The game _is_ more optimal now, with chess grandmasters now having deep opening preparation and understanding of positions. However, that results in a lot of draws. To win tournaments, world championships, and break ELO records (which are Magnus', and other GM's, goals), you need to win.
If 'perfect' play--that we're approaching with engine analysis--results in a draw, you need to do something non-optimal and unexpected in order to get your opponent out of their engine prep and into thinking mode.
Whether it's better or worse is a different argument. Some find it a bit 'dry' in that there are often less blunders, dazzling tactics, and sacrifices because both sides now know the optimal approach. It's much more of a war of attrition in high-level, long time-control games. As an aside, that's potentially why bullet and other such chess is so popular...there isn't time to deeply analyse, so it's intuition, challenging positions, blunders, and less 'standard' play.
If 'perfect' play--that we're approaching with engine analysis--results in a draw, you need to do something non-optimal and unexpected in order to get your opponent out of their engine prep and into thinking mode.
Whether it's better or worse is a different argument. Some find it a bit 'dry' in that there are often less blunders, dazzling tactics, and sacrifices because both sides now know the optimal approach. It's much more of a war of attrition in high-level, long time-control games. As an aside, that's potentially why bullet and other such chess is so popular...there isn't time to deeply analyse, so it's intuition, challenging positions, blunders, and less 'standard' play.