Since no unanimous definition for hardcore game exist. I think in your next editorial you should start by defining your theme. What I get is that you base hardcore on the difficulty. Others will base it on the age rating for example. Or will base on the complexity of the story. Theres no right or wrong answer to this. Next editorial would gain from being a bit more gray, less black or white. Also, trying to be open to different logic then yours would help in going deeper on the subject. Take it as positive critic.

Hmm...I see your point, and where you're coming from.

OK, for my next one (whch may be in quite a while, sadly, due to exams ) I shall attempt to do what you say. Perhaps unsuccessfully, but I'll give it a go.

You should always be open to criticism

I've seen that aside from the arbitrary "any game that isn't something grandma would like" definition in the wake of the Wii's success (which is why I call it arbitrary, as it's just for the sake of making "us versus them"), or even defining any sufficiently "graphically intense" game as hardcore (which is basically like praising a movie for the special effects over anything else), hardcore can have many meanings with a game.

Extreme difficulty could be one form of hardcore, which would make more older games hardcore.

There could be "pick up and play" versus "time intensive", with the latter being a form of "hardcore". You can get into a round or two of multiplayer Gears of War (or even single player, with all the checkpoints), but try just hopping into a Persona game.

Also worth mentioning is how the definition of hardcore changes over time, as "classic" hardcore is more like, as you say, a "difficult but enjoyable game". The enjoyable part is important

A lot of gamers who were introduced to gaming this gen or last gen think hardcore to be a game which involves blood, gore and violence, therefore hardcore is defined as an age rating. I think this is what should be rectified. GRAPHICS DON'T IMPACT DIFFICULTY!

So Nintendo cant make a game with good gameplay AND good story? They should take some lessions from Naughty Dog than :)

It isn't actualy. I dont have to  like one game but i cant say its not a quality game. Gran Turismo 5 for an example. I dont like racings sims at all but i cant deny that its a quality driving simulator game. Same with Crysis series. I see its appeal and lot of people will love it, but i find it uninteresting.  Its still a quality game.

And i think that more people KNOW about Super Mario than GOW and Heavy Rain. Its a much bigger brand.

They can. See Metroid: Other M, Super Mario RPGs (Bowser's inside story has an awesome story), Professor Layton. To name but a few

Wasnt that a massive dissapointment ? Thats what i heard from fourm users and web sites

Thats a great point.

I rated it 9.4/10, and I'm not a Metroid fan.

The only people who found it a "massive dissapointment" were people who had their expectations either too high, expected it to fail from the start or expected it to be 2D. It wasn't. It was different. Not as good as the Prime series, but certainly no disappointment...

(see: Super Mario Sunshine, Twilight Princess. These are similar, and I love them all)