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?

I think both cool and fun are very subjective terms because they depend on the person's experience, not the product itself. If we are to bring objectivity we must have a comparison point by which to measure. I think you can objectively say that graphics, writing and sometimes even gameplay of a game have high quality or not in comparison to the other games of their time and age. That, of course, has nothing to do with your personal taste/liking/experience of the game. I would being Uncharted 4 as a prime example as it has a smart story development, great structure and fantastic graphic design, but to many people its not that good of a game simply because its not the kind of game "they like", "they dont like cinematic moments in games" "its too easy". When you bring up your experience/taste/idea of what a game should be, then it kills any form of objective argument.

For the sake of argument then, perhaps we throw out the "fun" side of this argument. Some games try to add coolness and some don't. I think Uncharted is right up there with Sonic in trying to tap into this generation's version of cool. So forget the "fun"/objective part. Let's focus on the subjectivity of "cool."

When you look at Sonic and Uncharted you see they made attempts to be cool. And regardless of how fun they may or may not be their coolness stands out blatantly. And again, fun or not, as time goes on they will be remembered for their groundbreaking steps in the coolness factor. Sonic was aerodynamic, sharp, fast, and rebellious, and the uncharted series was dramatic, scenic, action-packed, super-real. Coolness changes and so entertainment based on a subjective element will always age badly even if it was fun - so long as the cool factor is percieved as stronger than the fun factor, which I would argue is true for the games mentioned.

Mario never tried to be cool, thus it's fun factor (which every game has) remains the dominant trait. As time goes by Mario's percieved status does not die or age quickly because it's appeal was not tied down as much to such subjective elements.

So I'm postulating that a game's perceived status is based on cool/fun. Which one is pushed more by the game-makers onto the audience?

I don't find Mario games to be very fun. How does that mesh with your theory?

In fact, I think Nintendo of old did a masterful job of making fun subjective by packing in the original Mario and thus conditioning millions of people that this should be their definition of fun.

Oh, well that's totally fine and dandy if you didn't think it was fun, and same for anyone else. But what I would be arguing is that for the people who did like it - they liked it because it was fun, not because it was cool

Everything in my "argument" or "hypohtesis" is predicated on whether you liked the games, it doesn't apply to audiences that didn't like the games. So I'm arguing likewise that even though Uncharted and Sonic have a fun factor, it was set up in such a way that it's cool factor was highlighted more than it's fun factor.

Alos, I think you're right on the conditioning Ninty did with the pack-in, but that imo constituted an entirely different conversation to be had(a good one though!)

I think that's a little too extreme, pokoko. It kind of sounds like people who like Nintendo games have been brainwashed :(

@OP: cool and fun are both subjective. The way we view games, or any other media for that matter, is based on our own experiences and priorities. No video game is objectively cool, fun, great, neat, clever, etc.

I find that fun is subjective also. I thouhgt Adventura Capitalist and Tropico 5 were super fun gamers, some people think they are stupid.
I think Wolf among us is fun, some people say it is boring...

I don't think it's very extreme because it's not really a negative.  It's just that Nintendo was in an incredible position with basically a restart in the gaming industry and they did the smart thing with regards to IP building.  People often look back at their first experience in a genre or category as the one that defines that segment forever.  People still hold up the first Resident Evil game for survival horror, for example.  Even with that said, others have been in that position and failed because of inconsistent quality.  Nintendo of old was very crafty.

Halo still defines FPS games for a large group of people.  Gran Turismo is going to sell millions more than any other racing sim because it set the standard.

I think timing and exposure are factors and everyone that comes after has to somewhat follow the template of what is popular.

Also @BraLoD

I think I presented my ideas badly in the OP. Every game has a fun factor. Some people get it, some people don't. Some people like Mario, some don't.

The argument is that some games downplay the fun factor in favor of what I'm labelling as a "cool" factor. The cool factor being a sort of generational trend that changes with time. "Coolness" in the mid-90s was Sonic, then Street Fighter, then Halo, then Uncharted, then whatever... It was all sorts of different things throughout history and that's the point.

I think games that make "cool" the dominant factor in their game are susceptible to having the game age badly since each generation defines it differently. This why I think Mario still succeeds today. It never tried to be cool, only fun - which all games are for the audiences that enjoy them.

My apologies for the OP. As a result you are missing the point. The most basic point I'm trying to get across is that while all games have a fun factor, not all games try to be cool. The premise I put forth is that being cool is subject to generational trends. It used to mean blue/spiky/aerodynamic, then it used to mean realistic/violent, then dramatic/good story, etc... It changes all the time.

Whereas if a game tries not to be cool then it can only end up being recognized for one thing, it's fun factor. Yeah, it's a not a simple theory exactly, but I explained it badly perhaps in the OP.