I think you are looking at this in completely the wrong way. A GUI app and a web page are worlds apart so the exact same definition of MVC will never work for both. MVC is more about the ideal: separating certain parts of the app like display and logic.
In PHP (or the web in general), a View is the web page itself: the HTML output. It's not "live" as per your definition, but you simply click links to go back to the controller (i.e. another page request).
The Controller and Model is where things do differ, like you explained. In PHP the model tends to be the data layer, interacting with the database and so on. But it is still modelling the situation, and the controller still controls the application flow, if only once per page load.
So the name "Model-View-Controller" is perfectly logical, albeit a different implementation in GUI apps vs web apps.
EDIT: To summarise, I think understand where you're coming from - at first glance, the ASP.Net MVC framework seems to have (too) many parts, and it's difficult to start understanding it. Having said this, I'd argue that you're looking at this wrong. ASP.Net MVC is not a particularly heavy MVC framework (you should compare it to PHP MVC frameworks to be fair), but yes, it is very much conventions-based. There is a lot of good reasoning behind that design choice, and your first priority in learning the framework would be to learn its conventions, and perhaps the reasoning for them. If for some reason you absolutely want to go deeper, the framework is open source, and you can dig into it here.
I can just skip frameworks altogether, and toss random PHP along with my HTML on a single file and make it work
Well, not with an MVC framework (even in PHP). You're going to at least have a model, a view, and a controller. Those are a bit of a minimum, so I'm not really sure what you're looking for here; it's an apples and oranges comparison.
After that, there's going to be a few other files that you will probably need; such as configuration for the routing, etc. This is fairly standard and comparable to PHP MVC frameworks.
If you want a "single page" model, you could try WebForms, although that technology typically tries to move logic into a separate "code behind" page. I'm pretty sure you could skip the latter, however, and have .aspx files logically identical to .php files sitting there.
Do I really need to create a whole bloat of files and folders...
The default VS project template does tend to copy a lot of potentially unnecessary stuff (scripts, etc), but you could remove most of those. Again, you will probably have a minimum number of things there. Do these really cause you major worry? Have you seen what a Symfony installation looks like?
... for the sake of convention?
Convention is a great thing. The concept is called "convention over configuration", and for most non-trivial projects, it is wonderful thing. It stops people from reinventing things, and gives standards that should be followed.
Since you mention this is a learning exercise, I would suggest that you stop worrying about these things too much. ASP.Net MVC is very much about convention, and you are doing yourself a disservice by trying to work around those. In fact, to learn MVC, you should learn the conventions as much as any of the internals.
Best Answer
No.
What pattern you use always depends on the task your program/script has to perform. Just yesterday I had to solve this:
I know one could argue that a nice reusable MVC solution would be cleaner, but I choose a 20 lines of sequential code. Why? It is fast. It is small. And every minute I spend on this is a minute I can not use on my main project.
(let the hate begin!)