The trailer is a deliberate choice of the authors on what content to put in order to sell the game and present "the idea of the game". Not only that, but a lot of trailers are in form of a presentation with audio or text (more common) by the authors, where they deliberately emphasize what they think are strong points of the game. So in fact trailers, even very short ones, can tell a lot more than it's immediately obvious.

Could a 1m30 trailer of your favorite book be made in a way that conveyed that it's well written? There's style and world building, small aspects of which can be conveyed in small formats, but there's drama composition and significant aspects of style and world that cannot be compressed into a format so small. I think almost all high capital "artistic" projects are conservative in their design, so as to be a safe investment, which basically means having a trailer that will sell. The question being asked, I think, is "if a given element of the production can't make it into the trailer, does it even have a return on investment?".

I think we strayed away from my original comment and criticism, which was more aimed at lack of uniqueness of the games on the list, as judged from the trailers, than the quality. Additionally I'd like to point out that I read descriptions of every game on the list besides watching a trailer.

Of course, here I'm opening myself for a valid criticism which might be constructed as "even if a game uses elements of previously told stories and settings, it might do a different spin or do it on a such a new level of excellence (story wise) that it becomes incomparable with previous attempts".

You could also point out that trailer can be manipulated in such a way by a talented director, that would make the game appear new and unique.