A similar example would be people using "nauseous" to mean "feeling sick" when it actually means "making people sick" (e.g. "a nauseous fume emanating from the sewer grate"), since there isn't a good synonym for the real meaning. But that's not as annoying of an example as "literally" because a) It doesn't come up as often, and b) We less frequently need to talk about things that make us physically ill.
You keep talking as if I think there's going to be some kind of catastrophic breakdown of language that follows from this one misuse of a word, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying two things: 1) You're using a word to mean its own opposite, and that's confusing and there are plenty of other words you could use. 2) Each time a unique word like "literally" gets sucked into the black hole that is our obsession with superlatives, bit by bit over time this makes it more difficult to express oneself clearly and precisely, which is the whole point of language.
Think of it this way. Let's say you had a really bad time at the Department of Motor Vehicles today, and you want me to sympathize with you. You tell me, "The line was so long I literally aged a hundred years while waiting." I, like most people, associate "literally" with its actual meaning, and instead of feeling the sympathy you wanted, I immediately get a ridiculous picture in my mind of you standing in line as a 120-something-year-old man, at last tottering up to the counter mottled with grey wrinkles and shaking with the effort. All I can do is laugh to myself at the absurd mental picture you've given me, and I'm not thinking about your actual ordeal.
Question: Have you just communicated with me effectively?
And if you indeed haven't, why insist on doing it? You're creating a disconnect that doesn't have to exist, because there were any number of other ways you could have conveyed your meaning to me that actually made sense. Hell, this thread proves the point: all the OP wanted to do was talk about games that aren't getting the excitement they wanted, but half of it is derailed by snide comments about how he used "literally".
On the flipside, as someone who uses the word "literally" for its intended use, when I do so with people who only know the wrong use it creates a small breakdown in communication there as well. I can say "My kid brother got hopped up on sugar at the indoor playground where they have a rock wall, and he was literally climbing up the walls," and that won't have quite the same meaning for them.
Except that's not really how it works. There are plenty of concepts that used to be expressed in English by single words, that no longer are. Take "nauseous" above, which has taken on the same meaning as "nauseated". That mixup has been used for a long time now, but even after all this time no other word has been magically born to take its place. Instead of "a nauseous gas" you'd say today "a gas that made me sick", which is a longer, wordier and coarser way of expressing yourself. It's a lot less elegant and efficient.
Tell me: Do you feel that people in the modern age are better at communicating with each other than at points past? Do we have fewer misunderstandings, fewer arguments born of people who can't quite get their points across? I sure don't think so.
None of that is what I said. Go back and re-read.
Neither does yours. You keep declaring that "nothing bad has ever happened from words losing their meaning," but where's your evidence for saying that?
wrekt
ahem .. well said, sir.