Some really great points! However, this quoted part I don't necessarily agree with.

The developer's opinion still stands: more action even if it costs in the depth department. Why? Because they realise the action fans are playing the game, they're not part of the community. They don't care about forum texts - they play the game. Bethesda acknowledge that people here in these forums are a minority type of fans who enjoy the depth part rather than voice acting, for example. Only that our voices can be heard since we are here. The "mainstream audience" aren't.

In this time where everything's produced all the time, new games released left and right for example, there is mainly no room for sustainability anymore. Average gamers just play games as they come out. They're using only a tiny bit of Elder Scrolls' potential. This type of audience are great in numbers compared to us deeper players, and those are the buyers who make a lion's share of the profit. By far. And we who are not satisfied with depth will buy it anyway, so, they're not certainly losing if they make the games less deep and better in terms of the present time, if you will. More voice acting since the new games usually have more and more voice acting. Smoother combat since new games usually have smoother and smoother combat. Etc. The technique is supposed to go forward all the time, it's some cultural norm, and a cage we're living in. Majority of gamers subconsciously call for more and more developed games in terms of graphics, smoothness, voice acting, etc. It's not easy to keep up to these "today's standards" and make the story very deep and adding much content such as in-game books, random ruins and many styles of architecture at the same time. They have to choose. And they're going more towards "today's standards" since the game wouldn't sell that well otherwise.

The text above is exaggerated, and there are graphics fans who are into deep storytelling, there are deep storytelling fans who are into graphics and such. And you can find every type in the forums. We as players are as many as all the possible combinations. However, I proposed these two stereotypes: fans who'd take a deep immersive story over a beautiful and smooth game; let's call them "story fans". And fans who'd take a beautiful and smooth game over immersive storytelling; let's call them "graphics fans". I assume "the graphics fans" are many and "the story fans" are few in numbers. I also assume the latter are mainly the ones who write these kind of posts to forums and are thus easier to follow than the former type. And I think I'm pretty close to truth with these stereotypes. The developers should do what's "in" at this time. And it's still technology that's in, great for the "graphics fans". There shouldn't be another Morrowind (type of game) since the less complex inside with more polished outside is what sells.

I agree that the modding community is able to provide nearly everything Morrowind is lacking, but (with the possible exception of the Code Patch), there are limits to what a mod can do.

If anything, I'd like to see just more possibilities available to modders, without the need for script extenders; a revamped Construction Set with more fixes and features.

Yeah, I'm not sure you're exactly right here. I'm not against good graphics at all. It's worth remembering that Morrowind when it came out was absolutely stunnning graphically, nobody had ever seen anything like it. I remember loading it up for the first time and getting my first taste of Seyda Neen and being completely blown away. I've even got the original fold out game package complete with the large printed map of Vvardenfell I've just used to check how Seyda Neen is spelt. But that's not why when I'd finished playing DAO again, and then The Witcher, and thought right, Oblivion or Morrowind next, it had to be Morrowind (modded of course!).

No, stunning game worlds are in, no question. My issue is the idea that the majority of players are after "action" and not "story". I don't think that's true, I think the majority want both and they are being short changed on "story" because of the aforementioned economic realities of voice acting and the percieved necessity to stun the game shows and reviewers pre-release. Couple of examples of how this is done using DAO and The Witcher as examples (no offence to either of these games, they are both really good IMO)

In DAO the game is divided into four main areas which can theoretically be done in any order but which are in themselves linear and have a predetermined and strictly limited number of possible outcomes. The finale is kicked off after you complete all four and there is an attempt to make it different according to decision/actions taken earlier, but in practice you follow the same series of encounters in the same order, the only difference being certain characters may or may not be available for the final battles and there are a few different dialog trees determined by which options occured in the four main preceding areas. This is how they limited the expense and risks to make the cinematic dialogs feasible.

The Witcher makes no pretence at being "open", it is a linear story line that requires a certain skill from the player to complete (you can get blocked by not being able to win a particular battle for example), but it does have a set of major decisions which affect how the story plays out. The way they limit the dialog options in TW is to force you to make major decisions there and then, with no escape - you can't go away and think about it while you do something else. Thereafter your decision determines what happens next and is cast in stone, therefore they can use a different set of dialog trees and quest resolution tables which are mutually exlusive in safety.

I don't accept that the majority of players want this kind of limitation on the scope of RPG games, or anything like a majority. My contention is that they do want voice acting, 'cos it's cool and cinematic rather than bookish, but they do not realise the impact it has on "story", and if they did they might take a somewhat different view. I don't think it's just hard core Morrowind fans that want more depth to their RPG expeience.

I do accept that it would take a very brave games developer indeed to release a game without full voice acting today. However I would offer this, probably vain, word of encouragement: to do so would cause such astonishement and controversy that practically everyone would buy it just to see what all the fuss was about. If that game was anything like Morrowind it would become a legend and people would still be playing it and modding it in 2020.

Ugh, has it really got to that point already? I don't even like voice acting usually!

Nah, no Morrowind 2. With MGE and other mods out there, Morrowind couldn't be better. They should concentrate on making other provinces with the latest graphics and new gameplay possibilites. Remaking the gameworld of a previous game is not a good idea, I doubt many people would like it anyway.

what about if they recreated arena there could be a disc per province most likely wont happen untill two gens ahead

Agree completely, MW is a true RPG which Oblivion is not. I still love and play MW because what happens to my character in combat is a result of their skills not my ability with a mouse...