I don't have a problem with games that play or function outside of the normal industry standards. You can have a game that's simplistic or unorthodox in terms of gameplay, ONLY if you have some aesthetic or narrative appeal that makes up for it.
One of the worst-executed examples of this was David Cage's "generation-defining work of art", the nefarious Heavy Rain. The game couldn't even be described as something in the league of a point-and-click game, because point-and-click games only require you to move the mouse about and explore areas or environments. Heavy Rain, on the other hand, makes ludicrous use of the buggy six-axis controls of the PS3, mostly for stupid quicktime events or day-to-day activities like brushing teeth and playing basketball. But that wasn't the problem with Heavy Rain, because gameplay wasn't its focus...instead, it relied on its narrative and characters as its main selling point, as if the story would be so incredible and jaw-dropping that it would render the rest of the game's simplistic and poorly-executed faults as irrelevant.
But the story just boiled down to quite possibly the most dull and lifeless excuses for main characters running amuck and making retarded decisions that even a 6-year-old would point as blatant and idiotic logic holes. Some of the choices the characters make in the heat of events are astoundingly stupid...which essentially ruined any or all chances for the audience to sympathize with such drooling retards. The story was predictable and bland, the romance was rushed and terribly-written in, and every twist or narrative speedbump the writers intended fell flat on how pitiably-stupid and obscenely 2-dimensional the characters were.
In short, it's not a matter if a game in this category is invigorating or varied in its gameplay tasks or mechanics...there doesn't even need to be gameplay at all. But you NEED to have a substantial story or something else to draw the player in, and make the game worth playing...
...otherwise, the game'll be just like Heavy Rain.
