No.
The reaction comes naturally, you don't choose it. Calm down, take a deep breath, then look within yourself and realise what "Final Fantasy One?" is to you.

I see... :) My reaction was more like... "'cares... arf" :)

All seriousness aside though... The only Final Fantasy game I ever played was the original game on 8-bit NES which I solved 2-3 times. It was a pretty cool game at the time. Learned some of the music on guitar also, in particular the battle music and the cave music. Surprisingly I have went all this time without playing any of the other FF games although I did watch a FF movie a fairly long time ago but it didn't seem to have anything to do with the game I played anyway. :)

Given SE mishandling Final Fantasy in recent years, i'm afraid i'd have to react like this, lol.

Like an adult, and not act like it matters.

Call it "the new Final Fantasy" for a while, then "the last Final Fantasy" for some time, then settle on "Final Fantasy (insert year here)" for the only two or three times that I would ever mention it again.

"Eh, sounds like the kind of thing they'd do."

Then I'd pour one out for my dead homie Squaresoft. That King of Baron stuff in Final Fantasy IV was eerily prophetic.

To be frank, there really isn't much that modern Final Fantasy games have in common with the originals in the first place. Enough so that I really haven't paid any attention to the series whatsoever since...8, I think. Tactics, yes, but normal FF? Naw. Too much weeaboo pandering, over design on the characters, while failing to actually give their characters any...you know, character.

Barely any of the games really have anything to do with each other, the ones that do are the pairs X and X-2, as well as XIII and XIII-2. Oh, and then there's VII and the movie with the same title, the movie simply named "Final Fantasy" is entirely separate.

With movies there's far fewer people actively watching/consuming the movies and it's much easier to probably replace them in that way. Games have a much shorter history, and it's a lot more obvious what's going on, especially with us that grew up with some of these games and are finding them return, except they aren't.

Although truthfully, the remakes (whatever they are) for the 80's and the like all end up terrible. Not sure how the 90's movies will fare.

Probably "meh". I have no vested interest into Final Fantasies, so far I have played FF1-FF8.

What's the punchline? I presume there is some purpose to this question other than one hypothetical situation?

well some movies have reeaaaaaly weird naming schemes
the "rambo"series
first you have first blood
then rambo first blood part II ( a weird title in it self ) usually its called rambo II
then rambo III
followed by rambo

easier to call that one just rambo IV to be honest

and the nightmare on elmstreet remake nightmare on elmstreet 2010
it sucks btw

With regards to the Rambo movie series, what is even more interesting is that the original film is based on the book called "First Blood" (which I've read) and ...

***SPOILER ALERT***
[spoiler]







John Rambo dies at the end, if I remember correctly - by a hand grenade. There is no sequel to the book. :o)
[/spoiler]

i know that ;p
and they wanted to end the movie that way originally too

i just used rambo as an example because of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEVzPCY2T-g
and the series had weird naming issues right from the start
how do you go from
frist blood
to rambo ( II )
to rambo III
to rambo ?

oh and rambo is a apple cultivar

It is just speculation on my part, but I think the reason the phenomenon of releasing new works within a franchise without any version number or title suffix is that the marketing people may be of the opinion that some people may not want to see a movie or play a video game of a higher version number if they have not already played all of the ones that came before that. I know this seems silly because just using version numbers even once would seem to indicate that they were ok with it before so why not now? I think this is answered simply by having people either change their mind over time, or entirely different people making the decisions and deciding the marketing of a given title on its own merits with their own criterion, so seemingly irrational decisions can happen purely for marketing purposes.

It might end up being a genuine sequel, or it might end up being a remake of the original or some other previous release, or a complete reboot/re-imagining or something else. What's more annoying is if they make a sequel to that later and call it "2" when there is already a former "2" from the original series. :)

In the case of Rambo, there were a very great many years that passed by since Rambo 3 to the new Rambo movie, and calling it Rambo 4 may perhaps have alienated some potential viewers, in particular young people that may have not even been alive yet when the original trilogy was fresh. Calling it "Rambo" in marketing sense makes it seem like a fresh new movie without pinning it psychologically as a sequel to the originals.

In short though, all of the cases where this happens are 100% pure marketing gimmicks. Similar happened with the Tomb Raider franchise, Thief, Wolfenstein, and now DOOM as well. It's like a "fresh start" for the franchise name psychologically.

What's funny is watching how things like Microsoft Windows version marketing has evolved over time.

Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95 -> Windows 98 -> Windows 98SE -> Windows ME -> Windows XP -> Windows Vista -> Windows 7 -> Windows 8 -> Windows 8.1 -> Windows 10.

Not only that, but the internal version of the operating system that Windows reports to programs that query it is completely different than the end user visible version number if it sports a number. WTF is that all about? Marketing appeal, that's what. And why is there no Windows 9? (Don't answer, I know the answer already... :)

In the end, it's all about the psychology of marketing marketing marketing. :)

blame the godfather part II
it was the first numbered sequel despite paramounts objections coppola insisted
and since then we have had numbered sequel for good or for worse

i mentioned the rambo series specifically because of its bizarre naming scheme
it went from first blood to rambo
the "proper" naming scheme should be

first blood
first blood part II rambo
first blood Part III rambo II
and first blood part IV rambo III
yes i know this makes no sense either

the only other series i know of that radically changed its title mid series is dark forces
star wars dark forces
star wars dark forces II jedi knight
star wars jedi knight II
and star wars jedi academy