I take a very traditional games approach. Boardgames consist of 3 elements. Mechanics, theme and social storytelling. The mechanics combined with the theme serve to enable the social storytelling, by which I mean the act of playing with and against others to its conclusion is the story of that individual game and no two games are ever truly alike. Chess does not require a story in the traditional sense, each game is the story. It has a light theme to contextualise it and then the players use the mechanics to interact with each other to tell their own unique story. Each game puts different emphasis on each of these 3 elements. Some games rely heavily on theme, this is particularly true of licensed titles based on other franchises. Some are so heavily mechanical that they can be considered abstract and then of course there are some that emphasise player interaction far more than others. I've viewed videogames in that way for a very long time, with only a handful of circumstances changing my opinion on that, such as Brothers or The Stanley Parable. Narrative delivery mechanisms such as cutscenes often serve to interupt the players own story and are frequently at odds with it, creating this weird cognitive conflict. I got into games to tell my own stories, within the theme and mechanical framework setup by the game, my interest in having a story told to me, especially when it might not match up with the one I'm trying to tell through my gameplay, is fairly minimal.