I generally agree with "Fun is King" about a lot of games (including most of the ones that I play), as well as the sentiment that all those extra systems things won't actually make a game fun by themselves. But sometimes a video game isn't *supposed* to be fun. Sometimes you want your game to be moody and atmospheric, or scary and tense, or somber and contemplative. Or even intentionally frustrating. And that means you have to put the player through things that just *aren't* fun, but do add up to make for a more compelling experience. Among other Reggie Fils-Aime's quotes, I regularly think about "If it's not fun, why bother?" First, because it pretty succinctly describes Nintendo's design philosophy (and Nintendo or Nintendo-related developers have made most of my favorite games ever). But second, because it's a sentiment that I think is a little reductive when applied to the medium as a whole. Don't get me wrong, fun games should be fun ("eloquently putted, Kenechukwu."). This isn't me saying fun is less artful than angst--that's a sentiment that I personally find really tiring. But video games don't have to be *only* fun. Being "not fun" doesn't have to mean "not engaging or compelling."
Fun is King. If the game isn't super fun at its core, no amount of live ops features, content, or monetization tactics will save it.