This.

Final Fantasy XIII was a prime example. Its problem wasn't that it was linear, it was that the combat system progressed at a snails pace and the game had you run forward through massive locations for 2 hours straight without doing anything but clearing out foes.

Poorly designed levels and progress =/= linear

Mario Galaxy is probably one of the most linear Mario games yet is the most highly rated

True RPG's denote choice and shaping the world you're in with your actions like the Witcher 3. The only RPG that used to get away with linearity was JRPG's (and they still do). It all goes back to D&D really. Most RPG's today are just action games with role playing elements. True RPG's are guided by your actions influence. This is why even though Mass Effect kind of missed the mark at it thats what it was going for. So far the Witcher is the closest major RPG to reaching these ends outside of Elder Scrolls. I haven't played Fallout yet, but I believe it meets the criteria as well.

People have different preferences and it also depends on the genre.

I prefer linear platformers packed with obstacles instead of open collect-a-thons.

But adventure games or RPGs should be open imo.

I believe it has less to do with linearity and more to do with the journey vs. destination. In reality all games are linear in some way or other, it's about how well they hide it.

I don't think most people see linearity as being inherently bad (though of course, there is a minority that feels the need to criticize anything they aren't personally fond of). When a game is criticized for it, it's usually because the linearity compounds other issues with the game, or because it simply wasn't done well.

The internet communicates in short sentences so it's not versatile in it's criticism of anything, especially in it's word choices. Also, "linearity" became trendy in the triple A space because of obvious time and financial constrains, and people became aware of that. A good linear popular game will get a lot praise, but a linear game with bad reception will be called "linear" in a derogatory fashion because people who dwell in the internet generally don't have the capacity to describe what sucks about a game they dislike.

In this day and age of tutorials, excessive hand-holding, hallways with no branches (or empty / meaningless branches), long (and often unskippable) cut-scenes, and QTEs, linearity can be deathly horrible; smart design can avoid this. Linear campaign plus crappy or no multiplayer is the kiss of death with some reviews, because every AAA now apparently needs to have a competitive online multiplayer mode, and also apparently nobody likes to replay modern games.

It is frustrating to have a big build-up and be promised a big area coming up, but when you get there you're only going to see a straight A-to-B path through it. But if the game is good, players will (hopefully) be more concerned with playing what's there as opposed to what isn't.

I don't mind linear games and i think the term ''open world'' is kinda overhyped.

I don't think it was ever a negative until open world became more popular allowing the gamer to have more 'freedom'

But I still enjoy linear games so maybe I'm the minority :p

I love linear games. They are my favorite type of game really. One of the reasons I loved Skyward Sword...