The Fury said: 

Then real question would be, why are you interested in Final Fantasy? If you don't like or feel Turn base combat is dated, then there are enough open work action RPG out there to suit your needs. There isn't anyone who is a fan of Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat asking them to update their game's primary gameplay because graphics are improving. They are both still 2D plane fighters. 

What FF fans of old current lack is FF game that looks like FF15 or better but plays like FF6-9. This is what they want but this isn't what SquEnix are making anymore. No one is asking for realising with pixel art.They are asking for interactive worlds with a battle system that feel like it has strategy and you have control instead of 'auto attack' or mash buttons to win.

Of course I say this in the knowledge they have actually only released 2 new FF games in a decade, one was linear and took control from the player while the other went open world action because it was left overs of a spin-off. 

I was interested in it for the style it had, back in the 90's, but as we transitioned to 3D polygons, I felt like it was missing something, then of course we started to see the transition from turn based to real time and the visuals updated even more and to me that felt like a natural transition. 

I find this notion of "I like this game and don't want it changed, you go elsewhere" line of thought to being a bit aggressive. I don't really need to check out other games. I played FFXV and XIV, and I like them both being real time. That doesn't automatically mean I need to suddenly stop playing those two games, abandon the entire franchise and force myself to play other lesser games for the sake of a few here say lesser, because I've yet to play a real time action combat based JRPG that isn't loaded with gimmicks or isolated to a tiny battlefield/area with lower quality assets).

Oh no, not for MK/SF?, because I've also been wanting those two to improve over the years. MK actually had something with Shaolin Monks (I imagine you won't see nor agree to that, but that's why you and I see things differently). 

I've been there since the 90's myself, so yes, I am one of those old fans, that still enjoys the old titles for what they were, but isn't wanting the latest games to employ the exact same mechanics, but with realistic visuals. I wouldn't mind at all if they went back to pixel art styles, because I was clamoring for their Chrono C port, that turned out to be utter garbage upon release and the months following. What I don't want, are near realistic visuals, but being displayed exactly as what you see in the gif, because to me, that pulls me right out of any and all immersion that the game would try to offer me, because I know reality doesn't work like that with higher end visuals, maybe some people are wired like that, but there certainly aren't billions wired like that (otherwise we'd be seeing everything turn based).

You know you don't always have to mash buttons right?. You know full well that games like DS require careful planning and multiple strategies, all while playing the game in real time. This whole"real time is for idiots/button mashers" example just doesn't "mash" well. If you think and take offense (And I can guess some of you most certainly will, no need for lies) to turn based being called "dated", then certainly you should see the same in turn with calling anything real time based as being called "button mashing to win". We live in a reality where everything runs in real time. We win wars based on real decisions, made in real time, with no pause button. You can have meaningful battle systems with real time combat, it isn't something beholden to just turn based games you know?.

Yes, an open world that wasn't exactly filled with meaningful NPC's or a meaningful battle system, not real time itself being the fault mind you.