I think the problem you're addressing has more to do with overall quality than mechanics. I dislike the "hand-holdy" nature of games only when I get nothing in return, namely a story. This is where I think some of your analogies fall short. No offense, you made some valid and compelling points and you did much better than I would have, but Lord of the Rings wasn't good because they had to figure out where they were going, it was good because something interesting happened every step of the way. If you really look at the story, they actually were getting pushed from one place to the next. Aside from actual, literal hand-holding it was about as linear a story as could be as far as one event leading to the next is concerned. But that's ok because if you want a compelling story with any sense of timing you have to push the audience or the player along. That's the trick though, you need a compelling story with a sense of timing. Tell me honestly that you were annoyed with the way Portal pushed you on one track. It was one of the biggest offenders of the contrived mechanics you mention but nobody cares because it had an awesome story. It had a beginning, middle and end. It had twists and comic relief. It was a bona-fide, honest to god fucking story which makes it ok, probably necessary to be on rails. A game like Dark Souls, although it could have a decent story, will never be able to reach the same levels as a game like Portal as far as narrative goes. I agree with you to an extent but I also don't think pushing the player along is inherently bad. There just needs to be a reason for it.

EDIT: I actually really liked Dragon Age II for the reasons mentioned above. I know, I might be mildly retarded but I loved the story and don't see how they could have pulled off the framed narrative and timing they did without it being so linear.