Wow, I don't know what either of you (Mike and Nord) are talking about. But, hey, sounds really cool and keep up the good work ;-). But seriously, what I do understand of it sounds neat.
And as far as the article goes, it brought a number of nice conclusions to the idea brought up in this piece (as well as the past 3 articles).
About a month ago I wrote about narrative as a dimension within gaming and compared it to the addition of the Z-axis. Playing Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (I buy most of my games used, so I'm sometimes behind the times), and hearing the voice over during the actual game got me thinking about how cutscenes are a terrible crutch for story telling in games. There article is here: http://www.prometheusperspective.com/features/march07/feature03240701p1.php though the site isn't really ready for the public just yet. (I try not to link externally on message boards, so I don't really know the etiquette. If its not proper for me to link to the site I'll remove it no problem)
I think it's really important that, as you say, developers start thinking more about Moby Dick and less about Star Wars when baking up stories. If games are going to be taken seriously then they need to be using serious sources for inspiration. There is nothing wrong with mindless action games, but if the whole lot of available games are mindless action, well, its hard to defend the medium. Gamers pounce on Ebert for saying that games aren't art, but the point he makes is decent: there just aren't enough examples that show why games should be considered art.
I like the direction that you're traveling. I think we're starting to outline the specific differences between games and other means of conveying a story, and I think there will be more clarity about the difference between written and digital literary techniques.