I think this whole idea of playing-the-game-for-you is a bit like using a band-aid to fend off a fungal infection. Or cancer.
The problem is that, as is, most games are simply poorly designed. There are two schools of thought which are rapidly coming to a head, and both are finding the other in their way.
The first produces games like God of War and Team Fortress. It says that games should be just that: games. Bad-ass, fast, intensely enjoyable games.
The other says that games should be an interactive experience, rivaling cinema and literature; it produces games like Indigo Prophecy and Metal Gear Solid.
Now that's not to say that one is better than the other, or that it is impossible for both of these aspects to work together in tandem, to produce experiences that are thoroughly enjoyable (see: Portal, Shadow of the Colossus, Beyond Good And Evil). But having the game play itself for you (Alone in the Dark) or shrugging your shoulders at the idea of integration and delivering story via cutscene (Metal Gear Solid) or making concessions which do disservice to both the amateur AND hardcore crowd (Bioshock; revive pods) are absolutely not the ways in which to do this. They're the bare minimum effort at trying to create an interesting experience, and gamers are beginning to get more discerning.
Now films have struggled with this (and continue to), in the form of, for example, trying to combine thrilling action with an intelligent plot. Too much action, you get Transformers "blowin' stuff up real good". Too much plot, you get the Matrix, "vomiting exposition". Film, however, has managed to overcome this barrier and produce truly great films, time and time again--it's come to understand that a movie can be BOTH escapist fun AND stimulating art, if only you take some time and give some real thought to how these two halves must interact and complement one another.
The answer to 'this level is too hard' is not to go "what if you could just skip it?" It's to stop, go back to the design doc, and say, "Why do we need to throw fifty waves of faceless bad-guys at the player? Couldn't we be doing something more interesting? Couldn't we be doing something more emotionally relevant to the piece of art we're trying to make?"
Put another way:
Your doctor tells you you have too much cholesterol. Need to change your diet.
Now you could take your meats and your vegetables, and eat them together in responsible portions, and try to make it work.
Or you could go home and eat fifty pounds of asparagus and call the problem solved.
Which seems like a better idea?
