The "Game Series Roots" Arguement

[Steampunk Viking]

With the recent release of Final Fantasy XIII (of which I'm still awaiting my damn copy - stupid Royal Mail), I've noticed the fanboy arguements prop up already. "Square Enix are betraying their roots! Final Fantasy belongs on the Playstation, not the 360 as well!"

Why do people care so much? More importantly, didn't Final Fantasy start on the NES in the very beginning?

This arguement has really confused me for quite some time. It also occurred when the new upcoming Metal Gear series was announced to be released on the 360. Now, Metal Gear started on a console other than the NES (I forget which one) but it was definitely on the NES before the Playstation was even conceived. You could argue that it was "Metal Gear Solid" and not "Metal Gear" that was Playstation exclusive, but that still doesn't hold water for me. This is a new Metal Gear series still and could easily be used as a counter arguement.

I would understand the arguement more if the new games are not being released on the consoles they have appeared on before, but with Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid, this isn't the case (since the new Metal Gear Solid series has been confirmed to now be for the PS3 as well), yet people still complain they're not exclusives.

I am genuinely interested on the general outlook of this opinion. Do you agree with the Final Fantasy Playstation fanatics? Or do you disagree completely?

 

[MrWhippeh]

Attention fanboys(just the stupid ones): If a series is good enough for you to defend it from critics and online attackers through thick and thin, you should be happy that more people get to experience it too. You're acting as though it owes you enough to not make the money it deserves. Stop being stupid and we will stop treating you as such. That is all.

 

[Katana314]

Roots can be bad. Remember Resident Evil 4? Versus, say...
"Here's a lockpick. It could be useful if you, the master of unlocking doors, were to use it."
Yahtzee was right that sequels should have new ideas, so I don't instantly discredit FF13 for just being different. However, I do kinda discredit it. From what I hear there's not much interesting about having a world you have little strategy or control within. Too many cutscenes is bad too.

Please note this is also why I think this whole Sonic 4 stuff is overblown. The only way Sonic is going to be fun again is if they think of some new use for speed.

 

[simmeh]

The original Metal Gear was on the MSX. The NES game was just a bastardized port.

As for your argument, I agree that the 'roots' of a franchise are often pretty irrelevant. There are people out there who have this obstinate opinion that you can't truly appreciate a game (or movie, or book, or television) series without first experiencing the series in its earliest stages.

One example of this is a 'discussion' I had with this fellow who was upset over the fact that the original Final Fantasy was losing in the GameFAQs contest. When I pointed out to him that the game was broken, glitchy, and had aged very poorly, he turned on me, telling me that I had no right to enjoy FFX (my personal favourite from the series) if I didn't like the original. Needless to say, I left; arguing with such people is a colossal waste of time.

I'm not saying that we should ignore previous entries in a given series, it's just that games should be judged primarily on their merits as a game from the era from which they come.