"Fun" is a good point.
For me, "Borederlands" was FUN. Diablo-2.
Neither make a ton of sense, but they are FUN.
Fun to me, in that sense, is like popcorn or candy, it's great but i need something more substantial -
after a little while i want more out of a game than that kind of "fun" -
but what that is could vary as much from player to player as my idea of a better game does from ( clearly ) what most people think.
For example, I have more overall enjoyemnt with "Xcom apocalypse" than with modern games with graphics so much better the old barely can be seen as a game.
My idea of fun is Ufo: AFtershock, but clearly going after the 6 or seven people who like games like that and cosnider them FUN ( in the greater sense ) just isn't "Triple A".
Edit: I think "Fun" is well behind "will sell", just like " makes sense" fell behind "will sell" for movies and trailers. Only the most rabid geeks make games that are what they consider fun rather than what the manangers told them the focus groups told them, people want to see in game