It's just not about the game anymore

[T.G. Oskar]

but what you dont understand is that what makes these games a final fantasy game, isnt everything your stating, they are just nice perks and mechanics in a FF game. what make the final fantasy series what it is, is the amount of progression from one title to the next.

by standerd, what makes a FF title a FF game is that it is game called FINAL FANTASY made by square. end of story.

Minor nitpick; by standard, what makes any edition of Dungeons & Dragons a D&D game is that its books have the title "Dungeons & Dragons" and because they're made by Wizards of the Coast.

There's a bit of flawed logic in that. There are more aspects than simply those two. For example, Final Fantasy usually but not always has a theme on crystals, the presence of someone named Cid, Chocobos, the tightly regimented magic system (even FFXIII has A-magic, Ra-magic and Ga-magic, though only the bosses may or may not have Ja-magic), the concept of summons and the references they make (which only FFII and FFXII broke, with FFI having Bahamut albeit not as a summon), amongst other things. None of these are absolutely necessary, but their absence on a FF game would be noticeable; these are shared, common themes within most FF games.

Some people, like Anthony, consider much deeper aspects as intrinsic to Final Fantasy, such as the Job system (which not all games have but nearly all games make reference to) or the old Active Time Battle system (which newer games in the series have attempted to change). To the common person, those are the defining trends of various (if not all) Final Fantasies, and if they are absent, then the game won't have the same feel. Part is the like for those systems and how they are used to it; part is nostalgia, part is grognardise (look for that term, it describes most of the FF fanship almost to the point). In fact, when other games show those trends, they are considered "Final Fantasy-alikes", given the prominence of said traits. However, it may or may not actually define what is on a Final Fantasy game.

I'd take claiming Final Fantasy XIII as a non-Final Fantasy game with tweezers and care. Certainly, it is a massive departure from the norm; what with the apparent early-game linearity, battle system, semi-restricted character development (restricted, not limited; those are two different terms that nonetheless work as synonyms) and other aspects (Gestalt Mode instead of actual summoning, for example). Consider that the single largest departure from the theme of Final Fantasy was actually not a game, but a movie (Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within); how do you relate that movie to the core concepts of Final Fantasy may very well define how you relate Final Fantasy XIII to the accepted Final Fantasy canon.

Still, I don't consider the opposite to be wrong, either. Anyone is entitled to feel that Final Fantasy XIII is a sequel in-name only, and that it shows only some references to the core series but departs far too radically from the source. In fact, I consider that appreciating Final Fantasy XIII as a game, and not using the baggage of the Final Fantasy canon, may allow a different appreciation of the game. Perhaps, just perhaps, the game may be enjoyed by certain people if they don't visualize it as a Final Fantasy, but as a game from Squaresoft. Then, later, once you have gone through it, give it a closer look and see if it's really a Final Fantasy title or if it's a good game but not worthy of the title.