Cutscene as a reward, not as a storytelling device

...

Nigga what?

He says it rather strangely, but it isn't necessarily inaccurate. Consider the only times you get a cut-scene in Morrowind - the opening video at the beginning that primes you for going into the game, and the closing video at its conclusion after the story is finally over. You've gotten through the hard part, and now you can just relax. It would be a bit more meaningful if the game actually had any degree of difficulty to it, but what can you do?

So yeah, this is perfectly right. I think cut-scenes need to be used carefully though. In an open-world game having more than a few at specific points gets a bit silly. The moments in Skyrim where you just suddenly have control taken away are absolutely stupid, in direct contrast to the well-positioned movies in Morrowind and Oblivion (though both of those games did also have "be frozen" moments, and they were stupid there as well). On the other hand, games with "chapters" and the like can easily be bookended, like Valkyria Chronicles. It all varies.

Show, don't tell is a phrase used in all mediums to avoid whatever is considered to be the "tell" in excess beyond a bare fucking minimum when you could show it instead. For a game if you can show what you want through gameplay then do it and not stop everything for a useless cutscene just to tell a story you could've done without the cutscene. Many, many, many cutscenes I've seen could be simply boiled down to " they could've done this in the actual game just as effectively or even better" or "why did they waste time with this cutscene when they could've made it into a sweet level or bossfight" or "did I really need a cutscene for that?". MGS tier infodumping is just Kojima tier autism, where my primary complaint is that there is way too many cutscenes and not enough gameplay.

...

I know that feel user, we will get there one day.
The day after the day of the rope, that is.

...

...

...