This had been debated to death in game dev community, I will not write a whole essay here, you could check some information yourself. The TLDR here is, lore does not equal to storytelling, a game could have rich lore such as Souls game, but they do not equal to storytelling like most linear story driven game does, they had different aesthetic to them. (Its not that lore is any less important, its just that they are different)
If you'd had paid close attention, you'd have realized I didn't use the terms, "story-telling" or "narrative".
Both the OP and I use the term "story" as a generic catch-all to encompass lore, plot, narrative (i.e. story-telling), character development, and story pacing.
And this is where you've spoken past the point I'm making. I wasn't talking about lore.
For games, lore is only important in certain types of games. In fact, for most games, lore is not important to a great gameplay experience almost at all.
Games like Halo demonstrate this aptly, by having tremendous extra-game lore, but the games themselves utterly fail in converting that expanded universe lore into a competent or compelling narrative, plot, and character development, i.e. story, experienced by the player within the confines of the game.
I would argue games like the Soulborne games and BoTW are also great examples of this, i.e. games with great lore, but actually rather minimalist/poor story-telling.
Games such as RDR2 that had both good storytelling and mechanic however was constantly under criticism by many that its story element and gameplay element felt isolated to each other. The story element work under different rule than its story part. Meaning its story element was competing against its mechanic element (especially its open world exploration part of mechanic), instead of complement each other.
I'm baffled by this critique and I fundamentally disagree.
RDR and GTA games weave story into their gameplay mechanics and game systems. There are no gameplay systems nor mechanics that are not contextualized in a combination of narrative, sub-plot, character development and world-building.
Every action and interactivity between the player and the gameworld is properly set against the backdrop of the wild west or modern American setting.
Some of the activities might be disconnected from the game's main plot, but the only impact of that is the narrative pacing of the main plot, and that isn't a negative at all, but rather an inescapable artifact of the game's open-world game design. It's the same for all side quests and free-roam sandbox activities.
The mistake that you're making is equating narrative pacing with story. Narrative pacing isn't even important in the grand scheme of game design, so long as your main campaign story beats are properly distributed across the individual missions through the main campaign.
A better work around would be games like Elden Ring and Botw, however although their game design was more unison between the two, it also had to compromise on the storytelling part, they had to keep it lore centric instead of forced narrative.
Not at all.
You're just giving examples of games with virtually no narrative, character development, and very simple plots... games that lean heavily into optional readable lore and environmental story-telling and worldbuilding.
These games are not examples of the peak of the medium in terms of pushing both story-telling and gameplay. They're gameplay-systems-and-mechanics-heavy games, lauded for those qualities overall, that place almost no emphasis at all on providing the player with anything but the barest minimum narrative or character development. It's all lore and world-building through passive means.
For most players who don't care about the story, those games simply don't put any narrative focus at all in the way of the gameplay. They're the very definition of this false dichotomy of story vs gameplay, and I would argue strongly that they suffer greatly for it.
I'm a gamer who does care about story in games as well as gameplay, and so those games you mention just can't hold my interest. They take the lazy route, imho, and put all story in the background as if to say, it's there to read about in text files and NPC narrated exposition if you care... That's not a positive... not at all.
Don't get me wrong. They're mechanically sound, excellent games. But as an example of games that do both story and gameplay really well, they're not even close to the top of the list.
Devs need to understand, that environmental story-telling, is not really story-telling. It's just world-building, which is one part of what makes for a great game story; but alone (unless the game is intended to be a silent adventure like Journey or Flower) it ends up giving little more than window dressing to a game.