I did miss your point, sorry. I was being too hasty in my responses.

Let's try and steer the course a little bit, and take example from a great game that supports my point.

Portal.

This is a game that is enjoyed by many, and it enjoyed on many different levels (it is also intelligent and sophisticated). Portal tells a story through the narration of GLaDOS, and creates a back story through the use of graffiti.

But how many players, who played the game through hearing about it at work, actually picked up on more
than the main story? The audience are used to narration telling a story, as narration has been used for many years in films to describe the plot. Graffiti is very rarely used to tell a story (in fact, I can't think of a single example) and I don't think many players picked up on it the first time around. Actually, the only reason I got to learn about the graffiti telling a backstory was through the developer commentary.

I had completed the game twice before enabling the dev com, and each time with a different player. Both of
these players consider themselves gamers, and neither of them picked up on the backstory.

Perhaps, if games use graffiti more in games, more people will learn that it adds to the story. It would also
mean that games have started to develop their own language, which are used more than to just aid the
player, but also tell the story.

The growing industry, and the development of gamings own devices to tell stories will be what defines video
gaming as an art form. However, what I'd like to believe that would happen is that other games would also
just stick down the 'fun' route, a la Nintendo games. Just to keep the industry balanced and enjoyable for
everyone. 

First, I meant also black-and-white photography. And poems are restricted, not all ways to put down words are poems. A sonett for example is even more restricted in it's form. If you decide to write a poem, you restrict yourself in the way, how you set the words. Anyways, it's an interesting viewpoint, that the restrictions I talk about are no limitations but alternative ways to use the medium. You may be right on this, I need more thinking.

 You're right, I should have ignored it. It's my fault, and I'm glad we can put that discussion aside.

As to your suggested design philosophy, I very strongly disagree. What you're talking about is, once again, supressing interactivity; you're suggesting that designers craft their games in a way that the user's response is assumed and understood previously. That is, effectively, linear; the designer leads the player on. That's suppressing the player's inherent ability to do what he wants, and you might as well make a movie in that case. 

Instead, I recommend games like "Oil God" or "The Sims" as much better models of where "artsy" games shoudl be going; those games are specifically designed around not knowing what the player will choose to do. There is no goal, no objective, no "winning," just interacting and doing what you want.

Put differently, what you're suggesting is that designers force games into a movie/novel format, where the designer decides what actually happens, and the player only exists as a person that follows the path the designer has left him. Again, in my experience, movies that try to be books (heavy internal dialogue and description) or sculputre that tries to be painting (relief/frescos) or any other attempt to suppress the unique aspects of the medium can be good, but is rarely the apex of the medium; instead, works that choose to embrace the medium of choice are the best.

The specific and peculiar thing about video games is that they are interactive. Do not hide from this -- if you do, you would have been better off making a movie, or a book, or a photo, or a play, or something else that isn't interactive and has other strengths. Story telling, by nature, is at odds with interactivity; telling a story means the story teller (or developer, in this case), is deciding what happens, and not the viewer, since a story isn't being made, it is being told. Obliterate story telling, or tremendously reduce its significance. Replace it with an increased emphasis on interactivity. Trying to suppress interactivity by telling a story is trying to get video games to be what they are not. 

 Just so it's clear we don't have to be point-counterpoint here:

I absolutely would agree with your position if the act of story telling did not automatically limit interactivity. That is the problem here. If a story is being told -- emphasis on the word told, as disctinct from made -- then the designer is deciding how the game is played. As a supreme example, when a game developer makes a Full Motion Video sequence, he is saying: "I will show you what has happened. You do not decide. The result of this FMV has been decided by me, and there is no way for you to change the character development or choices made in this sequence."

So, if we can agree on that (and you can argue against it), then let's make clear what we're saying here: storytelling works directly against the defining characteristic of video games, interactivity. 

And if you're going to make a video game that is only mildly interactive, you might as well have made a movie -- just as if you made a movie with tons of internal dialogue and zero visual imagery, you might as well have made a book, or if you have a sculpture that's just an millimeter-inch thick fresco (if you aren't familiar with them, google provides example), you might as well have made a painting.

Or, put simply -- if you're just going to tell a story, why not use an artistic medium that's built for storytelling? One that has no interactivity, and allows the artist to tell precisely the story he wants to? 

I think the conversation is finally coming to a head here. Let me restate what I've said several times in response to other posters now: storytelling is in direct opposition to interactivity. Telling a story means that a person or persons (in this case, the developer) is telling you what is happening. By definition and simple logic, if the developer is deciding what is happening, that means that the player is not deciding what is happening.

Therefore, story telling works against interactivity. I would argue that this is inherently bad, and that games like "Oil God" are really the path we need to follow, where story telling is essentially non-existant, and story making is championed.

Yeah, I agree, that the lack of interactivity actually makes a game to another art-form. The most interesting game-art-concepts are the ones that use interactivity in some form. So I agree on this (that makes Final Fantasy not less art, only less game).

I completely understand u bodhesatva,

but, even in a game without a cinemtatic story , u are not totally free about the interactivity : u just follow the pathway created by the creator. This is true for every games from the sims to oblivion or GTA.

Even in a praised game like Bioshock (dont spoil the story plz) where u have some choice to do, the choice are restricted.

In a game, u can't do everything, u can't interact with everything.

At the opposite, cinematic games like MGS or FF have a part of gameplay that is "free".
In MGS, u have different way to snake behind a guard, different way to kill a guard, and, in MGS1, u are the one that will succeed to resist or not to tortura saving Meryl or Otacon.
In FF, like FFV that I m finishing, u have sidequests that u can choose to perform or not, class job specialisation u can experiment or not. that is a lot of freedom.

Thats just like saying that movies cant have sound effects ... many cutscenes are interactive , like in GoW or RE4 , and they are part of gaming as it is today ... 

Interactivity is in the gameplay, not in the story.

Of course, in the future, we can imagine game where the story will be interactivie and where u will drive the story mainly by yourself. But even here, u will have part defined by the game creator.

We cna imagine a game with 100 different end/story, this is still limited, and this is still dependant of the game creator since a full interactivity is not possible

(maybe the good question is not about interactivity in video game but more about "player dependance" in video games : what is define by the player vs what is define by the game creator?).

""Thats just like saying that movies cant have sound effects ... many cutscenes are interactive , like in GoW or RE4 , and they are part of gaming as it is today ... ""

==> I was also thinkking to RE4 and his interactive cutscene. All his define by the game creator but u can choose ur path : this is an interactive movie : a video game.