Quite often, an indie game throws together some common gameplay, like roguelike shooter patterns, with little to explain it. eg, "You're here to explore for treasure!" Other times, even AAA games go this route, assuming most players won't care about the base story premise.
But there seems to be a significant contrast to well-developed worlds; like seeing the progressive cruelty of the Nazis in Wolfenstein before you start stabbing them, or seeing the Gommage in Expedition 33 before heading out to fight nevrons. Even more eldritch action-oriented games like DOOM benefited from establishing a "mood" of the Slayer being angry at demons and anyone who ignored warnings of them using just a few quick cutscenes.
This can be a bit of divergence from a game being "story-focused" or building up detailed lore. Some such games are often bad at motivation because the "story" is so confusing to players, most would just admit "I'm just going wherever bosses are to advance the story." Some very dialogue-heavy games don't necessarily captivate players on this level, since motivation can often be very simple. It goes back to the age-old strategy of arcade Donkey Kong; having 10 seconds at the beginning of the game where DK captures a princess who calls for help. The early version of the game likely didn't even have that, and the designer felt motivation was missing. (That decision spawned its own issue, the Damsel in Distress trope, but that's another topic)
As more conceptual ideas, and especially more perpetual live-service games, become more popular, I see this element of gaming going missing at all ranks of game development - which is a shame, because I think when written creatively, there are ways to set up player motivation through relatively few voice lines and short cutscenes; something going beyond "You are an amnesiac! This voice is telling you where to go. Don't die to The Corporation!!"
To drive discussion: What are some games you bounced off of, that you think may have been because they were missing motivation? What games found you putting up with a mediocre gameplay experience because you were invested in the given story turnout?
Depends on the genre:
RPGs: Strong writing and/or world building is a must. I prefer when both are done well, but just strong world building with ok writing works too (more often than not writing us weaker). For me the point of an RPG is to explore a world and try different playstyles, factions and narrative. I enjoy reading in-game texts that provide lore backgrounds, but also minor clues and subtle opportunities to define your strategy.
Strategy/Tycoon/City-builder:
Story and writing are not needed. These are sandbox games, the point is to try different strategies, build your own designs and so on.
I usually don't bother with campaigns for these types of games and just pick the largest map possible in sandbox. I did like the Cities in Motion 1 campaign though.
In 30 years of being a huge fan of these genres, I can't really think of a Tycoon or Economic Strategy where the story was memorable.
One caveat is that if the game is set in a fantasy/sci-fi setting, sometimes strong world building is important, but it depends on the details of the gameplay.
In some cases, the most generic space/fantasy setting is fine, in other cases like with Vagrus, a trading game x RPG hybrid, the relatively unique grimdark fantasy world is a key part of what makes the game great.