I think part of the issue is that video games are so expensive to develop, and the level of technical proficiency required to create a video game is relatively high compared to other media. You can film a movie on a handheld camera, you can record an album in your garage with basic equipment (or even solely with software), and if you have the vision/talent then it can be fantastic. The ability of the everyman to make contributions to these fields has spurred their development tremendously, IMO anyway.

But to create a modern video game requires a combination of very different abilities and extensive knowledge. To create what might be considered video game "art" you need not only the vision, but also the ability to write very complex code, develop graphics, animation, etc. Now of course some people/groups of people are capable of doing this independently, but it seems like it would be so difficult without the resources of a big developer. So instead of video games for the sake of video games, you get video games for the sake of sales, and that's where the "99%" argument comes into play. Why take risks when you'll sell 10 million copies of Madden 2030?

Also, video games are relatively young, so of course there's time to develop the field.

Fallout and Bioshock have their origins in PC gaming, so it would be largely irrelevant if Zelda brought RPG games to home gaming consoles. It's not true, though, as there were dozens of RPGs on home consoles before the first Zelda was released in 1987, starting with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons for the Intellivision in 1982.

I don't "assume" anything - I'm pointing out well known anime cliches.

Stilted, awkward, plain bad plot delivery = almost all anime

Same goes for "almost all" Western cartoons, movies, video games, et al. That's why ones that do it well (by ones I mean dozens and dozens, in all cases) are considered to be the good ones.