I could definitely get into a system in which the personalities were somewhat deeper. I'm even fine with "my" characters having hidden agendas and story beats and so forth ... as long as these stories didn't become the main reason for the game. For this type of thing, I think Jagged Alliance got it exactly right. It was done with a light enough touch that when a mercenary did something without being ordered, it came as a surprise. I didn't want or need a big cutscene between Reuban and Ivan. Reuban just issued threats for a while, and then one morning Ivan didn't show up for the daily briefing. No evidence, nothing further said ever. That was one of my landmark moments in gaming. I wouldn't want it to become like Mass Effect where every moment you're watching these fascinating scripted dramas unfold. But having more impact than in Wizardry 8 (zero) would be cool.
I think the main problem here is that there doesn't seem to be a way to create a formal system that would allow expressing all the personalities player may wish to create and that it would be difficult to delineate player agency from responsibilities of such system.
Still, some soft and fragmentary trait system that would leave moment to moment decisions in player's hands but would result in some penalties if player regularly violated their stated "alignment" (occasional weak "violations" wouldn't be penalized at all as they might represent the way player's interpretation/character concept differs from what could be codified).
For whatever it's worth, I completely understand that satisfaction. You said it yourself: "clearing" a map extends the zone of player supremacy. This makes my Achiever sense tingle and gets me a little closer to "100%ing" the game. I don't actually want this kind of feedback from a game, but it's no mystery why it feels rewarding.
Do note that this kind of satisfaction is self defeating, though. Cleared map is dead, it's no longer an asset to gameplay. Anything involving a map that's already cleared becomes a chore.
Items durability.
In what rpg did having to repair your junk, detracting from your epic quests of phat lewt, add to the game?
In any game that uses varied materials for weapons and armor.
For example silver(ed) sword may be effective against supernatural or incorporeal enemies but it will dull much faster.
A glass weapon may be incredibly sharp and lighter than a metal one, but it will be much more fragile.
A bronze or lower quality iron weapon won't differ much from a steel one in terms of effects it has on flesh, but durability will be a major concern.
Additionally repair is a viable form of resource sink.
Resource sinks are pretty much a prerequisite for functional in-game economy.
Quest-based crafting (as in collect prerequisites to make a powerful unique item) is good.
Repetitive crafting can be good as well as it allows disposable gear and better self-sufficiency, as long as the crafting itself isn't pointlessly grindy.
2. TES Level-skills-up-as-you-use-them system. makes you feel Uber. I hate Uber.
What makes you Uber is badly balanced character development. It doesn't matter how you level up.
6. TES-like Sandboxes with tons of meaningless filler in it.
Well, computers cannot into storytelling and a sandbox you can do your own stuff in still beats a scripted cutscene rollercoaster.
What you write is good in theory, but practically it fails more often than not. In most RPGs the maps are full of trash mobs. What satisfaction do I get out of fighting them and how do I motivate myself to proceed in order to reach the good parts? The motivation comes in the form of XP and of clearing the map and therefore feeling a sense of progress.
But then the bad design is still bad, even if it's sugar coated.
And kill XP based systems are an awful piece of game design anyway.
I haven't played the games you are mentioning unfortunately.
You probably should supplement your gaming diet with games from other genres and hybrids. It broadens the perspective and some have long since solved the problems cRPGs still struggle with.
For example System Shock 2 just wouldn't work without respawns and durability mechanics, but with those included it's one of the most nerve-wracking survival horror experiences to this date.
Pre-defined player characters and classes are definitely at the top of the list for me. It is the very opposite of role-playing when a game puts you in a box and says "YOU ARE THIS".
Truth be told I don't even consider the Witcher games to be RPGs.
Agreed. A game doesn't need to be an RPG to be good though, so I can't say I hate to be forced to play Geralt or TNO.
Also the idea of being able to talk to everyone seems kinda stupid. Can you really imagine a random dude running around asking everyone if could be of some assistance? I remember PsT parodied it a little bit in a conversation with an old lady near the mortuary. No idea how to fix that issue tho.
It makes sense with a topic based systems, though. You can walk to about anyone and ask how to get to a particular tavern or what the fuck is a foyada.
It would make even more sense for random passerbys to quickly run out of patience so that you couldn't milk every single one for information for half an hour - Daggerfall implemented something along these lines.
To add something, I really hate fall damage death in most 3D games. It's just a reload element which can be triggered just by clumsy controls or game bug. It's realistic but not fun at all. Some non-rpgs adding some mechanics to it, like Prince of Persia or something. But in many action-RPGs it's just there and it's horrible.
It can be fun if you can use it in combat against enemies (meaning that they can also use it against you) or when falling damage can be traded off for, for example ability to get out of bad situation - might even be build dependent, a lightly equipped, acrobatic character might use a route which would make a knight in full armor go splat.
No mechanics is fun in vacuum.
Death to falling damage can also be a perfectly reasonable price of failure just like death to combat damage can.