things work properly before you go to per review.

Just an FYI. Just because somebody is reviewing games doesn't necessarily mean they are a developer. These are the kind of disciplines that Microsoft expects to see as members...

Audio Engineer
Composer
Director
Game Designer
Game Programmer
Game Tester
Producer
Visual Artist
Writer

Game designer and programmer are just 2 types. Somebody could be neither & not have any need for memory units & extra controllers. Don't forget about these other kind of peers.

Tommy McClain

While thats true in general I was being specific to AwesomeGamesStudio here. Its quite trivial to click the number under AwesomeGamesStudio's name and see his posts http://forums.xna.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?u=140749&o=DateDescending which makes it clear that he is a developer with a game currently in peer review. If he's submitted a game he needs to have tested it properly... if he has 1 controller and no MU then its unlikley he has done so.

Thanks for your response ZMan. I know that I should have tested them and I'm sorry I didn't. If some issues will come up in the peer review I promise to get the MU and missing controllers. Though I checked the code carefully and I hope it will work.

Thats just the wrong way to think about this... peer reviewers are a scarse resource that shouldn't be wasted. Its bad enough that I'm still failing games in under a minute with items already on the evil checklist. You can get a MU and 3 cheapo controllers for under $100. You are expecting reviewers to do your testing for you which just isn't fair. Don't think I'm picking on just you - you are just being honest about it, but its obvious when I fail the 3rd game of the week for not working with a MU that you are not the only one.

Every fail costs reviewers time and if the game fails you expect them to do it again for you.

HOPE is not a skill I used to look for on resumes/CVs when I used to hire people!