I’ve found myself to be enjoying less and less games with just minimal story, even if they had a good gameplay.
Back when I first tried Skyrim, which was probably years after it was out, since I only buy games in huge sales, I loved it. Especially the freedom you have in it.

More recently, when I finally tried Fallout: New Vegas, I played it a little bit, and stopped. Why? Mostly because of this endless side quests that have no impact on the story.
On the other hand, some games I’ve played also recently, which had an interesting story, if they happened to be too linear, I wasn’t a big fan either. That was the case with A Plague Tale, first one. Even if I played it for longer than New Vegas.
That led me to a quite-obvious-but-good-to-know-theory: we all give different weights to each element of a piece of art, in our appreciation of it. For me, I’d say I give the highest coefficient to the story, second highest to the Art Direction, third to the gameplay, something like that.
And all of this explains why the game that is the best masterpiece of the last 20 years for me is a heresy for some other people: Bioshock Infinite, partly for moments like this:
And partly for others like that (spoiler). If you don’t know this scene yet, play the game until you arrive to it. And if you’re a father, well…
So, yes, ideally, I like a game when it’s good at everything, but when I have to choose, I prefer it to have a good story, an amazing artistic direction, and an average gameplay rather than the opposit.
And as in films and books, most of the engagement in the story comes from the characterisation of the characters. Well, also from the events, of course. But writing characters is clearly a difficult task. In my opinion, even Steven Moffat struggles with characterization.
Are we human so centered on ourselves that we can engage only with stories in which the protagonist have humanoid traits? Maybe…