This is a REALLY interesting topic. One that I honestly have mixed feelings about. I mean, you're mostly analyzing the trend correctly, and yet I'm not convinced than pursuing realism at the expense of other things would be always beneficial.
Let me be clear: I do like a realistic game. I think it adds a lot to the immersion, as you said, and it gives you more logical options as you play. But gaming, per se, does not need to be realistic if it doesn't want to. We would end up having way less fun if, say, a bullet could kill our character in every FPS we play. Or if it would cause him\her to bleed for fifteen minutes and die. And yet, playing Operation: Flashpoint (and the Arma series that followed) has been a great experience for all of those who wanted a believable combat simulation (me included). What I mean is that every game should pursue realism in the right areas and in the right measures, or most mechanics would have to be thrown out the window. Example: you say that some games allow you to kick down doors, or destroy them with enough armaments and\or physical strenght. That's cool, but what happens when every game allows you to do that? Gamers would go around with rocket launchers and ignore most doors just because they can. Unlike real life, an action in a game does not have real consequences, therefore gamers tend to make use of everything that the developer gives them.
I think it would be very cool if more developers tried to create games that pursue that kind of realistic interaction you speak about, but in the end I think immersion is something that can be achieved in many other ways too, and excessive realism could become somewhat counterproductive in some cases.

P.S.: I don't know if it actually was a reference, but when you talked about stealing the pants from someone who was standing on his own two feed I couldn't help but to think of a scene from the old parody movie "The Gamers". I laughed hard at that whole sequence in the tavern :D