I once heard a very astute observation that we come up with the best ideas when we are under restrictions. In games... you could say it's budget, processor capabilities, and human resources, but that's not what I'm talking about here. What I mean are self-imposed limits - for example, someone says "Let's make a two-dimensional platformer game without killing in a three-dimensional world" or "Let's make a game where the main character can only use cards as their weapons".
The problem here is the fact that the same limit in a game and in the story translate to completely different aspects of the story you need to focus on - in a game it is, well, gameplay, and in the story it will be the main character. Let's see the first example I gave here: "A two-dimensional platformer without killing in a three dimensional world" As a concept for a game it sounds amazing - a good challenge, creative, and novel, but if you think about applying that idea to a story... well, I don't think I need to explain what I mean. There's just no way to make a story based on that idea - it would simply be incredibly boring as is.
Another good example here is dungeon delving stories, like Danmachi from the top of my head. The dungeon-delving element comes directly from the stories, but the focus of the story itself is not on the dungeon, but on the interactions between Bell and whoever else there is. I haven't read or watched the thing. The dungeon is more of a background there.
Back on tracks, when you're writing a novel, the type of self-imposed restrictions you make is for example "Let's write a story where the main character saves the world from the demon lord only to realize he becomes no different from him" - and again, problem is, that idea is hard to apply to a game, because it doesn't tell you absolutely anything about the engaging parts of the game, for instance how it can be challenging to clear.
There are, of course, games that focus on the story (Ori and the Blind Forest and the continuation, for example) and stories that heavily focus on the game-like elements (not even counting LitRPGs, and I'm not even gonna start listing them out), but the thing is that those stories have both of those elements. The engaging story and the interesting gameplay, just that it's seem from different perspectives.
And that's the ideal of what should be done - combine the restrictions like "Let's make a game where the main character can only use cards as their weapons" and "Let's write a story where the main character saves the world from the demon lord only to realize he becomes no different from him", and you have an amazing foundation for a story... just as well as you have a foundation for a game. Any questions?
So, to conclude, while video game can and do influence stories, the elements that make games and stories interesting are completely different. Trying to directly use what makes a game engaging in a story (and vice versa) simply cannot work by itself, because what makes games interesting will definitely not sell if you put it in a story without any elements that would make the story itself engaging. The challenge is not as much in reproducing what we love in a game in a story as it is in including the element of a game we love in an engaging and interesting story.