Some interesting points there.
Steve Gaynor's bit kind of bugs me:
“There’s great value in thinking about the story of a game as a collaboration between the player and the developers. In the collision of fiction and game mechanics, my experience of a game is never exactly the same as yours; the more systemic and divergent the results of the player’s contribution, the better. Much of the player’s experience of Deus Ex or Skyrim is the story of how the player played that game, and how they shaped the gameworld to express themselves; the experience of Minecraft is entirely that. It’s incredibly powerful.
But things like “cutscenes” and “endings” are completely authored by the developers, and the developers altering the authored content of a game after the fact has nothing to do with the systemic player-developer collaboration described above. It’s no different than a movie or book being released and, upon fan outrage, being edited and re-released to pander to the most vocal dissenters in the audience. It’s not unique to games; it is unique to a certain type of entertainment media that attracts fans who feel entitled to dictate exactly how the product should bend to their desires, instead of standing as a unique experience to be enjoyed, or not, on its own merits.”
Should there really be such a distinction, artistically, between the interactive and non-interactive segments of a game? Something about that feels wrong, though I'm having trouble coming up with a specific point against it.
Also I think Chuck Jordan missed the point of the backlash against direct control. :| Or at least, what he perceived as being the main argument against it doesn't gel with what my argument against it was. Oh well. Still stings to be included in a point which boils down to "guess fan feedback is worthless sometimes, haha"