I don't see a problem with calling a game bad or good, its not the same as trying to label it the 'worst'. It can be the same thing with genres, if the genre is narrow. For instance, even though I have nothing against real-time games, I really think that generally real-time strategy as its implemented is really a bad game design. The real-time strategy games I tend to have the most respect for are those that are on a smaller scale, like combat squadrons; and don't attempt to encompass entire civilizations (rise of nations). Not that I don't think a good civilization game can be done with some real time elements, but they have to change the mechanics of real-time gameplay first.
One of the problems with judging most genres as genres is that they're poorly defined, can include a lot of types of games, and you don't control who uses the label. Real-time strategy could include more types of games in the future. One of the most ill-defined genres is role-playing. This includes games that are adventure-like, action-like, puzzle-like, simulation-like, etc. Most games in other genres are also not always strict in what they are doing, but they tend to be more for similar tastes than role-playing games are for similar tastes.
I don't like Final Fantasy btw.
I think even Pokemon is better than Final Fantasy, because it doesn't have pretensions and is somewhat cool in its simplicity.
Hollistic, one of the role-playing games I liked, when it was good (and there were releases that weren't as good); was the Ultima series, because the gameplay wasn't linear; there was still a linear path to completing the game, but you had to figure out what it was; and in the meantime, there was other essential gameplay. This started with Ultima IV when you were faced with making moral choices; and in Ultima VII you could do things like baking, forging swords, etc. These games weren't completely good to this idea and unfortunately somewhere along the line they lost sight of what made them good altogether
:thumbdown
