I didn't become remotely good at Mortal Kombat online until I looked up some videos on the internet, and then relentlessly practiced for a while. That's not great. I love the game, but you should never have to use the internet just to be competitive in multiplayer. Same thing goes for games like StarCraft, in my opinion. There's simply no quality preparation in game for playing against other players.
First a little background. I have 100% completion in both AC1 and 2, and 100% synch in the singleplayer of AC:B. Couldn't stick with the multiplayer. It was fresh, but just not as fun as I wanted it to be. AC:R is the first game in the series in which I haven't really felt like coming back to it after beating it. I don't feel an urge to explore every nook and cranny, get every last ridiculous achievement, and so on. AC2 is perhaps my favorite single player experience of all time, but something seriously wrong has happened with the series since then. These games NEED two year development times, at least. Otherwise, the new features will always be minor attachments, not worthwhile additions to the core gameplay. One year developments times give us failures like den defense and the first person Desmond sequences. I think the future of the series hinges on the next game. UbiSoft better bring something special this year if they want this series to maintain its place as my favorite.
Interesting that Dead Space was not mentioned for atmospheric music. Perhaps it was more sound design than music, but the sounds of Dead Space made it creepy more than anything else. Also, imagine playing Left 4 Dead without the musical cues that communicate what's coming at you next.
Dreamfall: The Longest Journey has some of the most pointless, bland, and utterly bad gameplay I've ever experienced in a game. But that game stuck with me like few other games have been able to do, and that was entirely due to its story. The best example I can think of for how story can really make a game.
Perhaps the Reapers weren't very interesting, but I thought Saren was. The absence of a clear villainous role such as his in ME2 was a major negative to that plot, in my opinion. BioWare made the exact same mistake in DA2. Other villains I've enjoyed have been Sarah Kerrigan, John Henry Eden, Arthas Menethil, Darth Malak, and Rebecca Black. Wait, what?
If you've played Dragon Age: Origins, or any of BioWare's games, for that matter, you are experienced with pretty tough moral choices. For me, they're really not that tough, because I simply judge my character's personality to figure out what choice they would make. They certainly add great amounts of depth to games, and really let you roleplay and create a great personality for your character.
In my opinion, games can be a far more effective storytelling medium than either books or movies. However, this is only possible when the proper time and care is given to the story. Games like Fallout 3, Mass Effect, KotOR, Assassin's Creed, Final Fantasy, and many more have stopped me from getting any sleep because I couldn't stop thinking about the story, about the way it ended, and what had happened to all those characters I had come to love simply from interacting with them. The interaction, imo, is what makes games better at stories than movies. The interaction pulls us into the story and makes us feel attached to the people in it. Also, in most RPGs, people can spend upwards of 100 hours inside the game world. Sometimes that is the time that is needed to become attached to characters. A two hour movie cannot have the same effect. One thing to add, storytelling can be a big negative to me if it is simply dropped onto a game that doesn't need a story. Games like UT2004 are wise to really have no story, just great action and gameplay. I felt like the poor storyline in the Gears franchise, however, was really just an excuse for violent gameplay, and didn't draw me into the story or compel me to fight, or even take the game seriously.
hastati4's comments