I just realized this entire thread is an example of rampant bad game design. People have become incredulous at a game being able to evoke instinctual reactions.
If a game has to give a visual representation of what your character's feeling because
you aren't, then it's already failed. It's like having emotional cue cards in a movie. "Feel sad here", "this is a happy moment", "this person's in danger, feel anxious!".
How can anyone be scared of anything in Amnesia? Penumbra? Dead Space? I haven't played any of these, but I know of them because they're infamous for scaring people. Granted, PS2 isn't a horror game, they just happen to be the best examples of games evoking emotional/instinctual responses.
This is the importance of immersion. This is why people fight for the inclusion of boarding animations and holstered weapons. It's subtle psychological things that help suck you into a world, whether it's movies, books or games. If you're detached and have no emotional investment, then everything is meaningless.
As always, Extra Credits manages to explain what I'm trying so hard to...
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box
Games are somewhat fortunate in that there's two ways to enjoy them. There's the engagement aspect (narrative, story, emotional investment etc.) and then the reward systems like the skinner box. Levelling up, unlocking things, gaining achievements...
I'm not saying that the latter shouldn't be there. It's a good thing, but if you want people to be afraid of dying and averse to exposing themselves to a wall of bullets, it's the former that needs to be improved upon. You need to trigger people's sense of self-preservation, which can't be done if immersion is non-existent.