haoshiro

No matter what is done some manner of legend would required to explain what it all means to someone not familiar with the terms.

I don't think that means we should forego terms that offer better explanations of what a game is like.

For example "Metroidvania" is a fairly common term identifying a game in which you progress by collecting power-ups/utilities to advance navigation further in previous areas.

Psychonauts is better described with that then with those in this article; but it doesn't fully classify the game.

Similar to how movie ratings doesn't give a suggestion of what is in the movie, nor do genres as a whole, you need some additional descriptors because your subject is too complex (games).

If the goal is to build a mental image of the game through words we'll have to complicate the descriptions.

For genre-sorting a primary Core Mechanic might be best and that is where it gets messier. Do you describe a game like Psychonauts as a "Metroidvania" or more generically as an Action-Adventure?

From their labels for the various facets should describe the game.

Psychonauts: 3D Third-Person Whimsical Cartoon Super-Power Action Adventure game.

But in the end that's why sites like Giant Bomb exist, it's easier to tell what a game will be like by watching it be played, seeing still screenshots, reading reviews, and seeing related games. There is no better way then watching it be played, imho, and that's Giant Bomb's claim to fame.

If you are trying to be objective then judge it for what it is. If you put it on a better/worse scale with other titles then the outcome will vary based on what you put up there, so don't do that.

IMHO, better to review a game by your own "whys". Why did you like or not like it? Despite that what are factors of it that you do or don't like, and why? For example...

@Video_Game_King: Why did you like it? In spite of that, why do you think it's not a good game? Are there reasons why someone else should or shouldn't try it themselves?

It's just a matter of time, really, initially new hardware is just that, "new", and less optimized code is likely to make its way into launch titles, etc.

But with the advances in tech already made the next generation should start with more mature game libraries/engines and achieving better frame rates at 1080p will be less expensive then to push the graphical effects enough to cause a serious dive in performance.

That said, the tradeoff of framerate vs visual effects will always exist, mitigated only by perception (how noticeable the the improvements are). Will the game look 2X as good as current gen @60fps, or 4X @30fps.

Will platform holders force >30fps though? IMHO, nope.

Not sure why anyone thinks this will ever be a problem for Nintendo.

They just dominated the market for, what, five years? Clearly they have proven they can be successful with hardware that is technically behind the competition.

If anything is going to be threatening to Wii-U I don't think it will be technical specifications, but something like Kinect which they have no direct answer to.

Still, they are the most "Family Friendly" company and have the largest and most iconic family brands. Zelda, Mario, Kirby, Pokémon, Smash Bros, Nintendogs, Animal Crossing... those will remain strong to new (and old) players and continue to drive parental sales.

Haoshiro 478

Another side to this is that many people don't actually finish games that are very lengthy.  Plenty of older games were long because they stretched it thin just to make it long, not because they actually had enough content.  Players get bored and never finish the game. 
 
RPGs on the other hand are artificially lengthened with the grind, etc.  They often simply play slower, so they are longer. Be that story or just battles taking much longer then an action game, the length is drawn out.

 I think the yearly price is not terrible if you want the shirt, because as others have said, they aren't getting ad revenue off the user.  But are they getting $30-40/yr in ad revenue off a single user? If that's the case then it particularly doesn't make sense to restrict content (mobile, live show) for non-subscribers who are already contributing by viewings ads.  
 
I don't think it's confusing for people to be willing to spend $50/yr or $5/mo for no ads and to support WM/GB.  To me that part makes sense, you'd pay $100 if you could, right? :)   But "Silver" still get ads, even though they pay more per year  then a "Gold" member.  The t-shirt incentive to pay-ahead makes sense, at that point you don't even need to give a discount of $10. 
 
Put ads on the mobile version of the site (if they don't already) and "free" users pay by seeing the ads.  Subscribers of any level shouldn't see the ads, because they have chosen an alternative method of contributing.    

It's ashame, they could have avoided a lot of ill will from the community by simply... A) Not changing the bombcast, and B) Having the subscription be $1.99/mo (think App Store model).  Not because the content isn't valuable, but because if you make people feel like they are getting a GREAT DEAL they will WANT to pay, not begrudge you for asking.

It's divisive, pure and simple.  Some people think the price is bad, some people don't like the bombcast split, and others don't like the community affects and other ramifications. 
 
I think most of this could be avoided by not having "medals" and lowering the price to something like $2/mo or $20/yr.  NOT because the content isn't good or worth it, but because you are going to create less ill will and it's more in line with the novelty value.  You aren't paying for the content, you are already getting nearly all the content. So you are paying $5/mo, in literal terms, for the novelty of higher quality video, a live friday show, an avatar medal, and access to the SAME content on other platforms (mobile).  So you are not paying for the service. 
 
To me the obvious next step in this route, to coincide with the medals, is some GOLD-ONLY forums, achievements, etc.  Gotta please your paying elite, right? :)