Frankly, I can't see how people can call "exploration" the act of following passively a quest mark on a compass/minimap.
Well... It isn't exploration when you just brainlesly follow a quest marker, I agree. What I call exploration as far as I'm concerned is the ability to ignore the quest marker to go do whatever you want to do. Which is why I think the ES games are true open worlds while MMX, D:OS, BG, etc are only "half open worlds". You can't go do whatever you please, either because you need to unlock a special ability first ( especially in MMX, Metroidvania syndrom ) or because, as mentionned by Artemis, you are rewarded with a club to the head anytime you try to wander off the beaten path and into territories you aren't actually suppose to go to at this point of the game.
I also said in another post that having limitations helps create a more realistic world where there are actual dangerous zones, while Oblivion/Skyrim do not features that kind of dangers. "Oh god, this is undead territory. Man, I'll just find a way around". This sentence is what makes half-opene worlds, well, "half-opened". You can go there, but you can't. On the other hand, when you come back with a vengeance and/or are able to beat the encounters there despite not being technically ready, you feel great. But... this isn't as open-worlded as a (modern)ES / bethesda's FallOut game.
At the end of the day, when you're done exploring and adventuring and you want to go back to the main quest, though, I'm always glad to have the possibility to get a quest marker, just to remind me of what and where I was supposed to go. Taking notes on a sheet of paper as you go is so 1990... Not all modern features are bad.
What you call true open world I call boring wandering around
I'm not sure what you actually call "exploration" then, to be honest with you. I guess that's something that, maybe, got multiple meanings depending on one's past experience ...?
As for the replayability, I don't think a game where you can max all the skills, become master of all the guilds and finish (almost) all the quests in a single playthrough is designed for replayability. You need consequences to have replayability, ad TES games have VERY few of them.
On that I agree : there aren't many consequences in a TES game. and re-playability is weak. That's because there are so many, many things to do in the first place that there probably isn't any need for replay, as one game, granted you want to go as far as you can in the content, can pack some serious hundred of hours. Actually, I hate re-playability, as I always felt it was a cheap way of boosting your game's life expectancy. Same goes for achievement, multiple endings, etc... I'd rather have one huge game than one small with multiple way to reach the end. Re-playability sounds, for me, like another marketing gimmick...
Although sometimes it's done right. The Mass Effect games almost did it, and while the main story is the same, I found myself discussing the events in my game with friends who just didn't get the same situation, especially in the final game.
Again: I'm REALLY glad that Original Sin has nothing in common with the latest TES game.
Same, mainly because I absolutely never expected D:OS to be a TES clone! I came mainly for the co-op and turn-based combat :p
