This really is a strange topic, because it only illustrates people's subjectivities. Personally, looking back on things I find that VII wasn't a very good game. Heresy to most nowadays, but the story was relatively trite and the game was carried on principally by Sephiroth. Cloud, as a hero, was boring. The supporting cast was redeemed by Vincent, but his role was tangential anyhow. The system itself was absolutely dull, like most turn based games.

In contrast, you have a better overall storyline in FFVIII, a much better battle system in FFXII (To those that disagree, I firmly believe that you simply never understood how to use the system), and a more coherent plot in FFX. The best of all FF games, though I'm sure someone will claim it doesn't count, was FFT. Best storyline and best battlesystem, not to mention best atmosphere. The only thing it suffered from wasspotty plot development. It could be hard to follow certain things, though War of the Lions helps with that tremendously.

So ultimately, if I'm going to be subjective, I would say that FFVII is ultimately the worst of the group, not necessarily because it was bad in and of itself, but because it wasn't particularly great and far too many people think it was the best. VI was hands down infinitely better, even without the graphics.

Oh wait. If I'm counting Tactics as best (and I can, since some people included Chronicles in their posts), then worst is FFTA. Most contrived battle system ever. "Laws! Yes! Train super warriors, and then don't use them or else you'll get soccer penalties!"

FF's Played:

1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, Tactics (Original & War of the Lions), Chronicles, Tactics Advance

I like how everyone talked right past the question. I think someone pointed it out, but what's at the heart of the question isn't "Why do people think Halo is a bad game?" That's how it was worded, but I'll forgive our intrepid topic-maker for his faulty communication. The real issue is, "Why do people who think Halo is a bad game feel compelled to rant endlessly about its faults?" This, to me, is a valid question if you broaden it up.

I mean, seriously. If we don't like a game, why do we spend so much time denigrating it? It's like going to the Louvre to tell everyone how overrated it is. It's just obnoxious. I really don't care if people like Halo or not. However, I absolutely abhor people who insist on telling me that it is a "bad" game repeatedly. I got the message when they said they didn't like it; they aren't going to convert me to their Halophobia, just as I won't turn them into a Halophile. So why can't we let live and let live? They play whatever game they think is better, and I'll play whatever game I think is fun. Sounds good, right?

Now, the obvious answer is to ignore them. But that doesn't shut them up. Frequently, in convinces them that they're gaining ground because no one has a good response to them. The thing is, if you let someone say something stupid repeatedly, they're going to think that their stupidity is correct. Now, maybe that doesn't bother some of you. But it bothers me when you can't discuss a game you like without someone extolling how that game possesses all Seven Deadly Sins and you ought rightly be cursed to hell for playing it.

So stop bugging this guy for asking the question. It's fair enough. A better question would have been, "Why does anyone feel the need to waste their time on something they don't like?"

More on-topic, people don't like Halo for various reasons. My old roommate didn't like it because he was good at PC shooters and not at it. That made it qualitatively "bad." It never occurred to him that I didn't denigrate his PC shooters even though he consistently beat me at those. Regardless, there are more legitimate reasons. However, none of them really make Halo a "bad" game. They just keep it from being someone's cup of tea.

PS- My example of the Louvre may confuse some people. It's not that Halo is a masterpiece of art. The point is that people who go to the Louvre are typically people who like going to the Louvre. Therefore, going to the Louvre to complain about it doesn't make any sense at all, because you're not likely to convince people who like the Louvre enough to go. More ironically, think of preaching to the choire, but a sermon from the Church of Satan. You're just not gonna get anywhere.

Final Fantasy Tactics is a classic. However, it's translation was lacking somewhat. Personally, I've never found a game where levelling up was fun except for FFT. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. A better translated version of the same great game I've always loved.

Though, I did just buy Jeanne D'Arc, so I'll end up with both. They're both good, but FFT is infinitely better in every way. Storyline, character, personality, gameplay...Jeanne is great, but you don't get better than FFT. Except Tactics Ogre, which is slightly better. New gamers are spoiled, I think, judging by the complaints I'm likely to get...

This is semi-off topic, but numerous people have made the comment so I have to ask. Why does everyone hate Halo 2? What did they do that was so horrendous?

Please, concise answers only. Don't use all caps and make sure to spell words properly. If you can't do those two things, then your opinion doesn't matter to me. Also, no rambling on about how another game is better or whatnot. I only want to know what the main crippling deficiency that people keep alluding to was.

In more on-topic news, I'd say Gears of War. I wasn't very impressed by Bioshock. Its atmosphere was great until you got used to all the creepy stuff, and the rest of the gameplay was fun, but not stunning.

This is all some massive joke, right? This absurd incident never happened, no one would think it was cute if it did, and no one ever offered the horrendous advice proferred above, right? Cause...if all of this has been genuine, then I think I'd rather not be considered a 'gamer.' I'll re-write it as a passing hobby that I indulge in when I have nothing better to do. I'll just omit that there are very rarely things better to do.

The objections to my previous post are fair enough, but I will expatiate somewhat.

When I say relatively more straightforward narrative, I refer to the established character and his motivations. I'm not speaking about branching storylines or lack thereof, but rather the pre-existing framework in which the story unfolds. Saint's Row, in contrast, features the (mostly) silent protagonist, who far more easily becomes a vessel for the ideas of the player.

As regards the complaint regarding killing, I'll hold my ground here. Saint's Row does not have a great variety of means to kill people. Essentially you can beat them with your bare hands, you can whale on them with a melee weapon, you can shoot them, you can blow them up or you can run them over. The first two can be subsumed into one category (melee kills), the next two can be subsumed into another (weapon kills), and all vehicle kills are essentially the same anyhow, leaving only three fundamentally different ways to inflict lethal injury upon others.

Dead Rising- Shopping Carts. Benches. Skateboards. Guitars. CDs. I could go on, but that's not really my point. In all honesty, if I can subsume categories for Saint's Row, so can it be done for Dead Rising. My point wasn't in the technique of weaponry available, but in that I find it dubious that the splendor of variety should be a selling point. The comment was a direct response to someone who rested a good third ofhis or herargument for Dead Rising on the variety of ways to render enemies inanimate (the word dead just doesn't apply here, sadly).

...it's very disturbing to use variants of the word 'kill' so often.

My single greatest complain with World of Warcraft rests in the following abomination of the english language:

"wat u want 2 do"

I'm sure that I added too many letters or that "want" shouldn't have been spelled correctly, but I avoid such laziness so I won't hold it against myself.

Beyond that, to each his own. Certain people like the strange draw of MMOs. I suppose there's something to be said for getting progressively stronger, and there's something (significantly more) to be said for exploring fantastic worlds drawn from the imagination of others. In terms of the cost in time, it bears remembering that a given thing can only cost what someone is willing to pay. As was already mentioned, the genre already has established itself as a costly genre, in terms of time as well as money in some cases. What I would disagree with, however, is that people buy the games with that in mind. I remember early in the development of the "Evercrack" phenomenon many people would play, assuming it was a normal game, and then just run away with it. I hardly consider that intentional. However, it falls to the responsibility of the individual to recognize self-destructive habits, so I won't condemn MMOs for the folly of the foolish and naive.

All in all, if you don't like spending your time that way, find a new way to spend it. While valid remarks, anyone who findsthem revolutionary or life-altering probably wasn't worth worrying about in the first place.

It should be noted that while MMOs are fair, poor typing skills are not. There is no valid excuse or laziness, and "you" is not significantly harder to type than "u," either in terms of effort or time. My two cents.

Escapism is never healthy. For my own part, I play games to join in the creative process. As a result, I frequently have trouble getting into shooters because the atmosphere isn't particularly engrossing anyhow, and the limited scope of the game narrows my ability to create personal meaning about the story.

When I was younger, I played games for the social interaction it provided. Fighting games and the like. As I got older, I became engrossed by the idea of the game's story, and most of the games I played were for storyline purposes. Sometime around the time I read Dostoyevsky, I realized that most videogame storylines are boring and ultimately sad. I think the last storyline I really enjoyed in a game was Lunar: Silver Star Story. Beautiful characters, even if the storyline itself was somewhat narrow. I found other good storylines in FFT, Vagrant Story, all the Ogre Battle Saga games (of which Tactics Ogre was the best) and a handful of the Final Fantasy games. Also, Xenosaga. As you can see, my favorite storylines are all very old games. This is primarily because modern games have very dull storylines.

So nowadays, it's not for storylines, but for creative outlet. The ability to customize my character in a game is an immediate perk, regardless of the game itself. Likewise, open ended storylines or in-depth character development stand out to me in a big way. I even loved Aidyn Chronicles, despite its god-awful graphics, primarily because I could develop the characters into almost anything I wanted them to be. The Total War games are big favorites of mine because of the stories I have in my mind regarding how my empire has grown and why, and how my generals wound up where they are. Oblivion would be a great game also if Bethesda hadn't of lost their sanity and implemented scaling levels. Scaling levels, in point of fact, wouldn't have been too bad, but scaling equipment immediately kills all immersion.

Anyhow, the point is that games, for me at least, are about sharing in a creative movement. Not so much the "flabby impressionability dignified under the name of creative temperament," but rather the twisting of a game world to suit my own ends (Fitzgerald). What you, my friend, were discussing was escapism. As much as I like games, I love life far more. There is nothing more beautiful than life, and I thank God for every day of it, good and bad. Remember that no matter what you do in a game, you never really did it. Nor should you, for that matter.