The game doesn't have to stay true to anything. As we've seen countless times, it's completely subjective what is and what is not true to a franchise. I for one think FF stayed very true to its roots and those pseudo fans don't know what they are talking about.

Even if the majority thinks the game isn't worth it anymore, there is no reason to call for it to be stopped. It's practically declaring that the creators shouldn't have freedom anymore.

As you said, creators need their creative freedom. They can't have that if "fans" are claiming that a game isn't what it should be. That's the way we got to this AAA trot where developers create based on what they think players want instead of what they want.

There are countless of games out there. If a player thinks his franchise isn't fun anymore he can just stop playing it, but what about those people who still liked it and maybe even embraced the changes? A changed game isn't hurting anyone, a stopped, or even worse, a franchise that let's their creators no freedom anymore is hurting a lot of people.

on 4 different consoles.

Halo should have stopped at 3,
Resistance should have stopped at 2,
Mario should have stopped at mario 64
Uncharted should have stopped at 3
Bioshock should have stopped at 2,
Resident evil should have stopped at 3
Final fantasy should have stopped at 10
Gears of war should have stopped at 2
Gran turismo should have stopped at 4 (GT5 and GT6 seem to suggest it half did)
Ridge racer should have stopped at RRT4
Ace combat should have stopped at 6
Battlefield should have stopped at 3
Call of duty should have stopped at 2
Fallout should stop at 4
Elder scrolls should stop at Skyrim

You get the picture.

1. Technically you can't say that unless uncharted 4 turns out to be worse than Uncharted 3. What if it turns out to be the best uncharted ever.
2. This doesn't apply to FF games since each one is fundamentally different. Every game is basically its own game and independent of all before it, with exception to sharing the names of items or spells or certain characters.
3. Doesn't apply to games like this either. Its a racing simulator, throw in cars and new tracks and you will always have a new game. Its like saying the should stop making football games cause well, they are all the same.
4. Again doesn't apply, the only thing the fallout games have in common are their post-apolytic settings.
5. Doesn't apply either, every game is its own story which just happens on a different continent of the same world. If they were to call each game in the series a different name (which technically they do) and do away with "the elder scrolls" monicker every single iteration of the franchise could have stood on its own. Unless what you are saying is that they should do away with "The elder scrolls Name". Hell, look at Kingdom Come, if that game was called The elder scrolls 6: Kingdom Come, it would fit right in.

resistance 3 had the best campaign in the series.

And about half of your list is/was way too big to stop at that point.

This list looks like something with no thought put in it.