WOW is an RPG, but an MMORPG. You affect the storyline (which is never ending) and you make decisions and exp, then go out into an open world, trading, fighting, speaking amongst other people. You attack kingdoms with your team of customized heroes or villains whilst being able to deal with people as you see fit. You choose to join or leave groups or work with multiple groups. Everything in that world is at your finger tips and isn't linear like JRPG's. This embodies what an RPG is. I am not saying WRPG's are better than JRPG's, because that is subjective and never was my argument. I'm stating that JRPG's aren't RPG's and the only thing giving them that title is their turn-based gameplay style. Final Fantasy Versus will not be a JRPG, yet JRPG fans are raving about that game more than the main game.   

really?  Because what I see is a WRPG fan talking about how JRPG's are the past, a forgotten relic, and the future belongs to WRPG.  How people can try and sound objective while proclaiming one genre as better than another is beyond me.  You can talk about which you prefer, but claiming one as better than the other is silly.

How do you know Versus isn't a JRPG?  It was my impression it would have a more action oriented battle system like Kingdom Hearts which is most definitely a JRPG. 

And being able to affect the story might be what an RPG is to you, but it isn't what it is to me.  Always hate when WRPG fans try to get into the argument that JRPGs aren't real RPGs.  RPG is so ill defined these days, how could they not be.  RPG are always about stats, your character has some stats that slowly go up as you go through the game.  The ability to affect the story has nothing to do with being an RPG or not.

How do you know Versus isn't a JRPG?  It was my impression it would have a more action oriented battle system like Kingdom Hearts which is most definitely a JRPG. 

And being able to affect the story might be what an RPG is to you, but it isn't what it is to me.  Always hate when WRPG fans try to get into the argument that JRPGs aren't real RPGs.  RPG is so ill defined these days, how could they not be.  RPG are always about stats, your character has some stats that slowly go up as you go through the game.  The ability to affect the story has nothing to do with being an RPG or not.

Let me share with you my concept of a video game franchise and maybe you will find it insightful.

Before going further I should mention that in business, great achievements fall into two categories.  The first is horizontal and it is, as you mentioned, innovation.  It represents the addition of new things.  The second is vertical and it is improvement.  It represents the honing, upgrading, and overhauling of existing features.

To me, a video game franchise is characterized by its gameplay.  When I buy a Mario Kart game, I expect to play a racing game with Mario characters throwing crazy items like shells and bananas at each other.  When I buy a Punch Out game, I expect to play a memory/timing-focused boxing game.  When we go from Punch Out to Super Punch Out to Punch Out Wii, the gameplay more or less stays the same.  The game is improved and enhanced in each iteration but it doesn't deviate from the gameplay that defines it.

When you use phrases "firmly rooted in the past" and terms like "stagnation," it says to me that you have unrealistic expectations.  Punch Out is not going to suddenly become Mario Kart.  It should not jump too far from the gameplay that defines its franchise.  This is a good thing.  The people who enjoy the gameplay of Punch Out will always enjoy the gameplay of Punch Out.  If someone comes along with ideas that will radically change that gameplay then that is the time that a new IP should be created or at worst a spinoff to capitalize on the existing IP's fanbase however not an addition to the main franchise.

I believe that existing franchises should move only vertically.  They should improve themselves and become better over time however they should not morph into completely new games.  Horizontal movement should be done through new IPs and spinoffs so as not to compromise the integrity of the franchise.

Sadly, we end up with misfits every once in a while that do not follow this.  Super Paper Mario was a disappointment for many, not because it was a bad game but because it was missing that excellent Paper Mario gameplay that many gamers had come to expect and love.  I personally hope the next one is true to the designs of the first two.

But customer demographics change, old customers eventually get burnt out and new generations don't necessarily have the same taste in games.

Just like film franchises, reboots and changes of style are inevitable - else franchises just die. By the way, when you say "Super Paper Mario was a disappointment" you are talking about forum reactions or the consumer at large?

Very on topic, Final Fantasy mainlines have been dwindling - and besides XII, they've all been evolving vertically. 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.  If consumers are no longer interested in the gameplay of a franchise then do you create new franchises or do you milk the franchise name for all its worth?  You seem to be for the latter.  I would rather a franchise fall into disuse (like Punch Out did prior to the Wii iteration) than compromise itself.

As for Super Paper Mario, I am talking about the people I know and the people on various forums I visit who were saddened by the fact that Super Paper Mario threw away the gameplay of past iterations.  I wouldn't begin to speculate too far as to exactly what percentage of the total sales of Super Paper Mario they make up however with over 2m copies of TTYD and SPM each, I'm sure there is some overlap.   Also, I'm hoping you're not about to try a "sales equals satisfaction" argument which is only slightly more silly than a "sales equals quality" argument. 

As for Final Fantasy titles, I would argue that they have been changing (not necessarily innovating) with every iteration rather than improving.  Ask someone what their favorite Final Fantasy story was and you will likely not get the latest one (12) as an answer for example.  They change some of the gameplay with each iteration but their storytelling ability and character design really have not improved at all in my opinion.  If you listen to some people who praise the old Super Nintendo Final Fantasy titles, you might think that they've suffered in those areas.  That's not the sign of a franchise improving vertically.

If you have a well known brand and tastes change, what would you do? Using your brand name to push something more appealing to the market or risk raising a new IP from the ground? Giving up to the nostalgia of players no longer interested on your game and dropping a valuable asset is not the correct answer. 

So about Super Paper Mario, you do not know if the consumers at large were disappointed by the change in direction. Your casual evidence is meaningless. Again, it appears to wish corporations would decide according to your own tastes and needs not those of the larger pie.

They've been evolving vertically, you like it or not. The tweaks to the turn based system have been constant and other elements of the franchise have been tweaked several times but still without deviating from the original format. That's vertical progression and as it's happened the power of the franchise has dwindled as sales show. Of course I can't stablish a direct link between those two events (FF's vertical progression and its sales results). Again, you are talking about people praising the old super nintendo games, drawing from anecdotal evidence conclusions for the whole customer base. Again, anecdotal evidence is bad.