I'm well aware of that. I found it particularly helpful to define the term because it brought out the reasons we enjoy the franchise to begin with (ie the reasons you listed). Those reasons beg the question again - is the main game something that needs to be challenging? Why is everyone focused on the definition and not the question it asks? If challenge isn't part of how we define our experience with Pokémon then why do we want it to be difficult? If we take my definition seriously then we can agree that the 'game' aspect of the series happens in battles against one another, which is plenty challenging and incorporates all of the elements you listed. We can also see the main adventure portion as a stepping stone to the competition part of the game. If we look at it from the other definitions people brought up, those that do not include competition and challenge, well, they don't include challenge so either way the game succeeds without challenge being integral to its success.
I honestly hope no one thinks I don't consider Pokémon a game. I feel you guys are misunderstanding what I'm doing here.
Apart from being a very bad argument (there is a lot I could pick apart within that first statement) all I really have to say regarding this is that if you think it's a stupid discussion don't participate. I don't think those of who have necessarily think it is (see quote below) even if they think my argument is bad. Done!
I don't really understand what you mean with the last sentence that refers to my post, but I'd just like to reassure you that I don't think I'm misunderstanding you, and I'm well aware of the fact that you do consider Pokémon to be a game (otherwise you wouldn't be here on Smogon in the first place :b).
It's hard to explain the effect your initial post had on me, the one that sparked the discussion, but I will try to do it anyway. Contrast is very important, because it makes us more aware of who we are and what we want, think or do. Thanks to this contrast, even if it is hypothetical, we can create these new personal definitions for what gaming means to us, and become more aware in general. What your post did, is give me a feeling of contrast, even though I knew it was just theoretical. That way I was inspired to learn more about what gaming means to me personally, and how I could try to apply that a universal/more objective definition.
The lack of challenge in Pokémon games does not bother me at all, and I actually only enjoy the games more now that I have quit playing competitively (but still love Smogon because of the substance and level of discussions and communication etc.). Obviously, that means that I play Pokemon for different reasons from challenge, but still consider it and treat it like a game. It's not that I'm not unfamiliar with competitiveness or challenges either, and I can appreciate them all the same.
Before I become obsessed with Pokemon (once I started playing Pokemon 5 years ago, I never really got around to playing other video games anymore), I actually played a variety of different games and genres, one of which was Demon's Souls, a game (or franchise if you count Dark Souls as part of the same line) notorious for being challenging. I loved that game intensively and even picked up the competitive aspect of it for a while. Yet I have never played a game or had a reason for playing (the challenge) so very different from Pokemon and why I am playing these games now. There are lots of different reasons for playing a game, and I feel the challenge part is just one reason for it, and not required for me to perceive it as a game.
I personally wasn't satisfied with OD's definitions, so I made my own. After all I agree, words and definitions change. Language is fluid, and it evolves continuously. If something doesn't exist the way you feel it should, you can create your own version of it. So I did, I created my own definition in my last post in this thread. For me gaming is
an interactive activity that one engages in for amusement. So now I'm pretty content about how I feel about gaming. My perception has cleared up, and that's why I liked this discussion.
