Starmaker: Sitting for two hours not doing anything had better be the most fun thing imaginable. Except it's usually not, which is why I don't watch movies.

AFnord: Forum ate my post, so here is the abridged version: Games can be engaging & interesting without being "fun". Some successful examples include: Planescape Torment (which for the most part was not "fun", with some exceptions), Spec Ops: the Line, Dear Esther. There games are entirely devoid of "fun", but neither are the most engaging books & movies, like Crime & Punishment or The Godfather, but "fun" is not the main thing in those, much like the above mentioned games.

Gazoinks: ^This. I haven't had a chance to watch the whole thing yet, but there's a fundamental difference between a game and a movie, which is that a game is an active experience, whereas a movie is passive. A movie doesn't have to be "fun", because you're not doing anything, but you need to eke some enjoyment out of a game or it's not worthwhile, just like any other activity. And besides, even depressing movies and such are entertaining. The main misnomer here, in my opinion, is that of "light-hearted fun", as if it's impossible for a "serious work of art" to be fun. But fun doesn't have to be light-hearted. For example, I find Dark Souls really fun, but it's certainly not light-hearted. And even games that you wouldn't necessarily ascribe the description of "fun" to (Amnesia, for example) still are enjoyable, just like any other media. What's the point if you don't enjoy it? I'm a strong proponent of games as a legitimate media, but saying that you a serious game can't be fun is trying to make games what they aren't.

Elmofongo: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/beyond-fun

orcishgamer: I haven't watched this episode yet, but does Spec Ops: The Line qualify? I'm not sure I could call very much of that game fun, somewhat satisfying at times, mostly horrifying, though.

jefequeso: This is just another example of something I've been noticing lately: half the terms we use are actually ambiguous as hell once you start to break them down.

PenutBrittle: Haven't watched the episode, but that's a stupid statement. There are so many games that go beyond fun. Whether it's with emotional low-points like deaths, deep melancholic storylines, horror elements or just unenjoyable but still fascinating game mechanics. I did not have fun playing Spec Ops: The Line, but I did enjoy it because it went beyond dumb fun. Playing the Walking Dead exhausts me and isn't fun at all, but I need to see how the characters keep surviving. I would say Planescape is not a fun game to play, but the story is so well written that it engrosses you. There are hundreds of more examples. If you think games can't go beyond fun, play better games.

rampancy: But there's some degree of subjectivity in that, isn't there? Dear Esther and PS:T are excellent examples of that; some people think it's the greatest thing in gaming since sliced bread; others would barely even consider it to be a "game" at all. Likewise, I know a lot of people (including me) who'd classify reading stuff like Dostoevsky as being fun.

Telika: Come on, it's just that developers make their games too much fun therefore not enough fun because too much fun and that's no fun.