I liked what writer I guess tried to say regarding modern games. When your cinematic cut scenes comes onto way of game play creators justify that with some sort of pipe dream that it makes them more acceptable and making games more 'mature', or even art, they are in the wrong business.
That said, I don't know what to think of this article over all. It touches many things, doesn't really say games aren't art, yet keep referring them as mass media. References things like poetry, but also architecture, later for example, he writes about Doom early on and then later even goes saying:
"[..]
Take ray tracing and reverse it to track projectiles: you get Doom.
Games show players the unseen uses of ordinary materials.As the only mass medium that arose after postmodernism, it’s no surprise that those materials so often would be the stuff of games themselves."
But architecture isn't anything but a pipe dream either without mathematics, because whatever the creation is, be that bridge, statue, whatever, it has to be structurally solid. Doom, whatever beauty or art there is, would be in whatever understanding of human mind there can be, that would also be in mathematics. The element that makes the very gaming experience author mentions earlier and the universal language that can help us to have at least some understanding of minds like Carmack. Of course this is irrelevant if you keep stressing about games and story this, games and story that.
Author goes on with these holodeck references, but misses the point because holodeck would be the ultimate game experience in a sense that it wouldn't be limited to whatever pre-programmed historical or fictional scenarios, but can be used to create any game experience or story player can imagine. Yet, if we want to ever get anywhere close to that sort of experience we need hardware and software, math. So it's like writer really tries to make a point, but also tries to avoid saying too much.
Then what about games and stories? Even this is in general gaming, this is RPG Codex after all and funny enough, I have been playing old Gold Box game "Buck Rogers: Countdown to Doomsday". It's one of the few Gold Box games I didn't play back in the day and of course there's lot of nostalgy, but there's also other things. It really has made me think of few times how so much could be achieved with so little.
So author goes on writing about interacting with objects and linear story structures. Someone pointed out importance of settings earlier, but IMO there's more to it. It's interaction with the world based on not only player action but also choices. Then people have always taken different approaches even to such things like some min max and I just can't be arsed to reroll endlessly. So even that choice can influence the story, because min maxers story is story of super humans, and my party's story is story of some quite average guys (in the context of settings) who happen to be somewhat gifted in their profession. And I could go on and on, but it's actually very different experience having characters like this than Geralt or Shepard. It's my mind filling the blank spots.
There's no single RPG mentioned in article (I take Bioshock is discussed in RPG section because of it's System Shock roots) so it doesn't even never go to area where lines get blurred. I don't know how much different it's reading a story and imagining how everything is and happens, or playing an RPG and my imagination working on background filling the blanks.
I like some points author tries to make. Especially regarding RPG's I thought of Mass Effect 3. Everyone remembers it's ending but tends to forget how terrible it was narrative wise partially because some idiots thought taking player control away and make characters do something really stupid in 'Hollywood' cut scenes is a great idea.
I also like couple of other things author (perhaps) tries to convey. That said, unfortunately it's just bit too convenient from author forget that cRPG's exist, which then happens to create narrative that supports his point of view. This sort of approach just undermines his own text. There are adventure games, walking simulators, shooters... none of those is computer GAMING and so can't present entire possibilities of story element. So who can take this seriously?
