Anyone remember Another World / Out of This World? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVCrrVJZzJU

Occasional games have attempted to replicate movies for some time now, and will continue to do so. The majority of devs don't even try, except maybe in cut scenes or scripted sequences.

Probably more on topic, I haven't watched the Jimquisition video in question, but I'm assuming this is with regards to Order 1886. I don't agree with people trying to use "cinematic" as an excuse, but I also don't think it should be held against a game. 1886 is a decent game with lots of presentational polish; that polish doesn't make it a better game - more interesting perhaps, but not better.

If anything, I think this game has brought up a topic that needs to be addressed widely - that games rated below 9 and 10 aren't terrible. Maybe it's review metrics - 5/10 shouldn't be applied to bad games, just slightly underwhelming games. Maybe it's the choice of wording - "Average" sounds negative, as does "Acceptable." I mean, an average game should still hit all of the expectations one would have upon picking it up - and one of those expectations is fun. So yeah, public perception of review scores and the implementation of reviewers themselves are both skewed. 7/10's for the Order shouldn't have caused an uproar in either direction (6's & 8's are pushing it, but again these are just formalized opinions); the only people who should be affected by it are fanboys furiously looking and  hoping for that $60 must-have to rub in people's faces, and the haters who throw a dance party when The Enemy's exclusives get a 'lowly' 8 or below.

Don't know what else to say other than that I wholeheartedly agree.

Are we hating cinematic just to hate it. Am I wrong for liking cinematic games?

Did you watch the video? It's not about liking/disliking the games, it's about the word "cinematic" and how it's used (or abused) by game companies.

I like when developers are truthful about certain aspects of the game. I remember when the Bloodborne devs said in an interview that they were choosing 30fps so they could achieve a certain level of graphics. It's like most developers think we're idiots. I know you're choosing 30fps because you can't achieve 60fps with the level of graphics you want to put in a game. I know you're putting black bars in your game because you need to maintain fps. It's OK. Tell the truth. We can take it. Don't tell us you're intentionally doing these things. Because you're not. You're working within the limitations of the console. Plain and simple.

Why is it meaningless? There are games out there that are more cinematic than others. what does that mean? That the will be cut scenes story, characters, minimal text on the screen, item management will be kept to a minimum, simple controls, good graphics and sound, easy or with an easy difficulty available. 

While some people throw the word out to easily in games that are just pretty but it's still hardly meaningless. It's one more label a game might have to distinguish it from other games that are clearly not. While there will always be the gray area between for people to argue on individual games.

Now if the argument is saying that the word cinematic shouldn't be used as praise I agree with that. It's a category of game(s) not a word to describe quality or enjoyment.

This. Devs would get a lot more respect from me if they were just honest about their design choices instead of using "cinematic" as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card.