Quote who?

What you'r asking is impossible, so let me repeat myself: It depends on the game, it depends on the player, and it depends on what the game is trying to accomplish. You're trying to apply one standard to every single game ever made, and that's now how art works.

Perfect example: Gone Home.

Gone Home is a powerful, emotionally compelling game in which narrative is absolutely the most important aspect. But how the player chooses to absorb it, what little details they chose to pay attention to and what order they chose to do it in are all a tremendous part of the experience. It's not trying to be a thrill-a-minute action game. It's not trying to have hyper challenging difficulty. It's trying to use the medium of gaming to tell a really interesting story. And it succeeds brilliantly.

Every game should be judged on its own merits, not to one flat set of standards. And what a game is trying to accomplish should be part of that analysis. Moreover, if an individual player likes one aspect of a game over another, he's not wrong. Especially if that aspect is one of the game's central focuses.

You assume that everyone plays Catherine to break blocks, and not to take in the whole package. That's not a reasonable assumption.

It's not just a puzzle game. It's a piece of art. Every aspect of it is important to the whole art work. Cinematography, script and acting are all part of a movie. No one is wrong for saying that the story was the best part. Instrumental arrangements, mood and lyrics are all parts of songs. No one is wrong for saying that a song's lyrics are its finest aspect. Art should be taken as a whole package, not shoehorned into being one explicit thing or another.

Also, why does this piss you off so much? This is just an exchange of opinions about a videogame. I haven't even been rude to you, which is more than what I can say for myself in other debates we've had.