Still, there has to be a short and fitting definition somewhere
This is not true and this misconception is exactly the reason why these discussions tend to go nowhere (which is not to say that they are not fun
).
Genre is a tool that helps one to classify stuff but is by nature flawed and the attempt by you guys to look for that one perfect definition is therefore futile. Genre theory is not natural science and we should not expect clear cut answers. Just look at all those hard to categorize movies and songs and books, all those weird compound thingies like comedy-fantasy-dramas, western-scifi-adventures and romantic-horror-musicals; or at the overabundance of sub-genres in specific fields (like 'metal' for example).
Making the attempt to clearly define a genre will always result in some overlaps, weird exceptions and all that shit. This uncertainty is just something one has to live with. Therefore
HiddenX list of formal criteria can be considered a pretty helpful and workable tool for categorization and pointing out its flaws does not immediately disqualify it in its entirety but only shows that
genre categorizations are not absolutes but merely flawed (but useful) approximations.
I would like to bring up one criteria that I personally deem very productive but may also rightfully be criticized as very vague - which is the
recipients/players intent/response.
What exactly that is gets explained very nicely and entertaining in
this video (at about 2:20).
This criterion is admittedly hard to quantify since its not a formal aspect but basically just based on '
muh feelings' but it still has an impact on all of us and should therefore be considered.
If you just try to apply a set of formal criteria with mathematical precision this avails you nothing, since our categories are based on a set of imperfect and sometimes rather arbitrary assumptions. Creators of cultural products also don't go through some sacred universal check-list they never stray from. Maybe they have one on their own, but its a rough idea, a basis to experiment with ("Why not combine RPG elements with Strategy games? Or shooter elements? Or...")
In short:
Cultural products are far too multifarious that you can expect to fit them all into neat little packages. If you try, the result is that you get the same discussion again and again and again: Is System Shock 2 an RPG? It fulfills this criteria but not that. Is Jagged Alliance 2 an RPG? It fulfills this criteria but not that. Is Deus Ex an RPG? Quest For Glory? Surely you can try to pinpoint what they all have in common .. but then you find that one weird exception and the whole thing collapses. Carried to extremes you get the whole reason for this thread - someone makes an absurd suggestion, in this case for example, that a game that is widely considered a timeless classic of the genre is in reality not not part of the genre at all. Certainly one can try to justify such a claim.. but that only shows how imperfect pure formal criteria are for categorization - and at the very least that they should not be considered absolutes.
For exactly that reason, in the last Codex poll every game was counted as an RPG that a Codexer voted for. It was thus
justified by consensus and rightfully included in the list (naturally, Ultima 7 shows up in that list, duh.).
There was no abstract theoretical discourse about formal criteria needed, it just took the shared player response into account. This was a very pragmatical measure that you guys should take into account for theoretical discourse as well.