While those studios haven't made bad games, some of them they still made mediocre games:
- Lionhead Studios, for example, made the mediocre Fable and the decent Fable 2, and both are not good games.
- Kojima Studios made the not-so-good Metal Gear Solid 2, and that bad game called MGS: Portable Ops Plus (or so I've heard).
- Bioware made the very mediocre Jade Empire.
The rest seems fine, though I don't know much about Intelligent Systems. I'm surprised you didn't pick quality juggernauts like Blizzard, Stardock and Relic.
Jade Empire was not mediocre, it actually got really good reviews and was for me anyway, better than KOTR. I'd say the Fable's were overhyped, but they were still good games and hardly the weakest link in lionhead's line up. Metal gear solid 2 was also a very well reviewed game and was amazing, kojima studio's falters on the metal gear acid games, portable ops was actually pretty good and got good reviews. I would also hesitate to call stardock and relic quality juggernauts. They make really good games, but they don't really have enought games under their belt to be called juggernaughts.
My question to this thread then, is what are the qualifiers of a good game? Is it up to personal preference or is it based on review scores? I think it should be up to review scores rather than personal taste just because it is less subjective. Also, I think highly reviewed games are more universally accepted as good games(no offense shio)