Let's say I want him to feel vulnerable and afraid. But I don't want him just to feel the fear of dying and starting over again, I want him to be afraid on a deeper level.I want him to have a feeling of hope how can I do that

This is the same as any director of film or music, the individuals fit for these positions are separate from the rest of the teams creativty. They have a vision and an understanding of how to create that vision. Being that the industry is so young, I see the designer position becoming much, much more valuable and praised than it currently is. Rewinding the clocks back twenty years, a programmer could do an entire game themself. Five years later that programmer needed an artist. A few more years after that they would need a writer or content creator. Today we have teams working on multimillion dollar projects and a structure to match other forms of entertainment. Not everyone is a game designer, the same as all else. Sure maybe everyone can come up with an "idea" and possibly even evolve it to a workable form, but don't look for another project because chances are it won't be there.

Blizzard learned this to an extent, they recycled much of their content creators for World of Warcraft, creating things such as their raids and battlegrounds.

If things were as simple as "do (x) to make the player (y)" then it wouldn't be very entertaining, now would it?

If things were as simple as "do (x) to make the player (y)" then it wouldn't be very entertaining, now would it?

Not quite true. If you stumbled onto the holy grail of being able to create and foster a positive emotional connection with "do (x) to make the player (y)" then you would rake in millions from the poker machine business. (Not to mention possible "brainwashing" concerns such as the ability to foster emotiional addictions by creating them). At the very heart of games...it is all about different forms of repetition. It is an inescapable reality that can only at best with today's technology be disguised with pretty art, great stories, challenges, etc. Call of Duty Multiplayer one of the more popular FPS's out there not only contains consistently repetitious gameplay but the entire franchise emulates this as well. The only non-repetituous aspect about the game are the players themselves...but even then their goals never really waver: Kill the enemy (a repetitious task), Capture the flags (A repetitious task), etc. The only true freedom comes down to moving where you want within the confines of a mini-sandbox, and choosing what actions to take (if any) - but at the end of the day the actions you have don't step out of confines of your repetitious limitations.

Edit: I left of the tail end. -- Basically video games already pretty much do (x) to make the player (y) especially in linear games where content progression requires players to follow the designed course....matching that with an emotional component successfully and with intention provides the type of immersion that makes a game attractive to play, sell, recommend etc

@ Tom
Well I was kind of optimistically hoping for a shortcut or some sort of tutorial (like the ones you find for programming subjects)

Unfortunately you come down to the reality that a soft science is very different from that of programming. Programming persay exists in a fairly stringently defined set of rules whereas a soft science such as psychology has at best guidelines through which to navigate the field and these guidelines are often nebulous at best.

Nevertheless it seems that I need to explore this path on my own.If I find things that I consider relevant I will share them

I wish you the best in your search. My only recommendation is that you find a basic primer for psychology and work up from there rather than trying to jump in at the deep end. Take heed of the numerous mentions of the word patience...because I am afraid that it is a necessity for this area of study. Too many opinions, too many inferences and very few facts. And above all if you do find the holy grail of generating defiinitive emotional contexts then you will find yourself in an enviable position of unravelling a mystery that has been haunting the entertainment and marketing industries for a very long time.

Unfortunately I read a lot more articles than I bookmark, so no links for you! But a few things that I recall below:

1. Lighting and level design. There was an article about ways to attract the eye to parts of a level by visual distinctiveness. Use of light/shadow can also (sometimes) promote feelings of hope, unease, etc.
2. Use of space in level design. There was an article that explored the use of space to foster emotions based on evolutionary psychology. For example the idea of creating safe nooks/caves for the player to run between, the feeling of safety when at a high vantage point, etc.
3. Worse things than death. In the horror game Amnesia instead of death per se, contact with monsters decreased a sanity meter until possibly hallucinations etc, but definitely the player "passes out" and wakes up somewhere else with various things having moved around. The fear of the unknown was a more powerful fear motivator than "dying" and re-trying.

I am aware that I can do a google search about this, witch I did, but I found unsatisfactory results in tings related to psychology and games. The answer to what I am trying to find out more about seems to be more in the psychology field rather than in game development.

Yeah you're right. There isn't much materials regarding using what we learned from psychology in games. I did some searching myself a while ago and the only thing out there is about Flow theory, which you linked in your OP. I actually think flow theory is quite a big breakthrough in "game science" or applying psychology in games.

I suppose there are also some prospects in applying economics (which is closely related to psychology) to games, e.g. choice engineering. Or stuff like usability design. I'm a mathematician and I apply mathematics to my design quite often.

My opinion is that game developers aren't scientific lot. This is to be expected, because they're game developers, not scientists lol. E.g. most of the stuff I read about MMORPG economics are IMHO rubbish (I had training in mathematical economics).

Why don't academics engage in game development? Because there isn't any money or glory to be made. Shallow, cheesy games with high graphics sells. No one is going to notice your academically correct mechanics. Also, academics/scientists aren't game developers. There is quite a communication gap between the two "realms". I think Flow theory is very much hyped because its one of those rare gems that both scientists and game developers grok.

P.S.
Sorry if I am a little bit incoherent. Its late over here.