Not at all, I often really enjoy the video aspect of video games. I obviously won't like all of them, but what's nice is there are many, whats also nice is that there are many other games out there for a wide variety of tastes. I'm not a fan of sports games or fighting games and I wouldn't play one that reviewed well and expect to suddenly love it, I might be surprised but I keep my expectations in check.

What defines a game never changes, it's gameplay.

this, there's no such thing as "too cinematic." Sure the artwork of a game doesn't define the game itself, but if everything is planned right, then it never hurts a game to look more realistic

Considering the state of Metal Gear Solid 4 (last gen) and 5 (this gen)....I think this concern / trend has come and gone. Now, some devs really seem to have no idea how much voice acting is too much, but that's another quibble altogether.

I don't think so. Some developers put way too much emphasis on creating a cinematic experience and it can interfere with making a good game. But I don't think that's a big problem in the industry. You can just avoid the games from that developer, much like you can avoid an M Night Shamimilihaniganihan movie if you don't like his style. After Beyond Two Souls I'll probably never play another David Cage "game" again but that doesn't make me enjoy other games less.

I mean, for every overly cinematic game you can probably list 20 that don't use many if any cinematic elements.

Games have been cinematic since ps1 era. Mgs1 in particular. That was nearly 20 years ago. Op must be really young if he thinks cinematic games is a recent trend.

Cinematic to me just means lots of cutscenes or storytelling where very little is going on between your hands and the controller. I don't mind cutscenes and story and whatnot but when the cinematic aspect starts to intrude upon gameplay i.e. The Order 1886 or GTA 5, that is when I start to take issue.

Sorry for late reply, left for a quick outing.

Yeah, I think that's the best measure for judging 'cinematicness' (the interaction between your hands and the controller).

If a team says their intention is to essentially neglect gameplay because their first aim is to tell a story much like a movie, that would bother me even more. 1886 devs even came off as resentful of having to include gameplay in their game. Why not just make a film instead? Trying to force a movie-like experience means a likely conflict between story and gameplay.

Without a doubt... yes. Having played tons of Genesis, NES and SNES games over the last year and revisiting what "gaming" was, that is exactly the conclusion I've come to as well. Games use to be... games. From start to finish, 100% pure game. Now, at best, you're getting a movie with little "chunks" of game thrown in to keep you engaged.

Dana Jan, who is the game director on The Order, was recently asked in an interview with CVG what the team was most focused on between visuals, gameplay, and story, and this is how he responded:

"I think story and visuals are very high. Gameplay is something that… it’s a game, we make games, we can’t get around it. We love games, but we also love telling stories, so I think story is always going to be at the top because it’s what we start with. It’s at the top of the pyramid and everything else supports that."

http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2014/05/31/the-order-1886-graphics-over-gameplay/86901/

Sounds more like they were sharing their philosophy on game production rather than a response to people criticizing their freedom to make what they wanted to make.

No, they sold people a game they wanted to make. Key difference.