Originally Posted by lackblogger
People have been saying that since they came out, but they are extremely popular, and as you well know, and has been mentioned in this thread, words and their meanings are quite democratic and there's only so much the original meaning of something can withstand before the usurper prevails
The thing is, just because there's a rigid structure in place for what constitutes something it doesn't mean that 'close enough' isn't a thing. There are many games we call RPGs for no other reason than they are Close Enough and it gets tiresome having to write the proviso every time we talk about them. Those who were around at the time of release already know the deal, unfortunately, when new arrivals appear, they are not familiar with the 'unspoken knowing' and hence this contributes to the democratic loss of meaning.
Take Diablo, for example, the Codex don't even permit Diablo threads in their GRPG forum. Like-wise the RPGWatch does not traditionally view Diablo as GRPG material. The reason always was because it was a single character game and therefore not 'properly' RPG.
Take jRPGs, for example, why do they even have different sub-forums? Yu think it's just veiled racism or because they are 'foreign'? No, it's because jRPGs don't traditionally have character creation and, usually, enforce a static linear narrative, which is why you can't have character creation. This is why Planescape Torment is often referred to as, variably, more of an adventure game, more of a jRPG, and etc, and why people find it hard to describe PST as just a pure RPG.
What you seem to be getting upset about is not the definitions, but rather the idea that [insert your favourite game] is not considered a 'pure RPG'. As if it's some kind of shame that [favourite game] is somehow substandard because it's not 'pure RPG', when this has never been the case.
Someone says "yeah, great game, but it's not exactly RPG is it", and the army of fanboys of [favourite game] rush in to say how retarded XYZ is for 'slurring' their [favourite game], when that was never the intention nor purpose of the comment. It is merely an expression of fact. A communication tool that lets others know what kind of game it is.
Like the other guy said, because we like to categorise things. Because one-liners are more readable than walls of text. The short-hand always wins out. "This game that's a bit like an RPG is really great, try it out guys", get's shortened over the years to "Try out this great RPGs guys".
Divine Divinity is another classic example of when it was released it was one of those "wow, great nearly-RPG game guys, try it out", that is now written as just "Great old RPG". I myself highly praise DD & will always recommend it to other RPG fans, but if I ever wall of text about it, I'll always qualify it as "a nearly RPG", just as many others from that era would. But if someone just asks "recommend me a good old RPG", then I'll just type DD without any qualifiers, because that's just how it is.
The reaction of both you and @jfarrel is weird because you are not new people to the genre, and yet you both seem unaware of the unwritten knowledge that silently caveats all RPGs. So I'm wondering where you're coming from aside from [favourite game] historical arguments.