So, I suppose I’m quibbling (unjustly, of course, since all I’ve read is your brief abstract here, but I’m intrigued by the notion, since it’s in line with some of my research) over the notion of ‘weakening,’ whereas I see it as the development of increasingly sophisticated series of game goals, some more obvious than others.

Although I also think of Espen’s article (I forget exactly which one it is) where he talks about wandering through Morrowind, only to be disappointed to later read the walkthrough and find that he’d done the ‘wrong’ things… perhaps that’s more in line with the tension you are exploring?

Jason, I would put like this: In “classic games”, there is always a clear official measure of how well you did. In my game definition, I call this “valorization of outcome” – some outcomes are better than others. In a multi player game, you either lost, won, or it was tied. In a single player game, there is a single measure such as a score or a specific state to obtain (getting to the final Island or smth).
The “weakening” means 1) that this no longer applies – there is no single official measure of how well you did and/or 2) it’s possible (and still interesting) to play the game for an extended period of time without striving towards the goal.

A game like Settlers has multiple sub-goals – build the longest road, get the most cities etc.., but there is a final score count to see how well you did.

PS. I have by now realized that some people think that saying that a “game has a goal” means that the goal is something that an author or a company provides. What I mean by “the game has a goal” is that the goal is accepted by the players of the game, so a goal can (obviously) be something that you create with your friends, kicking the ball around in the school yard, or you can play Sims as a “classic game” with your friends if you agree that the goal is to build the biggest house in 2 days, for example.