The way I see it, Vitek was trying to be ironic.

Then again, considering how they replied to a post of mine in some other thread just minutes ago, maybe they were being serious, who knows? Sarcasm is hard to convey in written form, let alone in an internet forum about "gaming culture".

Things are getting complicated here: Grimoire is so great that it is supposed to vanquish all Decline at once, but Cleve was talking about sequel, so we can't be sure how exactly this works.

And about the games you mention: I think they are something in between, there is still a lot of disagreement. For example, Witcher 3 won RPG Codex GOTY of 2016, but many users were upset about it and took it as a sign of decline.
In short:
Witcher 3 - decline action gameplay, but good story, quests, C&C and overall high production value.
Divinity Original SIn - kinda opposite, good turn based combat, but bad story and writing.
Pillars of Eternity - decline in sheepskin, RtwP combat and "every build works" design.
Legends of Grimrock - ok/meh category, it's real time blobber - a dead end sub-genre.

What is a blobber? Why it is a dead end? Is this sarcasm or not?

A blobber is a game in which you control an entire party in first person view, thus effectively making you control a "blob with arms and legs".

To me, it sounds like a very vague description, but apparently a lot of people seem to prefer the term blobber to dungeon crawler. At the end of the day, we're just being picky about semantics. Just like people who dislike the term "roguelite" and come up with stuff like "RPM (randomized permadeath machine)" or the ones who prefer calling "interactive narrative experiences" to "walking simulators".

I say go with the terms more people are familiar with, it's easier and more practical. But it's the internet age, everyone has to be against the norm, and that also means people are going to come up with "alternative" ways of talking about exactly the same things others are talking about because their way of talking about it is "more accurate".

I have nothing against the term blobber, but unless I'm in a forum or a place where that word is the norm or the preferred term for these games, I'll stick to calling them dungeon crawlers.

Personally, I prefer the term Wizardry-like to refer to this sort of game, or at least those games with a structure similar to the original Wizardry. You start in a menu based town, create a party of adventurers, then go into a dungeon that is presented in first-person view, fighting enemies to earn experience and loot, and then return to town when you are done adventuring to level up and sell loot. Of course, there are variations on this, but that's the original idea.

You are correct.

I was being sarcastic and wanted to mention that I think there are a lot of good RPG and that I don't think this one dated game is going to cause any kind of Incline in the genre.
I usually see word resurgence or something similar in these situations. Incline I know like inclination of things or to be inclined to something. Never have I heard it in connection with resurgence of game genre.

A game where you have a party moving always together as a single point (blob) on the map, as opposed to discrete characters you can move in relation to each other.

Dungeon crawler is a wider term - there are crawlers where party is not a blob or there is no party, so "blobber" means very specific thing.

Also, there is nothing wrong with blobbers. I said that real time blobbers (like Grimrock) are dead end sub-genre. Why? Mostly because of (another wierd term) "combat tango".

Would you consider most Final Fantasy games to be blobbers? They technically fit your definition.

Blobbers have to be first person, Final Fantasy games are third person, though I understand where you're trying to get at. Still, the party in Final Fantasy titles -- and many other JRPGs -- is represented by one of its elements and, therefore, is not a blob. Plus, you get to see Final Fantasy party characters interacting with each other and NPCs, and doing "their own thing" in cutscenes. They're not a blob.

The concept of the party being a "blob" only applies to first person party-based RPGs because you can't see the party, so you kind of imagine them as a group of people glued together, not independent from each other: a blob with arms (since they attack) and legs (since they walk around) sticking out, comprised of all the party members.

Set random combat to often, and grind. That's all it is. Cleve's making a big deal of Grimoire's offering "600 hours," but it isn't in original gameplay. It's just grinding to make more levels, because he's made party progression extremely slow. My first level characters require anywhere from 750 to 1250 points to level up, and an average fight nets the group 5-25 points. Judging from those Let's Play online, solving quests are much better, but they're also longterm.

And Cleve, as the world knows, is a true Renaissance Man.

Regarding game simplicity, van Caneghem (who originated and made all the good Might & Magic games) once told me that yes, there was an increase an ease-of-gameplay between M&M II and III. As he put it, they simply wanted to widen the market. So, for that matter, did SirTech when they introduced colorful screens and in-game mapping. Cleve's rant against dumbing down is just more of his usual provocation--which he knows is ridiculous, because Grimoire has a number of "dumbing down" features (according to his own rhetoric) that he even boasts about in his trailer as promoting ease-of-use.

But he was always good at PR, and at least two-thirds of that is nonsense.

Auto-mapping is very interesting example. Mapping dungeons by hand used to be part of the gameplay, so the introduction of auto-mapping can be seen as a sign of Decline.
However, there is huge difference between early Wizardry (1-5) and the late Wizardry (6,7).

In the early Wizardry the dungeon is really a MAZE. Dungeon architecture doesn't make any sense. It is designed to confuse the player with nasty things like black zones, spinners and teleporters. Finding your way is even more important, because you can't rest in the dungeon - you have to go back to town if you want to rest or level up, so navigation is super important and it's big part of gameplay. In this case auto-map can be seen as "dumbing down" and removing elements of gameplay.

In the later Wizardry dungeons aren't that complicated. They are supposed to look like real places, with straigth corridors and room here and there. Also, you can rest anywhere, so the navigating the dungeon isn't that important. In this case addition of auto-map isn't that big deal.
Cleve made Grimoire as a Wizardry 7 successor, so auto-mapping in this context isn't Decline.

How about the original Phantasy Star, which is first person in dungeons but not in towns or the overworld? Is that game a blobber?