You're already calling me crazy. Hold on a minute. (or skip to the TLDR version at the bottom~)
 
This is history as I'm seeing it: 

I'm looking at this as a matter of definition. For a long time all games were in the realm of the tabletop, and "role playing games" made sense in comparison to classic abstract games (Board games and sports very rarely have a profound back story to them). Even wargames, which model real world combat, were often isolated conflicts forever being told and retold with no consequence on each other. But with RPG's, Instead of being the general on an ethereal checkerboard battlefield, players were jumping into the "role" of an individual with an entire plot ahead of them. A new term for a new game experience.  

For a time this went on, and all was good. Until video games.  

The impact wasn't immediate. During the arcade era, video games were created in a similar mindset to classical tabletop games. For a time, hardware limitations forced a sense of abstraction to game elements. Slowly games gained more resolution, and developers were able to add more definition to their games. Triangles became ships, gained colors, and so on.  
Some people might point to this time period and half sarcastically say "Well, in defender you play the 'role' of a space ship pilot. So doesn't that make it a role playing game?" Logically, that could be a sound argument. The loss of abstraction also seems to fall on the RPG side of the definition from the tabletop era. But even as hardware increased and games gained setting and themes and back story, games remained these isolated experiences. This was still a stark difference from RPG's. You start a game, you play until you die, and then that game is wrapped up and tossed into the void of the infinite. You could start a new game, as long as you had more quarters, of course.   

That was the importance of the home market. Even though the mindset stuck for a long time that games should be short and repeatable, eventually designers began to understand that game experiences could be longer and have more permanence. Passwords came about, and are a kind of remarkable invention in this context. But the point is that games were developing from short isolated events into longer experiences which had room for not just clearly defined characters, but even character development and plots with twists and other such elements of storytelling.  

Fast forward to current day. The possibility for narrative is being well explored from many fronts. Traditional storytelling is exercised in games, linear plots and narratives are alternated with gameplay that challenges the player. Designers are also delving into ideas of immersion and social aspects among other areas. Most importantly to RPG's, the idea of player agency in storytelling is a topic which some developers are focusing almost their entire efforts on. Bioware's Mass Effect and Dragon Age games are probably the most spoken of games in this area, and with good cause. They give the player character to fall into the role of, and they they allow that player to develop their interpretation of that character given the world they are in. They are as close to the pure RPG experiences offered in the pen and paper days.
 
Now the actual argument I'm trying to make here: 
 
Bioware games are close to pure RPG experiences, but they aren't. Pen and paper RPG systems were created to facilitate storytelling and, well, role playing. The characters, and the players acting as the characters was the core that the games were based on, and the systems built around that. Video games have a number of existing cores, however, looking at existing VG genres. Platformers, FPS, RTS, action / adventure... the list can be pretty long, and at times very vague. I don't know if RPG should even go on that list. 
 
Personally, I don't think it belongs there. Not when a popular decision for designers is to slap some "RPG elements" onto whatever game they happen to be making. If RPG's can be distilled into a syrup that you can pour over whatever genre that you want, then it can't be a genre on it's own, right? 
 
Looking at it backwards, even the games I mentioned could be consider to be of other genre's with RPG mechanics. Mass Effect is a third person squad based shooter with some cover mechanics and special skills. Fallout 3 is basically a sandbox first person shooter. Castlevania SotN is an open world side-scrolling platformer. Are they RPG at their core, or are they defined otherwise with RPG elements? Can RPG's even exist in video game form, or is there something about the tabletop realm that defines what an RPG really is?
 
Or is there something else at fault here? Are video game genre's laughably vague and murky so that they are beyond use? Is "RPG elements" a misnomer for what mechanics like leveling up, side quests, and loot are? Am I just a crazy person? 
 
All of these possibilities seem equally likely to me, so I ask the public. Do the people see any truth in this argument?
 
PS. For sake of argument I'm ignoring JRPG's and MMORPG's. MMORPGS's are more about social aspects, avatars, and slaying/fetch quests then they are about telling the stories of the player characters. JRPG's, regardless of their story writing and telling, are often terrible in terms of gameplay and player agency. I'm going to write an article later about why they're bad games as well as bad RPG's, so please yell at me later for that.) 
 
TLDR version: 
 
RPG elements can be applied to anything, and all of today's RPG's could be defined by their other systems (FPS, platformer, etc). Are there actually any RPG's anymore?

Video game genres are fucked up.

" @LordXavierBritish: Any ideas how to fix them then? "

Yeah, so many games combine elements from so many genres that trying to label most games as things either results in things that are super general or crazy convoluted. 

" If RPG's can be distilled into a syrup that you can pour over whatever genre that you want, then it can't be a genre on it's own, right?  "

Nah. Get a handheld.

" Video game genres are fucked up. "

because progressive elements (level, loot) compels the player to keep playing the game, hence we are seeing more & more "RPGS elements" in other genre. 
 
i think. 
 
but its not like Activision gets more of your money when you spend more hours in CoD than it makes sense.... thats why they start selling map packs? i don' t  know anymore?!!?!?

It seems like developers nowadays are really looking for ways to innovate on their genres to make something that feels fresh. It is a bit of a shame but reviewers will jump to compare to anything vaguely similar. Developers shouldn't be afraid to have their ideas put down because of similarities. If they are confident about what they're doing, they should run with it and make it the best it can be.
 
Back to RPGs, there are definitely less and less traditional RPGs out there. There are games like Persona 3&4 though, that take turn-based combat and blend it with a sort of social simulator where every relationship has an effect, in one way or another, on your fighting. Games like these, I think, really push the genre forward, while staying true to its roots. I think traditional RPGs are always gonna be around, in one way or another.

No, RPG's are being released all the time.

Not really, there's just nothing wrong with a game falling into multiple genres if multiple genres apply (they often aren't mutually exclusive).  Movies do it all the time (Rom Coms for example) and it isn't an issue there, I don't know why it has to be such a big deal in gaming.
 
Of course, it doesn't help that a lot of people still haven't figured out that 'role-playing' in this context isn't the same as 'playing a role'.  Role-playing implies a degree of ad-libbing (which is the crucial part of the RPG definition imo), where as merely playing a role in something does not.  Deciding how Shepard reacts in a given situation is role-playing; watching Marcus Phoenix react in a set way isn't role-playing, even if you are 'playing' the role of Marcus Phoenix.
 
The whole 'RPGs are defined by dice and loot!' theory is just too fucking stupid to even bother discussing.

I went to the laundromat the other day and put a quarter in the washing machine, after a few minutes the machine beeped and the screen said " would you like to upgrade your detergent" fucking everything has RPG elements in it these days.

I am not a huge fan of RPGs but here is my two cents. Developers saying "RPG Elements" are in their game is just a slightly better way of saying "We have a progress bar that fills up when you earn xp". An RPG  to me is about earning points that allow you to play the character in the way you want to mainly from a game play point of view and sometimes from the story side of things. In Fallout 3 or NV I can put points in to all manner of different skills and play the game a totally different way from you from having different levels of intelligence or strength. These different things effect the game play directly like making you more accurate with different  weapons and can change the outcome of situation by having high intelligence. Its unfair to say its simply a sandbox shooter if it is one then so is Fallout 1 and 2 regarded as some of the best video game RPGs of all time. Another example of this would be Alpha Protocol a game that most reviewers (including Jeff) disliked because it took that RPG style so far. Its RPG elements effected everything from the story right down to the shooting in big way. Mass Effect is probably the one that really abandoned this very quickly. The first game had you picking a back ground and service record which effected the story (although this was a really poorly done thing in the game) and improving you usage of weapons. The sequel got so far from that, that having one of the backgrounds made ME2 make zero sense it was probably the biggest sign that they were making a game with "a progress bar that fills up when you earn xp".
 
Again I was never a huge RPG fan and never played any really old classics of the genre but to me if anything the RPG genre moved beyond the old style and into a more mainstream place and better mix. Elements of it can be found in everything but they will probably still make the true RPGs for ever. Besides even hardcore RPG fans dont seem to know what makes an RPG anymore and by that I mean loot is not the defining trait of an RPG despite what so many think.  Anyway I am tired so that probably made little sense.

" @LordXavierBritish: Any ideas how to fix them then? "

" I went to the laundromat the other day and put a quarter in the washing machine, after a few minutes the machine beeped and the screen said " would you like to upgrade your detergent" fucking everything has RPG elements in it these days. "

Videogame RPGs arent even RPGs to begin with, RPGs are about roleplaying your ROLE in a theatrical way and create a world between your minds (all involved in roleplaying), RPGs are not really about numbers and leveling.... 
 
It's kind of like calling a genre for Occultism, because it has a symbol of a pentagram in it....

No.
 
First of all, I don't think it's all that coherent to directly compare table top RPGs with video game RPGs; yes, that's essentially where they stem from, but it's not exactly the same. Video games are their own sub-category of games in general. Sports video games, for example, aren't exactly comparable to real life sports.

Anyway, the primary linchpin of RPGs is based around statistical character development. Also, game genres are fairly malleable, which is a good thing; hybrid games can exist. Genres obviously could be improved, but the main problem is people's misunderstanding of them, such as applying literal definitions - 'playing a role'  of any character isn't necessarily an RPG, as you mentioned. Also, Unlike movie or book genres, game genres mainly relate to the gameplay, not the narrative of the game; think of this - every game has some kind of gameplay, yet not all games have a story.
 
"If RPGs can be distilled into a syrup that you can pour over whatever genre that you want, then it can't be a genre on it's own, right?"
 
If anything, what you're indicating here is that 'RPG' is indeed a coherent term - you can capture its main essence into something that can be "distilled". If Mario Kart included areas where you pick up a gun and shoot goombas from a first-person perspective, would it not be a racing game which included first person shooter sections?

The concept of leveling up and adding points into various skill trees is what makes an RPG. Some games have leveling up, but no skill trees. Some games have skill trees, but no leveling up. RPGs have both.

I try not to think about genres too much. Like with music, they get silly after a while and are too technical to define.

@LCom
 
I think genres for all mediums are dead.  I don't think the RPG genre is unique in this.  Think about music.  There are thousands of different genres used to describe the uniqueness of what used to just be called 'rock'.  To me, thousands of genres means that the medium that is trying to be categorized is to unique to be conceptualized in such a way.  I think video games is another medium where genres don't work anymore.

I think part of the problem is a lack of perspective, this isn't the game's problem it is your's. In the early 90's with the rise of home consoles and then mid-90's JRPGs everyone said the Computer ROle Playing Game is dead, then Baldur's Gate happened and no one said anything again. Now you see everybody adding "RPG elements" to other genres and you say "oh rpgs are dieing."  Well adding RPG elements to an FPS makes it "not an FPS" as well as "not an RPG." Also the first FPSs were all RPGs so you could say they are just taking back their original medium. 
In terms of the whole are RPGs dieing thing, no. I'm sure they will be more popular at some point and less popular at another, that is how the industry works.

The lines between genres have become very blurred and many games now are featuring mechanics that were considered exclusive to specific genres at one time, although unlike Xavier I don't think this means we should abandon all attempts at classifying games. I do believe there are still "pure" RPGs though, to give a recent example Pokemon Black and White versions.

Of course there are still pure RPGs, assuming that we're talking about EXP and dice rolls and not dialog trees.  It's just that every other genre has taken some of those progression elements and co-opted them to their own games, which combined with the general dearth of these more traditional RPGs may give one that impression. I would quite easily call Dragon Age Origins a RPG, as no other genre fits that title. Dragon Age 2? Ask me on Tuesday.

I was writing a long answer,but i think this will suffice.
Don't be stupid,RPG will always be a genre.
Second, if you argue that ,,pouring RPG elements over other genres like a syrupe'' wouldn't that mean that the game's genre in question isn't JUST an FPS game, or RTS game?
So yeah,the idea that the RPG genre will lose itself because many games have little/some RPG mechanics is stupid imo.

" @iAmJohn: Well, genre's are part of the lexicon of video games. It's how we talk about them. If the definition of the words and how we used them was fucked up in a language like English would we need to fix it?  "

" Of course there are still pure RPGs, assuming that we're talking about EXP and dice rolls and not dialog trees.  It's just that every other genre has taken some of those progression elements and co-opted them to their own games, which combined with the general dearth of these more traditional RPGs may give one that impression. I would quite easily call Dragon Age Origins a RPG, as no other genre fits that title. Dragon Age 2? Ask me on Tuesday. "

Although roleplaying is a complex concept in regards to videogames, if we look at the history of the role-playing genre we can find a number of features unique to the RPG as such: statistical character progression/builds so character skill over player skill and aspects of their writing such as NPC interactions, factions, choice and consequence, and quests. However, because computers aren't effective at simulating open-ended narratives, there's also been a heavy focus on strategic combat. So basically character (or party)-focused strategy games with certain writing mechanics that distinguish them from simply being strategy games.
 
As to whether these games still exist? Dragon Age certainly is, albeit a flawed one, although DA2 seems to be moving in the direction of Mass Effect. It will probably be an action game with dialogue choices and vestigial roleplaying elements. As for Skyrim, it will be an adventure game with LARPing in lieu of the substance of an RPG. Obsidian remains the closest in terms of writing if not mechanics, as Alpha Protocol and Fallout: New Vegas are both hybrids, but with much greater claim to being RPGs than Bethesda's or Bioware's games. Still, European studies such as Piranha Bytes, CD-Projekt, and Reality Pump are putting out games as well as Indie devs (such as Age of Decadence, Eschalon, Knights of the Chalice, Spiderweb Studios, etc.).
 
So no, it's not dead at the moment, although certainly in remission. However, Bioware and Bethesda are opening up new audiences to RPGs, albeit in heavily streamlined form, and we can hope those new numbers will lead to a renaissance of RPG development eventually. I mean, insultingly puerile romance and hiking simulation can't sell forever, right?

guess what?
Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2 are RPGs. Don't like it? Shove it up your ass.

There's a reason the genre was called cRPG before. Sadly, someone deleted the "c", meaning "computer", and now we're having discussions like that.

" The concept of leveling up and adding points into various skill trees is what makes an RPG. Some games have leveling up, but no skill trees. Some games have skill trees, but no leveling up. RPGs have both. "

As long as a game comes out with "Dungeons & Dragons" somewhere on the box the RPG will survive.

All genre's blend. I feel most of the time for the better.

" The concept of leveling up and adding points into various skill trees is what makes an RPG. Some games have leveling up, but no skill trees. Some games have skill trees, but no leveling up. RPGs have both. "

" As long as a game comes out with "Dungeons & Dragons" somewhere on the box the RPG will survive. "  

" @Punk1984 said:

" As long as a game comes out with "Dungeons & Dragons" somewhere on the box the RPG will survive. "  

O RLY?   Dungeons and Dragons: Heroes "

" @BaneFireLord said:

" The concept of leveling up and adding points into various skill trees is what makes an RPG. Some games have leveling up, but no skill trees. Some games have skill trees, but no leveling up. RPGs have both. "

That is what makes a videogame RPG sure, but that is not what PnP RPGs are about at all, which focuses on roleplaying/theatrics... and most RPGs I played we did not even role any dice nor had any statistics but were played more or less as psychology sessions where we delve into our inner personas to shatter identities to free our minds from the shackles of society. "