Lets be clear, we all want to tick all the boxes here, but then what would that prove?

What I'm curious about is would people rather play a bigger game with less gameplay variety, a game with a longer single player campaign but less replay value or a world dense with superficial detail at the expense of top notch graphics.

If you can, label option 3 "more variety, but may lack in detail."

I want more weapons. A lot more weapons.

Loads of people do games, some good, some lacking. BGS do worlds, they do good worlds. Acknowledge your weaknesses, but work to your strengths. Put any time or effort left over after all else is done to a reasonable standard into the world.

There is a catagory missing.

"More Role Playing Mechanics". That is what the focus should be on, this is an RPG..... or supposed to be.

I want more variety for places feeling unique and all that.
Exploring would be more fun.
I think in-depth quests (answer 4) we got some in Fallout 3, so I think they will built up on it.
Maybe even quests which lead to unexpected outcome far later ingame.

But more diverse worldbuilding is a bit more important personally.
I doubt they fail too much in this area (1 designer for 10 dungeons sounds better than the Oblivion solution).

The choices seem a bit fuzzy. I definitely don't want "less replay value", but can't tell which of those of those choices would indicate that. Morrowind had a good and long main quest but also lots of replay value.

i'm so glad no one chose the graphics

I chose More in depth gameplay

I`m not bothered about graphics or how many quests there is, but more about is Skyrim going to be a deeper experience.

Without it, my interest would probably wane after a while.

Like emotes, custom says and poses?

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a vote for graphics, over diversity in the world, or more in depth gameplay. :shakehead:

You don't approve someone has a different opinion and different priorities than what you'd like to see? :poke:

I wouldn't have said that if we hadn't seen the graphics yet, but we have. Just my opinion of course, but I think they look fantastic, and don't need any more work compared to anything else.

Whoever put graphics has their priorities wrong. A game could have the greatest visuals ever created and still be completely mince. Gameplay (particularly depth) should come first over everything else.

True, but the release of the trailer was greeted with choruses of "OMG that's terrible, why aren't they using instead of that ancient outdated junk!". So, yeah - there are a number of people out there who think that's a big weakness.

(Not me, I think it looks great)

-------

My answer - #3, world detail. It's one of the things I feel Fallout 3 did much better than Fallout:NV, and it's one of the reasons I play Beth games.