I'm a classic gamer, specially PC, so I see some of the recent trends as something of a detriment. Like open endedness. Far Cry seems to have been the first one to implement it more intensively, BUT, still kept the level progression bound to certain goals. Now shift to Far Cry 2 ( I know, different producer, etc, but whatever, it's a recent FPS): It's too open, it loses focus from being a shooter, and makes what could be an interesting differential that could be optional as a massive fucking chore that kills all the momentum of the game. On the opposite stretch, I'd put CoD 4 for example. You are very bound to the rails, but the pacing of it all is perfectly balanced and well tied to the storytelling.

But that all is something that relates to my second big gripe: Excessive focus on Multiplayer in detriment of storytelling and singleplayer components. Who said that these two have to be mutually fucking excludent? I've seen some news saying that Bioshock 2's team will outsource the multiplayer to another company. Damn great, since it's a game heavly focused on story. Take Unreal as an example. The first was greeted as an immensely innovative and engaging game, the second not so much, then we've had some 2-3 multi only games simply as a showcase for the engines. Sure, for some people it's enough to just shoot each other, but I need a reason, a defining plot, whatever.

As games become more and more of a mainstream entertainment medium, some aspects have to be valued and improved, and story for me is foremost on the "things to improve" list.

But i've gone on a major sidestepped rant. I'm not drunk, but I sure as shit am sleepy, can't think straight, maybe I'll continue the discussion more coherently tomorrow. :-P
Later

All work and no play makes me..., well, you know the rest.