I kinda agree with you. Well, I DO agree with you but the games industry is unnecessarily sheltered and only recently do they begin to open up about how the process of making games works. From what I understand, these kinds of cinematic cutscenes and dialogue scenes are improved with time and budget.
Most companies nowadays create an algorithm for their camera angles in dialogue scenes or cutscenes. BioWare went the extra mile and tried making algorithms for animations which was a mess in its own right.
The thing is, it actually works sometimes. You’d have no idea but CD Projekt Red uses this method in The Witcher 2 & 3. Most dialogue scenes in that game look amazing. OTS shots, wide shots, panning low angle dolly shots. They go hands on and have cinematic directors for key scenes and every scene gets reviewed and approved but the algorithm is there and it works.
Control is pretty bad with the standard 3 cam setup for dialogue. Over-the-shoulder, over-the-shoulder, wide. Rinse and repeat. It definitely gets old, but what else can a AA-budget game actually do?
AA-budget games are expected to look, feel, and play on the scale of AAA-budget games. They’re reviewed and treated the same but the resources are different. It’s kinda a losing situation if you ask me.
Also kinda leads to a greater issue that John Carmack brought up in his Joe Rogan interview. Games cost so much money nowadays. Salaries are high and the quality expectation is high and it takes so long. In the end, the budgets can go BIG. It’s not unusual for a company like Ubisoft or Rockstar to spend $100M-$500M on a big game. So therefore, you want the biggest return possible and you get games that are “focus tested to death” meaning you get similar feeling games. So I find a lot of games like Control come off as super commonplace with its DNA coming from many other games. Despite having some of its own identity, Control and other AA games have to feel like the AAA ones but they come off as lesser in many ways.