I would pick Sony Santa Monica. The collabs they've done alone give them so much more variety than everyone else.(Journey, Flower, Starhawk..etc)

EXACTLY.

Critizing something for being linear is the most ignorant thing you can do. 

BTW, I prefer an 8-12 hour linear game with a great story, than a 300hour game with random conversations with random NPCs that tell you the lore of the game.

- " That's not what I'm saying. It's understandable that someone dislikes open world games, but it's not understandable that said person would say open world = bad, as in bad for everyone. No review would have "Open world" written as a negative bullet point, for the same reason the genre wouldn't be there. It would be understandable for me to not like a FPS game because I don't like FPSs (for example), but it wouldn't be understandable for me to say a game is bad because it's an FPS. "

Okay, that makes sense. But I still don't think he was speaking objectively. I guess we'll just have to wait for PullusPardos to clarify.

- "He said it lacks content, you just agreed that it's above the standard, so I guess that critique is false in your eyes as well as mine."

Just because something is above the standard, doesn't mean it's any good. If the standard is shitty, then you can be above it while still being mediocre. Also, even if it did have a good amount of content, that still may not be good enough in this context. This thread is asking for the best of the best, not 'just' good.

- "But how is it a reason that Naughty Dog isn't a top developer? And how does that make his critique any less wrong?"

Because I'm assuming his opinion of a top developer is one that goes extremely past the standard. The devs that make games with many hours of gameplay, offering a lot of gameplay options, replayability, exploration, etc. Again, talking about single player here.

It's not an issue of being linear (although linear generally is a negative because an open world game is harder for the developer to restrict and dumb down, and in open world you get exploration, freedom and variation essentially for free), it's about the free versus controlled experience. In the past all games were linear but they were absolutely packed with gameplay instead of fluff. So linear in itself is not bad.

Bioshock and Half-Life 2 are linear but free. Call of Duty and Uncharted are linear and controlled - as in tightly scripted, filled with cut-scenes, filled with obvious directions to guide the player forward and having almost no sections were the player can make anything wrong - the game essentially plays by itself and you watch this drama as a bystander.

I adore Half-Life 2 and Bioshock. These games have strong story-telling and can be described as cinematic too. But they give the control of the game to the player.

I think PullusPardus means this too. Linear-free versus linear-controlled.

-> Nintendo EAD
-> Retro
-> monolith soft
-> intelligent systems
-> nintendo SP

*nintendo gamer*

5. Bethesda
4. Bungie
3 Bioware
2. Naughty Dog
1. Square Enix

every game is linear in a way...is not a bad thing by definition...a game thats too linear for my taste is CoD, and i still like it (not much)...

Hmm i get bored of linear games very quickly ( Story ) So UC & GOW wouldn't hold me over except for a few days. I prefer games like Skyrim or pretty much any RPG. For example Final Fantasy 13 was linear but i stilled enjoyed it. I have all three Uncharted games and barely got past the first mission in UC 1. I doubt i will ever get into them. I have Heavy Rain and Dead Island also guess which i finished and the one i dididn't? Every one has a style they enjoy no point in arguing about. If someone doesn't like UC then that's their opinion and they have a right to dislike UC if they want to.

ND is in the lead!? Humanity has crumbled!