Taking from previous attempts to use storytelling analysis in the context of a game, I think most people have begun to realize that due to the dynamic state of a game, the analysis must not only be viewed on different levels, but in a different way completely.
We still have two basic breakdowns, which can be viewed as Design (Goal, Conflict, End State) and Play (Reaction, Analysis, Decision). These can be further broken down in that Goals generated by Decisions, and that Conflict and End States affect Reaction and Analysis. Finally, Reaction and Analysis affect the Decision, and Goals affect the Conflict and End State (prevention of the goal).
These can still be viewed on several levels, from Macro gameplay levels all the way down to moment-to-moment gameplay and even into the Metagame and Design levels (if a game is a living beta such as an MMO or any e-sports level pvp game). Decisions on one level can affect others as well.
Design is usually the domain of the game Designer. They set up the goal for the game and the level. The create the conflict and the End States. As a gamer gains control of this part of the game, they enter a more sandbox experience.
Play on the other hand, is usually in the domain of the Gamer. In this case it is mostly in their mind. As design encroaches on these aspects of gameplay the game becomes more linear. The player loses their autonomy, and can at times remove the game aspect of a game.
I believe that this is the better way of handling this analysis in a game. I'll take a few posts practicing it, and I encourage others to try as well (please link back to this post if you do so). If anyone has any suggestions about this, please leave a comment, or send an e-mail. Thank you.