The argument is that the concept of "cool" and "coolness" is based around trends in a given group/culture, whether it be fashion, games, food, music, etc. The concept of "fun" is something more objective because it is a simpler more common denominator within any given group.
The classic example I'd like to use is Mario Vs. Sonic. We all know the arguments, history, debates, etc. So trying to sip most of it, Mario is clearly less edgy, more rounded in design, and happy-go-lucky, whereas Sonic is edgy, aerodynamic in design, and generally rebellious and mature. When people wonder why one is still popular and the other one is constantly struggling to remain relevant, I find this dichotomy of cool-vs-fun a significant nugget of closure.
What is edgy changes and we all know this. Fashion that was once cool is considered lame as hell when looking at old photos and commercials. Music that once sounded edgy sounds like it is only for old people. And on and on. However, because the concept of fun has never and will never predicate itself upon being for a specific audience of people, I feel it has a lasting appeal due to being more inclusive.
-
Yes, this has a pretentious feel to it mainly, imo, because I don't have enough examples to support myself, though I gave a few only in some instances. But that's why I'm throwing it out here and trying to use a well-known example to make my case (Mario/Sonic). So, does this seem to jive with you? Why and why not? Is there even such a thing as cool vs. fun in the realm of entertainment?
