Topic: Does a Game Have to Have Fun Gameplay?

This is a strange topic, but I thought about it for a while and I came up with what I think is a good example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_rose

Rule of Rose. The cinematics beautiful, the music was amazing (done by a string quartet if I remember correctly), the story was really unconventional, controversial (dealing with mental illness and inplications of underage lesbianism), and the art style was unique.

The storyline basically deals with a group of young girls who form their own hierarchical society

Just watch the opening to see what I mean.

Now, just based on that, the game could be compared to small indie films that have flaws but make them an experience that some people might find engrossing, I know I did. The main problem, and one that is a common complaint with the game with both consumers and critic, is that the actual gameplay is atrocious. Battles are tedious, most of the time playing is spent on fetch quests, and it can be hard just to get through certain sections. I'm not saying the entire experience between cutscenes is a waste; level designs were really creative in my opinion, and (part of the story that I won't go into since there are some spoilers) the constantly changing environments make for some variety. Other than a few boss battles, the monster design is rather boring too.

So, and this could be one of the many reasons Rule of Rose has pretty much faded away, is this a dealbreaker? I personally think no. Did this game HAVE to have fun gameplay for it to be worth playing? For me, it wasn't, as many elements of the game made me want to push through a lot of the filler and crap to get to the parts that made me glad I went though it all.

Would Rule of Rose have made a better book or manga, or possibly an art film? Probably. I do think that game creators SHOULD have a goal to make a game fun AND artistic with a good story, but in the case of this game, it not being fun didn't keep me from enjoying it. I just wish that more time had been spent on certain aspects of the game to make it an even better experience.

So, actually, to answer the original question, I say yes, a game must be fun, even in the smaller, artsy games. But in much the same way that a film like Melancholia or Synecdoche New York (two films I personally love that do have their flaws), games like this can be enjoyed on their merits, even if they could be considered niche games, not matter what their flaws. The lack of fun is a definite flaw, and should be avoided, but games that miss their mark on that shouldn't all be ignored.

To be honest, a boring/bad game with a potentially interesting setting could be saved via the interactivity alone. I mean yeah, the main gameplay might suck, but being able to wander aimlessly around a fascinating but unfinished landscape can be quite fun in itself. See all the people messing around with such horrors as Big Rigs or what not.

No. I thought that Snatcher was a great game and the majority of its gameplay consisted of picking an option on a menu.