You have the right to your own opinion. But sadly, I think it's a little misguided. The point is to be entertained. Fun and entertained aren't the same thing, but because the gaming industry think it's one and the same it's really hindered it for quite a long time.
Seriously, why do we need to pack "fun" into every title we push out? Do you need fun in every single movie? Or a book? They can get away with a fun moment or two yeah, but overall they rely on more than just fun to engage the audience. Why can't games do that? A good example of something that wasn't really about fun was Spec Ops: The Line. The gameplay isn't something to right home about, and it's not even in there to be fun, just sort of take you from one place or the other while giving you this sort of uneasy feeling, going even deeper showing it's a mockery of the fun people have with a lot of the other shooter games. It's a total mindfuck to the audience, and it's engaging as hell. But you're not going to set down that controller and say "Damn, that was fun". At least not in the way general video game developers would normally describe fun.
There's nothing wrong with a game being fun, god forbid. But it's been too much of an anchor for the medium to try and put it in every single game and not explore beyond the fun factor. Probably the issue here is that we have different definitions of fun.
"Cogito, ergo es eggo." A.K.A. "I think, therefore you are a waffle."