I like both.... but the problem with open ones are that if you don't have 100 hrs to put in you don't really know what side quest are woth doing or even important in terms of character stats devlopement.... now FFXIII is way too linear... I mean come on even if you loved it don't tell you didn't feel riped off a litle at that price tag... I expect something more evolved... in terms of gameplay..... I think the one that coined it are bethesda in mass effect 2.... even though we could have used more side quest and a main story more like the first one.... I felt like I could do everything without wasting time like in fallout, and at the same time I could go linear and not miss much.....

I think for open worlds like elder scroll and fallout they should have an option where you can tell how many hours you want to put in and it cuts off the less important quest in relation to the box you ticked.... a bit like the level of difficulty but for time.....

I prefer a linear story, but with 'open' gameplay elements such as a plethora of side quests available throughout the game

Open world RPG's have a tendency to immerse me into the world more. The only linear RPG that has done that is Mass Effect.

I, wouldn't say ripped off... I mean, it was still 40+ hours and fun(for me), and that's not counting hunts which took me 120 hrs. It just was a dungeoncrawler game like demon soul's (I like demon soul's a bit more). 

Comparatively to uncharted, killzone, or even TWEWY (which I think is the best JRPG this gen), it's atleast 4 times longer. if you liked it. If you didn't like it, it doesn't matter, because you're not going to play or enjoy it. I don't like multiplayer so the value added by multiplayer in uncharted or killzone is nil for me.

What? There are linear and open-world JRPGs out there and there are linear and open-world WRPGs as well. How the hell did you come up with this conclusion?

Neither really, all depends how it's executed.

Open World RPGS can be GREAT...... if your story is full of sidequests and or non-linear.

If it's going to be a case of "Game designer holding your hand" i'd rather it be linear then. No point in having an open world that tells you nothing with people who have nothing interesting to say.

Your just going to hang out at the places with the somwhat challenging monsters and equipment at your level.

I loved JRPGS in the snes day, then I started PC gaming and loved WRPGs too.... I loved when JRPGs became action oriented....
I hate how games are now an new test of how much useless crap you can fit in. I don't care about 20 minigames of bad quality. I don't care about exploring a big empty city, I got my exploring love from playing metroid and discovering meaningfull secrets, from finding secret passages in FF castles... talk about a letdown with today's "secrets"... bird #75, shoot it for an achievement.... meh....

Neither. RPGs need a balance between linearity and open world. Demon's Souls wasn't linear it was open level. You could play any level you wanted and some of them were linear some of them weren't. FF7 is another example of both, the world itself was pretty open and you had alot of places to explore but the story was linear so you didn't get lost. FFXIII is horrible because it's so linear it's a series of hallways and games like Oblivion you get a sense of aimlessness because you don't know where you should go. I think an open world rpg done insanely well would be good but I don't see that being possible, atleast not this gen. So yeah neither too linear and you're bored out of your skull, too open world and you have no idea where you should go.

I pretty much like linear games that give you an open world illusion, like old school jrpgs

Demon's souls in itself is not too linear. If anything  it's a mix of both. I'm just saying that Dark Souls will be more open than its predecessor. That's all