I'm of a few minds on this.
1. One of the core "features" I've noticed of this community over my (relatively brief) time here is that when a collective mindset of ours wants to like an upcoming game, it's a kneejerk reaction we display in which we sharply criticize the first controversially mixed review, only to post sad reaction GIFs later on in which we solemnly acknowledge that so-and-so "had it right all along. ;_;" I think a few grammatical errors and problems of tone and context illustrated in Edge's article shouldn't be enough for us to disregard its message. Many of the glowing impressions articles in recent weeks have even been careful to note that it remains to be seen whether the style they heaped praise upon would manage to hold up. Please note: I am not directing this at anyone in particular. I love this community and its sensationalism is fun by its own right sometimes. And, heck, we are still amazing when it comes to quality analysis despite all that. But still. tldr; let's not crucify the author.
2. That written, I'm seeing the opposite in this thread as well. I've seen at least one post where a fellow has remarked that this confirms the plot is abysmal. Let's bear in mind that Edge is (in?)famous for being harsh in its review texts. It's kind of what they do. Please note that the author says emotional beats tend to ring "a little hollow" at times. The author did not call the plot a bust. The author said that, yes, the focus on character comes at the expense of a strong plot. But what Edge has historically constituted as "strong plot" has, at least in my estimation, been a pillar above the rest of the games journalism industry. So, I would argue the fact that the author said some positive things about the story and especially its cast is a good thing in and of itself. Just the same, though, we ought not jump to conclusions either way. It could be solid but flawed. It could be dreadful with a few redeeming lights. It could be the Second Coming. tldr; let's not take this all as gospel, either. Especially not in relation to plot.
3. It is curious the author's usage of the term "second half" given Tabata's remarks that the so-called latter half is in fact closer to the end. I've seen it said in this thread that perhaps this is as little as 30 minutes of game time. I don't think that's remotely possible, barring a numerical lapse in the author's judgment which would necessitate psychiatric assistance. No, I can't fathom this more linear and confined experience being half an hour long. It must stick in some prolonged fashion in order to have the author address it as half, erroneously or otherwise. My hypothesis: the linear path is less gameplay time by proxy, as the open world regions allow for dozens of hours of exploration and side content, but the linear path still corresponds to, say, Chapters 8-15 or so, because each chapter is a narrative episodic benchmark. This is something I've pondered for longer than just today, and it would explain the confusion.
4. Building on #3, I'd reckon that, if I am correct, there will in fact be only three, perhaps four, open world zones. I use this number because we know at least of a third, thanks to Active Time Report airings. However, it is my estimation that that third zone is perhaps smaller at least than Duscae, and there is no guarantee of a fourth. I would like to bring to evidence the following: we know from recent press previews that the first region is the first two chapters. Duscae launches the third, or close enough to that timeframe, at least. Perhaps around the fifth chapter or the sixth we enter another zone. Then around the eighth the plot, such as it is, attempts to shift into higher gear (whether because it truly wishes to do so or because the development team ran out of time along the way as Edge insinuates is possible). From that point, we are in a more linear world. tldr; I am gambling there are no more than four zones at the most, no matter what all the map analysis over the years has hinted. Later regions are marginalized from a gameplay standpoint.
5. I prefer linear. This last point is just me shooting the breeze with my own thoughts, but... it's the truth. I don't mind FFX's style at all. I adore XII's, as well, mind you. But FFX has a stronger focus to its narrative. Now, if you don't care for that focus, then I can see why you would dislike the game. And if you don't care for that linear aspect by and large, yeah, FFX isn't going to do it for you. But given the choice between the two, I trust FFX's style far more in delivering a quality plot with sufficient eventfulness. So, I am leaning toward everything I've read from Edge's article being a good thing overall. But I don't believe the author would be as (relatively) critical if they did not feel it is handled quite awkwardly. I think in the final telling we are going to receive an awkward game with some sophomoric approaches brought on by its development history and the uncertainty of its craft. But I think I, myself, am going to like it more overall in thanks to this latter-game change in philosophy. Wrinkles and all.
