The point that the author is trying to make is that innovation and revolution are being improperly used.  The Last of Us is innovative.  So's the majority of games.  There's nothing revolutionary about any of them.  For example: Pacman was revolutionary, Ms. Pacman was innovative.  

At first the game looked uninteresting for me,but after the gameplay shown in december at the PS meeting. I was sold.

the thing is, im not going against the author, i agree that most (not all) but most games do new stuff, but NOT most of them do revolutionary stuff, and  thats because they dont need to revolutionize the game genre in order to be great games, and TLOU as well as many new games and sequels did do some new stuff making them "Innovative" in a sense, just like Ther Order according to the article is being innovative in the way it gives the player control over segments that would normally be cutscenes, plus having the same assets in such a high quality for cutscenes and gameplay.

so in summary i was missusing the word Innovative in my last comment just like people are missusing the word innovative when they judge games like The Order, so in order to make my last post more clear what i meant to say is:

"most games are not Revolutionary and thats because they dont need to be revolutionary to be great games, or to have any sort of quality"

Its not just QTEs....its all "cinematic" breaks in the gameplay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENWbbQsmr2E

This video is a little hard to tell for the first 1:30 what is gameplay and what is cutscene, but this is how its broken down:
0-1:30 - Really slow walking 
1:30-2:18 - Cutscene
2:18-2:25 - Interactive cutscene
2:25-2:41 - Cutscene
2:41-2:43 - QTE
2:43-2:56 - Cutscene
2:56-3:01 - Gameplay
3:01-3:48 - Cutscene
3:48-3:52 - Gameplay

The gameplay in this segment was extremely linear and offered zero freedom of any choice and it was just basically a glorified cutscene. Rapidly switching between cutscene and "gameplay" can be quite jarring and makes the player feel like they aren't actually participating. Judging by the characters actions in the cutscene, it can be assumed that this is his first meeting with a werewolf and as such, it is the most tense and the most important. Giving the player full control of the character could have great effect in this section, as they would have to make a decision on how to act, giving them the illusion of choice. All choices could funnel into the same area, but that illusion is extremely important in games, and it is what gives games the ability to be so great. 

Now lets take a look at this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bew48tQFDBE):

0-1:00 - Interactive cutscene basically
1:03-1:10 - Gameplay
1:10-1:23 - Interactive cutscene (that can't even be called a mini game)
1:23-1:36 - Cutscene
1:36-1:52 - Stealth gameplay with "cinematic" takedowns 
--------------End Section---------------
1:52-2:32 - Interactive cutscene/QTE
--------------End Section----------------

The rest of the video does have a slightly higher gameplay to cutscene ratio, however, the shooting is just uninspired. I think this next video shows off quite well what I mean when I say that the shooting in this game is mostly just glorified whack a mole (with cool weapons, granted)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVSfjmB2yi0

Watch that shooting section at the beginning...its basically a mounted gun section, where you just shoot the guys who pop up with no regard for any sort of tactics or positioning. Unfortunately I couldn't find the video when the guy tries to go out and change positioning and almost dies and is forced back into his boring hideyhole. Then it goes into a boring scripted sequence with the generic "use the pistol while your helping another guy" sequence. Then the next section always makes me laugh. Its like a "find the QTEs segment" where you walk around the tiny room until you get to the boiler where you press a button to watch more story.

The problem with the game is that it doesn't give the player any choice in really any segment of the gameplay from what we've seen. There is no choice how to handle enemies, very little choice when it comes to positioning, no choice whether to go stealth or guns blazing, no choice on how to handle the werewolf...its like a movie with boring shooting sections sprinkled in it and some lovely on screen button prompts (if you don't want to call them QTEs, you don't have to, but button prompts pop up on screen a lot)...

I think that gaming has a tremendous capability to tell interesting stories because you have control over the player and while you may be stuck in a linear experience, you are still given the illusion of choice (Extra Credits on the Illusion of choice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45PdtGDGhac and Extra Credits on Agency in Games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0RFoGvkQfs )

In the Agency video, EC describes something similar to the shooting video I posted earlier. Just hiding behind the box and popping out when the enemy stops shooting. That is a badly designed gameplay segment, and feels like a shooting gallery.

PS: I have heard people saying things like "but you haven't played the full game", and while that is true, I find it worrying that Ready at Dawn believes these boring, uninspired sections are the ones that best represent the game and best will sell players on the game...

I said a lot here, and I'm sure I missed a few of the things I wanted to say, but I think I got the general point across...

Yes you just described why it's good and why it's somewhat "innovative". I already covered that on my first post in this topic.

And 2:41-2:43 on the first video is not a QTE

If you don't like linear games or want an illusion of choice, don't play it. I don't need illusions or choices. I'm bored of games that have gotten lazy and just throw a bunch of stuff at you for you to do. We need more expertly handcrafted experiences like this. They have always been the best of the best games. A unique experience is memorable, a random experience is fun but forgettable.

And who sad RAD thinks these are the best parts? It's clearly the opposite, they are holding everything back. Still haven't seen any Lycan combat, for instance. And up until Friday's trailer we also hadn't seen use of the Arc Gun. As for that specific E3 bit, it's right after you pick up the Thermite rifle for the first time and the enemies spawn in locations meant to show you how the gun works (to tell us it blows up cover and most wooden objects). Even the shootout that happens afterwards is already different than that, and in some playthroughs the player didn't even stand behind cover, he ran up, incinareted someone with the thermite rifle and then used blacksight to dispatch the remaining enemies. Don't judge it because the person playing is dumb and prefers to stay glued to one spot picking out enemies.

And we've seen further possibilities too. In the kitchen you don't have to play whack a mole, thanks to the M2 Falchion's concussion shot + melee execution or the coach gun if you prefer that. And in the new trailer he's running around (completely out of cover) using the Arc Gun.

Besides, maybe that's your issue, but this subject started because of accusations of it being a QTE-fest, which is 100% false. Not up for debate.

I'm gonna buy it for what it is, but please stop this PR shit. I hate it when people feel the need to justify things in such a manner. It seems somebody is afraid of another Driveclub situation. The game looks promising for my taste, but I'm getting annoyed by such aggresive campaigns.

A. Innovation is a buzz word...whether or not that innovation makes for a better experience is what matters.
B. Definition of QTE:

"In video games, a quick time event (QTE) is a method of context-sensitive gameplay in which the player performs actions on the control device shortly after the appearance of an on-screen prompt. It allows for limited control of the game character duringcut scenes or cinematic sequences in the game"

Sounds like a QTE to me. Its an on screen prompt allowing the player to have limited control of a character during a cutscene.

C. I love linear game, however, you seemed to have not watched either of the Extra Credits videos I posted explaining what Illusion of choice is. You don't seem to really understand what I am talking about. If you are fine with a game that is largely just an interactive movie with boring shooting sequences, congrats, but gaming is capable of so much more...

D. Who said its the best parts? No one. Not even me. You seemed to have misread. I said that these are the parts that RAD is using to market the game, which implies that they believe that they are enough to convince people that the game is worth purchasing. Quite worrying that they think that such boring segments, littered with cutscenes are impressive enough to sell the game to people.

E. I have yet to see one shooting segment that I found to be interesting in any way. From what I have seen (including the segment later in that video), it is just pretty, boring cover shooting, without any real gameplay choice. Once again, if you are fine with whack a mole, then good on you, but Im not going to praise anyone for such boring gameplay design. I'm asking the game to impress me, just once, and it hasn't even come close.

No, that's not a QTE. Otherwise tipping a stripper in Duke nukem is QTE, operating a lever is QTE, opening a door is QTE, etc. Reloading a weapon is a QTE because the game tells you "Square to reload"?. In the very first RE games if a zombie got a hold of your legs you had to wiggle the analog stick around to let go. Was that a QTE? How about in RE6 where the same happens, only it shows the prompt on the screen (yet the action is exactly the same?) Having a prompt show on the screen does not make something a QTE.

C. Gaming is capable of more? Not really. The more open it gets the less capable it becomes

D. Quite worrying? No, i'd be worried if they were already showing the best stuff, that'd mean there's nothing else to it. Isn't that what often happens with overhyped games?

E. Please explain to me what is "real gameplay choice", I want to imagine how you'd ruin the game.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bwUl7wn-r8o

Wow, just keep moving those goal posts...call it what you will, but when a button prompt pops up on screen in the middle of a cutscene, I'm going to call it a fucking QTE.

C. I've gone into detail a few times about how amazing that first encounter with the Lycan could be. The first meeting with an enemy is the most important, because you don't know how to react. Just imagine for a second, that the players actually kept control in that segment. You turn a corner and there is a guy tearing into the flesh of another. "What do I do?" rushed through your head and all your options are laid out in front of you. Do I turn around and look for another route (If yes, you turn around, explore a bit and you don't find another route bringing you back to square one)? Do I go in guns blazing and try to kill the thing (if yes, you pump a few bullets into it, drawing its attention, at which point, it transforms and starts coming at you)? Do I try to sneak past it (if yes, you move quietly, putting a row of boxes between you and it but all of the sudden, the sound of rending flesh ceases and you hear something sniffing at the air. You press on a few more steps when the monster jumps out at you and blocks your path, forcing you to go the other way)?

In each of these cases, you are funneled into the same area, but you get to feel like it was your decision that triggered these events. You learn something about the monster (near impervious to normal bullets or amazing sense of smell) through your own actions and you are left wondering "what if I did this another way". All of these decisions fall on you, and you have to live (or die) with the consequences.

Instead, the game stops you when you get close and says "this is how your character is going to deal with the monster, this is the info you will learn, but don't worry, you get to do all of this from the safety of a cutscene".

Games are capable of so much more.

E. See above...

Or even for something more simple, during that super boring gunfight from earlier, have the player in a more open position, with enemies coming from either side. This forces the player to pick one side to defend (maybe even put a friendly NPC on each side, to make the player subconsiously think "who am i going to help") or they can try to defend both sides. This leads to the consequence of getting overwhelmed from one side or the other or both if they choose to multitask, forcing them to retreat at which point their comrade gets shot. This gives the player the choice of how to handle this encounter, makes them feel like "maybe if I just did better, or made a different decision, this outcome could have been prevented" and provides a more fun encounter than just playing whack a mole...

Did I ruin the game enough for you or would it be better if I just made the whole game into a movie...because you know, who wants to play a video game...pshhh