Having a nice setting to anchor action and to give an atmosphere is one thing, having a story impacting gameplay (that is any cinematic since they remove control from you and you become passive, ie no more gameplay at that time) is less desirable.
Note that in Portal, the story is told while you are playing, not instead of you playing.
Games don't need a story or a world, but it might improve them.
But then don't forget people like different things, I can't stand modern games that are more like broken movies in which I have to push a button to continue to watch, and I can't stand Diablo 3 because to me it's just an e-penis/random thingy addiction either.
I'd also like to note that popular Indy games are mostly gameplay based. (Usually with a strong gfx style to make them stand out and easier to sell.)
--note--
I fixed a number of quote tags guys, please be more careful ;p
Yes, but in portal 2 you spend alot of time having a story told to you through cutscenes whilst you're not playing, and that game is almost universally considered a better game.
I agree that not all games need a story (point & click adventures certainly do - and they're considered no less games), but story almost always adds to the game rather than taking away from the experience. The only exception being when a story is offensively bad, or if it is so badly told (through whatever device employed) that it drags down the entire experience.
I wouldn't argue that modern games are putting in too much story. As for me, most modern games are putting a larger emphasis on catering to more different types of people through a clear seggregation of the experience. That is, with added modes like MP competitive and co-op, modern games are providing sandboxes for people who just like "its all about the mechanics"-type games, as well as a more story focussed single player experience for those who apreciate story and narrative in their games.
I would agree with the person who said that games have always contained alot of story, it's really just the devices employed to tell them that have grown, changed and evolved over time.
If the arguement is for more games with a more subtle story exposition in them, games like Team ICO games, Thatgamecompany games etc, then I would argue that there are already alot of those kinds of games already. I would also say that those kinds of games are actually alot more risky and difficult to get right becuase they require a much more complete understanding of game design (level, mechanics etc), art design, sound & setting design etc etc that very few people in this industry actually possess. And with the complexities of managing and delivering in modern game development, I imagine that it's probably much easier and less risky for publishers to fund games with very overt and far less subtle game narratives, especially when ballooning budgets necessitate high sales and thus require the game to have a wide enough appeal.
It's a different game sold for its multiplayer. Warhawk would have sold to its intended audience by another name, I'm sure, although the PR was helped by the existing franchise. Interestingly, Warhawk was originally going to have a solo campaign when first announced. That was dropped and the title released for a lower price as a download. As the solo campaign was immaterial to the online game experience, its loss makes good sense to me. The solo Warhawk game could have been a separate product if they wanted to go ahead with it.