Yes it has, but it has done so because of "inferior game design".
1E and 2E Wizards had balancing factors like those mentioned above.
3E Wizards replaced those balancing factors with ones like 5 dice max for certain spell levels. Although that is balance in one sense of the meaning, it didn't prevent higher level 3E Wizards from becoming mini-gods at the expense of many of the other classes.
4E came along and said "Opps. Wizards and Codzillas are too strong, we'll make all classes the same balance across all levels". A balancing adjustment to be sure, but one that rips the heart out of what a Wizard meant for D&D. Regardless of the propaganda that people have bought into from the 4E designers and their own experiences with 3E, Wizards are SUPPOSED to be these mega-powerful guys that change the course of battle. But, they are supposed to have some very serious disadvantages as well to balance that.
3E took away most of the disadvantages and 4E took away most of the power.
In layman's terms, that's not a D&D Wizard, just like a non-Human non-LG Paladin is not a D&D Paladin.
As an example, my very first blue book PC was a 1st level Wizard. The PCs got ambushed. My Wizard got his Sleep spell off, put the enemies on one side of the group to sleep, and then promptly got shot from behind with an arrow that killed him. Not to say that this extreme of play is fun for anyone, but the concept remains. If the Wizard survived (which was a very big IF back in those early days), he became monumentally helpful to the group as a whole and the player knew going in that his PC was a bit of a glass cannon, so he played the PC judiciously (e.g. hiding in the back, taking defensive spells, etc.).
It was many years before I ever played another class. Even at lower levels, I was able to use my Wizards' spells in unique ways that helped save the day over and over again. You don't really get this in 4E. The Wizard isn't special in any way and neither is magic in 4E. It's like drinking chocolate milk one day, and then drinking mile with just a tiny hint of chocolate in it the next. Bland. Unimaginative.
And what is worse is that if 5E became a rehash of 4E, you would have an entire gaming culture that will grow up on 4E/5E, thinking that they are drinking chocolate milk when they are not.
Your "inferior" game design is my "superior" game design, although I'd agree that it was a bumpy road getting there.
Regarding mages who could ignore their limitations; yes, it was an issue in 2e and 3e, primarily because the designers left the magic system mostly intact. If you remove limitations, you have to remove some of the corresponding power. IMO, they finally got it right with 4e, in that the magic system no longer reflected the assumptions about mages that 1e had made.
IMO, 4e did get it right (although it may, admittedly, have gone a tad overboard). Balancing between god-like power and peasant-like vulnerabilities wasn't the best design. Their god-like power could often completely negate the peasant-like vulnerabilities (such as casting mirror image to avoid being a one-shot kill). Wizards survived in early editions only if the DM had mercy on them. Without their defensive spells, one hit would kill them at 1st level, and oftentimes even later (if it was a hard hit, from a giant or some such). If the DM wanted to, he could have a goblin slip around the fighter and finish off the mage before anyone could do otherwise. But back in the 1e/2e days, we were nice. We typically avoided attacking the poor little mage too often, because to do so felt unfair, akin to bullying a kindergartener. I DM'd 2e, I remember.
The 4e wizard can be incredible if you choose the right spells for him (something which has been true of D&D wizards irrespective of edition). What he cannot do anymore, is win the entire encounter with a single spell. In return, he has increased survivability, though he's still no fighter. Nonetheless, he can turn the tide of the encounter with a single spell. Personally, I much prefer the new balance. I think casting one spell and thereby winning is bland and boring. Give me a real struggle any day!
I do agree, however, that I'd like to see some of the utility magic return outside of rituals. The good news is that it sounds like that's what they're doing for 5e!
In the end, what I was saying, when you quoted me, was that mages in fantasy aren't limited to stories from Vance. Not every mage is a demigod waiting to be. Plenty of stories are about mages whose powers are far more subtle. In addition, plenty of stories are about mages who don't ascribe to D&D limitations. While balance is of utmost import to me (right up there with fun), I believe that allowing players to tell their story with the character they envision is also very important.
