I honestly don't see how is that related to the point that I was trying to make

The team is new, the approach is new, both the visionary and current director are new to take over a main entery in FF. It is simply a new direction for the series. It can not be judged by the publisher or the franchise name.

To answer your point. Yes that is always a possibility, but it is not the case with Versus XIII and SE. Versus /XV is a distinct view of one man for the franchise as a whole:

"There are no explicit rules for how a Final Fantasy game should be – and so every version is that design team’s interpretation of certain themes, and their answer to that question of what FF should be. FFXIII belongs to that mainstream tradition. I want to propose another view of how FF could be, or should be: there is a long tradition, and my intention is that Versus will be distinct from that."

http://www.edge-online.com/features/interview-tetsuya-nomura/

are expecting a story about politics in FFXV ?

Personally this is just me
but I feel like monolith will put more heart into X then square into final fantasy
dont worry both will be great games(more confident x wont disspaoint as much as 15 though)
both will have huge worlds(final fantasy 15's world is really detailed O_O)
overall story will be intersting
now metacritic score since nintendo tends to score a lot of 90s I go
with
92 X
85 FF 15

If you consider Kingdom Hearts (FF x Disney) as part of the FF series in a way, it isnt a huge departure. The gameplay looks very similar, so its not like FFXV is something they just brought out of nowhere. Realistic KH is an easy way to describe it.

It is somewhere in-between with it own unique elements like the gambit system and the big variety of weapons (different not only in appearance, but also in attacks and special abilities). Being a part of two different systems is not exactly simple or easy to judge and understand. Fortunately, the demo is coming in a few months, we should have a clear idea how it works.

Until then, we can only make guesses based on footage and confirmed elements.

Really? Usually the strategy with bosses is to dodge their attacks and hit them in the ass until they or you die. The strategic element is, "How can I dodge/block their attacks?" Normal enemies can be dickheads, but that usually isn't because you've done anything wrong. Not that it isn't fun, but it definitely isn't the most strategic RPG I've played. Not to say real-time systems can't be strategic. Many MMORPG's prove this to be incorrect. However, it is much easier for a developer to make fun gameplay without strategy in an action-oriented game. The end result is what feels like a hack n slash (Bayonetta, DMC, GoW) with moderate RPG elements. That is what KH feels like to me, and that is my only worry for FF XV (I'm glad they slowed it down.) Then again, anything is better than having the game play for you. Turn-based RPG's have their own problems that can make them boring. So I'm not too worried about the battle system. 

We can make every system sounds oversimplified if we choose to to describe them the way you did. Which is not fair at all.

The Souls strategic depth comes from two elements. the necessity of stamina management and the  best response to enemy behavior.

As for the stamina management, everything you do consume the stamina bar, beside magic. There is always a best time for everything to keep your stamina in-check or you will be punished. Enemies with long combos and/or heavy weapons can not be blocked unless you are a heavy shield user yourself, it is always best to dodge them or your run out of stamina. Of course, using heavy shield has its disadvantages like slow movement and heavy rolling animation. For enemies with fast attacks, the best you could do is to block or parry and be close to them when they run out if stamina themselves.

That leads me to the second element. Understanding the enemy behavior is always the key. when is the best time to attack. Being aggressive with heavy shielded enemies is a suicide, being over defensive with aggressive enemies will be punished. You always have to find the right balance of things. All of that happens while you are in full control over your character.

Although, spell casting does take away from the strategic depth imo.

Now, I ask, what are these strategic elements that can only be implied in turn-based systems and can not be there if we simply remove the time that limits your action? 

Also, have you played Lightning Returns? the battle system is a great balance between turn-based and action based.

Maybe I've played too many games in my time, but a stamina meter is the standard for real-time RPG's. And its management is also a standard. It is pretty much the core feature of any melee class in an MMORPG/Western RPG. Enemies in souls games are pretty scripted, so the response to behavior isn't that tough. After fighting the boss five times it is quite easy to predict the chain of actions they'll perform. While this is a fun mechanic, I wouldn't really call the most strategic element I've experienced in a game. And it certainly isn't a feature exclusive to this game either. Monster Hunter is a series that has a very similar "strategy" system, but it is enhanced by having up to four playable characters - each with a role to perform (tank, support, etc, etc.) I've yet to play Co-op in Dark Souls, so I won't comment on how it works there. 

I mostly play a pyromancer in Dark Souls by the way. 

With turn-based games you have more control. Not just over one character, but over four (or more) characters. Not only do you have to perfect the stats of your main character, but you also make sure the party is balanced. That you have enough magical and physical offense and defense, that your skills won't negate each-other, and the same things that you need to consider in dark soul also apply in turn-based games. You can't be so overtly offensive with a defensive boss. You must first remove their extra defense, somehow. But you aren't precluded to just that. The games with the best strategic systems give you multiple means of doing things. Dark souls is a game in which you have one way depending on your class and pretty much only one way. That is why I don't really consider it that strategic. Now not all party-based games need to be turn-based, but then there is a problem of a working system to control the characters which arises. Games like Dragon Age allow you to pause the game and control as much or as little of your party as you'd like. When fighting hard bosses on max difficulty, this usually means you have to pause every party member on every single cool-down. You need to micro-mangage and use your attacks as efficiently as possible based on the party combination you created. Now some RPG's, like tactical RPG's go even further and you have dozens of characters to control based of placement and turn-based combat. They add the element of "war" strategy to the gameplay. Overall, with a turn-based game you not only have strategy on the how can I approach this enemy level, but also on how can I synchronize my party and how can I utilize my limited turns. How can I control all members of my party to maximize my damage output on the enemy and defeat him. The only way a real-time game can emulate this is by being multiplayer. 

Dark Souls system might not be unique for you but it is for me. I think you are much more experienced in rpgs than I am.

DS reviews do talk a lot about the system depth. While I agree the enemies are scripted, but the variety of enemies in each area keep the experience fresh and changing.

In Dark Souls the balance also comes from equipment not only stats, there is not only physical defense but also fire, lightning, magic, poison, bleed and dark defense, in addition to poise system. Keeping you character balanced is more about your equipment than your stats really. Not to forget that That the physical damage has three different types. Also, buff and debuff system can easly be implied in action based system. You really need to plan things ahead. A boss becomes easy after 5 death is 100% true, that is my point actually.

Now I agree with you party management is deeper in turn-based systems. But I disagree that you have more control. Not being able to move around or to dodge / block, or to interact with the elements in battlefield is a lot of sacrifice in comparison to action based system. Don't forget that party management in action based system can be implied through gambit-like system like in FF XV (although the direct control over all members was removed). You set rules and manage the behavior of each party member in advance. How detailed it is depends on the game.

Well the character model design style is intentional.  The quality  is due to wanting to conserve polygons on the closeup to allow for more in the distance.  This is especially obvious with the first Xenoblade, where they had to make due with the Wii's very limited processing power.  The upclose graphics don't matter as much with Xenoblade since the game is played in a drawn back third person view. 

And the model textures actually aren't bad Xenoblade Chronicles X from what we have so far seen, just not amazing and occassionally inconsistent.  Polygon counts are where it kinda suffers, depending on the outfit the character is wearing and what part of the body you look at.