Have you ever played a Contra game? R-Type? I have a feeling you will love them then *evil laugh*
These are action games and thus inherently a lot more fun than RPGs. Blowing shit up with force pods is a lot more enjoyable than selecting crap from a menu and then whoops you lost time to go grind.
So, point and click games are really not games because you just...well, click and point? What about something like the Thief/Metal Gear Solid series where you are suppose to hide from enemies instead of fighting them?
You missed the point. The second paragraph, which is, apparently, a reductio ad absurdum breakdown of what I said, makes me think that you don't WANT to get the point I was making, but I don't care. I will explain my point anyway.
Additionally, do not assume that any generalities or vagueries in my writing are intentional and actually reflect how I think. I'm way too tired to be fully coherent right now.
Anyway, games are inherently an interactive medium. And individual games have different focuses. You mention stealth games, for instance. The primary interaction there is between the player and the environment. Your goal is to avoid direct combat, so you have to find ways to hide and manipulate yourself and the environment -- and maybe your enemies -- in such a manner to prevent you from being seen. An example of a non-interactive stealth game would be one where you walked around and as soon as you got near an enemy, a menu with two options would pop up: Hide and Don't Hide. Picking the latter would instantly cause a game over, and the former would, well, instantly hide you.
Obviously that's not very fun. The player needs to be able to figure out how to hide themselves. The player needs to have CHOICES, because if no choices are present there's no decision making and the game's running on auto, and they need to be meaningful choices because if the outcome of every choice is immediately obvious there's still not much decision making going on.
(Of course, a more realistic example of a bad stealth game would be one without crouching, very poor AI that doesn't notice you much anyway, and uh, really, you just strafe behind a box to hide and there's nothing more to it than that).
JRPGs are generally pretty story-focused, to the extent that the other gameplay elements are reduced. You don't really interact with the world much, beyond maybe flipping a switch, and you don't really interact with NPCs beyond them giving you a single line of text. No meaningful puzzle solving or environmental manipulation or dialogue trees, here.
However, you also have a really limited way of interacting with the storyline. Generally everyone has a preset personality, you don't have choices about where your party goes next, or who your main character falls in love with, or whatever. I'm not talking total non-linearity or no pre-set anything. In fact I think an entirely procedurally generated world would be HORRIBLE. I'm just saying that the player SHOULD have some control over how the story turns out.
Star Ocean 2 is a good example (conceptually. Quality of execution of this in SO2 is debatable) of what I mean. You get to choose which characters you get, and how you interact with them in private actions. FFVII let's you end up with either Tifa or Aeris at the golden saucer. SMT: Nocturne let's you pick which reason you want to align yourself with.
You don't even need multiple endings really. You CAN have multiple, different branches that all converge eventually onto the same end goal.
But a strictly set-in-stone storyline that the *player* does not involve themselves with in, in any way, is not interactive storytelling, and not, in my views, appropriate for a story-driven game.