You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of my point:

The problem is not the interactivity of the cutscenes. Interactive cutscenes can be okay in some scenarios, but I still hold them on the same level as regular cutscenes. They need to be used sparingly, and avoided if possible.

The problem is the frequency of cutscenes that take you out of control. I find it hard to believe that you don't see what I am talking about even if you don't agree with me. The first video that I posted showed gameplay broken up into 10second pieces, fractured by cutscene after cutscene. That to me feels like I have no agency in the world and it feels like my goal is to get to the next cutscene as opposed to survival or completing a mission. 

Whether or not the game actually has multiple paths that the game can go down, these cutscenes can give players the illusion of lack of choice. To the player, it can feel like they aren't the character in the world, they feel like they are just watching a static story play out and shooting things along the way. 

Heres a couple videos for you (first one is infinitely more important):
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0RFoGvkQfs

This video talks about how much agency you need in games. Key sections:
-Around 1:30 when he begins talking about TLOU. The way The Order is designed would put that section as a cutscene, or at least break it up with cutscenes, taking away the player's feeling of agency. This makes them feel safe in the thought that whatever is coming up will be a point to the story and likely a cutscene. I am just performing the necessary actions to get to that point. What I am asking for is the game to make you feel like you are the character, and that your decision to go around that corner is meaningful, because, while it is not a true choice, whatever happens will be determined by your own ability to adapt and you really are alone without the cutscenes to calmly guide you through.
-Also, look at 3:30 where it talks about "bad shooters". That is what the first half of this demo does. You don't have much gameplay choice. Sure, you can change weapons, but honestly, the only thing that really does is change what the explosion looks like. If you try to move around, you get riddled with bullets (as shown by the player who seemed to try to move around). Your gameplay choice is to play whack-a-mole with your enemies. As Dan said "there is no choice involved, just doing". 

By what I've seen, this game does not give me enough to make me feel like my decisions matter. In fact, it seems like it was designed specifically to make me feel like my decisions don't matter, whether they have any real effect or not. 

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXIR2dlktc

This video talks about cutscenes in games. Key sections:
-As this video starts it says that we shouldn't do away with cutscenes entirely. I first want to clarify that I don't disagree. I think that cutscenes largely have a place at the beginning or ending of level, but should be replaced with gameplay when possible. My main problems comes with mini cutscenes of the few second variety that break up the gameplay for no real reason. These sacrifice player agency and control to make the game more cinematic. I do not believe that games should aspire to be movies, I think they should aspire to be the best games they can be. 
-This video starts by talking about downsides to cutscenes and I think R@D falls victim to many of these, but he tends to brush over the ones I'm leaning more on right now. 
-The second part of the video talks about the places to use cutscenes in the game. I don't think there is much to talk about here, but I can agree with all of it, just to clarify my stance. 

PS: I don't like how you are trying to belittle my point without actually putting any effort into this discussion. I am here to have a discussion on the place of cutscenes in games, and whether or not The Order uses them effectively. I have stated my point, your counterpoint seems to be simply "No, you are wrong". Or possibly, your argument is "interactive cutscenes>static cutscenes" which isn't what I was talking about here and I don't really disagree with. My discussion is "Cutscenes (both interactive and static)<Pure gameplay" which is very different than what you are discussing

yeah really think of the first level of TLoU.  You do a couple quicktimes, watch stuff happen, then run in a straight line pretty much lol.  Didn't stop the game from having open areas and choose your own play style later.

The motion blur helps the human perceive the low framerate to look smooth. It works really well in live-action movies because cameras capture natural light sources. However, it's a huge challenge for video games because usually the lighting is not realistic and will instead, make the games look even weirder. The Order: 1886, has some pretty damn good lighting, so if motion blur is implemented, it should look fine. The other problem with implementing motion blur is control latency and I hope RAD is working on making the controls feel responsive.

This guy here does a better job at explaining this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCWZ_kWTB9w

People who complain about cinematic gameplay never saw a modern cinematic TPS it seems.

Uncharted is the most known of all and an excellent game, Quantum Break seems to follow the same path.

Still no one complain about these one whereas they have a lot of cinematics ( the only difference is that you dont play in these cinematics )

Based on gameplay we've seen thus far, it still looks pretty average.

I still want to play it though. I'm just keeping my expectations low.

Thats the thing and what i am pointing out. This game will go by with few compains. Ryze whenever mentioned is remembered as the worse game released back then. There is a hige difference with a few complains. Someone might have a complain or two from GTA V... Know what 1I mean?

I'm trying to belittle your point? I can't have even attempted to belittle your "point" because you didn't have a point to be belittled in the 1st place. Well atleast what it seemed you were originally trying to get at with your 1st reply to me. You were trying to make it seem like that interactive cutscene was the whole games gameplay that kept being interuppted by cutscenes when it was actually just an interactive cutscene that they let you control at times. 

So basically that video was a cutscene representation and not a gameplay representation.

In that 1st video, i knew exactly what he was about to get at with the thing in TLOU. They basically make something important missable. If you dont pay attention, you could miss out on something. It's like the P.T demo. I was trying to show a friend the P.T demo but the motherfucker kept looking away when the important shit would happen. So basically those type of games are VERY rewarding to people who pay attention and are a lot less rewarding to people who dont pay attention.

The video talked about the shooter thing but lets look at The Order for a second. In the demo, they gave you 1 type of enemy so only logic would tell you that you wouldn't need much strategy or a need to change guns to kill them. Now lets say we took Gears Of War, Uncharted, or ANY OTHER 3rd person shooter on this planet, placed 1 type of enemy in front of them, and let you play. Could you determine the amount of strategy that would be needed to kill this enemy? Would switching guns make a real strategic difference when killing this 1 type of enemy or would it basically be just seeing the explosion of the guns?

Also, Could you show me any other 3rd person shooter demo that showed you that your decisions mattered? I cant think of any at the moment but give me an example of a 3rd person shooter demo that showed how your decisions mattered unlike The Order.

About the movie thing.. Some people claimed that Uncharted was like a movie but that game is better than any other 3rd person shooter that aspires to take a kiddish-no-movie approach any day of the week. If a game wants to have movie qualities then so be it. as long as it's good, i'm all for it. I don't know why people try to act like games that have movie-qualities are bad. As if non-movieish-games are all top notch or something. There are GARBAGE ass'd regular games out here too. Don't try to single out the games that have some movie qualities as if it makes them worse or something.

I believe you're just expecting way too much from this demo of The Order for whatever reason.

We'll see how the game turns out when it releases(hopefully good) because this demo is... a demo

I know this is late but did you really just post a video of this OLD ASS demo?

Had me thinking i was about to see a new video of The Order... Don't ever make a thread titled like this again

I'd say that link is too detached from the context to have much meaning. The Uncharted 4 teaser at 30 fps vs 60 fps is more useful. I've watched several times over and still think the 30fps is more appealing.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-watch-uncharted-4-and-the-last-of-us-at-60-fps

Striving to be cinematic is totally not BS. Video games are unique in that they can more or less encapsulate all of the mediums and the vast majority of the time they do, knowingly or not. Its not and shouldn't be a case of trying to be like film, but instead maximising the potential where the medium of  moving images is concerned. The primary output of games is moving images, this so happens to be the same as film. The difference is film has been doing it a lot a longer and in some parts, a lot better. If a games core component is to propell you through a linear, narrative driven experience (FF, The Last of US) and it does this primarily through visual story telling, what on earth is wrong with trying to be cinematic? Especially when as you mention the benefits of the 60fps may be negatable and have a rather mute effect on gameplay. 

But I agree that 60fps should be the default goal of most games, but some devs like RAD genuinely have purpose in what FPS they strive for. The majority of the time others are probably worried about their game looking worse from a promotional stand point (stills, trailers, tv spots) against the 30fps competitors with more flashy effects, textures and high poly counts.

I think that video is more a decription of why film can afford a framerate of 24fps without looking choppy, whereas games can't. I wouldn't even say 30fps is ideal in terms of appearing ''cinematic'' but I think preferable over 60fps. But as a initially I think its somehwhat subject, the regularity at which we're exposed to the 2 probably has a huge impact on our perception as well. I take you've seen the video of Uncharted 4 running at 30fps vs 60fps. Which one to you was most cinematic? 

For me it was the 30fps.