Well this argument will never end then....because you have set a standard of hardcore RPG player that can only give you anecdotal evidence because you have to ask them how many RPG's and which one's they've played. So I guess it's impossible to disprove the idea that most Hardcore RPGers see FFVII as worse than general popular opinion, impossible to prove as well.

That said I understand your dislike of FFVII and I have no problem with people disliking the game....I just don't like being told that I'm an RPG noob simply because I happened to like FFVII, which I'm sure is not anyone's direct intention (hopefully).

Nope, not at all. It's just a matter of knowing what makes a game and what it's changed, copied etc. Take a look at Dark Requiem's post for example.

FF7 did a lot of "dumbing down"... it also gets a lot of credit for being the "first" in some things when in reality it was just the "first" to implement them in a mainstream game.

It was also just the first truley mainstream RPG... which is really going to effect peoples opinions on it.

It's perfectly fine to like a game, and to accept it's flaws. Quite a few games give me a lot more enjoyment then actual better games. There is a difference between how good something is though... and how good something is for you.

More people are going to get more enjoyment from Big Mama's house then they are Citizen Kane now a days. That doesn't make Citizen Kane a better move. Some people may perfer Big Mama's house.

Some movie experts may even like Big Mama's house better. They still wouldn't rate it better then Citizen Kane because people who are experts can tend to rank these things objectivly.

I would say if you look at it objectivly, FF7 was a step backwords in RPGs in general.