""Nor do they design said games with these sorts of classifications in mind, and eventually most games will tack on such aspects later to improve sales in a specific area that the game was not originally designed with. Which in the end leaves said games woefully weak overall when compared to a game designed from the ground up with one of the aboves features""

Exactly.

Thats the point. Its easy to tell what a game really is, regardless of whether they label it such, in their own minds or to the public.

Once you know what it is, you can usually tell what aspects will get dev time, what the devs will likely actually care about in the game, which aspects will get top priority - and just as telling - what type of players they will want to cater to when various groups start whining.

Its just one way to identify the underlying philosophy a game is created with. All games have an underlying philosophy, all devs have a type of game they want their players to play. If not in specific terms, at least from a general subjective perspective.

This is good and natural, and to be expected - and typically the games that execute best on their core philosophy are the ones that enjoy the most success.

But once I know a game is, at heart, a MMCOAG - I know its not for me long term - no matter what nifty trappings they disguise it with.