I’ll go into two of the games you mentioned Team Andromeda. Mass Effect 2 and Red Dead Redemption.
Now, I haven’t finished Red Dead Redemption yet, but I’ve played enough of it to have find gripes with the story telling. Much of the story seems to be consist of following people around, doing missions for them. For example, Nigel West Dickens will get you to run some errand… and then another errand… and then another. Amusingly, it’s even emphasised in the game with Marsden’s despair at being runned around. This is what I would call “filler”. These are the kind of story elements that would be left on the cutting room floor of a film.
Another example is Mass Effect 2. Now, overall I enjoyed Mass Effect 2. But the character quests were extremely repetitive. For every character in your crew there is a personal quest that you go on win their trust. You’re faced with a series of choices at the end, and you must to choose whether to allow your champion kill their opponent or not. It’s the same formula for each side story. Why bother to have so many similar side stories if they’re just going to be copies of one another? The answer is that systematic gameplay elements (and game length) come first, and the story is layered on top to fit that system. The result is that much of the story does not feel organic.
I agree that some are differences between games and films. Games must have some degree of repetitiveness (although the story doesn’t need to). My point is that with films, everything is designed together as a cohesive whole. Acting, writing, music… all these things are important, and none are an afterthought because some other feature is more important. The result is a story that gives everything in the film purpose. The same could be true for story-driven games if more emphasis was put on integrating story with the other game elements from the start.