Originally Posted by fatBastard()
Judging by the constant bickering here at the Watch about whether new game X really is a RPG or not and by how those that are deemed true RPG's are excused for containing even blatant flaws and those that are not deemed true RPG's are being bitch-slapped from top to bottom for even minor details, I can certainly understand why developers would want to shy away from the RPG label.
Sorry, but lately it has struck me how "elitist" (the word is a bit harsh but unfortunately also fitting) the tone here at the Watch has become. If a game meets certain standards (looks like it is from the early 90'ies, plays like it is from the early 90'ies, have been developed by an indie firm or has been made with a tiny budget) it is automatically praised for upholding the "True" RPG spirit no matter how flawed the game may be. Likewise if the game has a been made with a big budget or looks and feels like a game of today it is automatically criticized for no being a proper RPG, again no matter how great the game may be. (e.g. DA:O winner of the most disappointing game of the year here at the Watch)
If being a proper RPG means that a list of requirements must be fulfilled to be able to don that label then I say good riddance. I would much rather play a game that was created based on the concepts and ideas the developers wanted you to play than a game made to fit a predefined mold whether or not it was actually the original concept of the game.