Not sure I agree with the premise. While I do see where you're coming from I think it isn't necessarily that simple.
I, for example, think Souls-like games have terrible gameplay. And generally speaking the most stimulating gameplay to me is grand strategy, sims or RPGs with in-depth interacting systems. I don't think you can really define gameplay by how hard or complex it is, because it can just as easily be argued that gameplay should be defined by how fun and engaging it is - which ultimately is subjective.
And whether story matters I think it does, as it generally allows for a level of role-play (and thus engaging/fun), and I think it can be an integral part to the gameplay.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
The ballooning costs of games means it's easier to write a good story and plug it into a walking simulator with 'light' rpg and crafting mechanics so 'games journalists' and johnny normie will lap it up. Then it is to craft new and experimental games systems in the hope that the 'average consumer' will purchase it based on that alone.
RDR2 is a perfect example of this. It's a perfectly safe, serviceable GTA clone with exactly no innovation that is solely carried by its amazing story.
Tonight for me is a special day. I want to go outside of the house of the girl I like with a gasoline barrel and write her name on the road and set it on fire and tell her to get out too see it (is this illegal)?
Games started getting into the mainstream in the 90s with the PlayStation and had definitely made it as a "cool product" by the start of the 2000s with the PlayStation 2. That's also when people started getting familiar with games trying to be movies in the shape of JRPGs like Final Fantasy, or providing an emotional experience over gameplay like Resident Evil. While games before that were definitely seen as more kids things (at least since the end of the 70s when video games were often found in pubs and bars) the 80s wasn't immune to hype over [BRAND] or however you want to term it. Look up adverts for Mario 3 that had kids absolutely crapping themselves with excitement. It's also when there was a lot of "[insert brand] army" (geez dude how do you live with all these buzzwords and phrases?) in terms of Sega vs. Nintendo, Amiga vs. Atari ST and, if you go back far enough, ZX Spectrum vs. the C64
- - - Updated - - -
It amazes me how often the people who try to be gatekeepers over what games should be also praise stuff like the Final Fantasy series which is 45% walking around, 45% cut scenes and the rest incredibly basic gameplay where you get to decide whether to use your best attack or one that isn't as good.
You don't understand. Having an unpayed full time job that no one appreciates is the magic of classic.
It's about the journey. The journey into depression. The journey of running a daycare full of middle-aged alcoholics ignoring their SOs and avoiding social engagements to fulfill something they wanted 15 years ago before everyone realized it's not hard at all.
This sums up my issues with modern day WoW. Timegating just makes me lose interest and momentum in the story. If I want to bang out an entire covenant campaign over a weekend, let me. Gear treadmills, especially regrinding the same gear over and over, hold no interest for me.
Or King's Quest... that was a trip.
That might be why YOU play games (and that's fair, there are games out there for you), but I like different things. Sometimes I want a game that is high skill so I can show off, and sometimes I want a game where I'm immersed in a story. Different strokes for different folks, yo.
Its almost like games have evolved from stomping turtles, to actually telling a (hopefully) well written story that you get to become the hero of.
There are plenty of "skill" games out there still. I'd suggest you buy something you like instead of complaining about something you don't, you're like one of those idiots "reeeeeing" on Twitter over things you have no intention of buying but want changed just because of your fee fees.
I don't like Call of Duty or Sports games, so guess what I don't buy, Call of Duty and Sports games.
Most people who talk about "skill" in a game talk about fast reflexes, hand-eye coordination and apm. Which means they should rather play basketball or bowling rather than chess. And even these have more strategy involved than mindless shooters where the only "skill" is whether you can aim a headshot in a split second.
The problem with that is not everyone finds it a pinnacle of entertainment to train for hours every day just how to aim a headshot in a split second.
Except that, games usually have a difficulty slider. Which is great. You can make it a walk in the park if you just want to relax, or you can make it grueling experience where you're a 1 hit point wonder while the enemies are bullet sponges or have unlimited resources / OP weapons.
You can enjoy the story / immersive scenery or world / character design etc. on top of the difficulty slider. Games that have only difficulty slider and nothing else were good in the '80s with pong and tetris but technology goes forward and so do expectations.
I'd expect many people play video games for the need of escapism and relaxation rather than "honing their skill" and being competitive. Many people have jobs that are already stressful, competitive and cutthroat, they don't need to have the same after work in some online shooter where the only important part is who's the last man standing. The opposite could be true for people who have extremely dull jobs and want to seek the thrills in competitive gaming.
Seems like the big game makers focus too much on making great graphics than gameplay. I tried playing red dead redemption 2. The controls were so bad that it ruined it for me. Rock star games always have horrible controls. I felt the same about the grand theft auto games.