Have you taken any computerized test and not enjoyed it? If so, then you have played a non-fun game, but not stopped because of it not being fun. To me, the social aspect of videogames is talking to other people about them, not actually playing with other people.

Sex, drugs and rock n roll are fun. I very much enjoy those.

Games are a good way to getaway from the reality and spend some time "away from this world".

(It's a video game reference, just FYI)

First things first: have you ever heard of something called "apples and oranges"?
I'll give you a hint: both are fruits, but that doesn't mean both are the same.

As was obvious for all (well: obviously not for all) here, I was talking about playing video games - I was not talking about taking some computerized tests.

So, your opening question as an attempt to counter my comment's content, is already totally misdirected from the get-go.

Also - let me tip my hat for the nonchalance with which you re-define a "non-game" (aka: a computerized test) into a "non-fun game" (that would be an actual game(!) which just is no fun to play).
Bravo,...braavo...well done! slow clap

And, finally...to answer your question:
No, I haven't taken computerized tests - that is, if we don't count online quizzes as such.

In case we do count online quizzes as computerized tests, then I absolutely did stop some of those - simply because I didn't enjoy (= I didn't have fun) doing them.

Why I didn't enjoy them has various reasons:
dumb questions, even dumber answers supposed to be given to the questions, unintuitive control scheme on the quiz's page, too much advertising on the quiz's page, loading times too long between two questions, etc.

I hope that answers your question?

A short recap: computerized tests (fun, or non-fun) are no video games (fun, or non-fun), and are therefore irrelevant in a discussion about fun in video games.

Maybe your definition of fun is different, but too me games the The Cat Lady, This War of Mine or Papers Please are not "fun". I have an #downer tag in my library for a reason ;-)

Games - due to their playful nature - do have the potential to be more fun than other media. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are - some of them have a different focus. Some games (like some scenes in What Remains of Edith Finch even manage to combine fun and sadness (see https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoodDissonance *).




*obligatory warning: TV Tropes will eat all of your time and destroy your work and social environment.

Videogame are not real. Virtual (fake) challenge, fake success, fake world with fake interesting story, fake companionship. So "fun" is not real too. It is deception of my own brain.

This is absolutely true. I once read an article by Shamus Young (or was it Jonathan Grey Carter?) on TheEscapist that among other things talked about this assumption that games have to be fun, and how it depends on what feelings the story is supposed to bring to the player. Unfortunately I can't find the article or I would drop a link.

Another example I can add to your list is To The Moon. Of course the gameplay tasks are somewhat enjoyable, but that game makes grown men cry. "Fun" definitely takes a backseat to "sad".

What are you doing here, then? ;-)

This, along with any fan wikis & the SCP projects.

(Reddit/the chans will also eat a ton of your time if you're into ranting on various topics for hours on end or into the sh*t posted...WARNING: Such sites will also stigmatize you to others, so discretion when admitting your use of such to others is recommended.)