The problem with "The Game" and others like them is that they're just basic psychological tricks that don't really differ from sales techniques. Hang around with any gun salesmen long enough and they all turn out to be pretty spectacular womanisers. A high percentage are also manipulative arseholes who turn their tricks onto anyone and everyone to get their own way. It does work, but anyone with a modicum of emotional intelligence can see straight through it.
The best method to build confidence with women, is to change your Saturday night goals. Most young blokes go out with the intention of getting laid, which unless you're good looking and/or rich and have the automatic confidence that brings, stinks of desperation and won't work.
Once you change your goals from getting laid to simply talking to and meeting new people (men and women) funny things happen. Because the spectre of going home un-accompanied is no longer "failure" the miasma of desperation lifts, your confidence goes up, you become more attractive and it all kicks off from there.
You don't need a book to tell you that, but I wish I had have figured it out about 10 years earlier than I did!
I think you're taking aim at a relatively small part of what The Game talks about - the whole routines business (actually, NLP as well - that stuff just isn't cool IMO, that really is manipulation). All the stuff about behaviour, giving/taking value and particularly, as you say, desperation is hugely insightful IMO. Have you actually read the book? Or paid any attention to other "pickup" schools of thought? Because many of them focus on the same thing you're talking about - removal of what they call outcome dependence, ie you actually "needing" a certain outcome in order to be happy. In other words, the best mental state to be in is "desire without attachment". I agree that the more you try to force it, the less likely it is to happen, but there is a reason for that - the more you "try", the more needy you appear because it implies that you don't have other options, which further implies that other people don't find you attractive, and that there must be some reason for this (even though this is entirely circular reasoning).
Also I should point out that just "knowing" this stuff doesn't mean shit, you have to actually live it. Knowing that being needy is unattractive doesn't automatically mean you're no longer needy, for example.
Come on guys, what we really want is a man who can make us laugh and shares some common interests at the beginning. Of course, there are variations as to what each woman will look for but its not a big secret or something you'll find in the pages of some lame pick up technique book. If you've got a date, you're already on your way!
Try your best to be comfortable around her and put her at ease. Make eye contact, smile and be genuinely interested in what is being discussed. If you're nervous or don't know what to talk about, ask her questions about herself. Girls are usually pretty open and like to talk about themselves! Don't take yourself too seriously. Have a laugh and you're 3/4 of the way there.
The rest will come down to the same factors that will determine whether you're going to want to see HER again.... chemistry and attraction. That, I can't help you with!
Whilst I think everyone here appreciates your input (or that from any other girls), I think you're jumping to the end result of what girls want and for some reason deriding pick-up material, which in reality is the "how" that leads to the "what". For example, what you're saying is the equivalent of saying what girls want is "two". Then us guys wonder, "How do I get two?". Someone says "well, you have to add one plus one", then someone else goes "wtf that's lame, bugger that man, she just wants TWO". It's not lame, it's a means to an end - but if your maths sucks, your result is going to be wrong too.
What if "chemistry" and "attraction" were actually tangible things that you could understand and control? Chemistry isn't just some random chance thing, nor is attraction. There is a reason some guys have girls all over them, and some guys just never ever get any - some guys flip the right switches (knowingly or not). With all respect, most people don't actually realise that there are a number of emotional switches (almost all of which are quite implicit/indirect) that control their attraction to other people, and being told that someone can attract them simply by flipping these switches seems to offend a lot of people, as though it removes their ability to "choose" who they're attracted to. The funny thing is that almost all girls say "that's lame, it wouldn't work on me"... but attraction isn't a choice. The proof is in the pudding. Also attraction is not necessarily the same thing as liking someone - from my point of view, I've met a lot of girls who I found massively attractive but also thought were messed up, bitchy idiots who I usually wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.
If you haven't actually read The Game, or any similar/related stuff, then don't slam it. Whilst The Game itself goes into a lot of explanation of specifics, the whole premise is not so much about "techniques" as simply developing your own strong, unique personality and being unafraid to show it - ie being genuine and confident. That's the end result, what the girl is supposed to see, not the machinations behind it.