First, a question. What is it that you would consider an innovation in video games?
It's very easy for us to point to the Wii an' say,"Look! It was different! Innovation!", but I feel like the sentiment is a little disingenuous if considered in hindsight(as opposed to in the present).
Video games are a kind of physical activity. In order to play, someone must manipulate an object in 3-D space. Because this its nature, video games involve a heavy amount of spacial thinking, like in sports. People start with little league, and as they continue to better understand how to manipulate themselves and a ball(I guess), they grow better at the game. Fighting games easily mimic this experience.
In soccer(sorry, Football) there is no narrative beyond the trivial.
I am a warrior of the Astral Confederacy. I have been sent by my Lord High Commander Yatz-yoben as part of the tenants of my bond servitude. My duty is to transfer precious Soul Orbs into the Great Gates of Ending Space, a mission that will take me through the farthest reaches of the known galaxy, smuggling my contraband thru powerful Vasto class Dreadnaughts.
It's possible to dream up a story like that while playing, unfortunately none of it will have much to do with kicking a football past a goal keeper.
So, that being said, is it that you expect video games to innovate strictly for storytelling's sake?
I'm a visual artist but like yourself, I have a difficult time progressing through a game if I don't have a proper context.
To be honest, I would love Football even more if it worked more like my silly tale above.(Although, I think if we lived in a Universe like the one above, we'd all have very different opinions on everything.)
Even still, I have a deep respect for improvements in the "intuitive-ness" video games have achieved, especially in this and the last generation. Look, we got Dark Souls, StarCraft 2, Metal Gear Solid V; we got Dead Rising, Bayonetta, the Uncharted series; we got the Arkham games, the Battlefield series, and even if you hate it, we got the precedent made by Modern Warefare.
Video games are becoming better to control, and more responsive to the subtleties we want.
When it comes to games like Halo or COD, major improvements per iteration come in the form of enhancements or tweaks to a player's ability to play the game. This is a form of progress when it comes to manipulating 3-D space, but it's a hard progression to quantify. In fact, it's usually only "felt" when you return to older installments or different brands within a genre.
For example, play Street Fighter 4 then play Killer Instinct, and you should feel the difference between the two games.
Anyway, we shouldn't think this a small issue, because making games feel like an extension of your body is a very difficult task.
So, in light of this, we can ask a new question. How much control and/or "innovation" do we need for a game to engage well?
Consider Metal Gear Solid V, a game whose control is so well crafted, you easily forget you are holding a controller. And yet, its a game marred by an unsatisfying plot.
Or consider Undertale, a charmingly written scenario that easily sweeps you off your feet, but whose visuals and scope leave a little to be desired.
Could a game with Undertale's plot and characters be made with MGSV's visuals and gameplay? Could a game with MGSV's gameplay be made with Undertales visuals and scope? Which could you imagine being more successful?