If Square Enix wants to experiment, go nuts. But throwing the Final Fantasy name on a non-Final Fantasy product doesn't MAKE it a Final Fantasy game. Final Fantasy Explorers is an interesting game, but its interest is totally unrelated to it having the Final Fantasy name. If they want for the name to continue to have value then they need to respect it and what it means to people.
Here's my problem with that argument: what
IS Final Fantasy? Is it about adventuring through medieval fantasy with a group of archetypes to save a kingdom? Because Final fantasy hasn't been
that since FF 9. Is it about soldiering through an epic adventure to take down God? Because that pretty much describes every Final Fantasy game since FF 5, including FF 13; 13-2;
AND Lightning Returns. Is it an epic single-player adventure
at all? Because FF 11 and FF 14 exist. Is it determined by a selection of familiar series tropes like stupid spell names, Chocobos, and a guy named Cid? Is it determined by a specific battle system, because
THAT'S probably changed most of all (1-3 = turn-based, 4-9 = ATB, 10 = turn-based, 10-2 = ATB, 11= MMO, 12 = wannabe-MMO, 13 & 13-2 = ATB w/ emphasis on Macro-level strategy, 14 = MMO, Lightning Returns = character action version of ATB system)?
To me, Final Fantasy is a series that's dominated by
change for at least the last several
decades, specifically
not an adherence to a particular design or formula. And that's a good thing. It's what's allowed the brand to still be viable when more traditional series like Dragon Quest are completely irrelevant outside Japan. And yet the 13 series is where people flipped their ****.
THIS is when it's "not Final Fantasy" anymore.
"THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE! THIS FAR! NO FURTHER! AND THEY WILL PAY FOR WHAT THEY'VE DONE TO ME!"
What I find especially hilarious is that even the detractors can't seem to figure out what Final Fantasy "is", because Square-Enix very specifically tailored both 13-2 and Lightning Returns to what people claimed Final Fantasy "was" and people still claimed they "weren't Final Fantasy."
I'm not going to claim that any of the 13 games are masterpieces, but I've enjoyed them for what they each brought to the table that was different than what I had been playing for decades. To me, brands are names, nothing more, just like how Nintendo slaps "Mario" on games that aren't platformers. I absolutely agree with you that the Final Fantasy brand is overexposed: we simply have too many games bearing the name & the baggage when Square-Enix could be making new IPs or reviving old ones. That's the modern gaming market, though: old IP sells. It's the "safe" bet, for better or worse.
As for the Bravely Default sales, we're comparing sales of an extremely divisive (some might even say "shitty") game on a viable "new" handheld (published by Nintendo outside Japan) to those of the 3rd installment of an
extremely divisive trilogy (one which even its fans didn't think there should've been
three of) on a dying console, with no marketing push by Square-Enix. No **** it sold better. It would have been embarrassing if it
hadn't.