There's a solid reason for idea specificity.
It would be if it ACTUALLY worked. Moreover, the front cover shows a cartoony, childish, and crude sketch of a guy next to dinosaurs and rocket ships. And it seems as though the game's dictionary is just as complex as its cover. You see, the game doesn't really allow us to use our wild imaginations. Specifically, it doesn't recognize a lot of common, but long words. For example, if you type in gecko, or longsword, salamander, or battle axe (to name a few examples), you'll end up with nothing happening. The game only allows you to type in extremely simple and general words, like "bird" or "man" or "sword".
This game doesn't provide freedom of imagination! Instead, it's limiting it!
The main point is that this game was doomed from the start. Moreover, games that claim you can do whatever you want can't and don't really offer this privilege.
That's because games will always have limits. After all, a first-person-shooter can never transition into a farm simulator. Nor can a farm simulator turn into an epic shooting game experience.
In other words, all successful games have a specific focus: a specific theme that makes the game what it's known for. If a game tries to accomplish too much and cover too much "distance", then the "distance in between the start and finish" will be incompetent.
Successful games are made by developers who have a specific idea in mind.
Scribblenauts is a prime example of a game that got too greedy and dropped many good rules and opportunities along the way.
Point breakdown:
1 point – for a new but stupid game idea "to include everything in one game".
1 point – for catching my interest for a couple of days (before realizing that this game is pointless).