Do fortresses ruin chess?

I was looking at game 6 of the WC and one point in the game when Caruana mentions that it looked to him like Carlsen had made a fortress, I couldn't help but think that...

It's just so lame. Caruana was outplaying Carlsen for like 30 moves prior and still all this advantage was mitigated when Carlsen achieved this position.

Granted, there was a possibility of a forced win according to the engine at move 68, but it was incredibly tough to assess.

Besides that, there are even more drastic examples of those fortresses. Take a look at this game:

https://youtu.be/fQux4ceMNqw?t=3164

Two pawn advantage, active queen vs passive rook+knight and still there is nothing you can do to win if the opponent doesn't blunder.

It just seems so unfair. Ofc it must take a lot of skill to set up a fortress and maintain it, but it makes the entire game feel so futile.

Is this the future of chess? Will top players master the technique of making fortresses and employ it as soon as they're down the exchange?

Do you think it'd be a bad idea to try and create some new rule that would discourage players from making fortresses? Sort of like how en passant was implemented later on in chess history and it helped the game overall.