Why is predictable a bad thing?  Even forgetting about foreshadowing, how many stories start with the ending where you know exactly what is going to happen?

And then even something as simple as Uncharted where I know Drake is going to win and get the girl in the end, it's not all about the twist at the end I never saw coming, it's more about the journey.

The journey that portrays him as a smug douchebag with a complete disregard for the lives of everyone else and no interest in anything besides making enough money to buy more hair gel. That guy is completely dehumanised.

Once again, I'm talking about the characters, one element of the story, not the story as a whole.

A strategy game would be Civilization or Starcraft. 

A videogame roleplaying game is not the same as "Roleplaying" in the traditional sense, the thing that psychologists do; in otherwords, faking a situation; although they can be understood the same way. Videogame RPGs are essentially adventure games where everything is simulated by statistics and menu selected decisions, rather than active participation - as would be the case in an action game like Zelda or Vice City.

Key points:  
* The control of one or more characters (as in an adventure game)
* Encounter system of some sort
* battles are role played, rather than directly controlled by the player (unlike an adventure game)
* A quest of some sort

Labeling games that lack these points is more just a marketing thing to get people to think "Hey this game is the same sort of game as Final Fantasy 7! Awesome!". Essentially, RPGs were very well respected and popular in the SNES and PSX era, so it would benefit a game to be called an RPG, even though it wasn't really one.

You are wrong.

"Role playing" does not preclude real-time input. That's not what role-playing means. You are, again, referring to mechanics that are left over from the turn-based strategy roots of early tabletop RPGs. Role-playing is specifically about taking on the role of a character and defining how they interact with the world. Menu battle systems, random encounters, and turn-based combat has nothing to do with any of that.

The RPGs to which you are referring are RPGs in only the loosest sense, and mechanically have more in common with strategy games.

RPGs are about playing a role, not about the mechanics by which one interacts with the world. That's what separates RPGs from the genres that give birth to their mechanics.

Mass Effect 2 is more RPG than just about every JRPG that has come out in the last 5 years. Especially FFXIII. RPG is a game that has choice, character progression and customization. FFXIII has character progression (although its locked until your in the end...), but no choice, its linear you don't even have dialog options like you used to in the older Final Fantasies. As far as gameplay goes, yes Mass Effect 2 is pretty much exclusively a shooter, but its still a RPG.

Some games like Red Dead Redemption and God of War, has some RPG elements just like FFXIII, but all 3 of them imo lacks the core elements to what makes a RPG a RPG.

what's up with your spelling today?

besides that I agree with the above.

Heck I used to think the JRPG label was safe....untill everything became active battles.

But i'm all for genre mixture, it's only better for the game.

An interesting look at the console RPG origins

As far as I can tell, the only thing shared by all RPGs is stat-and-or-skill growth.

That's what happens when I don't proofread, I have terrible typing skills.  :-p

And Lightning is and the rest of the people in XIII are likeable?  I admit I didn't finish XIII, but none of those characters were too fantastic.

And then if you look at XII, every character in that game was worthless, had no reason to be there, or a giant cunt (Ashe).