Ye and its also only my opinion that Barcelona and Real Madrid are the two best football teams in the world, that the Golden State Warriors have one of the most incredible sides in the history of Basketball, that Le Bron James is a monster, that Usain Bolt is is the fastest man alive lol.

It's not just because you think different that it makes somethign a contested point. An opinion is "I like or I dislike Uncharted". A fact is Naughty Dog was and still is respected amongst its pears, had a centerpiece inside Sony game developing strategies, made games that are aclaimed and laureated by the widest variety of gamers and or critics, and is currently amongst the most sucessfull videogame developers ever. 

If I show you a blue pen and you tell me it is your opinion it is green, you are either insane or dautonic. Ppl realy need to stop that, just because it is their opinion they think they can negate facts.

Where did I suggest we delete or alter facts? You can state unequivocally that X team won Y games or that this Naughty Dog fans won X number of awards and sold Y number of copies. Those are cold, hard facts with data to back them up.

What I said is that you cannot use such data to prove quality. I'm sorry, Dakon, you can't. If I think Uncharted 3 was a poor game, then that opinion is as legitimate as the opinions of millions who disagree with me. Uncharted 3 was almost universally acclaimed by the critical community. Fact. It holds a 92 on Metacritic. Fact. It sold over 5 million copies. Fact. It's a great game. Opinion.

The sooner you admit that reality, the sooner we can have a productive and meaningful debate. But if you insist upon the logical fallacy that states what is popular must be good, then, sorry, I won't allow myself to be drawn into a maze of circular logic.

Rockstar North, GTA 1 and 2 were not that good but GTA 3 revolutionised gaming and they haven't made a mediocre game since then.

Santa Monica Studio, Kinetica was not that good but then they made God of War which was good and God of War 2 after that which was amazing, and they have made amazing games since then.

Naughty Dog, they made a poor 2D fighter in early 90's but improved with each franchise on each generation of PlayStation, and TLOU was the best game they made and an amazing game too.

Guerilla Games, Killzone was a poor FPS game but Killzone 2 and 3 were amazing and made me an FPS game fan.

Criterion, the first Burnout game was mediocre but they improved with each game and Burnout Paradise and NFS Hot Pursuit were amazing.

CDProjectRED. Witcher 1 was alright, 2 was good, 3 was amazing.

I would almost say Naughty Dog, but I don't think Uncharted is really any better than Jak & Daxter. In terms of critical and financial recognition, they've been getting better and better, though.

Bethesda was around for a while but they really started to get good starting with Morrowind and really after Oblivion. Before that, their lineup was hit or miss; some gems like Daggerfall and some mediocre movie games.

Bethesda Game Studios. Games before Elder Scrolls were neat, ok things. The first Elder Scrolls was a cult classic, Daggerfall even moreso. Then Morrowind vastly outsold Daggerfall and became a massive critical success. Then Oblivion repeated that positive reception and more than doubled Morrowind's sales. And then Skyrim again repeated the positive reception and went on to double Oblivion's sales. So yeah, quite the explosive growth rate.

Edit:  and somehow I missed the post right above mine xD

Pitty that quality wise it's been downhill after Morrowind, but they sure got the mainstream audience.

Rare was arguably the top 3rd party on NES and released one of the best and most iconic games on the console with Battletoads. They were hardly mediocre.

Rockstar/DMA and Blizzard were great developers in their startup days as well. Rockstar was a Nintendo second party for a time, and they released Uniracers which was one of the best games of the 16-bit generation.

Also Blizzard, that's quite the argument saying that Rock n Roll Racing and Lost Vikings were mediocre games, I disagree.

Not universally imo.  The dialogue and NPC elements have improved in an enormous ways; most NPCs that weren't major players in Morrowind were poorly written information vending machines.  Combat is just plain better IMO, Morrowind had so many design decisions with regards to that that were just so...wrong feeling.  Like they couldn't decide whether they wanted it to be a wester action RPG or a numbers-based old school RPG so it just awkwardly mashed them together.  Thus making it possible you could spend the efforts to learn a spell but fail to cast it at a crucial moment because of RNG nonsense or miss  person at point blank range cause of the same RNG nonsense.  Not saying all changes have been for the better, there are some that havent' been.  Every TES game has had numerous changes, some improvements, some not, some just...odd.  Overally, I would say the series has stayed quality from Morrowind on.