Because the FF games (most of all 8) tell extremely good stories and are very creative.

Plus they lack the stupid names of other RPG names and the hackneyed monster types. Simple as that. Even Diablo 2 which is a great game falls prey to this.

Who would really call a weapon (and I'm not making this up) the Platinum Spetum of Bashing? Or indeed the Triumphant Mace of the Bat.

I mean come on...

Well mot-a-mot it does sound funny, but if you look behind the words you get the meaning.Bat as in life sucking... what, you were thinking of a bat wielding mace?! :blink:

the FF games are crap. they are among the worst rpg's i have played EVER. chrono trigger was ok but the best console rpg i have played is SW: KOTOR. as for the stupid names, try creating your own items if your so opposed to the stupid names (and its piss easy before you say)

What I really hate about the new-made games lately is the fact that the games are usually built primarily on the multiplayer internet experience rather than the single player experience. What JJXB said about Halo is one perfect example.

He said that the single player part of Halo was not that great, the but multiplayer part was awesome... What if I don't want to play multiplayer games??? I'm stuck with a stupid and crazy single player campain which I won't ever want to play again?

Way too much new games end this way. This is really saddening.

Too true. I especially didn't like Quake 3 for that reason, I always preferred Unreal Tournament.

Ah yes, another rant -

Why don't more games come with different 'modes' for added replayability? UT is one of my favourite games, still, for that reason. It had a structured campaign and really good, 'flowing' levels, with a lot of variation. Quake 3 had Deathmatch and like 3 CTF maps. Not very good, really.

I've played Halo, what can I say but hmmm average. It's just an fps with limited weaponry (2 guns at a time?) and indestructible vehicles set in the future with aliens. I don't want 2 guns I want ALL the guns on my person, I don't care for the realism in carrying guns I want a rocket launcher, a sniper rifle AND an assault rifle for mowing down the enemies. Come on, Wolfenstein 3d allowed you to carry more weaponry than halo but of course the fan boys will have their little ways. Come to think of it pretty much every game with guns lets you carry more than that, that's what makes games like Unreal Tournament and Quake fun sprinting around a map with no stamina bar and about half a ton of ordinance available to blow your enemy away.

Wow, rant threads are the best :D

@nun: sorry to say this but try halo 2 and then get blown up in a ghost. then you'll know that vehicles are destructible :D and as for the 2 weapons only thing, i think that improves it as you actually have to choose your weapons wisely and it can get boring in some fps games when your walking around with all available weaponry in the game and blasting the hell out of the enemy.

In all the WW2 FPS games you can only carry two weapons, they try to make the games more 'real'...

not all e.g:
RTCW
COD
both allow you to carry all of the weapons in the game.

Ehmm am I mixing CoD with Medal of Honor, those two are somewhat similar, so my memory got mixed up, but I'm still sure that you can only use two weapons at once, or was that one weapon per size (one shotgun, machine gun etc.)

RTCW is in WW2 but they don' tend to push the realism, not with ghosts and stuff like that...