I don’t think I agree with the idea that qualities such as “edifying”, “healing”, “pro-social”, or even “enlightening” are alternatives to “fun”.
Take, for instance, Tropico 4. It’s a simulation game where you assume the role of the Presidente of a fictional island nation during the Cold War. It plays much like a city builder (well, town builder), with bright cheery graphics, bright cheery music, and tons of humor and pop culture references. In my opinion, it’s a lot of fun. Gameplay also involves prioritizing the different needs of your citizens and the demands of different political factions. It can also get rather cynical; do you build a new hospital so that your people will live longer and be healthier and happier, or do you instead build an army base so that you can quash the protests of unhappy Tropicans? Bear in mind that if you build the hospital, there are bound to be other people who will oppose your rule for other reasons (maybe you’re not religious enough, or too much of a communist). Or you could build a mine to improve your island’s economy (at the expense of the environment, of course) and line your own pockets in the process. There’s a mission where the Fruitas corporation (a stand-in for the United Fruit Company) takes an interest in your island and starts meddling, and you need to find a way to stand up to them without them getting the U.S. to overthrow you. Plenty of the humor makes fun of the flimsy logic used by dictatorships (“El Presidente was the only one who really wanted elections, so he was the only one who got to vote.”) or satirizes the Cold War powers.
I think that it’s fair to say that the game is edifying, even enlightening, to many players. If nothing else, it can help hone the player’s planning and improvisation skills. I’ve never gotten the impression, though, that the game compromised fun in order to be edifying or enlightening.