I agree with both you and Carmack. Building excellent interactivity combined with an excellent story at the same time is mostly a fool's errand. The two concepts are at odds: good interactivity means relinquishing control of the story, and a good story means relinquishing control of the game.
But as you have observed you can still have one or the other. A great game with a decent story, or a great story with a decent game. Choose-your-own adventure interactivity can be fun, sure, but it will never have depth. It's a deliberately shallow approach that makes room for the story to exist.
When the main character of a highly-interactive game goes on fetch quests, grinds levels, and barters with NPCs it's inherently compromising the story. Stories need pacing and direction. Interactivity is the opposite of that.
You'll notice most games with "good stories" have to go through great pains to divorce the story from the game, primarily through the use of cut-scenes. In the moments you're receiving the story you're no longer playing the game. And in the moments you're playing the game you're no longer furthering the story. And that's OK!
But as you have observed you can still have one or the other. A great game with a decent story, or a great story with a decent game. Choose-your-own adventure interactivity can be fun, sure, but it will never have depth. It's a deliberately shallow approach that makes room for the story to exist.
When the main character of a highly-interactive game goes on fetch quests, grinds levels, and barters with NPCs it's inherently compromising the story. Stories need pacing and direction. Interactivity is the opposite of that.
You'll notice most games with "good stories" have to go through great pains to divorce the story from the game, primarily through the use of cut-scenes. In the moments you're receiving the story you're no longer playing the game. And in the moments you're playing the game you're no longer furthering the story. And that's OK!