I had a long and favorable look at IF/text adventures and have to say, nope it's not that big a thing some people make it. Yes, focussing on content instead of big explosions is what increases depth and the kind of beauty I also like. But the IF world is wrong that it must be pure text. A game like Dwarf Fortress for example can tell a lot of its story without text. You see your dwarfs moving towards the goblins, nobody needs to explicitly write it down for you and prompt you for an interaction. Shadow Run Returns is a X-Com like tactics game, but it also has a lot of text adventure influence with all its heavy dialogue with different choices etc. And by adding these other elements together with text based story and depth, you get something more deep and more efficient.
Text is not a game. It's a feature. Depth is not a game. It's a feature. A puzzle or labyrinth is not a game. It's a feature. Make games by smartly combining (multiple!) features!
I don't think most members of the IF community would argue that IF is the only way to tell a story through a computer. It's just one particular approach with its own advantages and disadvantages.
And IF need not be pure text. Text with graphical accompaniment has been part of the genre almost since its inception, just like books can have illustrations.
Not literally, yes. But would you consider Shadowrun Returns or Faster Than Light a success for the IF world? I think most IF world people don't. And that's why I conclude that they have a very specific definition of what counts as IF and what doesn't. We could discuss about the details what exactly is part of IF and what isn't. But that's not the point anyway. The point is, that IF people can be proud because text heavy games are quite successful, but maybe they shouldn't think so purist.
Text is not a game. It's a feature. Depth is not a game. It's a feature. A puzzle or labyrinth is not a game. It's a feature. Make games by smartly combining (multiple!) features!