So games should be ranked on a 0-9.9 scale? Then can't we use the same argument to say 9.9 is forbidden, and so on? :P

I had teachers who thought like that, it doesn't make any sense.

We could just go to 11 then.

One of my teachers gives your marks which seem to be random and they are out of nothing... though I suppose that is not so useful for rating a game.

I think all reviews should stop using a percentage scale and go to a .5 or just integer scale, that way they can give 10s to games, as no game is perfect, but some are very close

True... It's not like anyone knows the difference between a 9.2 and a 9.3 game... Between 9.5 and 10 you can imagine some of what the differences might be (probably polishment or similar).

MGS4 would have an 11 then, just like ign wanted 

Looks good "for a wii game"

Casual gaming

Next gen systems

The Playstation Brand (sony's press releases)

waggle

Graphics.

In fact, that could be feasible. We could start on this site by using a word filtering system (like on Neogaf or many MMORPGs). The advantage is that this would force the posters to clearly specify who or what they are designating when trying to use these terms, especially in the case of the evasive 'Casual/Hardcore'.

That is, it would be a little extreme (for example, there are other legitimate uses of 'casual' than to designate a gamer), I'm actually not that fond of censorship and I fear it would be primarly used to ban the word 'Ferrari'.

The phrase "Out-of-the-Box Experience"

WRPG
JRPG

Judging an RPG based on geographic location is stupid.

Try things like

Sandbox RPG
Shooter RPG
Turn Based RPG
Action RPG


Also...

"Action Game"

Action game basically means "Damned if we know what genre it is!"

I will agree with what everyone has listed thus far, but my biggest peeve lies with the "Hardcore/Casual" terms.

As stated in my post in another thread, using this terminology builds a false dichotomy; to seperate gamers into only two exclusive classes is oversimplified and when looked at objectively, makes no sense.

To draw a parallel, imagine if we seperated people who watch movies into hardcore film fans and casual film fans.  The media then starts classsing movies into either of these two categories.  Now imagine if the filming media is like the gaming media, and I think it would go something like this:

Please note these quotes are strictly hypothetical.  Square parentheses denote my personal opinions

-"The Saw movies [why are horrible in my opinion] are a great experience for the hard-core film goer, filled with raw visuals and a stories that keep you on the edge of your seat."

-"Frost/Nixon, though a good casual experience, just does not have the heart-pounding engrossing feeling to keep me interested."

Anyways, I think you get the point, these hypothetical one-line reviews make very little sense when you try and fit them into a hardcore/casual paradigm.  Its the same with games.  Though I have not played it, Little Big Planet on the surface should be called a "casual" game by the gaming media based on their paradigm.  Little Big Planet however is the type of game that can appeal to gamers of all ilks.  It does not fit in with the Gaming media's hardcore/casual paradigm.

Game players should be considered just as diverse as movie-goers, TV watchers, music listeners et al.  I love all types of games; as long as they are made well enough to be entertaining to me then they are worth my dollars, be it Wii Music, Wii Fit, Metroid Prime, Gears of War, No More Heroes, De Blob, Tetris, Mario etc. 

Sterotyping gamers into one of only two types is disingenuous to all gamers, and we should feel somewhat insulted when this classification method is used.