In another question, someone pointed out that the "first game of X" class of questions, and those that are similar, have certain faults and should get some additional analysis. What should be done with them? Examples:
This question is really old, but wanted to point out that these questions are now considered off-topic on the site, and have been wrapped into the "game identification" close reason:
I think our general rules for questions can easily be applied to these.
1) Is it general reference?
If no, goto (2) If yes:
a) Is it interesting?
The first game to directly support the Microsoft Sidewinder joystick is probably uninteresting; close it. The first game to support mouse input may not be as uninteresting.
2) Is it hopelessly subjective?
"That's not even an RPG, it doesn't have turn-based combat"
"Your mom doesn't have turn-based combat"
"Since when is my mom an RPG?"
That should be killed with fire.
The purpose of questions such as these seem to be exploring the history of games. This can be an interesting topic, but I don't think it makes for good Q&A.
Game mechanics evolve. You will find earlier games with certain aspects of other games, but there will almost always be some variation in their implementation. Answering these questions then relies heavily on drawing a line between two evolutionary stages and saying "This is not X, but this is X". People will inevitably disagree on where to draw that line, and therefore I think these questions will devolve into discussions about various items in a list. See 2nd person view? for the kind of havoc that can cause. So I would suggest that any example that is not so trivial as to fall into the general reference category would be considered subjective/argumentative.