Meaningful Game Presses (an insight day[9]'s point on the daily)

Sean was mentioning today that games are trying to remove as many 'unnecessary' button presses as possible in order to make the game more 'fun' and 'engaging' but that it oddly has a counterintuitive effect where it makes the game less engaging.
He cited three main examples, one being that text twist has minimul inputs but is very fun, and how in DDR etc the more complicated and more buttons you have to press the more fun it is, and even how in hearthstone you can click around the gameboard. 
I feel like no-one mentioned that their is a fundamental difference between active engagement and passive engagement (insofar as stimuli are concerned). When playing a game people feel the need to be as actively stimulated as possible, in order to feel that they are keeping the same level of productivity or as high a level of productivity as possible. 
So active engagement is stuff that produces a visible or audible reward, such as clicking around the gameboard and the things moving and responding. Quickly however this can become a passive engagement as these dont alter any major gamestates or enable a victory any better then not clicking, but then your turn comes around again and you are definitively actively engaged, so the cycle starts again. This is why people can become easily bored with "repetitive" feeling levels, they dont feel that the rewards for the active engagement is high enough, so it becomes a passive one.
People who devote more time into a game, gradually rate the experience as a whole more actively, so it becomes harder to get bored by the games mechanics, and easier to get bored by repetitive scenarios within the game itself.
This is commonly seen with peoples apm dropping in mirror match-ups, or them making poor decisions that ordinarily or on paper they wouldnt.
The fineline good game design needs, is to make it so that the game requires active input with rewards, without overstimulating or overtaxing the player (via creating too much choice or too much to do at once at entry level). Simultaneously the game needs to be such that the games passive input still engages the player, and doesnt detract from the game experience itself, or indeed adds to it. 
This is why Starcraft worked so well, entry level players had to macro, a seemingly passive task, so that they could then engage in battles (an active task), very quickly the passive task becomes an actively engaging one, as they try to find more nuance in it, so they can get to battles quicker or battle more effectively.
This is also why many RTS games fail, as the building stage can be too passive, or the battles over too quickly, so their was lots of input for little "reward".