" 

 == Target audience == 

 So, sorry to insult you. I agree with much of what you say about what WP should be. I'm glad you arn't aiming at an educated elite. But 
 * My comment was relevant because much of the argument about spoiler warnings is really an argument about the purpose of WP, and hence about its ""target audience"". 
 * It is elitist to divide readers of WP into ""target audience"" and ""other"". People looking for information about whether to play a game are still looking for information, and should be catered for. Well written articles on WP can do them a service that review sites and amazon can't. 
 * My models for a ""scholarly"" encyclopedic approach to works of fiction are the massive John Clute encyclopedias of Science Fiction and Fantasy (because I happen to own them). Of course these are much less detailed than WP but their focus is indeed on critical reactions; they highlight innovations but don't obsess on plot: even central works are generally not described in enough detail to spoil the enjoyment if you read them later. Because this sort of info provides a pretty reliable guide to quality, I've read and enjoyed many books years or decades after they were first published which I otherwise wouldn't have bothered with. This kind of serendipity was certainly one of Clute's main aims, and I don't see why it shouldn't be for Wikipedia. 
 * I think it would make an excellent WP article, with full verifiability, if, some time after a game was released, the editor collated major reviews, especially in specialist game mags, and summarised the major comments, along with things like sales figures, awards, etc. Of course this info is available at review sites, but the reader has to do the collation himself, and doesn't get the benefit of WP editors' consensus checking of reliability. Even better would be to describe how later games (& other stuff) was influenced. Obviously this would refer to notable features of the game play. It seems to me this is what WP:WAF is advocating.  
 * You seem to think a ""complete"" description of the plot is essential. But a plot summary is always a summary... the editor has to decide how much to include. Who benefits from a ton of detail?  Not a prospective player...it's bound to contain spoilers. Not an experienced player...they know it already. Presumably, someone who has no real interest in the game but needs to know this info. I can think of a few examples, but nobody I'd want to spend hours working for free to help. 
 * Bottom line. IMHO an encyclopedia is a tool for providing relevant information. Doing so in a way which satisfies the demands of as many readers as possible is a good. Too much information can actually be off-putting to most readers and serve the interests of a very few. Spoiler warnings at least give visual clues to help skip info unwanted by probably the large majority of readers. 
  "