What I am saying is if the industry decides to focus more on trying to provide fun and innovative games from a gameplay perspective, and less on trying to produce top movie-like experiences, it stands a better chance of lasting longer term.  And it should try to do it, by appealing to those who don't play as much, going at things in a Blue Ocean manner, rather than say, "Wow, that market is large for that game, let's out production quality the competition in that area, hire top actors, top writers, and outspend them, and out market them, and BLAMMO, the money will roll in".  Attempts to produce X (Halo, Gran Turismo, etc...) killers is a recipe for bankruptcy.  Now, if the industry decides to do what you saw with Borderlands, by producting a quality game that sits between FPS and RPG, or Puzzle Quests (add RPG to puzzle games) and create new genres, without the monster production costs but able to generate a following, then you stand a better chance of success.  And that is how the industry can prosper.  The same with doing what Nintendo did with the Wii in use of motion control, and bringing new players in. 

They key should be on new gameplay styles that captivate, rather than trying to do what the movie industry does.  You then add a bunch of production value, and MAYBE try to get some good voice acting and a decent script in... if it doesn't bankrupt things.

I think you have touched on something here.  And this would answer Roger Ebert's comment that "games are not art".  It may be possible that games could end up being qualified as "art" under the category of performing art.  Say there is a series of activities that are scripted in some way, but allow flexibility.  You then involve the auidence to be involved with them, and their actions can create outcomes that are unexpected.  The experience would never be the same twice.  Now, is this experience art?  Heavy Rain would fall more under the scripted side, but how about something more open-ended (like LittleBigPlanet or a sandbox game)?  How about a game where you end up allow people to create content and it is reused and reinvented?  And, on a more meta-level, how about the case of forums like this were videoclips are used and reused to make points, and the end result is something that is a work.  Is all this art?  I would say there is a case that it can be.

On the gameplay front, I would say the gameplay is likely low, or lower than normal videogames, BUT it is still there.  The entire experience can be praised as great entertainment, and a fine work of art.  However, in this, maybe one can say also the gameplay (engagement in the mechanics of interaction) would be low, so it doesn't have great gameplay, but is a great experience.  And this could be acceptable.  Also, it could end up being not for everyone.  And I would say trying to produce too many Heavy Rains could possibly bankrupt the industry as they try to do something that is both a game and a movie (of sorts) and need to script and manage everything the player would go through, even if the player only sees a small percentage of it.

First of all, if you are assuming I only meant those exact words, and not a general notion of gushing about the wrting, I would ask if you read the OP or are just responding to the title.

Second of all, if they did then, but they aren't now, then they really did either jump on the bandwagon or were viral marketers to inflate the game's reputation.

I think all of your suggestions have merit, and I have considered them myself in the past. However, I think the game designer's role in creating a player experience should not be ignored when discussing the artistic merit of games - using a theatre analogy, if the player is both actor and audience, the game designer is the playwright and director. And yes, the 'simpler', more action oriented (in terms of player involvement) games are the ones most often overlooked in terms of artistry, and I feel there is often more to learn from them than the cinematic approach of modern blockbusters. Relating to this is the distinction between action oriented (arcade) and atmospheric (simulation) games and how they highlight the conflict between gameplay experiences (beat the boss and get a score!) and game experiences (discover and explore an interactive world). To what extent these two lines of thinking can coexist (as thesis, antithesis and synthesis?), and what expressive capabilities they offer, is a matter of some dispute, I feel. Games like Heavy Rain are an anomaly within this model, offering a limited amount of freedom due to owing such a large deal to the film industry, but perhaps there is a place for them as well. May be more 'Hamlet on the Holodeck'-material, though.

PS. Are you at all familiar with the TAS/Speed Running community? They make out what is quite possibly the largest number of artisans using video games as a medium to create art.

I read the OP... you basically said "It's not because it isn't". 

What??? I'm saying there hardly ever were any to begin with. As far as I could tell, there were a ton of people that enjoyed the story. Simple as that. 

First of all, the reason I'm putting this up now is hopefully the "Must shut down all criticism of the game to prove games are art!" wave has died down (and I'll get to the art thing shortly).

Second of all, this isn't about the game itself. It's not about people who like the game. It's not about people who find the plot compelling. It's about those who claim the writing, story, and voice acting (didn't have enough space in the title) are Oscar worthy*, or that it's as good or better than any TV show or movie.

Some of you might say "but isn't quality subjective?". Yes and no. There are subjective opinions, but when enough gather, the fact that a lot of people have those opinions is an objective fact. So those turn into quality standards. When it comes to the middle, there is some disagreement (such as the notion of a "critic proof" film), but at both ends of the bell curve, the standards are clear.

Technically, Leonard Part 6 and Batman and Robin failed to meet a hell of a lot of people's subjective opinions, but those films still failed to meet them. On the other end, we have Blade Runner and The Godfather. Now honestly, those aren't part of my top movies list, but because they meet the quality standards, I still say those are really good movies. So this is not bias that makes me say Heavy Rain doesn't hold a candle to those movies. I would be championing it myself if it was. The quality of the writing isn't Resident Evil levels of stupidity, but we aren't claiming those games are up their with masterpieces like The Godfather. That doesn't make Heay Rain written well.

The emperor has no clothes, and it's offensive to claim it's our fault for not seeing any clothes.

Some of you might ask if I had actually played it. That's a false question, because that assumes you can't tell how good the writing is unless you have a controller in your hand. How would that change the quality of the story? The only way that requirement would make sense is if the writing had different quality if you were playing it or not. It doesn't work that way. It would be a good idea to watch some gameplay first to get context for each line of the story, but that still just requires watching video  of the gameplay as well as the cut scenes and writing.

Now why is this important? Why should you at least consider what I am writing? It's because if you really want games to be art (regardless of what Roger Ebert thinks), then you have to actually hold games like this to the standards of art, not commend it for meeting those standards when it doesn't. The medium of gaming can't grow when we pretend any game with supposedly mature themes is automatically good. That line of thinking smacks of desperation for games to be art. It's like you so want for there to be a Watchmen for video games, you kept any good critical analysis of the writing out ina corner, as if the writing will then become good from that. Who do you think you were fooling with that?

* If you're not familiar with that term, it doesn't have to do with what actually wins Oscars. It has to do with something that is supposedly so good, it should win an Oscar, even if it's something that couldn't (due to medium). And many films that actually get Oscars are said to be not Oscar worthy.

Claiming it's one of the greatest stories ever isn't the same as claiming it's "Oscar-worthy". 

I would say that, those who are gifted in the art of storytelling through the use of a game medium, can and should do that.  However, I don't think game designers should feel pressured to use the medium of games in order to tell stories, if they are weak at telling stories.  I also think, in addition to exploring new play mechanics, they should also explore how to tell a story through a game medium.  After doing this, look to do it in a way that it doesn't feel it has to go AAA production value and be a movie on top of everything else they have to do.  I think a focus on creating a fun and credibile gaming WORLD is more important than trying to create a story with games, in my opinion (but if you can do both, that is great also).  And then throw fun on top.  The Holodeck would be an example of what to shoot for here.  And maybe the only viable way to get the sufficient resources to fund this is in an MMO format where players happen to keep paying to play.