It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The word "fun" keeps coming up in discussions on this site, often without any clear definition but used in a way that indicates that the poster's own definition of the word is universal.
It seems to me it's mostly avid themepark and MOBA fans - advocates of action-based gameplay - who use the F-word when they try to promote lobby-based, linear co-op games, as opposed to virtual worlds and sandbox MMOs.
In these posters' opinion, the former games offer more fast "fun" than the latter, but the definition of the word "fun" always seems to be taken for granted. It's almost like there's this universal law saying that combat-related gameplay is always more "fun" than community building, exploration, character development and metagames, and that anything not related to combat is tedious, boring, and a waste of time.
This is really interesting, because all games are essentially a waste of time, are they not? They are all played as an escape from real life. But they offer different escape routes, and what's to say that only one of these escape route are to be considered "fun" and valuable? Does the fact that the mass market caters to short attention spans and unceasing blood lust mean that players who prefer something else than constant combat and the "epic heroism in an over-the-top fantasy world" theme are objectively wrong and should alter their tastes?