I would have replied on your wall, but your profile is private. So here it goes for the last time.

When you go on a roller coaster to get rid of your fear of roller costers and you don't actually enjoy the process, they you don't have fun. If you get off and say "boy that was scary, let's do it again!", then you clearly had fun (in other words, that has nothing to do with what I was talking about). When you play a game because your friends play it and you want to prove something to them, you don't have fun. I played COD several times and hated it every time. We do things for an incredible number of reasons and fun is usually one of them. But not always. I'm not limiting its use. You make it out to be something it's not.

With Bloodborne like I said I see it as a challenge. It's mostly frustration, but since I started something I want to see if it's any good and I don't like not beating games. Not taking the bus and walking 15 miles in uncomfortable shoes can be a challenge. It doesn't make it fun. Not during or after it happens. Also, you assume that with a challenge you end up succeeding. That's not always the case. You can play Bloodborne for 5 hours, lose again and again and then go to bed without having beat the boss. That's not fun. Same with caring x item from x point to x. If you fail, you feel tired and frustrated and at no point did you have fun.

Playing The Walking Dead or The Wolf Among Us reminds me of how shitty this world is and how humans tend to behave. That's not fun. Unless you have fun when you go to funerals or read an article about children in Africa. You don't do it for educational reasons. You already know how shitty things are. That's neither fun or in any way enjoyable (for me. I'm aware that others have fun playing The Walking Dead). I have fun playing most games. Not all of them. Simple as that. 

Like I said, call it whaterer you want. I won't stop you. But don't speak for others.

Hmmmm.... I must have misclicked and ended up in the "Are games played for fun?" thread. My bad...

Notice how with the bolded the games are connotated as bad  when they are not fun and good when they are fun. Which highlights the point that how good a game is - is directly proportional with how much fun it is. No game - no matter how good its graphics are - can be good without inducing enjoyment for the player. That is the point of the activity of "gameplaying" or any recreational activity for that matter.  

If somebody had that bolded experience with Bloodborne, either they feel that they have learned a few things and can beat the boss in the future (in which case they got something from it), or they will find the game too hard for them and stop playing (hence people play the game solely if they can gain enjoyment out of it.)

I wouldn't really compare playing The Walking Dead with going to a funeral, one is a recreational activity, the other is a rite/duty for saying goodbye to a dead person.  Much like how fright/being scared elicits "fun" so can a well-thought out drama give somebody a thought-experiment which induces enjoyment - yes even if it is sad or angering - people watch these things because they gain pleasure from doing so. 

But overall, your post kind of ensures the point that what makes a game enjoyable is how much fun it is. You used negative terminology to refer to games that you perceive as not inducing enjoyment to you (Call of Duty) and neutral/positive ones otherwise. 

It would be technically impossible to port to console, as it would fail certification.

Well deserved!

My personal review (quick):
Battle System: 10, this is the paper mario esque turnbase that I love, but it goes beyond its own conventions in many places
Gameplay: 10
Music: 10
GFX: 10
SFX: 10
Story: 10
Dogs: 10
Replayability: 10
Guns: 10 (Get the gun its great)
Characters: 10
10: 10
: 10