But would implementing rules and goals on an extremely low level, where they just appeal to our reptile reflexes and our Skinner box instincts, not neutralize this effect

Do you mean Mario? They function on a very low level. Move and Jump. They are addictive and the newer ones like SM Galaxy is not too hard. They are the equivalent of slapstick (I love slapstick movies), so I don't see it as a negative. But how could you make a platformer that is not silly? I know Nifflas is doing his best with Saira etc...

It needs to feel real, not necessarily look real

Do you mean it needs to feel true? I know you wrote "real"...

The problem with rules and goals in games is that they absorb all the attention of the player

I have this problem, too. I almost never can follow a story in a game, because I get distracted by my own actions/input.
What I remember from a game is the game world and the actions I performed. The story does not leave an impression.

Slight modification to my statement.

They optimize, polish and streamline their games for x iterations, until they are fun. And then those optimized games trigger the same emotion. Always the same emotion.

The way I interpret the quote is, that we should not try to replicate reality in a virtual way, but to create something which can't be taken/confused for reality. Don't you agree?

We don't need virtual reality, we need virtual unreality

I was revisiting this old film by Charles Eames, I am sure you all have seen it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0

I have a flip book (which I looked at with my 6 years old daughter). I watched the film with her. While zooming in into a single atom, into protons, neutrons, I thought to myself:  Those nuclear powers are the building principles of our universe. We should not use that energy from a moral standpoint. I think it is even unethic. The atomic nucleus is not meant to be broken up. Don't mess with the universe, people. Or the universe will mess with us. Call me old fashioned...

I think, John Cage was not a reliable mathematician...

If you invent more than 20% of novelty in your work, you immediately loose 80% of your audience
  
  -John Cage (?)

sorry, for posting that late. But one way to promote your work would be to enter different contests like IGF, IndieCade etc... The next IGF deadline will be in October 2012 (as usual), so I would suggest that ...

I never was used to the work of Arnold Schönberg. I liked Pierot Lunaire in a movie version, supported by images and actors. There was a short film by Greenaway, where the music was cut to the images, so the music could be understood structurally, or at least I had the impression that I understood it, and the music grew on me. By accident I stumbled upon a few videos or lectures by Greenaway at the European Graduate School.

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/peter-greenaway/videos/

here is a short film about the music piece by Schönberg, named the same: A Survivor Of Warsaw. I want to share it here.
It is (I think) an interesting work of cinema. Actually it was some kind of live performance on multiple screens, and the video is just a recording. The music gives a strong impression. I think I will listen to more Schönberg in the future.

check it out here, ca. 10 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=u6yC41ZxqYs#t=4281s

sorry, but it is also very nasty and horrible.

Some random thoughts.

The problems I have with many games, AAA or AA games or even many indie games is, that they are optimised for being fun.
I enjoy them, of courese, they are made to be fun. But if I look for a different experience than fun or quick entertainment,
I have to look elsewhere.

Optimising for fun will trigger the same areas of emotions in the brain (I guess). Playing Tetris feels the same like playing Plants vs. Zombies or Call Of Duty. It is a different kind of fun than doing sports in real life. I would call it artificial fun or pre-designed fun. Canned fun. They optimize, polish and streamline their games for x iterations until they all feel the same.

I don't know how art could come out of this very narrow process of optimization.

Let's call "it" present tense non-narrative cinema  

related to this discussion is this talk
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/peter-greenaway/videos/new-possibilities-cinema-is-dead-long-live-cinema/

at around minute 20 Greenaway is talking about 4 tyrannies to get rid of in order to re-create true cinema: the frame, the text, the actor and the camera.

The camera is a tool, that shows only what there is in front of it. Quite different than what Picasso said: I don't paint what I see, I paint what I think.

So here is my conclusion, that if we remove all 4 tyrannies from the cinema and add activity to it, what do we get then? videogames.

In videogames, there is no camera (everything is created in the moment), so it works like Picasso: paint, what the developer thinks.

There are no actors in videogames.

How to get rid of the frame, I don't know, but to get rid of a text-based development process is common to me...

p.s. if you follow the link, you can turn on automated google captions to the talk. I could not watch it, it was too funny so that I could not concentrate any more. Like this
example: battalions in the audience and a lot of your italian origins rather bombastic
example: six barons (experiments) or even: springs instead of screens

I challenge you to find out what: bus mama hawk moment
really means

it is going to be out on March 15. Don't read the Eurogamer review. I think there are too many "spoilers" in it. I just took some glances, to know that I should not read it.

Let's discuss it later, then.