II is kind of a black sheep that I feel like a lot of people don't like or are more indifferent to. It is a pretty big departure from I with more defined characters, a bigger focus on story, and a vastly different leveling system.

Then III kind of goes back to the roots by expanding on the jobs of I while not having as much focus on plot and characters.

IV was more story focused like II and seemed to follow the formula somewhat including character deaths rotating party members and the friend that betrays you but turns back to good.

V starts to blend the two mindsets. It doesn't take itself too seriously, but it has a pretty defined story and characters. Like I and III it is more gameplay focused though, and what is most remembered about it usually is its expansion of the job system from III.

VI is back to being more story focused with more streamlined leveling mechanics. It's big difference is that it is trying to be much more cinematic and kind of has a more futuristic setting.

I don't really feel like continuing this, but the point is that even back then, there were some major differences in focus for each game. People who like I very well might not like II. People who love IV might not like III. There are really multiple types of final fantasies. I can see the argument for xv not feeling like final fantasy because most people playing the series aren't looking for an action rpg. I don't think the name should effect the quality, but people in the mood for a good turn based or atb dog aren't going to have that itch scratched by xv. I get that. I just think that from the beginning, the series was pretty diverse in how it approached each game.