I almost agree. My all-time favorite FF is actually FFXII, which was under the new Square Enix banner, but every other title since then has been a steady decline for me. OG Square was definitely better.

FF12 is one of my favourite games of all time. How 'FF' it is on the other hand is another matter.

But then when didn't the Ivalice team make a good game?

Italic; that's actually a good take. For me, I loved that they kept the somewhat quirky nature of FF settings, with its monsters, characters and effects. But they also installed more mature elements with the main characters and story. They also managed to marry more modern gameplay mechanics with classical FF tactical focus. I found it to be an excellent balance. The licence system and gambit system were standouts for me, the former allowed for more custom loadouts and building compared to most FF titles and the latter allowed for fine-tuning of control of party members. The exploration and team-swapping mechanics were also ace. Story and the music were really good as well, in my opinion. Damn, it was near perfect for me, especially for its time.

To be fair I haven't given FF12 a proper try. It released as I was making the switch from PS2 to Xbox. I was switching because my PS2 broke (again), so while a new FF game usually would've been a day 1 purchase for me, not having a working console to play it on changed that.

The MMO style combat does kind of put me off although I did buy it in a Steam sale a little while back, so it's on my to play list at some point.

I love FF12, it's fantastic. The plot is great, the voice acting may be some of the best in any video game ever. Combat superb, world amazing. The game even on PS2 wowed me with it's graphics and still does, even if I have the HD remaster. But little things like open world, summons not being the same names etc wasn't quite right. Still love it. Sometimes it's hard to explain what I mean by "Is it FF enough?" The feel.

But as many will argue, each iteration updates itself. FF games change, they change their characters, plot, magic system, how the character traverse the world (although this is because of advances in technology) and I'm all welcoming of all this but with each entry it felt like while many things changed it stayed the same. The things above were different but combat was basically the same, even with FF12 even if you could basically automate it, it was still ATB.

However, according to many, this includes combat but this is only the case in the last 1 entry (FF15 which as we know was meant to be a spin-off anyway). Even FF13 with it's issues still had an turn based ATB. FF16 will no doubt be a superb game and I'll probably play it one day but it's not what I want from an FF game, it can change all the standard I've mentioned above all it likes but to be completely action based? No party to manage? I can't even see an MP bar for magic, there's a dodge button. This to me departs too much from the series original gameplay.

I really don't enjoy MMOs, mostly due to the lack of immersion in combat, which is kind of a big deal since fighting makes up the majority of most games. I've tried all the major ones but could never get into them at all. As I mentioned, I found FFXIIs combat to be a great compromise between older systems and more modern ones.

I'm not against progress, or change, but I don't like it when something completely disrespects its roots and turns into something different entirely. Or when developers give us something no one really asked for (Diablo: Immortal and Anthem spring to mind).

I mean... the 'series original gameplay' has been gone for over 20 years now, more than half of the time Final Fantasy has existed. It's not coming back.

From I to IX, a whole nine games, Final Fantasy followed the same-y copy of Dragon Quest's 1986 turn-based combat. By the end of the century, it was already irrevocably outdated and braindead compared to almost every other game in the market. So the surprise is that it lasted as long as it did, not that it changed in the end.

Even GameFreak, the least talented among all Nintendo's first and second parties by a country mile and targeting a constantly renewing children's audience with Pokémon, innovates more in gameplay terms than Square did in their classic years...

Oh, so finally someone had the balls to tell the truth. Props to you

You are correct, it probably won't, SquEnix are appealing to a general audience but that doesn't mean I have to like the changes. 20 years but 4 main series titles, took them 15 years to make 10, took them 20 more years to make 4 (and I'm including 16 in this).

Turn based isn't outdated just because you don't like it. Gameplay can't be outdated because it's just how you play, gameplay has no time limit. Is chess outdated because it's turn based? Is Risk?

Here's another example of what I mean in terms of changing original gameplay. I love Tekken, it's one of my stable series that has held fast over all these years, they have slowly reduced the amount of games per gen due to how fighting games now work with seasons and DLC. However the fundermental gameplay has remained the same in all that time. A 3D arena fighter, each button is a limb. They adapted with changes like emphasizing juggling mechanics, walls instead of just open arenas, specials, rage bars and stuff, to keep up to date with how fighting games are progressing, improved graphics, hit detection and engines for development. They even changed their main story mode in T7 to replicate the success a changeable character story modes like Injustice or MK, instead of the generic arcade style. However at the core it's still a 3d arena fighter, each button is a limb.

Yet, if they changed it to be more similar to Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat, with half circle + punch style moves, a 2d plane fighting game. I probably wouldn't buy the next entry. It's still called Tekken, is still a fighter but I'm not interested because it's not Tekken gameplay.

I wouldn't want the ancient gameplay of the 90s to come back, my main concern is that the strategic element has been killed entirely, or so it seems. Strategy and planning has always been a staple of the franchise, even after the first 9 installments. FFVII was the first one I played, which gives it a nostalgic place in my heart, but it was mechanically pretty weak. FFVIII was plain weird, I could never get into the "draw" system of the magic. FFIX was the peak of OG FF, in my opinion.

As I've mentioned, progress is okay, and necessary, but seeing this series turn into a full-fledged 3rd person action game just makes me kinda sad. Especially since the exploration and world-building looks amazing. I felt the same way when Mass Effect 2 and 3 dialed down the RPG elements in favor of action, and Skyrim doing away with so much depth was also a drag. But I understand why it's done; it helps make them more mainstream acceptable.

Between this, Atlas Fallen, Bleak Faith: Forsaken, Lies of P, Hell is Us, Wild Hearts, Exoprimal, Project Eve, Stellar Blade, Lords of the Fallen, Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty, Crimson Desert, Forspoken, Black Myth: Wu Kong, Dragon Age: Dreadwolf, and many, many more, it looks like Elden Ring and "spin, hack, glitz, fill bars and shine sim" are the main templates for 3rd person games right now. And it's a bit boring. It's the new battle royale. Don't get me wrong, there are some amazing games being made, and some immensely exciting titles on their way (I have at least 4-5 games on my watch list for this year that are more or less first day buys), but most of the attention seems to go to the blandest stuff following the same formula.

I agree with your point, I really do, but the alternative can't be what we're getting right now, there has to be more than two ways. Regardless, I haven't really enjoyed FF for about 15 years, so it doesn't make a world of difference in this one case.