Just for convenience sake (and because I can't be bothered arguing everything all over again), I have gone through the topic and picked out a quote that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the thread:

I don’t “hate” all classical FF games, what I hate is how people always assume that anything made nowadays was pathetic compared to something made over a decade ago.
What I mean by this is, people say that FFI or whatever is MUCH better than FFX, yet when you try to compare the two, people always use lines to the effect of “oh, but you can’t compare them in that area, the game is X years older than that one!” So, my question is, does this mean that just because a game is older, it makes it immune to being scrutinized by contemporary gamers? When someone considers a game like FFX, they will nitpick at every little detail, yet it would seem that because FFI was considered a ‘great game’ in a time when expectations were undeniably much lower, it allows it to bypass all of the modern scrutiny and still be considered as a viable comparison.

So, I propose that if someone states that one game is better than any other, the games should be compared in all areas, regardless of any age differences. In addition, the opinion of “I like FF(n) better because it was the first one I played” should be recognised to be a biased opinion, and in no way as useful as “I like FF(n) better because it succeeds in these areas…”

Or something like that. Can’t remember what my mentality was when I wrote it, maybe I was just trying to start a flame war…