Okay, time for me to explain what's going on here.
The short version is, people are reading things far too broadly by ignoring an important word, and by considering a subjugate clause to be superior to the core sentence.
The important part of the close reason:
Questions that ask which games or other products meet specific criteria are off topic.
I don't think this is controversial - or at least, the controversy is long settled. Game recommendations, and game identification are both off topic. The two are combined because fundamentally, they are the same thing; asking for the titles of games that meet various criteria. Also falling under this header are a peculiar flavor of game rec that we've had from time to time like "What was the first game to introduce Bullet Time?"
The notable thing here is that, at their root, all of these categories of question have the same fundamental issue, which is that they are questions about shopping, or figuring out what games meet whatever arbitrary criteria the asker has imposed. It's as true of ITG as it is of Game Rec, as it is of What Was The First Game to Feature Laser Whips, as it is of What Video Card Should I Buy, which is why they're all rolled together.
The part that was included to try to explain why this is the case:
We primarily deal with questions about playing games, not about which games to play or historical trivia.
Note the use of PRIMARILY, rather than, say exclusively. Which is to say, there are edge cases that aren't purely about playing games, but our rules exist to keep us closer to our core focus. The phrase 'which games to play or historical trivia', as written, serves to summarize the two main reasons people ask these sorts of questions. However, people have sadly misread the phrase to mean all historical trivia of any sort, and taken the clause as coequal to the first sentence of the close reason. This is WRONG and conflicts with the FAQ. I wrote the close reasons, as they exist, to conform with our existing norms and FAQ, and to draw clear boundaries wherever possible around those norms. I did not set out to supersede or rewrite them.
We make an exception for identifying games based on an audiovisual artifact from the game in question.
The exception to the rule. Important for obvious reasons.
Personally, I like it as written, and I think people just near to learn to freakin' read. However, given that people are misreading it en masse, and acting based upon it, I suppose the fault is mine for any lack of clarity, and propose a few alternatives:
Questions that ask which games or other products meet specific criteria are off topic. We make an exception for identifying games based on an audiovisual artifact from the game in question.
Pro: No ambiguous second sentence.
Con: Buuuuttt whhhhhyyyyyyyyyyy.
Questions that ask which games or other products meet specific criteria are off topic. We primarily deal with questions about playing games, not about which games to play, which games you may have played in the past or to which game did a thing first.. We make an exception for identifying games based on an audiovisual artifact from the game in question.
Pro: maintains my existing intent of the close reason, as written, while trying to avoid misinterpretation
Con: Kind of unwieldy, IM, Not so HO.
Questions that ask which games or other products meet specific criteria are off topic. We primarily deal with questions about playing games, not about which games to play. We make an exception for identifying games based on an audiovisual artifact from the game in question.
Pro: Maintains most of original intent.
Con: But I don't want to know which games to play, I just want to know which was fiiiirrrrrssstt. (Reminder: This has already happened. It is not hypothetical.)
