I think you disprove yourself there. The reason the main quest in ES games is generally ignored is because it is rubbish, totally lacking in any story. And the game becomes a grind, each dungeon, much like the last, just to get the next level. Npcs with zero life.

To be honest, your post here and your response to breja indicate you are a world of Warcraft player. Vacuous grind mechanic, and I pity that frame of mind. How do you expect to develop a role without a story other than by a dry set of numbers on a character screen

That's because YOU are creating the story as you are watching the porn or playing the game. The story isn't given to you on a platter by the devs, you're making that one up yourself.

Video games vs. Solitaire or Tetris is comparing apples and oranges. Solitaire and Tetris are focused on straight mastery of the mechanics. What sets video games apart is the capacity for storytelling -- and storytelling happens to varying degrees. I've elaborated on that in my post above.

The guy in the video at one point said something like "don't put stories in our games", and I think that sums up his stance pretty nicely. To me it all boils down to diversity in gaming. There's a place for every type of game, games with heavy story-telling as well as games without any story at all, and everything in between. What the guy from the video is ranting about, I guess, is that he feels that heavy story-telling has taken over and he can't find enough modern games catering to his preference, but if there were no stories in games anymore, I myself would soon lose interest in them and in gaming altogether. There is no "we gamers" and no "our games", everyone's different.

I don't like thinking in extremes, and I can't take anyone seriously who claims "games should be like this" because that's what they themselves prefer (and neither anyone who calls game developers dickheads because of that and acts like an expert or authority on gaming without even acknowledging the existence of adventure games, but that's a different story). Gaming should not be like this or like that, it should be diverse and offer something for every taste. Fortunately I don't feel we're anywhere near a monoculture of "this is what (all) games are nowadays" at this point in time - to me there's never been more choice than today.

But in general, I wouldn't say that story-telling in games is a problem per se, it's mostly bad story-telling that causes all the issues. You can have an enjoyable game with a good story without the need for unskippable cutscenes and cheesy commentary.

I actually do not play World of Warcraft or any MMORPGs at all.

I actually enjoy the gameplay of turn-based RPGs, and when I get some shiny new abilities, I want to get a chance to use them, not have to wait for a cutscene to get to the next part of the game.

Every medium has capacity for storytelling. Even straight real-life implementation. You can make storytelling even during football matches, but that would make for extremely bad version of football. However, football without any story, heck even without any commentaries, is a very valid game.

Solitaire and Tetris vs video games aren't apples and oranges. Every game should be focused on its mechanics, because it is vital part of gameplay, it is the very !definition! of the game. I speak about Solitaire and Tetris as video games, and there are no non-video game versions of Tetris.

Now sorry for vulgar example, but imagine porn, which has no actual porn, but is heavy on storytelling. I can imagine porn without story, but I can't imagine porn without actual sexual acts.
Those are different genres, and as such, they have somewhat different abstract models being the core of gameplay. Someone might prefer one model over the other because of personal preferences, or he could as well enjoy both. Now if you say, do you like to play "Solitaire" or "War and Peace" (as a book) more? My answer would be simple, "War and Peace" has no gameplay elements and so I'd rather play Solitaire.

I take it you're not a fan of adventure games, then? I'm fairly new to the genre myself, but the few titles I've played have had almost identical gameplay: basically, you just wander around and collect items, then use those items (and/or combine them) to progress the story. There's about as much gameplay as Terraria has story, yet adventure games still have their fans.

Over the past few years I've come to think of gaming as two big pillars (story and gameplay) and two small pillars (music and graphics). Either of the first two can hold a game on their own if they're solid enough, whereas the graphics and music can't make or break a game, but can make the experience that much stronger if they're good. I suppose that's why the idea that stories aren't important at all is so strange to me; it'd be like claiming that gameplay isn't important. Maybe to some people one is of primary importance and the other is just distracting from what they prefer, but gaming in general is rife with examples of games that would be much lesser experiences if either facet was reduced or removed.

Bad gameplay can also ruin adventure games with good stories (e.g. illogical puzzle design, forced linearity, longwinded dialogues or cutscenes, pixel-hunting etc.). IMO, Monkey Island 2 is a much better point-and-click adventure than Gabriel Knight 2, due to its design and gameplay, even though it doesn't necessarily have the better story.

I know that various adventure games and visual novels have their fans. But while adventure games might be trickier to implement in non-video game format, visual novels can easily be replaced by movie or book with pictures. I liked playing some adventures games too. E.g., Loom - I liked having mechanics of sound-based spells, inverted sounds and such. I liked unlocking new sound-spells together with new variations. Core of gameplay is abstract mechanic, not story. Overall I am not too much into adventure games, true as you say, they are too much reliant on passive storytelling, and I play games to play them and not watch movie.

Another key difference between games and books/movies: in book/movies you are passive participant, in games - you are active participant. Too much story just stands in the way of actively playing the game and turns into passive watching (or even worse - reading walls of text, as eyes tire from on-screen reading much faster than reading books). It is like watching some film or tv show just because of all the ads instead of actual show. It defeats the whole point of playing.

Ah, then you misinterpret what storytelling is, it doesn't just mean cutscenes. It is the totality of dialogue, character building, scenery interaction, background stories, quests, items, and anything else really. I agree cutscenes can be quite annoying, and overdone in some cases.

I compare Solitaire with Baldur Gate because one is purely gameplay and another is gameplay + story to reinforce my point that something that excels in both is better than something that excel in one area.

"War and Peace" and Solitaire is no comparison because their area does not overlap.

Or maybe a better comparison is Diablo 3 with Witcher 3? Diablo 3 skims on the story and role playing aspect and Witcher 3 has a better combination of both.

Then you can compare Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion with Warcraft 3. Sins only offer background story and you go all empire building and war waging. Warcraft 3 have both. If you are not familiar with the Sins series, maybe Civilization is a good substitute?

The Crux of my argument is games can be much more rather than focusing on gameplay or story alone. Of course you can enjoy just a single element only, but I think more = better for most people.

10 + 0 = 10
10 + 10 = 20

I think you are confusing bad implementation of story and game play.

Good combination of story and gameplay can be done.

I won't, because I perceived it as okay in both regards, neither outstanding in gameplay nor totally abyssmal in writing. And actually one of my biggest gripes with the ending was related to gameplay. ;)

Story wasn't strong point of Baldur's Gate to be honest (especially in BG I). Game was interesting for being new computer implementation of D&D mechanics. Reading random books and letters was quite ... immersion-breaking as noone really writes like this to express simple thoughts. Word "immersion" is misused quite often, I used it here as a pun.

"War and Peace" has no gameplay mechanics, but is full on story. I had hard time to come up with video game without gameplay but only with story, because I am not looking for such games, so I had to come up with book example.

And I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with having that opinion, but at the same time I can't help but think that it's that personal preference talking when I hear people claim that the story isn't an important element. It may be true of certain individuals, but it also seems to miss the larger picture of what common elements are present in enjoyable games of different genres and how that reflects on their importance.

I REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR EXISTENCE

... But really, I don't have a great deal of experience with the game. Played a little, watched a bit, don't remember much. I was relying on the internet rage machine being reflective of everyone's experiences. What about Dragon Age 2, then? I actually remember that one and didn't think the gameplay was that bad despite being dumbed down from the first game, but the story and characters were definitely mind-numbingly stupid.

Ok then, people taste differ.

What is your top 10 games?