I will take this (and the interface review regarding Mass Effect) to heart while designing my oewn game. It should come out better because of it

Surely you mean "PREquel", right…?

really, it might just be the nostalgia talking, but what was more beautiful that getting dropped into the Legend of Zelda without any instruction or backstory, and being unleashed into the mysterious world.

i think storylines in general destroy games, because as you stated, THEY ARE NOT MOVIES.

im in school for game design right now and we spent a few lectures going over character development, which was very frustrating.

I do not care about my character’s past, and I don’t care about any extra plot other than what I can deduce (or even better, imagine) from the gameplay.

Unless of course it is absurdly original (ex. Earthbound)
But i think it is quite a rare artform in itself to actually have story enhance the game.

I think the example you’ve mentioned with the couple clearly doesn’t work well in an interactive medium. What you described is a setting and a story as it would appear in a movie. That works fine but when you are talking about an interactive medium you also have to define what role the player takes in this scenario and how can he interact with it. So is the player the couple? Or is he a terrorist who put the bomb there? Or is he the manager of the restaurant or what? I think for a proper example you should define those points too.

In any case, showing the player the bomb “at the beginning” would prompt him to use his abilities to try to affect the foreshadowed event (diffuse, escape ect.) in some way.

This is exactly what doesn’t happen in a Movie. In a Hitchcock story the audience is in a passive situation and has no possibility to follow the urge to do something about the bomb. To strengthen the effect the characters would be oblivious to the bomb and do something completly against that urge by sitting and talking about waffles. By “supressing” that urge and teasing the audience, suspense is created.

As you can see, in an interactive environment the same setup leads to a very different experience. We are comparing apples to oranges.

The problem is that in most cases, “The Story” of a game is an embedded element and one of the things the player can’t change in any profound way. So in the case of the Bomb, the player’s abilities would be set up in such a way that he wouldn’t be able to stop the bomb or change its effect on the course of the story. The bomb is a part “outside” of the game. A cutscene, something the player is not responsible for. Then, the time between the first picture of the bomb and the explosion is wasted time for the player, just another something he has to sit trough until he can act again.

If you can imagine Hitchcock’s famous example of suspense working in a game then you have to say that suspense still counts in games. It goes something like this…
–There’s a couple talking in a cafe. In a bag under their table there ticks a bomb. Now is it better to show the bomb at the beginning of the scene, ticking away, tension building, or only at the end when it explodes?–

Now I always found Hitchcockian suspense a bit manipulative and crude – but he’s got a point, no?

Clint Hocking recently gave an Interview for Gamasutra with similar observations:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070514/ruberg_01.shtml

“For me, learning what it means to not be an author, learning what it means to give up control, learning to say, “Okay, it’s not my job to make decisions about meaning for the player, it’s just to give the player the space around that decision,” it’s a hard thing to let go of. It’s so attractive and sexy. It’s what all of our great authors throughout history have always done. But people in our medium, designers, it’s not what we’re supposed to do, I don’t think. [...] We just need to lead the reader to make his own decisions. Very few readers will read Macbeth will say Lady Macbeth was a good person. It’s clear that you’re supposed to think that she’s a bad person.”