The purpose of QTE's when done right is to integrate cinematic set-pieces with player agency and gameplay. That means they have to narrow the scope of interaction or it doesn't work. It's a trade-off, but the alternative is MGS style endless cinematics where you're basically watching a movie, or no-cinematics at all. There is something to be said for Half-Life style cinema verite storytelling, but that doesn't do so well in the third person. For example, that zoom-in over the shoulder thing that Bioware have been doing in ME3 & DAI is, I think, a poor approach to interaction. Because it's third person, you feel removed from the events and the camera angle means you don't get a good sense of the scene, which is why the cinematic conversations are by far more engaging. They're framed in a cinematic language that you just can't do on the fly. Again though, there's a good way to do QTEs and a bad way. TR has been very hit and miss with them over the last few games (mostly miss) but the most recent game struck the right balance IMO. They reserved it for just a few high tension moments and certain sections (like falling down the rapids) that simply couldn't be done another way.
Response to bolded part of quote: You ain't kiddin'! The ending cinematic of MGS4 was the length of a short feature film.... 1 hour, 20 minutes and change. I love beefy ending cinematics as much as the next gamer, and love the MGS games (especially starting with MGS 3), but wow! By contrast, the first two or three Tomb Raider games had less than satisfying ending cinematics... seemingly lasting less than 20 or 30 seconds.
I've enjoyed playin' the reboot the last few weeks, but I'm not gonna pay fifty bucks for the sequel. Gonna wait to find a cheap used copy & hope for the best.
Whoa. Just removed that from the list of games I will ever play. I'll wait til this game is super cheap. I liked my Tomb Raider a bit more puzzley and less actiony myself.