I feel like you never really have a reason why the ideas are half cocked or bad or trades cinematic (wut?) flair for narrative.
Like just saying it is doesn't mean it be. I feel like I'm this whole argument there's actually no examples taken from the game to present for the sake of the argument.
I could break it down by scenes but that honestly would take a long time and I wasn't necessarily trying to write an essay. Regardless, the opening of Nier Automata is a good example of what I mean regarding cinematic flare and depth (Kaine's cursing in the previous Nier is another example, or the dragon peeing in Drakengard 3).
I'll ignore the insult and try to respond in good faith- what was the point about critical distance then? It had nothing to do with Ergo Proxy because it was criticized as soon as the quality dropped off a third of the way in.
I wasn't insulting you, or at least that wasn't my intent. Yes, the Ergo Proxy comment was put in during an edit I made at a later point, so admittedly the paragraph doesn't flow smoothly because it abruptly starts on one idea and ends on another. As for critical distance and history, it was intended to be a reflection on the current critical and historical approach to video games. We have phrases in game discourse like "the Dark Souls of X" but the phrase is more a quip than useful for purposes of critical examination. My criticism relates to the difficulty of finding the language and breaking down the process of video games when they are new, because doing so critically takes a fair amount of time. Reviewers of media in the immediate do not necessarily have the time to take this approach, but while other forms of media are buffeted by a long history of critical discourse at this point (film, music, literature, etc.), the same cannot be said for video games. It is simply difficult and discussions are frequently evolving because the language isn't there yet. As an example, we all knew what ludonarrative dissonance was long before we had a term for it, but that shorthand greatly aids in the ability to discuss a certain aspect of video games if all parties understand it, just like understanding auteur theory allows one to approach films from a certain perspective and analyze them from it (as well as allowing judgments regarding the creative work's place either in a certain oeuvre or film more generally, as well as how it relates to the theory). And while auteur theory can be generally applicable, its roots in film theory will remain, much like how you can use the same concept of ludonarrative dissonance in film (e.g., a film that has characters whose stated goals are very different from the goals their actions present). Video game discourse is still evolving, and still lacks a lot of the language that is unique and critical to it.
The following is only tangentially related:
A pet theory of mine is that video games do not have suspension of disbelief. We are constantly in a state of disbelief because the interaction with the media defers placement to the player (i.e., we are in control of the game, the game is not in control of us). Placement is never in question in other media, because other media never (or extremely rarely) cede control to their audience. I don't actually think this is a negative though - it forces the player to examine many aspects of the game in more and different depths than we might otherwise.
Additionally, where you are in relationship to the game is connected to your goals, rather than the goals of the creator (these goals are what make things like speedruns and glitch exhibitions possible). Thus, a lack of fixity ensures that where we are will always be where we want to be (i.e., a game cannot disinclude its player, so it can never go outside the player except when it removes them from play entirely). This can be used to rather striking effect however, because it is exceedingly obvious to the player when they themselves are not connected (given that connection is critically linked to the concept of play).