I think that's an utterly ridiculous exaggeration, Cobra. Not every game needs to be open-world, and this is coming from a guy who prefers open-world games to linear ones. That doesn't mean linearity and cinematic stuff doesn't have its place. Granted, it's unlikely this one is going to live up to something like The Last of Us (which was linear as hell but also probably one of the best-received games of the last decade by both critics and fans), but there's little reason for anyone to start saying much about it yet as no real verdict is in. The game may well not be particularly stellar, but from everything I've read so far, most actual players of the game have been generally positive, and not in a fanboyish way at all. Most of the negative buzz I've seen has just been people who haven't even tried it complaining that it's too short or too linear or too <whatever>. Saying this is akin to a religious persecution or a battle between some underdog belief system and a religious superpower is more than a tad hyperbolic. There are probably near as many open-world games coming out these days as linear ones, and while that's generally my personal preference, even I have to admit that less and less interesting stuff is being done with the open-world premise. I'm more apt to write off a GTA clone or lackluster "free" RPG or generic action-adventure simply given the fact that so few of them do anything to distinguish themselves anymore.
I think what Cobra's saying is less about the virtues of open-world vs. linear and more about how IT SEEMS like there's very little actual gameplay - walk down hallway, cutscene, explore room, walk down hallway, cutscene, shootout, walk down hallway. I haven't watched any of the videos and I don't know if it's true but I think that would be a valid criticism to a point.....for some people.
Personally, I'll take a cinematic, linear experience over the majority of open world games we have today. I'm not against the format by any means - I found Red Dead Redemption, GTAV, and Black Flag very enjoyable, but many open world games are becoming very formulaic to me. Sure, there's 10,000 square km of gameworld to play in, but most of it looks the same and most of it plays the same. Hundreds of quests....that fall into 4 or 5 categories. It's time consuming, it can be fun, and it's certainly a draw to some people, but I'll often find myself collecting some orbs, chasing after some chanty, or hunting down some enemies and all of a sudden realize I don't really care at all. Give me a (solid) strong and cinematic story over that and I'll take it, but that's just me. Uncharted, MGS4 (I shouldn't have mentioned story), Last of Us, Bioshock - all fairly linear and very enjoyable to me.
I don't think that's a point someone can successfully argue against - it's purely about personal preference. I can't say that linear game-play is ultimately superior anymore than anyone else can say that open world is objectively better - apples and oranges. I think what Cobra is saying is that the game is linear AND very sparse on gameplay, which is something that's potentially more deserving of criticism. If you buy a game and get a movie you have every right to be disappointed. Sure, it may not ruin it for ME if the game is solid enough in other areas but I can certainly see how it wouldn't be some people's cup of tea.
If you're rebuttal to "lack of gameplay elements" is that open world games suck anyways, you're kind of missing the point - which I think is what Cobra's saying about those Sony fanatics.
TL;DR - Thinking a game sucks because it's linear is purely subjective, but a lack of actual gameplay is a criticism that has a bit more merit, given the medium. People need to chill the fuck out and stop caring what other people like or dislike.
