(borrowing from my own post the other day)
Look it's a fair perspective but I can't say that I agree, gameplay is king for me.
Artistic vision and freedom of expression are all well and good but in a game they should be there augment, rather than supplant, the GAMEplay. Games are fundamentally different from most other art forms due to the fact that the observer plays an active, rather than a passive, role in experiencing the medium and are, in fact, an integral part in the realisation of the vision. Anything that hinders that experience and that engagement with the medium such as bad controls, not feeling involved enough in the outcome etc. can be viewed as a failure on the part of the developer, even if aesthetically and narratively the game achieves exactly what it intended.
Now we can have a very broad definition of what qualifies as a game, the same way there is a very broad definition of what qualifies as a movie but ultimately most fall into relatively narrow confines and story tropes that have been around for hundreds of years. You can make a movie with no dialogue and it's still a movie but for many, this change would be too much because you are interfering with something they believe to be fundamental to the movie experience. Some minimalist approaches can work in movie-making but as soon as you start altering the fundamental recipes too much, you are going to disappoint a segment of the audience.
There are games that have successfully changed the balance of the gaming formula and still provide a strong, cohesive experience e.g. Flower and Journey, but from what I've heard it sounds as though The Order hasn't quite gotten it right. It's not simply that it hasn't got enough 'gameplay', it's the fact that what is on show actually gets in the way of the complete experience.