I somewhat agree, a game can have a good story but the author doesn't have full control of the pacing of the story, players can die over and over, mess around and do weird stuff. They end up surrendering their control of the story, so the answer became cutscenes where you take control away from the player. But now you've got a cut up disjointed story with gameplay segments in between. Then people complain when cutscenes are too long, memes about the need to skip cutscenes. So games then resorted to those weird walking segments where you just follow a character around while they talk, all so that they could expose the story in an interactive way, which I don't think is very fun.
That said, there are fantastic examples of game stories that cannot exist outside the game medium.

Nier Automata comes to mind, the way it plays around with player expectations of endings, new games and routes. The way it switches between different modes of gameplay to fit the narrative.

Indie games do it even better. Doki Doki Literature club plays around with the format of a visual novel and as a piece of software. It has you messing with files in order to interact with the characters and progress plot. It plays around with common player freedoms like save files, and taking that freedom away in order to instill fear and dread.
This is just something mediums outside of games cannot do, and more games should do things like this and explore games as a story telling medium.

Though if you'd like to move away from meta gimmicks, there's also world building to consider. I'd argue world building is so much stronger in games when you put the player in the world of the game where they can interact with things, explore and learn about your world in their own leisure. When the author has full control like in books or movies, they have to release information to the viewer in a controlled manner.
In games, the player can just absorb the entire world in their own manners. Telling a story through the environment is something games do best for sure, because it gives the player the agency to explore that environment and analyse it at their pace, and interact with it themselves. This is powerful stuff, but it requires an attention to detail and cohesion that's very difficult for large disjointed teams often found in AAA to do.

I think Playdead INSIDE (and games like it, like Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons) are how to do story-driven games. Either the protagonist is completely silent and the whole game is pure experience with the narrative forming in the player's head as they go (which is how INSIDE does it). Or the game does have dialogue, but it is gibberish dialogue, which is just used to emote. Journey also has no dialogue, aside from chirping, but still the story is clear. I feel pretty strongly that this is the most effective way to tell a story in a game. Certainly not the only way, but one that plays to the medium's strength by having the experience itself, the interaction moment-to-moment, tell the story implicitly.

the medium is the message

Jon's answer was good, but it was still really funny when it was revealed to be an interview and not talking to chat at 9:20.

invisible cities 2 - this time they're visible.

Simple stories work much better in games than other medium, though, because instead of just, say, siting there waiting for the hero to beat the villain, you have to be the one putting the effort into that victory. Their victory is your victory & their satisfaction is your satisfaction.

Problem is games trying to be movie stories instead of trying to be game stories.

where can i get the full interview link?
found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdr3056fXVs
between 0:07:04 and 0:23:41.

I really liked the witness, even if you make this new game $80 I would still buy it good luck on releasing Sokoban!

Excellent points. In a game, the gamer makes the story. That's what makes multiplayer games fun. Trying to shoehorn that and an actual story messes up either.

The problem is that the ontological framework for how we tell stories are incompatible with an active agent first approach, i.e interactive media such as games. From Ed hooks and Konstantin Stanislavski, a story is a shamanic valuable lesson of life retold to the tribe to impart wisdom in order to increase the survival odds. Or in other words, all stories ‘worth telling’ are told retroactivly after they happened and are thus incompatible with a present participant in an active narrative. The closest thing compatible would be the social stories that emmerge from a social roleplay setting, but that requires loose boundaries from the ‘author/dm’ in order to create space for the participants. That’s not something easy to pull off in a predefined videogame

Emergent storytelling and regular storytelling are different things. Regular storytelling takes control away to give a curated list of scenes, while emergent storytelling sets up an environment and hopes for stories to unfold. The unfolding stories can vary greatly in quality and emotional impact.
One trick is to increase the tension by jacking up the consequences, so a regular RPG often has regular storytelling, but a roguelike has unscripted boons and bust that can have serious consequences.
Although one could argue that emergent storytelling isn't storytelling at all.
Do games like "Caves of Qud", "Space Warlord Organ Trader" and "Faster Then Light" have as story?
Are games like "Sunless Sea/Sky", "80 Days" and "Deathwar 3030 Redux" not games at all, but stories with gameplay bolted on?

cut scene should not be abused in games.

I play something like Trails series where you could talk to every NPC and they have their lives and after each major even all their dialogue change, you could be talking to them for 2 chapters and seeing their story progress in parallel to the main plot and naturally a side quest will come in the 3rd chapter

I don't think you can do something like this in other media, this is a very specialized type of story telling, and while I agree mostly there are still ways were you could tell stories in games that other media couldn't and the issue here is that most of the industry doesn't care to evolve it

instead we go into Kojima doing interactive movies route and praise games losing their identity to cinema

Someone once said that games have the narrative structure of porn movies: action, action interspersed with bit of connective storytelling to motivate more action, and players are in it mostly for the action.

IMO, at the end it all boils down to use the right tool for the job: do you want to sell a story? Write a book or make a movie. Do you want to make an interactive experience, make a game. However it turns out games work better if they contain a story, probably because we humans are really interested in stories, even if they are simple stories. To the extent that some teaching formats incorporate stories to make students pay attention.

It's the storytelling objective shifting via medium that reduces the narrative fidelity. A book is a deferred version of oral tradition, both of which are meant to put the listener in the position of the story perspective. Movies strip away the internal component of a plot and try to reintroduce it via actor expression, using the camera as a surrogate.

Games loop back around and are this strange part-future, part-past tense first/third person perspective that can't be conveyed in linear storytelling. Contrasting traditional narrative with what games can do isn't explored nearly enough and is probably why a lot of people don't view games as art nearly as much as they should.

Ori and the Blind Forest is a pretty good story based game, but yes, simple story.

Every time games as art comes up, the weight of the story is always up front and center when I think it shouldn't be, specially when it comes to games that are trying to be cinematic experiences over an actual game. A movie can tell a great story but be ruined by bad acting, an annoying soundtrack, boring composition and odd pacing, it's a collection of multiple art forms that form the whole that is cinema. Games aren't movies you play, they are puzzles with a story that creates a framework around them that informs you how you should position yourself in that world.
Think of chess. It's a game that depicts a war scenario between two courts that is won by taking away the enemy's king. It feels ancient and strategic, and even today with all the multiple other games created after it, it still carries this status of being a complex game that requires calmness and intelligence to play. How different would it feel if chess simply had Lego pieces that indicated what type of movement the piece is capable of?
That said, I would even argue complex stories can detract from the experience, because at some point, you're not really playing, you're just following the script, like walking on the beach, but only stepping on other people's footsteps.
There's a famous quote that goes, "small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events, great minds discuss ideas" that in a way, describes exactly how stories are used in gaming. We have cinematic games (I like to call them HBO games), like The Last of Us where you're watching someone else's journey and drama, but not really interacting with it. Games that intertwine those events with the gameplay like Bioshock and Spec Ops: The Line, which tend to leave a mark in people, but only really work once and any subsequent playthrough, you have to deal with the fact the game didn't actually gave you the choice to do those things and you did it because you didn't think about it, you just didn't know those would be the results.
The last one is simply not caring, having the story as a framework and have the gameplay actually change how you think and approach the problems in front of you, like in Devil May Cry and the Souls franchise. The problem with this type of story is that often people have trouble getting into it if there isn't a strong hook right from the get go, but the benefit, if you look at the examples, is that these are the games that change people's brains.
And this is what I think gets gaming closer to it's identity as an art form. It's not people crying in mocap suits, it's kicking your teeth in over and over until you learn to stop pressing buttons reflexively. the story in a game is not someone else finding their surrogate daughter in a post apocalypse, it's about you becoming better at whatever it is you do, so the fatality of framework you've been placed in stops being certain, and when games don't force you to be better, the story suffers because it's main character doesn't have an arc.

When was this recorded? He looks younger. Or maybe he's just clean shaven

Unfortunatly there is only one game as of het that has attempted to bridge the play-narrative gap, The stanley parable. A good story inside a game has to respect player agency

wow I finally found something I completely disagree with John about, that took forever XD