Three things:
1. A game is a game is a game. In truth, as demonstrated by Wittgenstein, there is no one definition to the term "game". Rules, player(s) and goals (which, notably, are present in all of your examples) are some of the most well-established characteristics of what a game, but the term is still open to interpretation. However, a story, or cinematic focus, is something even most Ludologists agree have little if any effect on a work's status as a game.
2. The world of game narratives is not a simple black-and-white dichotomy. What of the games with great gameplay and great storytelling? Or, put another way, what game has ever been made to have poor gameplay? It is not a case of one or the other - only avant-garde anti-games aim to treat their audience with poor gameplay experiences.
3. I spoke about cinematic gaming before. Yes, it is an unfortunate trend, if only because it is being overexploited. Some say cinematic games are not true to the essence of the medium - I partially agree with that, as I feel games should be based on their own principles, not those of motion pictures - but they can still be excellent game experiences, and it is evident there is an audience for them at this point in time. Who knows, maybe these games are the progenitors of true 'interactive narratives' or some other kind of game-related interactive entertainment?
