Unpopular opinions

Honestly... if you're disappointed with Pokémon's difficulty, I think you should just play another game. There's a ton of great RPGs on Nintendo consoles which are far more difficult - fairly! - that all deserve a look like Xenoblade, Bravely Default, even some classics on the virtual console like Golden Sun etc. One of Pokémon's strengths imo is it's simplicity and accessibility; it's a game I play to kick back and have a fun easy time with like Kirby's Epic Yarn rather than a game I think I will ever get any kind of difficulty out of.
 
Honestly... if you're disappointed with Pokémon's difficulty, I think you should just play another game. There's a ton of great RPGs on Nintendo consoles which are far more difficult - fairly! - that all deserve a look like Xenoblade, Bravely Default, even some classics on the virtual console like Golden Sun etc. One of Pokémon's strengths imo is it's simplicity and accessibility; it's a game I play to kick back and have a fun easy time with like Kirby's Epic Yarn rather than a game I think I will ever get any kind of difficulty out of.
I wouldn't call bravely default hard, just time consuming and grindy on most of it. Once you unlock some classes it just becomes a rhythm game by abusing the AI and how damage interacts. Well most rpg fall in the designer trap that either high hp, sequential action to inflict damage to the boss or ohko moves are a way of making a game hard, yet they only make them tedious.

Look at games in the West for examples of true difficulty in the likes or Baldur or NWN with the Aurora engine generator that put serious stress on party formation and single player choices while not making it impossible to defeat for all the classes.
 
I wouldn't call bravely default hard, just time consuming and grindy on most of it. Once you unlock some classes it just becomes a rhythm game by abusing the AI and how damage interacts. Well most rpg fall in the designer trap that either high hp, sequential action to inflict damage to the boss or ohko moves are a way of making a game hard, yet they only make them tedious.

Look at games in the West for examples of true difficulty in the likes or Baldur or NWN with the Aurora engine generator that put serious stress on party formation and single player choices while not making it impossible to defeat for all the classes.
The point was that there are a ton of harder RPGs out there than Pokémon if you're looking for a challenge; don't get caught up on examples I just spun off at the top of my head.
 
Really, if you want the games to be harder (but without the faff of Nuzlocke rules or other limiting challenges), I think I've found a solution: Train two teams.

Yes, really. After the first Gym leader (or other major milestone battle), box your entire team and catch a new one. After the second Gym, box the second team and withdraw the first one. Keep alternating teams as you go. I've been playing through X like this, and it's fun as heck. You'll be underlevelled almost all the time. You're constantly facing Pokémon at a higher level than yours, even wild ones, and big battles require some planning. You'll lose to random trainers, and have to improve your team and try again. It's totally fair to turn on the Exp. Share, train your Pokémon in Amie, and abuse TMs and hold items to your heart's content. Those things give you a great (and boring?) advantage in normal playthroughs; here you can hardly do without them.

Meanwhile, you get a double dose of another cool aspect of Pokémon, which is seeing your Pokémon improve and evolve. They go from the "weak and struggling" stage to the "solid battler" stage as you train them, and when they've become good enough to reliably face trainers (that is, they catch up to the level curve), you box them, and the next time you use them they're back way below the curve. In the meantime, you're nurturing a different set of Pokémon through the same phase. You can go through the games as slowly as you like, making sure you find every item and battle every trainer, without fear of overlevelling.

For extra fun and immersiveness, swap your trainer's clothes as well whenever you swap teams. It feels like you're playing two games, but you progress on the same story. For that reason, I decided to dub this way of playing "the Alter ego challenge".
I might actually do that. I already have started doing this to a point, training Both a Charizard and Blaziken and a Goodra, Haxorus, and Noivern in Y, and two Metagrosses and a Latias in AS. The next logical step would be to IV breed two sets of Pokémon. Heck, I already have a backlog I have yet to train, and I'm specifically thinking of training a Ralts and Magikarp in the next version that comes out.
 
I do prefer Gen VI Exp. Share over the older model, but that's simply because the older model cut Exp earned in half and gave one half to the battler, and a half to the holder. That, I don't like - 'wasting' Exp; I prefer getting full Exp on one 'mon than 0.5 on two.
This is also why so many Pokémon LPers end up underlevelled - they're forced to use the crappy Exp. Share to level up newer, weaker members so as to not have to spend time grinding (which is the more profitable choice, and ends up with being reasonably-levelled, and thus more enjoyable).

Something I dislike about Gen VI Exp. Share: IT'S ALWAYS TURNED ON WHEN GIVEN TO YOU. Why, Game Freak, must 'Easy mode' be turned on by default? Yes, it's only a few seconds to turn it off, but it shouldn't be on in the first place if it's given around the 1st Badge. Minor complaint, but still notable in my eyes.

Oh, and as for Bravely Default? Just grind Megalixirs (using guide attached), and then throw them with Salve-Maker's 'Turn Toxic' (or something along those lines; haven't played in a while). 9999 HP damage and 999 MP drainage per Megalixir.
 

Attachments

First of all, we are not the target audience of the series. Pokemon is - and has always been - a game and a franchise aimed towards children. Not teens and adults. If you are above the age of 12, you have no valid right to ask for the games to pander to your personal interests. Regarding the difficulty, I really don't think any child would want to play through a Pokemon game that is horrifyingly difficult.
Star Wars was intended for a younger audience too and George Lucas always reminds people of that when they bring up Jar Jar Binks. It's the same thing here. Pokémon was intended for, marketed for, and sold to children. These problems arise when those children grow up and remain fans of those things they latched onto. We demand things of those franchises and I believe rightfully so. We supported them and have stuck with them so to ignore us for that reason is ultimately at their own peril.

Then we also need to remember this: Not everyone who plays Pokemon is a hardcore or competitive player. There are casual players as well and I really don't think they would appreciate a random difficulty spike in the games for no good reason. They just want to play through the games and have fun (like everyone does) but in a different way compared to hardcore or competitive players, and that needs to be respected. Thus, making the games more difficult is not a good idea.
That's a common notion that applies specifically to video games. Imagine if authors took the same stance. "This novel is too hard to read. There are too many 'big' words and abstract concepts. Let's get rid of those so the casual reader can enjoy this book." Consider this quote from Gunpei Yokoi, creator of the Gameboy:

"There’s a huge variety of console games out now, but to me, the majority of them aren’t actually “games”. The word “game” means something competitive, where you can win or you can lose. When I look at recent games, I see that quality has been declining, and what I’m seeing more and more of are games that want to give you the experience of a short story or a movie."

Now I am in the modern camp as well - coddled by games as narrative, like Chrono Trigger - but I think he's onto something that is relevant here. If you can't lose (if the game is too easy) then what's the point? The point becomes to only experience the narrative, which is not a game. A game is a challenge. You have to overcome the odds stacked against you. You have to understand the rules to be able to do that. That means the game has to teach you those rules and apply them in such a way that challenges the player to overcome them. Pokémon does not do that at any level, arguably (steamrolling the game with just your starter, which we've all done).
 
I mean, do we really have to stick to such a strict system and not consider Pokémon a 'game' from this perspective?
Like... okay, to give an example, I'm studying film as an art form right now. Visual elements, directing, camera angles, lighting; the lot. Therefore I come to have a rather strict opinion of what films I'd consider to be art. It's a very subjective line and honestly I do think that anything has the potential to be art; it depends on the person viewing it and their interpretation of the material and how it affected them. But, for the sake of my example... I wouldn't consider Marvel's The Avengers to be art in any way shape or form. It doesn't really tell us much beyond the general message; there's a lot of overused tropes; characters tend to one-liners more than any actual sense of character or complexity... it's an awful movie if I'm looking at it as art.
I don't give a shit; Avengers was fucking awesome. It's still a ton of fun to watch every once in a while because the action's so good, the one-liners are quirky and funny and I don't think I really need to give a list of reasons we loved Avengers; it's fucking Avengers.

And... I kind of apply that same way of thinking to games here. Now while what you've given is a much more objective quantifier than the subjective nature that is Art, at the end of the day I'm still applying the same logic. I'm not playing Pokémon because I think it's difficult. I'm not playing it because I get any challenge out of it. If I wanted that I'd never have picked up the damn thing - but just because it's not challenging doesn't mean I can't have fun. I love steamrolling and sweeping when I can. I love that surge and feeling of success and progress when a Pokémon evolves. I like the sense of completionism from the Pokédex. Again, it's like Kirby's Epic Yarn - it's a game I can kick back and relax with to have fun with rather than anything challenging.

So... I guess that's my unpopular opinion too. Pokémon's kind of just a fun little thing to me rather than anything important or significant.
 
Star Wars was intended for a younger audience too and George Lucas always reminds people of that when they bring up Jar Jar Binks. It's the same thing here. Pokémon was intended for, marketed for, and sold to children. These problems arise when those children grow up and remain fans of those things they latched onto. We demand things of those franchises and I believe rightfully so. We supported them and have stuck with them so to ignore us for that reason is ultimately at their own peril.
First, never let George Lucas into a discussion, especially with the statement "intended for a younger audience". This is the man who had Greedo shoot first to show children that Han was justified in killing Greedo (though I think Greedo threatening him with a blaster makes it self-defense) and then had the main character kill a bunch of children...TWICE (don't forget the Sand People incident) without any remorse whatsoever.
Second, Game Freak has supported the older crowd, but not in difficulty, but in the post game. Look at many of the changes done since Emerald:
Improve breeding mechanics
Infinite TMs
Legends with guaranteed 3 31 IVs
Ways to obtain normal Pokémon with 31 IVs (Friend Safari, DexNav)
Wi-Fi Battles
Battle Spot
PSS
Improved Exp Share combined with Hordes for easier EV training (improved in ORAS and something they admit themselves on their website!)
Super Training

Game Freak has been making it easier for more competitive players to enjoy their post game. And competitive players are the ones who tend to not find the main series game playthrough difficult.
True, Game Freak has made some mistakes (Mega Kangaskhan, Mega Rayquaza), but over all, they've been far better to us than most of us will admit.
 
That's a common notion that applies specifically to video games. Imagine if authors took the same stance. "This novel is too hard to read. There are too many 'big' words and abstract concepts. Let's get rid of those so the casual reader can enjoy this book." Consider this quote from Gunpei Yokoi, creator of the Gameboy:

"There’s a huge variety of console games out now, but to me, the majority of them aren’t actually “games”. The word “game” means something competitive, where you can win or you can lose. When I look at recent games, I see that quality has been declining, and what I’m seeing more and more of are games that want to give you the experience of a short story or a movie."

Now I am in the modern camp as well - coddled by games as narrative, like Chrono Trigger - but I think he's onto something that is relevant here. If you can't lose (if the game is too easy) then what's the point? The point becomes to only experience the narrative, which is not a game. A game is a challenge. You have to overcome the odds stacked against you. You have to understand the rules to be able to do that. That means the game has to teach you those rules and apply them in such a way that challenges the player to overcome them. Pokémon does not do that at any level, arguably (steamrolling the game with just your starter, which we've all done).
I've seen people argue that Heavy Rain isn't a game. I've seen people argue that The Stanley Parable isn't a game. Hell, I've seen people argue that Tomodachi Life isn't a game. But you're the first person to express to me the feeling that Pokemon isn't a game.

There's an Extra Credits video (can't remember what it's called) on the forms of engagement in video games, and there are a lot more than just "challenge" and "narrative", which is where you seem to be presenting a false dichotomy ("if people don't play Pokemon for the challenge, they must be playing it for the story, so why don't they just read a book?") Hasn't it occurred to you that there might be other reasons people play Pokemon (or lots of other games, for that matter)? Here are a few:

Self-expression: the Pokemon you choose to build play through the story with are meaningful choices that express your personal preferences. It gives players a feeling that it is their personal journey in a way that no non-interactive medium can.
Socialization: I wouldn't be having this discussion with you now if Pokemon didn't exist. 'Nuff said.
Abnegation: this is the word EC uses for that sense of progress you get from doing something easy but which takes a while, ie grinding. It satisfies that feeling you get when you want to get something done but don't want anything too stressful, or when you only have a few minutes for a play session and can't take on anything more substantial. There's plenty of this in Pokemon - if you want that 5-IV Latios, for example. Especially if you're replaying an old game you could argue the whole experience is abnegation.

I might edit this post if I come up with some others later, you might be able to think of some yourself.
 
Last edited:

Codraroll

Cod Mod
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Moderator
Mega Rayquaza is hardly a mistake in my eyes. That can be seen as a response to the post above, or a separate unpopular opinion.

Yes, it's stupidly overpowered. Yes, it breaks every convention and is detrimental to any metagame it's allowed in. But it's also not allowed in any serious competitive metagame, and for most intents and purposes regular Rayquaza also broken, meaning the extra advantage gained by Mega Rayquaza is negligible. They simply turned a knob to 11, and its setting was already 10.5. Rayquaza is meant to be a stupidly good "reward" Pokémon that's banned in tournaments and that'll steamroll all opposition anyway, so by making it even more steamroll-y, they hardly changed anything.

Mega Kangaskhan was a bit of a mistake, though.
 
Star Wars was intended for a younger audience too and George Lucas always reminds people of that when they bring up Jar Jar Binks. It's the same thing here. Pokémon was intended for, marketed for, and sold to children. These problems arise when those children grow up and remain fans of those things they latched onto. We demand things of those franchises and I believe rightfully so. We supported them and have stuck with them so to ignore us for that reason is ultimately at their own peril.
You have forgotten one important thing though. And that is this: every new generation creates new fans. This is very true for Pokemon, I believe all generations have created new fans (though the ones who started playing Gen 5-6 from the target audience aren't very visible on the internet... yet). Game Freak aren't stupid, they know this. Thus, only pandering to their older fans isn't going to be successful. The Pokemon fans of today aren't only those of us like me and you (or so I assume) who started playing during the first generations, but rather from all generations. The big proof of this are how loved the Hoenn games are (or were), as they were hated when they were new... just like how the Sinnoh, Unova and Kalos games recieves or have recieved large amounts of hate in more recent times.

Besides, Game Freak haven't in any way forgotten about their older fans. Nowadays, remakes happen only due to fan demand (HG/SS and OR/AS), and X/Y contained a lot of fan pandering to Kanto fans, thus they are clearly still thinking about their fans who started playing during the first three generations. Which, in my opinion, isn't that good since I prefer it when the games try to appeal newer fans to the largest degree possible (which is yet another reason why I love Gen 5 so much). Also, like Vader_the_White posted a few posts above me, the newer games have made many simple but small changes to make the games less frustrating for competitive players.

That's a common notion that applies specifically to video games. Imagine if authors took the same stance. "This novel is too hard to read. There are too many 'big' words and abstract concepts. Let's get rid of those so the casual reader can enjoy this book." Consider this quote from Gunpei Yokoi, creator of the Gameboy:

"There’s a huge variety of console games out now, but to me, the majority of them aren’t actually “games”. The word “game” means something competitive, where you can win or you can lose. When I look at recent games, I see that quality has been declining, and what I’m seeing more and more of are games that want to give you the experience of a short story or a movie."

Now I am in the modern camp as well - coddled by games as narrative, like Chrono Trigger - but I think he's onto something that is relevant here. If you can't lose (if the game is too easy) then what's the point? The point becomes to only experience the narrative, which is not a game. A game is a challenge. You have to overcome the odds stacked against you. You have to understand the rules to be able to do that. That means the game has to teach you those rules and apply them in such a way that challenges the player to overcome them. Pokémon does not do that at any level, arguably (steamrolling the game with just your starter, which we've all done).
To each their own I suppose. Like Kurona, I do personally not play Pokemon for a challenge (regarding the main story, Battle Facilities and online battling are challenging in various ways) but rather for fun. Though it is my favorite video game series and is rather imporant to me. If you play Pokemon (or video games in general) for a challenge, that's fine, but not everyone does. Besides, going through the game with just your starter can still lead to losing if you are up against a Pokemon with an advantage against yours (it did for me when I was a kid). And even so, Pokemon is about overcoming the odds, but they are just not very high for us who have played the games for many years and generations and have a lot of experience. For children and new players, it can still be difficult.

I apologize if this post is messy and unorgainized, didn't have time to write everything properly.
 
Last edited:
My thing with "kid oriented" franchises means it should have a lower skill entry threshold, not a lower difficulty ceiling. Look at something like Super Mario World. The game is extremely easy for someone young to pick up and learn how to play, but the game gets much more difficult in the later stages to ensure the player is getting better. Pokemon's trainers should feel like they're getting more difficult as you go; Gen 6 felt more like the levels were advancing to maintain rather than escalate the (rather low) level of difficulty. That more than anything is why I felt bored by the main story: it was stagnant and pretending to get harder. Even something like Kirby, which is very decidedly meant to be a kid's platformer compared to something like Mario, is consistent with how it tries to be easy (the flying and sparse enemy distribution) while still expecting its players to master those skills for collectables and the absolute end game stuff.

I don't want something that's like Atlus level hard RPG, but I do still think the game needs to present a degree of gameplay challenge to make the player feel like they're accomplishing something and getting stronger, rather than just kind of saying so by giving fancy titles to the trainers they're fighting. It felt like an accomplishment to beat Misty in RBY because of all the shit her Starmie gives your during the fight, less so than 2 shotting both of Grant's Pokemon with your starter or one of the several Ground or Fighting types you could have by that point..
 
I've seen people argue that Heavy Rain isn't a game. I've seen people argue that The Stanley Parable isn't a game. Hell, I've seen people argue that Tomodachi Life isn't a game. But you're the first person to express to me the feeling that Pokemon isn't a game.

There's an Extra Credits video (can't remember what it's called) on the forms of engagement in video games, and there are a lot more than just "challenge" and "narrative", which is where you seem to be preventing a false dichotomy ("if people don't play Pokemon for the challenge, they must be playing it for the story, so why don't they just read a book?") Hasn't it occurred to you that there might be other reasons people play Pokemon (or lots of other games, for that matter)?

Here are a few:

Self-expression: the Pokemon you choose to build play through the story with are meaningful choices that express your personal preferences. It gives players a feeling that it is their personal journey in a way that no non-interactive medium can.
Socialization: I wouldn't be having this discussion with you now if Pokemon didn't exist. 'Nuff said.
Abnegation: this is the word EC uses for that sense of progress you get from doing something easy but which takes a while, ie grinding. It satisfies that feeling you get when you want to get something done but don't want anything too stressful, or when you only have a few minutes for a play session and can't take on anything more substantial. There's plenty of this in Pokemon - if you want that 5-IV Latios, for example. Especially if you're replaying an old game you could argue the whole experience is abnegation.

I might edit this post if I come up with some others later, you might be able to think of some yourself.
I wasn't saying "so why don't they just read a book?" and playing for the narrative along with all of the other reasons you listed are valid reasons to play and pretty much why we play it. What I was saying is that the way we think about "games" has evolved overtime and Pokémon doesn't fit the previous definition of "challenge" or "problem solving" even though it has those elements through its battle system. I think we can agree that that element of the game fails even if there are other compelling reasons to play it, the socialization aspect being the most powerful I'd argue. Back to my example of books, what I doing was comparing it to how games coddle players. This can be done through a general low challenge threshold or even save points. If its too hard, NES hard, then casual players might not come back, but we don't see that anywhere else. Maybe films. Make sense? I like when you challenge me btw, these debates are fun.

I do personally not play Pokemon for a challenge (regarding the main story, Battle Facilities and online battling are challenging in various ways) but rather for fun. Though it is my favorite video game series and is rather imporant to me. If you play Pokemon (or video games in general) for a challenge, that's fine, but not everyone does.
That's getting at the heart of what I was asking - what is a 'game'? If they are what they said they are then Pokémon fails and only the competitive aspect fits. If I'm wrong, which I think I am, then how do we define them today? I wasn't doing this from the perspective that I know what they are, I hope that's clear. I play tons of 'non-games,' Pokémon being one of them. But if we aren't playing for the challenge aspect does it even need to be more challenging?
 
Last edited:
That's getting at the heart of what I was asking - what is a 'game'? If they are what they said they are then Pokémon fails and only the competitive aspect fits. If I'm wrong, which I think I am, then how do we define them today? I wasn't doing this from the perspective that I know what they are, I hope that's clear. I play tons of 'non-games,' Pokémon being one of them. But if we aren't playing for the challenge aspect does it even need to be more challenging?
Well, there is another definition of game: an organized form of play. Pokémon is that. There are rules and limits.
Also, on the definition that requires the ability to lose, not all forms of loss must be absolute, just like in life. You can lose in Pokémon, but you don't have to start over (unless you are Nuzlocking). You lose some money and you can't progress any further. Either you get stronger and work hard or you stay there. Sometimes, the defeat is in you, not on a game over screen.
Plus, a game can be amazingly hard and not have a form of absolute defeat. Look at Angry Video Game Nerd Adventures. On the easiest setting, you have infinite lives, six hits, and double strength, but the game is still merciless. I died nearly 800 times to beat that game (it keeps track).
 
It's probably off-topic to talk about this further - well, maybe, maybe not; honestly not sure - but I've never really taken the title of 'Video Game' to heart or too literally. I mean, in the beginning; that is all they were - just an electronic game. Many of them had scores and points; many were based on pre-existing real games (Pong, for example) and they couldn't even be seen as close to a serious thing. Now look at how Video Games have evolved today and you'll see many examples like Metal Gear Solid and the aforementioned Stanley Parable where they're... not really something you'd consider a Game, more an experience. I dunno; it's just something I felt important to mention - I don't think we should be taking 'game' too literally or to heart. We call them that out of habit more than anything.
 
Well, there is another definition of game: an organized form of play. Pokémon is that. There are rules and limits.
Also, on the definition that requires the ability to lose, not all forms of loss must be absolute, just like in life. You can lose in Pokémon, but you don't have to start over (unless you are Nuzlocking). You lose some money and you can't progress any further. Either you get stronger and work hard or you stay there. Sometimes, the defeat is in you, not on a game over screen.
Plus, a game can be amazingly hard and not have a form of absolute defeat. Look at Angry Video Game Nerd Adventures. On the easiest setting, you have infinite lives, six hits, and double strength, but the game is still merciless. I died nearly 800 times to beat that game (it keeps track).
I'd take your alternate definition one step further and add "in which there is a winner and a loser - an outcome." Nuzlocks don't count as that's an alteration to the rules, but I don't think you were counting them anyway. The money scenario is something that will never happen. Difficulty is not what I'm talking about either and I think your point about 'no absolute' defeat is highlighting what I mean when I say a game is something to either be won or lost, and strengthens the alternate point about save states. I find the final boss in Chrono Trigger to be extremely difficult, but I cannot lose the game because I saved right before him. Each save state creates a new micro game.

It's probably off-topic to talk about this further - well, maybe, maybe not; honestly not sure - but I've never really taken the title of 'Video Game' to heart or too literally. I mean, in the beginning; that is all they were - just an electronic game. Many of them had scores and points; many were based on pre-existing real games (Pong, for example) and they couldn't even be seen as close to a serious thing. Now look at how Video Games have evolved today and you'll see many examples like Metal Gear Solid and the aforementioned Stanley Parable where they're... not really something you'd consider a Game, more an experience. I dunno; it's just something I felt important to mention - I don't think we should be taking 'game' too literally or to heart. We call them that out of habit more than anything.
Pong is an apt example but let's look at another one, Super Mario Bros. That game has all of the elements in modern games but one thing modern games don't have - ultimate defeat. You start with 5 lives and when they're lost you're done (yes you can add more but the point still stands). Game over, start again. No modern RPG has this, nor do primitive ones for that matter. I think you're correct that the term 'video game' doesn't fully capture what they are and that's where I'm coming from and it begs the question again - does Pokémon really need to be challenging? If we aren't playing it for that reason then who cares if it isn't? Do you see where I'm coming from?
 
"What exactly is a game?"

This is very interesting. What defines a game? I was thinking and trying to come up with boundaries to define it, but in the end, there are so many different types of games, that this will be very difficult to define. There are genres, with different games being played for different reasons and purposes.

I can see where -NLMRY- is coming from, in a way. My automatic internal 'NO!' reaction when people suggest Pokemon isn't a 'game' only strengthens my feeling of wanting to know what defines a game.

----

Here, I'm going to use the Oxford Dictionaries website for reference.

Searching for 'Game', I immediately see that there are a lot of definitions for it, of which two stand out to me as relevant for this discussion:

1. A form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules
> Competitive: The activity or condition of striving to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others
Examples of the word 'Game' (1):
  • "For the most part, hockey is truly a team game in a sports world that sells individuals."
  • "Rugby enthusiasts gave up on the sport after the game was dragged in the mud."
  • "Earlier this year, the house teams competed in friendly rivalry games of cricket, football and volleyball."

2. An activity that one engages in for amusement
> Activity: A thing that a person or group does or has done
Examples of the word 'Game' (2):
  • "There will be games, amusements and activities for all the family."
  • "This club provides weekly activities, games and amusement for the youth."
  • "But few other games really engage the intellect, instead of just the reflexes."

Origin:
Old English gamen 'amusement, fun', gamenian 'play, amuse oneself', of Germanic origin.
The original meaning of game, dating back to Old English, was 'amusement, fun, or pleasure'.
Shakespeare uses it in this sense in Love's Labour's Lost: 'We have had pastimes here and pleasant game'.

----

Okay, so... I've noticed that every single example used in Definition 1 is for a competitive sport, in which you play against physical people in physical activities.

Definition 2 however is a bit too unrestricted for my liking. Does that mean watching movies or reading books are considered 'gaming' as well? I personally don't think so. But they are definitely activities, and they are definitely done for personal pleasure.

I do like that amusement itself can apply to any gaming genre or reason for picking up a video game. There are some games that you play for the challenge, but there are also lots of other games you play for the story, individuality, exploration, all the things noobcubed noted before, etc. What they have in common is that they are played as a means of amusement and/or recreation.

So how to further define it, working from amusement? I think what sets games apart from movies and books is the ability to interact with it.

Which leads me to this modification of the second Oxford Dictionaries definition:

"An interactive activity that one engages in for amusement."

But that might bring up another issue: Visual Novels.
I have personally never read/played through one, so I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but if I'm not mistaken, these are interactive digital stories in which you can choose several options as the player character and affect the course and events of the story in that way.

I have no idea whether or not this is commonly regarded as a way of gaming or not, but if it is not, and is instead regarded to be more like a book, I might have to fine-tune my personal definition of a game...
 
VN are indeed in the gaming department, there are several elements that affects them, some even have stats or rpg elements.

Some have a collector reward system for replay value in the CGI index that can be unlocked.

You could check the most widespread one in the West that is Fate Stay Nigh, just avoid stay night Saber route if you are familiar with the lore of the franchise as it is the poorly written info dump route, FSN is quite user friendly and it's narrative is a decent introduction to how the genre works. Heck heaven's feel (The third route) had a character giving a speech about the nature of evil on a yet to be born entity that was not only the culmination of the MC and antagonist development and ideologies, or at least what was left of the motive for the MC, but can be moving even out of context (my mother walked into the room and was close to tears without context), VN can offer a decent level of involvement and if properly written either a self projecting power trip(generic MC you can easily substitute yourself to yet enjoy the sdventure/perverted powertrip fantasy) or character with its own persona(that you control the options they choose, you can't project into them as they have their own motivations and ideologies or don't fit the norm[monster girl quest Luka and Shirou from fate come to mind of the most popular ones]) wich offer an unique experience.

VN genre is a beast of it's own kind.
 

Pikachu315111

Ranting & Raving!
is a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
... Does anyone else feel we're maybe getting too fastidious about what is considered a "video game"? Can't it just be an interact experience using digital media we take entertainment from be enough?

And art is subjective and can mean several things. Is Pokemon "art film" art? No. Does Pokemon have pretty and/or engaging visuals. I'd say yes to that, the Pokemon creature themselves show plenty of creative design. Does Pokemon have any meaning to it? Once again, subjective but a scalable one. I wouldn't say Pokemon change someone's life, but for those who had grown up with Pokemon they could have some emotional attachment and get comfort from the Pokemon games, media, or whatever. And the games does try to have story elements in them, both subtle (random dialogue from NPC trainers, Pokedex entries, location history/mysteries) and obvious (mainly in stopping the villain team. Though the games aren't afraid to hold back on how vicious their villains are. They're all colorful and wacky until you find out Team Rocket killed a mother Pokemon, Aqua and Magma almost caused the end of the world (and had hints of gang wars), Cyrus wanted to reset the universe to have no emotion (experimenting on Pokemon), Ghetsis (and that's all I need to say), and Lysandre was ready to commit genocide (Cyrus I think at least intended on resurrecting everyone in his new universe). FOR KIDS!).
 
... Does anyone else feel we're maybe getting too fastidious about what is considered a "video game"? Can't it just be an interact experience using digital media we take entertainment from be enough?

And art is subjective and can mean several things. Is Pokemon "art film" art? No. Does Pokemon have pretty and/or engaging visuals. I'd say yes to that, the Pokemon creature themselves show plenty of creative design. Does Pokemon have any meaning to it? Once again, subjective but a scalable one. I wouldn't say Pokemon change someone's life, but for those who had grown up with Pokemon they could have some emotional attachment and get comfort from the Pokemon games, media, or whatever. And the games does try to have story elements in them, both subtle (random dialogue from NPC trainers, Pokedex entries, location history/mysteries) and obvious (mainly in stopping the villain team. Though the games aren't afraid to hold back on how vicious their villains are. They're all colorful and wacky until you find out Team Rocket killed a mother Pokemon, Aqua and Magma almost caused the end of the world (and had hints of gang wars), Cyrus wanted to reset the universe to have no emotion (experimenting on Pokemon), Ghetsis (and that's all I need to say), and Lysandre was ready to commit genocide (Cyrus I think at least intended on resurrecting everyone in his new universe). FOR KIDS!).
I would say we're focused on the argument and not the conclusion. My argument about games being a challenge and then looking at what games are to say "does it even need to be challenging" has been largely ignored. I was trying to get to the heart of what the experience was to add to the 'these games are too easy' debate. No one has taken a stab at the final question.

The argument, I think, has been largely positive and I've read some terrific responses. What it does is bring up alternative questions and make us think about why we play them. When you answer the question "what am I getting out of this?" then you can say whether or not Pokémon needs to be challenging. From what I've read after I defined 'games' I would say the majority of responders don't want it to be more difficult as there are other reasons to play.
 
I would say we're focused on the argument and not the conclusion. My argument about games being a challenge and then looking at what games are to say "does it even need to be challenging" has been largely ignored. I was trying to get to the heart of what the experience was to add to the 'these games are too easy' debate. No one has taken a stab at the final question.
Words change their meanings all the time*. The concept of what a "video game" is has naturally shifted as the genre has developed. Nobody playing Pac-Man in a 1982 arcade could have foreseen what the video game landscape would look like in 2015.

Let's also not concern ourselves with what is and isn't a video game. All that can do is stifle the creativity of those who want to experiment with the medium.

*For example, today the word "computer" means something with a quad-core processor. In the 1970s it was something you had to program yourself from scratch. In the 1870s it was what we would now call a statistician, ie one who computed things. Does this mean that the new Samsung laptop is not a computer?
 
I increasingly find myself eschewing specific definitions for things and using Smogons usage-based approach for viability.

It's a game if it most reasonable people will agree its a game.
It's been made too easy if a large proportion of the player base complain that it is too easy and nobody is saying the opposite.
Done!

Anyway I've been trying REALLY HARD to come up with a genuinely unpopular opinion RE Pokemon, but I've been finding it tough. IDK why. Possibly I'm too reasonable, or maybe I'm just a big bandwagoner. But I think I've got one... only it might not be unpopular on Smogon. Here goes:

I REALLY LIKE STEALTH ROCKS IMPACT ON THE METAGAME


so shoot me! :P
((also I know it's wrong but omitting the apostrophe in stealth rocks looks really weird :| ))
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top