It's good that if a game is going to be cinematic then the cinematic aspects are done well, but I think people should be very wary of simply aping cinema and assuming it is a sign of progress.

Developers continue to go down the cinematic road while the market refuses to follow...

Hmmm, yeah, many people like the cinematic experience in their games, but it's not important to everyone and not for every game. It has a place... but it's not the be all end all for the future of games.

Good tools and talent make all the difference in the world, try painting half your house with a wire brush. Then have a painter paint the other half with a Purdy paint brush.

I also think gamers today are a little more relaxed than they were a few years ago, maybe old age, maybe they need to break from the action, maybe they have more appreciation, I dunno. But one thing is certain, they do like over the top graphics.

I do think though that the graphics and system specs are outrunning peoples financial ability to keep up. If what your shooting for is a much more massive audience you might want to take that into acount. But if it's mostly about creating the best game you can, keep it up.

@ Mike

I agree completely. I enjoyed playing the MW2 campaign, but something felt just.. "off" about it. I realized after a little while that it was because I felt more like I was watching a movie than playing a game. The game is very good at controlling the player: telling them where to go, when to move, when to duck and I really don't like that.

Character drama, great cinematics, massive explosions and thrilling gameplay all play and important role in a game but it's important not to lose that feeling of interactivity. The player should still be in control of the game.

I found it funny that we have a developer giving Assassin's Creed of an example why there's now a culture of taking cut scenes seriously yet on the very same day we get this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/unskippable/1446-Assassins-Creed-2

A "show" about cheesy game cut scenes featuring Assassin's Creed 2, lol. I'm not passing any judgement of the game. I've not played it, never will. This isn't proof of anything but it illustrates how removed the creators can be from the audience!

But Prash, how does showing that there is something bad out there prove that a system or direction cannot work?

Using your criterium you could prove that all of music, visual art, film and architecture are "bad" or "not serious" by simply plucking out examples of bad works taken from those artforms. But we already know that every artform has bad works. That doesn't prove that a direction or method can't work or shouldn't be taken. It just reproves that well-known maxim that 90% of everything is crap.

I'm not saying that it cannot work, but the way it is talked about within the games industry is that it is the future, when it is actually more of a niche. Notice the word "trend" in the article. There is an implication that "film-level IP" is the standard to strive for and that cinematic gaming is a natural progression of things. This view is very short sighted and self-limiting for gaming, since it is obviously a very different and flexible medium. In addition to that, the actual customers that pay for all this don't agree.