The games I'm getting this year:

MM 3D (open world action adventure), Fire Emblem: Awakening (turn based strategy rpg), Mario Party 10 (party game), Splatoon (third person shooter/platformer), Yoshi's Woolly World (2D platformer), XBX (open world rpg), Zelda U (open world action adventure), Fire Emblem if (turn based strategy rpg).

I don't see the problem, enough variety there.

Open World design has been around for decades. The original Legend of Zelda was an open world format.

I'm fine with open worlds (more than fine when you consider my 200hrs on Skyrim) as long as they are an interesting world. A game that I can think of that shouldn't have been open world was No More Heroes. They were a small developer and they created a pretty boringly empty open world mainly used as a hub. That's a no-no.

I like open world games too but I don't necessarily want them to become the overwhelming majority ...

Not sure if I would say I'm either or. I haven't played too many open world games, but I'm willing to give it a shot with some of the games coming this year. Having a huge world to explore does sound fun : )

Yes and no. I love having large beautiful worlds to explore, but the thing is you gotta fill those worlds with varied, interesting content. A lot of devs just make these large open worlds and then proceed to structure their game in a way that almost completely ignores all that space. That simply doesn't fly with me

Personally I always loved open-world games and linear games as well. As long as they are both well made, it's fine for me.

Some of my favorite series are "open world" to some degree. There are problems with the delivery in some cases but the positives very much outweigh the negatives, generally speaking. Still, I am hopeful that this gen will bring some polish and refinement, though I very much understand that open-world games are very hard to play-test compared to more linear games.

FPS titles with a ton of content that I can sink 50+ hours in have become one of my favorite types of game. Fallout, Far Cry, and semi-open-world games like Borderlands and Deus Ex are all franchises that I will buy more of in the future.

While I love open-world approach, and been so since C64 days with the games like first Elite, that terrible predecessor to GTA called Miami Vice and then Wasteland back in 80s, I wouldn't like to see developers going for it just because it's latest trend - there are games that benefit from it, but then there are lot of those who simply don't.

Yes, I like this trend. I enjoy open-world games much more than linear ones, I like the way I am allowed to explore and do stuff outside of the strictly mandated areas.
Not that I hate linear games, but very few of them entertain me, and most of the times I just quit half way through because I don't see the point in continuing. And even then, a third-person view gives me more enjoyment, linear FPS I simply cannot play. I started and quit a few Halos, Bioshock, Wolfenstein, CoDs etc.
The only 2 linear FPSs I endured were SpecOps and Bioshock Infinite as they had an awesome story.

So, I want more open world games, and I cannot wait for Borderlands in a couple of weeks.

I do like Open-World games when they are done right, but I wouldn't like it to become the norm for most of the games in the future. This method doesn't work for every franchise. Not every developer thinks of the same way on how to fill the empty worlds, so it's hit and miss. But I see many developers making open-world games for the years to come until it becomes stale and tiring.