Shooters are expensive short-lived experiences if they lack Multiplayer and constrain the player to an overly linear path in order to better fit a pre-determined, inflexible, narrative. Stories should not have games, as all you get is a sequence of mini-games that you are forced to beat in order to get to see the next cut-scene that may hopefully make sense of the whole mess. It isn't as if the story to which these games are being sacrificed is any good most of the time. Half-Life 2 and Halo 1, 2, 3's stories don't bear much scrutiny (and I liked those games!).
Games should have stories. By that, I mean that they have a thematically coherent emergent narrative - the game "system", AI, physics, RPG statistics, your avatar's dubious morality (that was witnessed and reported by NPCs bystanders), undertaken quests, team morale, adrenaline, kudos skill, bizarre hidden achievements and the legendary feats (or freak accidents) you tell your mates about that you managed to pull off in combat that can make every fight different all contribute to your avatar's personal narrative. Just because none of it is formally scripted with a bunch of pre-recorded dialogue doesn't matter.
Don't veterans of World War II all have at least one war story to tell? WWII wasn't scripted though... it was a purely generative system and not as balanced as most of the games we curse for being unfair today.
ARMA II is an interesting case as you can use its editor to set up some troops/tanks/etc. and then jump into offline gameplay and repeatedly try to beat the superior odds you have set yourself.
Frankly, I doubt whether a typical 2-hour movie narrative can map onto a game, as the former is an intense continuous experience and the latter is fragmented across how ever many days/weeks/retries it takes you to be as good a "James Bond" as the role deserves, at which point you aren't really responding to the game system anymore, but taking the ideal 'racing line' through a habituated speedrun.
