Indeed but you stated that Until Dawn was resentful at the feedback they were getting.

Why anyone would be resentful at feedback from the consumer is beyond me. I would think anyone making a game would want player feedback. If I made a game, I'd have people play it and then share their opinion on my game. I wouldn't be resentful, I'd be thankful.

I like to think the people over at UD are no different but seeing as how 1886 was already made, not releasing it due to negative feedback would only lose them money.

Oh goodness, my major bad! Hahaha! I meant Ready at Dawn, not Until Dawn. Gah!

Hmm, i don't think they are. There are some games that try to drive with the cinematic approach, and perhaps more games are doing it, but they're not dominating the market or anything like that. There are still games with your preferred set up. Even if games did focus more on being cinematic, I don't think it's a bad thing. As long as it's fun and all.

After all that, I guess I would say, no?

Understandable mistake, I hope.

Look, I want a good game. That's my main priority. However, even graphics make a difference.

for instance, look at Donkey Kong 64. Is it a bad game? No. It's extremely fun and has good replay value. However, the visuals are HORRENDOUS, making it an eye-strain to play.

But, let's fast forward to the future. We don't have 3-d triangles visible to us anymore. Concerning now, even the "decent quality" visuals are still stunning. Nintendo managed to make 240p games(3DS) look good. Creators are spending more time on visuals because they want the game to not become outdated quickly. They can make the game look really polished and detailed, giving it more reasons to be remembered in the gaming community

Humm maybe 1 day movie will turn out like a video game ?? :/

Having been all the Uncharteds recently, my answer would be "it depends on how well done it is."
Even comparing Uncharted 2 to Uncharted 3, it is very clear that the cinematography of Uncharted 2 was much more meticulously crafted than in Uncharted 3. Having given the two games time to stew in my for a little bit (and just completely discounting Uncharted 1, because it's terrible), I that while Uncharted 3 is ultimately better in its gameplay -- the puzzles were much more challenging and thought provoking and there were far fewer irritating boss battles-- Uncharted 2 is much, much more memorable. This is because Uncharted 2 was far more willing to take risks by having long sections without traditional gameplay, had a clever non-linear narrative, and frankly had stunning cinematography (though I will admit that the overly dramatic camera angles that accompanied walking up a set of stares got really goofy after a while).
So I think blanketly saying a game is too cinematic gives too little credit to the quality differential that can exist in cinematic games -- even in the same series.

Short answer: no.

Why not? If someone wants to make an argument that this is where games are trending towards, every example used has at least one or two examples contradicting this assertion and that's being very conservative.

Yes, there are games that rely heavily upon cinematic cut scenes and experimentation with cinematic style play, but this is nothing new. I'd argue that the original Resident Evil had a more cinematic style feel to it than most games today thanks to the forced camera angles and overall pacing of the plot. This is not that common even though every generation has games of this style all the way to games like Heavy Rain that are more like interactive, choose your own adventure games than traditional games.

Solid play and cinematic style visuals, which have nothing to do with hardware performance, are far from being mutually exclusive if that's the argument being presented under the notion that developers can only provide one or must be heavily biased towards one over the other. I simply cannot agree with that.

Really what it boils down to is with all the choices available to you as a consumer of games, the onus is on you to know what types of games you prefer when it comes to choosing which ones to buy and more importantly, which ones to spend your entertainment time on.

If one can't be bothered to spend 5-10 minutes doing a little research on a game before buying it, it's pretty hard at least for me to blame anyone but myself if it doesn't suit my tastes.

Generally, yes.

It feels, in recent years, like more and more games have been trying to imitate another medium (film). I'd probably mind that less if it were as good as film, but even the better games that shoot for a cinematic approach (TLOU, for instance) don't deliver quite the level of subtlety or depth of character that the best of film (or television) manage imo.

Like, when "cinematic" games are able to hit the kind of level of direction or emotional range of something like Six Feet Under, I might be more interested in them. At this point, the games that have engaged me most have usually found other ways to tell their story.