Again, you'd be a lot more persuasive if you were able to frame this argument without viewing videogames through the lens of another medium. There's no reason why they should be trying to be more like cinema, or literature. That's the opposite of the artistc integrity you claim to want.

Video games should develop their own strengths instead of trying to contort themselves into something they're not. They're interactive - when you lose the interactivity, you've lost what makes them unique, and you probably shouldn't have bothered with the form in the first place.

And I think you have a rather simplistic and rigid view of human emotional complexity. You cite works of art that inspire negative emotions in the viewer, but it's a mistake to think that you can't feel bad about something and enjoy it at the same time. Requiem for a Dream is one hell of a downer, but it's simultaneously very enjoyable, for me at least. Emotions can coexist. The idea that serious art can't also be enjoyable is pretty shallow criticism.

 Fun is a broader concept than you seem to think. Competition can't be fun? Fun can't be relaxing? That's bizarre.

I, in all honesty, believe that games should be fun first. Moments like that should only be "supplements" to the experience and not the "main course."  "Casuals" don't want to see scene after drama-filled (though not all scenes are dramatic) scene, they want a game they can play right away for the whole time and not watch scenes that delay the gameplay.  This is just my opinion but games should be games that are played for fun and not extensive stories that has gameplay here and there.

You can't have fun while being competitive, or relaxing, or being rewarded? I play games to do all of those things but if it isn't fun then those other aspects don't really matter.

Edit: Desroko beat me to it.

You can relax by laying down on a soft couch.  You can compete with friends via sports.  You can engross yourself in a new world via reading a book.  All the things you use games can be done well if not better with these methods.  You can have fun doing other things but shouldn't games be games?

RFAD is a downer and while you may find it enjoyable it does the opposite of what video games are seen to exist for. It throws you into an even darker reality than you are already living in while games are seen as a medium to help you escape from reality. That is one major perpective flaw that the industry has set in stone to follow in game design as it simply avoids diving into the realities, shadows and complexities of our existence and instead does the best to make you forget about them. To make you complacent in a virtual world rather than using the tools of interactive media to inspire you think about the things you're trying to avoid.

Wanting a good story doesn't mean I want a movie or a book. A story can be told interactively using the strength of the medium yet not sacrificing  any of the dialogue or detail that gives movies or books meaning. That said, story and dialogue are not a necessity in visual interactive media. You can create art and give meaning visually,  through actions or game design. Game designers of today however are a generation that is only interested in creating "bigger, better and more badass" rather than anything perhaps not inherently visually satisfying but rather deeply relevant, symbolic or meaningful.

I'm not

@ LNRT, Desroko and SmokedHostage

The idea of "fun" that exudes from the nintendo forums seems to be people smiling and laughing which they seem to think originates from playing mario spinoffs and wii sports. However, I don't play games primarily to laugh and clap with my family. I play certain games online and offline with friends and most games alone in my own privacy. With that said, I had my highest number of laughs from playing Grandia II even though that's not the experience I bought the game for.

Everyone is entitled to have their own use for a medium. Its illogical to impose the idea that games must be "fun" on others. Games can be a sweet frustration like the original NG was to me and be enjoyable. Books can also solely be read to gain more vocabulary rather than engrossing oneself in a new world. Its all up to the user to decide his/her use for the medium.

When I say fun that is what I mean. Fun is enjoyment.

If "enjoyable" is really what we are all getting at, why do wii owners keep pummeling the HD crowd about how their games are more "fun"? They sure made it sound like that meant "family fun", "everybody can play"-type stuff. With my arguement, if fun = enjoyable, then fun is up to the person playing and not a label to be grossly generalized on any piece of software because some people may not find it enjoyable/fun.