Why ignore it? Walk up and see what that fire on the horizion is.

Altmer guy comes running up to you: "We're doomed, the city has been sacked. Deadra are pouring out of the Oblivion Gates!" (paraphrased obviously)
You: "Yeah, have fun with that." Turn around and walk away.

Yes, there is a city there on fire. Yes, there is indeed an Oblivion crisis going on. Doesn't mean I have to do anything about it.

Oh. My. God. GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!!!!!!! Damn, are you some telepath? I agree whole-heartedy with you. I think that all games need more feeling and emphasis and a little less... well mainstream. There should be a reflection of real life in video games that should make you feel like you in another country instead of pre-ordered entertainment (sorry a bit harsh there!). I have nothing against Bethesda and I absolutely love all of their games but they're just like any other, albeit with a bit more flair and expertise. Each player should be able to choose different paths that change each time instead of already predicted paths. The same with NPC's, they need to have their own personalities and quirks. As an example use The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion with their strange conversations between NPC's. Im sorry anyone who is reading this, I know I'm ranting. So yes I do agree. (I'm sorry if I offended anyone.)

No need to apologize, I actually agree as well (at least with what I think you are trying to say). Everyone always wants more options, more dialogue, more emotional attachment, deeper personalities, deeper game mechanics, etc. The problem is realizing this in a format that can actually be developed and published.

I do think there is room for improvement (lots actually) but how restricted are we by today's platform technology especially considering everything under the sun seems to have to be on consoles as well? How much are we restricted by the technology used to develop the games? How much are we restricted by budgets and time lines?

I don't disagree with the general ideas folks have been presenting, just the vagueness of "more". I dunno, maybe it is enough to just say we want more of all that stuff and let Beth figure it out. :tes:

I agree with the OP. Totally. And, based on what I've seen on the Oblivion mods forum, I'd say that there is a good possibility that many others totally agree with the OP also.

Comments:
1. The Oblivion mods added much towards what the OP is requesting. Not 100% (obviously : ). But, a lot. Based on my experience with the mods (and seemingly by many people on the forum), the Vanilla Oblivion immersion is "enhanced" materially. To the point that I (and I think it's safe to say many others) would not even bother playing Oblivion without mods (that's a personal and subjective thing, but such is life). So, as has been stated many times on the forums when discussing a mod that added an awesome storyline, or surprising content (damn, there are some great quest mods out there), or additional activity (ie. any of the mods that add NPCs to the city, etc), emotional ties (Vilja anyone? and there are others), or, well, the list is long, anyway, it's always "Why the xxxx didn't gamesas add this in to start with?"

2. For years I've seen/read many threads on how shortsighted gamesas was on not providing for support for more memory, 64 bit OS, more than one core, multi-threading, etc. While the argument could be made that such things were just not foreseeable when Daggerfall came out (duh : ), it gets a little weak by the time Oblivion came out. Did they add all that support for Skyrim? Anyway, the comment on the forum is always "Why the xxxx didn't gamesas add this in to start with?"

3. Several people have stated that (I'm paraphrasing here) "Well, if you want that in a game (emotional stuff, heavily populated cities, great storylines, etc.), then you just should go play ." Why is that necessary? What stopped gamesas from putting ALL that in their game(s)? Again "Why the xxxx didn't gamesas add this in to start with?"

Ya know, the answer to the issues listed above (and what I percieve the OP is lamenting about) is "No one knows, because there really isn't any reason why it couldn't have been done."

Yeah, I know, there is always the usual excuses:
a. Time
b. Money
c. It's too hard (or, the familiar, "the technology just isn't there" excuse)
d. Etc.

But, even though I hate to say it (because, really, I like gamesas, and I "like" their games), I think the real answers are that gamesas just doesn't have the ability, know how, willingness, or desire to do it. Probably a lot of the latter.

Hey, no big deal. It's a company. They want to make money in the most effective, comfortable way possible. They have a recipe, it seems to work, why change it? Besides, yeah, it lacks a lot. But, it's still pretty damn good.

As someone else already stated, I think we will just have to wait on a different company to give what some of us are looking for. There are already a few that are making some good attempts. Witcher comes to mind, Assassin Creed had some good ideas, there are a lot of others (I don't have time to play many games, so my experience is somewhat limited). So, eventually, it will happen. Some company will put it all together (or, more so than what we currently have). Probably take another 3-5 years. No problem. I have lots of other stuff to do in the meantime. Games are just light entertainment for a few hours a week (well, more like 5-10 hours a month nowadays : ) Real life has some great stuff to do. I'll be more into it when I'm stuck in an old folks home : )

Tarl

Nicely said.

Apart from the whole quantity of choices increases freedom thing, there is also the equally important "quality of choices" topic.
People tend sometimes to describe games by the term mainstream, and although I don't really know what they mean with that, I have a certain feeling attached to that term: Everything washed down. Politically correct. Already chewed-up food (don't know if such an expression exists in English). All those symptoms are the result of a lack of love from the developer for their own game. In other words making a game they are not really proud of (except for technical victories they achieved making it), and even if they are, well they shouldn't. Why they make such a game you ask...The answer is simple and even if I get dangerously political here, I'll say it: Profit. Companies need it to survive. I'm not gonna go any deeper than that because, honestly that is much much much more important than games and deserves a serious tet-a-tet conversation.

Anyways, as I was saying, quality of choices matters. Some time ago, I didn't consider games to be art. I hadn't played one game that actually deserved that title. Something that falls under art, to me at least, has to give something to its consumer, apart from brainless fun. Something that lasts and makes him a better person somehow. When an artist manages to pass a message/emotion through his medium of choice (music,painting,film etc) his mission is complete. Many recent games lack that message/emotion and thus they are flavorless.

In my opinion, that's what primarily needs to be fixed. Not graphics, not gameplay, not anything, other than that. Because all the other are just means to get that message through.

TES, as sand-box games, have the ability to get the message through by a "do that and see what happens" approach. Let the player extract the message by themselves instead of shoving it down their throat. But in order to do that, you must first make the player care about the consequences and give him tools to express his opinions, which is what we are discussing here. Because, let's be honest, whatever character we make, it will always be us making the decisions, there is no such thing as "Now I'm gonna think differently because I'm a mage instead of a warrior". Rant over.