My preferred model for describing games is: a simulation of some universe, and a way to interact with it. In such a model, learning a story/plot through interaction (with the simplified simulation) is only natural, and storytelling through direct means in the fashion of books/movies, in a game, is clearly a hack, directly conflicting with the nature of a simulation.

And ofc myst was no innovator in this — environmental/interactive storytelling was well established by interactive fiction (IFs), MUDs, text adventures, etc — but it is the quintessential example for modern video games (but thats not saying much imo, since few modern game developers seem to even believe games actually existed before 1990, let alone learn from them)

And thats not to say that all games fit my described model well (eg asura’s wrath has almost no simulation/interaction at all, but derives decent impact from the qte mechanic) but at the same time, a lot of games that don’t fit the model were doing a job in the wrong medium (the uncharted series has a sufficiently engaging plot [kinda], but it was really just an action/adventure plot told very innefficiently, with a sufficiently engaging but almost totally seperate third-person shooter game interspersed. Both plot/gameplay would have been better served by their own mediums, instead of being composed into an awkward hybrid)