It's not the problem with developers/industry, it's the problem with the public. People want that kind of thing and that's the problem. Once they start showing interest in other things, developers will make games catered to them.
It's much more complex than that. I would say it's partly all parties involved (PR, publishers, developers, journalists, consumers, etc.), so saying it's one or the other should not deter at least the rest of the parties for trying to improve upon mainstream creative bankruptcy.
Gun to my head: I actually might go as far as to say that the developers and publishers are the most responsible, as they are the ones actively responsible for the future content and type of games they put out. Meanwhile the consumers often aren't aware of what they like or need, so they are not so much at fault as devs and pubs. The journalists and analysts are in complete shambles and the popular ones lack any kind of self-awareness or critical engagement. Only good thing is that PR does what they are supposed to, namely help sell the product. /armchair analysis
That isn't exactly the question here.
Telling people to go from shooters to a QTE pseudo-adventurer cinematic games in order to grow up is like a telling a young adult who spends his days playing football to instead work in a cubical so he can be an adult. An immature grasp of "maturity", not so much based on feelings as it is based on public image. Despite whatever Cage's games will give us in the face of stagnation (those graphics are truly fantastic if legit), he is still pretty clueless and it is sad we don't have critics who can combat his flawed ideology.
Whether or not his argument holds both a negative and positive sub-argument is debatable. I didn't read him saying that his games were the goal developers should strive for (a positive argument), but rather that the current state of mainstream development is creatively stagnating and one-sided (a negative argument). The latter is what I was solely referring to.
As such, I agree with his negative argument, while I obviously would sincerely disagree with his positive argument (if he had any). But I think you're putting words into his mouth, as I didn't see him in the quotation mentioning that his games were the be-all-end-all.
And I also dislike Cage and his lack of abilities constructing and telling a well-thought and intellectually honest story, so don't think I'm subscribing to what he considers to be a type of "good games" (meaning the ones he develops).
