Reasonable, I agree with some of what you're saying but you seem to be stuck on using "storytelling" in a narrative form.
For games to truly emerge as a unique form of storytelling, different approaches need to be explored. Mass Effect 2 was far from perfect but it was a huge step forward in pure storytelling because well over 50% of the game was ENTIRELY dependent on the player and how he or she wanted to interact with the Normandy's crew. Is that not "story" simply because it doesn't fill a preconceived plot system?
I'd argue the exact opposite. It could be an interesting new step forward for interactive storytelling; instead of trying to tell a story like a novel, play, or film, a game can eschew those linear storytelling elements (which ME2 still contains in its "main" story arc) in favor of letting the player create a unique experience of their own through characterization. It still tells a story, just not a conventional one compared to other media. Games are the first form of interactive storytelling in the history of man so we should stop thinking about these things so conventionally.
I keep bringing up Mass Effect 2 because it's the first game I've ever played that actually tried to push these characterization elements over traditional story elements. They became more important than the "main" story arc. I'd also argue against your statement that Silent Hill 2 was more tense than the final assault in ME2. IMO, the player connection to the characters created a much greater sense of danger than anything a conventional story would ever offer in a game experience, even one as good as SH2. I found myself caring about NPCs in the ME2; that almost NEVER happens in any game for reasons I've pointed out earlier. Once that connection is established, I cared more about those characters than anything else that was going on in the game. Although, to be fair, SH2 had a fair amount of that feeling as well.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
