Its not an FPS, its not an RPG, its not even a game, its an interative movie, where you run in straight lines and fight the same enemy again and again, in the same scripted battles.

untill you come to the end of the straight line and watch a cutscene about hormonal teen melodrama, with a teenage girl who has the voice of a 45 year old women going through menopause. you then repeat this process for 60 hours.

lets just see how many people buy the sequel of the teenage girl going through menopause,

cos not as many people bought FF10-2 as they bought FF10, i willing to bet a lot of people do the same with FF13-2. only FF10 was actully popular in comparasion to FF13.

The Last Story proves FF should have never turned into this.

Okay. You're wrong there for a start. It's an RPG. So now that that's out of the way...

You're wrong again there. The game isn't in straight lines, and Lightning (I assume you mean Lightning), isn't a Teenager.

Okay. I bet it does pretty well. Again, Lightning is not a Teen.

A sequel wont necessarily sell as much as an original, I agree that it wont sell as well as FFXIII, but it wont flop like you anticipate it to. FFXIII is popular.

The Last Story proves what? There's nothing to prove. You don't like the game, that's quite evident. If it was as bad as you say it was, it wouldn't have sold 10,000 plus units this week.

Is FF13 burnt out? Well, I guess it depends on what's fueling the flame. I can't deny at least some creative flame is left- they keep trying new things, even if I can't stand most of them. Popularity and sales, well... as long as enough people keep buying it, they'll keep fueling it. But quality? That flame's been dead for a while. I'll take a look at why.

The series was born in late 1987, so the series is just over 23 years old. Yet, how many games are there in the entire FF series, including spinoffs? At last count, I got 51, or a bit over 2 per year on average. (I'll post the list at the end.) The first 9 years saw a rate of less than 1 per year, including spinoffs. The 10th year, most of 1997, saw 3 games in that year alone, acceptable, given that both 1996 and 1998 were void. (1998 is also the last year to not have a game without the words 'Final Fantasy' in one way or another in the title.) Adding in these few years brought the average to 1 after half its current life. The second half of its life, then, had to (and did) average 3 games per year to bring the average to what it is now. (2008 and 2009 tie for king, at 6 games each year.) And frankly, if you have to churn out that many games each year, there's going to be a quality hit. This shows- the games aren't about gameplay anymore, they're about making interactive movies, especially the mainline. And to finance this, they continue to milk the name, knowing that it doesn't have to be good anymore; people keep buying it just for the title.

Meanwhile, most of the people who gave a lot of the earlier games their gameplay and charm are gone from Square. They now have the same few people coming up with ideas, and the similarities in the thought process show. The appearance of a carbon copy story in a new world is showing. They're not given a break, a chance to come up with genuinely new ideas. Instead, the creativity I mentioned in the beginning comes from different implementations of the same old ideas, which is where the change is perceived. But as long as the old idea continues to sell, why should they come up with a new one? It'll be more work for little to no extra benefit. And thus, the quality has stagnated, and died. I think what Square forgot, is that, ultimately, these are games. Sure, a game can tell a story, but it's not a good game unless you can deviate from things some. If I have to just run in a straight line to keep going on your story, then just make a movie and be done with it. Oh, wait... it's been tried... with less dependable results. So we'll just pass off our new movie as a new game- we'll even be able to sell it for more than a movie, to boot!

Now I know I'm going to get accused of seeing this through nostalgia-tinted glasses. But I've replayed many of the older games rather recently, and yes, I would rather play through FF1 than FF7 (or frankly, any post-7 FF) again, despite that my last play of FF1 was after my last play of FF7. And some later ones, like FF10, I've tried playing. Multiple times, even. But they bore me. They're too easy, there's nowhere to explore, and you really don't have the character freedom anymore. I love the sphere grid idea in 10, but if the game itself is a chore, it fails. The only game I've been able to get into and enjoy post-6 is 9, though it also fell to the problem of being too easy. (12 came close, but it had 2 glaring flaws that drove me batty: the license grid and AI programming limitations.) And there are other series that I find have evoloved nicely: I like both styles of the Persona games, Tales has been fairly dependable in what to expect, and even another S-E series, Dragon Quest, has had its last release be the best game in the series to date. But FF has devolved, to the point where yes, on this day, I would play an older one to a newer one. I don't see that changing, nor will it, even if somehow things do turn around, because the light is out, and I've no interest in trying to respark it.

I completely disagree with this post The reason they churn so many out is because people want them i think it would suck if there was only 1  year the more ff the better and the ideas are not getting stale look at ff 13 there all completely different they are realeasing heaps and keeping the series very fresh all releases are completely different there is no stagnation. so i dont know what your talking about