Publishers hate rentals. Publishers hate demos. Publishers hate reselling.

Ooh! Ooh! Can I play, too?

And FOX owns IGN. Well, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation owns both, at least.

And sometimes those notes about technical problems just don't make the cut. A sentence devoted to pointing out a minor graphical glitch both emphasizes the technical issues (perhaps out of proportion) while eating up words that might be better devoted to what the reviewer finds to be more important to both…

P.N.03 is one of the best games ever made.

What does "doing my own product research" entail? How can I form an opinion as to whether or not I'll like a game without playing the game for myself (i.e., buying/renting the game, defeating the purpose of "research") or listening to others who have played the game (reviewers)?

You can get a docking station for the iPad or just use the Apple Digital AV adapter (HDMI). You can also display content wirelessly if you have an AppleTV.

The iPad and many Android tablets meet both of your requirements. That said, relatively few games support gamepads.

Sword & Sworcery EP.

Tell that to PC gamers. ;)

There are only a certain number of games that are better with physical buttons. There are a large number that play equally well — or even better — with a touchscreen. Classical adventure games, strategy games, turn-based RPGs, and many sports and puzzle games are in the latter category.

So playing a strategy game like Puerto Rice, a remastered version of Broken Sword: The Smoking Mirror, or a port of Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective on a tablet is mindless, but playing yet-another-kill-the-aliens/foreigners game on PC/consoles isn't?

Slightly OT: I got a [somewhat] different ending than what I've seen on YouTube and read about.

In a story-driven game that ends with [SPOILERS] the death of the main character[/SPOILERS], there's not much call for post-game DLC. That's the case here.

I don't understand why having the Catalyst and the Reapers be wrong in their philosophy, but unwilling to be convinced otherwise by Shepard, is so terrible. The series already has enough characters who can be easily swayed (most prominently, Saren and The Illusive Man). Besides, one of the endings has Shepard…

The DLC is best experienced early in the game. If the game's been out for a week before the DLC is released, fans will already have played through the game, in which case the DLC is of little worth.

Single-player games, and particularly story-driven single-player games, are by necessity going to be short and offer limited replayability. Why would someone keep such a game for more than the time it takes to play through it once (or maybe twice)?

Every time a developer actually creates a quality ending, such as Prince of Persia (2008) and now Mass Effect 3, small-minded whiners come out of the wordwork to complain that it's not a cookie-cutter, happy-go-lucky, sunny story where every character gets a fat reward with a big bow on it.

The retailer might buy a product from a publisher/distributer for a fraction of its cost, with the remainder to be paid to the publisher/distributer later (effectively, after the retailer has sold the product to the consumer).

It's a hell of a lot more than they'd be making if they had to toil in the fields of their villages. There's a reason thousands of people clamor to be let in to work at Foxconn every day: much better pay, much better benefits, a much better/safer work environment than what they could get anywhere else.