They do both. Nobody played Cyberpunk 2077 for the riveting gameplay.
Actually that game felt a lot like these videos, because often you would turn around and then look back and the game had deleted the NPCs and generated new ones, etc.
There's an entire genre of games (immersive sims) that focus on experiencing the world with little to sometimes no skill required on the part of the player. The genre is diverse and incorporates elements of more gameplay-focused genres. It's also pretty popular.
I think some people want to play, and some want to experience, in different proportions. Tetris is the emanation of pure gameplay, but then you have to remember "Colossal Cave Adventure" is even older than Tetris. So there's a long history of both approaches, and for one of them, these models could be helpful.
Not that it matters. Until the models land in the hands of indie developers for long enough for them to prove their usefulness, no large developer will be willing to take on the risks involved in shipping things that have the slightest possibility of generating "wrong" content. So, the AI in games is still a long way off, I think.
> Do people play video games to look at pretty scenery?
Yes.
> No most people are testing skills in video games
That's not mutually exclusive with playing for scenery.
Games, like all art, have different communities that enjoy them for different reasons. Some people do not want their skills tested at all by a game. Some people want the maximum skill testing. Some want to experience novel fantasy places, some people want to experience real places. Some people want to tell complex weaving narratives, some people want to optimize logistics.
A game like Flower is absolutely a game about looking at pretty scenery and not one about testing skill.
