Avinash and others like you need to grow up. Nobody says that fun games cant and shouldnt exist, however there is a legitimate argument that other types of games should exist, that similarly to Shindlers list may be enjoyable in depth of emotional and intellectual content but not necessarily fun. Whats wrong with that?

Which is why I believe video games should no longer be the blanket term of this industry. Interactive arts or even interactive entertainment should be what we call our hobby. The word "Games" make the potential of this industry seem much smaller than it really is.

Because video games aren't movies, movies you can sit and watch, games by definition are interactive, and you have to control, if its not fun, then its not going to be good

Basically what Avinash said above. Also keep in mind what different games people have fun playing. We are never all going to agree this game or that game is fun or art for that matter.

I agree with gamasutra writer to an extent.  

You go up to 10 people on the street and ask them what fun is and you'll get 10 different answers.  Many people have their own ideas of what's fun and in many cases things which are fun for one person are not such for another.  With so many different people with so many different ideas of what is fun, the word becomes hollow since you never know exactly what context the audience is going to interpret it in.

Engaging doesn't have such a strong connotation which does make it much easier to discuss across audiences.  However, it's still in the same position as fun when you get down to it.  It's still subjective and you're still never going to be dealing with the exact same connotation in the minds of your audience.  At the same time, it's not fun.  It is possible for something to be engaging without being fun.   Anything that is worrisome is automatically engaging but I doubt worrying about making rent this month is going to be much fun.

So the article writer is right, we shouldn't use the word fun as much as we do because it's still very subjective.  However he's wrong in suggesting that engaging is a better alternative.  Meanwhile Malstrom is crusading off in a random direction of his choosing much like the original Dudley Do-Right.

A game is a form of entertainment with defined rules and goals. What this guy is talking about isn't games but instead forms of social commentary and social art. It's not that games can't have social commentary; World Ends with You was an excellent case of this. It's just that even TWEWY first and foremost a game. Once a game stops becoming fun it leaves the realm of being a game. Instead the term of Software Entertainment is more appropriate. From everything I can tell it's time for the console side of the industry to finally finish up with it's awkward teen years and finally become an adult. I suppose that will only happen once the gamers that are mature are in the industry.

Once I managed to install them and configured peripherals, if necessary, I even manage to have fun with PC games... Yep, I am so strange!
This said, even if I think that Malstrom every now and then is right, and he definitely is when he bashes this subset of hardcore gamers, he isn't righ a t all in general on this issue, a lot of hardcore gamers enjoy their games and have fun from them, but even more are hardcore only with some games and casual with others. And Wii didn't disrupt hardcore gaming, sorry Malstrom, Wii added a new way of gaming that can even add something new to hardcore gamers habits without negating their old loves, the only threat to hardcore games are lobotomized versions of classic hardcore titles, like the sequel to Deus Ex.

To have fun in games is no less than essential, but I still flush down the toilet any game failing to provide a satisfactory storyline and making sense within it's own terms.

Killzone2 - Serious Business

I understand where the Gamasutra writer is coming from, but I don't agree with him on his usage of the word engaging.

I just don't understand his assertion that Mario Kart and Wii Sports Resort are not engaging. Of all the games I have played this generation, Mario Kart Wii comes out near the top in terms of engagement. MK Wii was more engaging than games like Okami, Halo 3, Gears of War, Gears of War 2, and most of my Wii library for that matter.

I've never played Wii Sports Resort, but if it's anything like Wii Sports, then that game is also going to be a very engaging experience.

I have to agree with Malstrom's assessment of Brain Age, Nintendogs, Wii Sports, Wii Sports Resort, Wii Fit, and Animal Crossing. These are all games that owe their success to the fact that they are engaging experiences.  I think the sales numbers of these games show that.

The Gamasutra writer should not be complaining that Nintendo games are not engaging, he should be trying to figure out what makes Nintendo's games so much more engaging than most other developers' products.

Alby_da_Wolf said: Once I managed to install them and configured peripherals, if necessary, I even manage to have fun with PC games... Yep, I am so strange! This said, even if I think that Malstrom every now and then is right, and he definitely is when he bashes this subset of hardcore gamers, he isn't righ a t all in general on this issue, a lot of hardcore gamers enjoy their games and have fun from them, but even more are hardcore only with some games and casual with others. And Wii didn't disrupt hardcore gaming, sorry Malstrom, Wii added a new way of gaming that can even add something new to hardcore gamers habits without negating their old loves, the only threat to hardcore games are lobotomized versions of classic hardcore titles, like the sequel to Deus Ex.

Malstrom is not saying that "hardcore" games can't be fun.  He is saying that "hardcore" gamers who think that games shouldn't be fun are nuts.