the author gets it mostly right when it comes to the STAPLING on of cinematic devices for narrative flow.. but in reality, all story is manipulation whether you can see the character's face or not. all of the real choices are up to whomever is making the story up. some people are along for the ride, some aren't.. that's all.

the choices you make in metal gear or final fantasy or half life or GTA are all the same- and each are presented in a different enough way that is entertaining for the people who like each respective storytelling device.

some people like cutscenes, for the artistry, the break in game play, the sound, and the humor... and don't feel they are intrusive.

some people like an optional story- like in GTA- where you have lots of stuff to occupy your time, and if you feel like getting deeper into the plot, you follow the set path laid out for you, through specific missions and character interaction.

some people like RPGs - where the story unfolds after endless battles and upgrades... spending lots of time with these characters, watching them grow as you would should you spend the time watching a television series... you don't have direct control of their motivations, but you do have control of their progress through a set path.

some people (like the writer of this article) like the illusion of "non intrusive storytelling".. but when you think about it, in games like half life and portal (games that i happen to LOVE) you still follow a set path..and the cutscenes are simply interactive environments that are not locked down in camera angles.. some people may find it just as frustrating to be stuck in a room until some NPC explains a story to them- while you are unable to leave the room, use a weapon, or hit the person.

until you can make those choices with VERY real in game consequences-not just an instant death screen when you fail an escort misson. storytelling in games will remain the same, and not evolve truly. right now it is just a matter of taste.