Revolutionary - Mostly in today's context cause seriously the word could only be properly used 25+ years ago and be somewhat accurate with a few here and there. Yet, I'm annoyed as hell how often this word gets thrown around cause half the time, its attached to games that haven't been around long enough to have a real impact on the industry so you really can't say its revolutionary unless, a year after, a bunch of clone games pop up. The other time its used is for games that really had no major revolutionary impact cause the game is no different from other anything else in its genre, it wasn't a complete change of form and procedure as the word revolutionary actually means. They are simply games that added new elements to set them apart from other games/consoles in the market and were successful. They didn't change how the genre operates (well there are some exceptions). So please stop using the word.

"Ahead of its time" - I hate this expression. Mostly cause its used for games that don't deserve it either by not really being ahead of its time (just on schedule thank you very much) or pertains to games and consoles who did something cool but no one really payed attention to it. So the term is used as an excuse to why no one liked it and sometimes its used in the opposite context where people love it because it was "ahead of its time". Seriously, how do you even know this when talking about anything recent? You have a crystal ball that tells you what the future of gaming is going to be and this one title just slipped by the crystal ball radar? Let's pretend the gaming industry exists in a determinist world view and just accept that games come out when they are suppose to and none magically missed the mark on the time scale cause everything is predetermined so it arrived exactly when it needed to, thank you very much.

Casual and Hardcore - Can anyone tell me really what the difference is here? Especially when it comes to taste in gaming? Why do I lose hardcore status cause I like my DS and Wii games? How come you're automatically inducted to being a more "serious and hardcore" gamer because you own a PS3, PSP, and X-Box 360? Why does taking a break from playing a gritty crime drama title and blood soaked FPS shooter to a mindless fun filled rhythm game or heaven forbid, Wii Sports automatically means that I'm out of sync with the hardcore crowd who somehow think that playing games with T and M ratings automatically makes them better? Its like saying you don't really like movies cause you occasionally watch a children's flick or some brain dead popcorn flick instead of watching the Sundance Film Festival. You can play both and not be either casual or hardcore, so stop using these terms as a badge of honor or as some silly form of an imaginary hierarchy that exists in your head. Most of my "causal" gamer friends don't own Nintendo consoles or even have a 360, some of my more hardcore gamer friends don't own any of the consoles but are still fascinated by motion gaming. So this idea of using these terms as derogatory statements about another gamer cause you don't like their games/consoles/gaming interface is just plain stupid. Grow up and stop being a fanboy douche, you fanboy douche.

As for Hardcore, there is a big difference between being hardcore and just plain obsessive and OCD like. I'm what you would call an OCD gamer, I have to complete certain tasks in a game finish every game I start, and understand the games underlying mechanics and exploitations. Is this healthy? No. So what makes me "hardcore" to some people makes me pathologically insane to other people. Whether you believe "Hardcore" is a positive term depends on which side of "obsessive gaming" you stand on.