The Pokémon Diamond and Pearl/Battle Dimension anime series is less entertaining than the video game

I. The show's variety The existence of the same characters and plot devices does not constitute a lack of variety, it simply represents a presence of continuity. How lame would it be if every episode used different plot devices? For instance, what if Jesse and James were only in a few episodes, and there was some other plot device plotting Ash's demise in the other episodes? The consistent presence of the Team Rocket Trio [Jesse, James, Meowth] only served to give the series a certain amount of character. It does not constitute a lack of variety, since the characters are not doing THE SAME EXACT THING every episode. My opponent then goes to show that since most of series have the same goal [Ash beating the Final Four], that constitutes a lack of variety. In the show House, the goal is always to cure the patient. In the Game, the goal is the exact same thing in every one. This itself does not represent a lack of variety. It would make no sense to have the goal be something completely different each time. Once again, this is continuity, not a lack of variety. Variety exists in the fact that each of the battles and each of the episodes is its own distinct work. They don't just reuse footage. Sure, the same types of things might happen most episodes, but they happen in different ways. Regardless, it's not hard to tell that the show has more variety than the videogame. The videogame is constant battles, wherein the player will often find himself fighting the same battle 5 or 6 times in a row [zubats in a cave, for example], using the same attacks with the same low quality animations. There is no modern criteria under which the pokemon animations would not be considered low quality. And seeing the same low quality animation 500 times in a game... well that's repetitive. II. Lack of variety in the games Some of what I said above, and... Wiggling sprites may be enough for children, by why should we be content with 'enough?' And why are we judging this from the perspective of children? I am 19 years old, and my opponent is 118 years old [yes, 118]. We hardly can be considered children. And we're the ones arguing about whether it's entertaining or not. It may be entertaining ENOUGH for a 9 year old, but that has no bearing on whether me, my opponenet, or the audience should see it as entertaining, let alone MORE entertaining than the show. III. Dialog in the game Oh, come now. Talking with people over Wi-Fi hardly constitutes dialog. There is no character development in talking to people over Wi-Fi. The dialog you have with other players will likely not be relevant to the in-game events, either. This point is about as relevant as me saying you can talk with a friend over the phone while watching the show. That is to say, it has nothing to do with the actual show. Needless to say, though, the dialog, the character development, the plot... they are much better in the show than in the game. The characters actually talk to each other [with voices, too], the characters actually develop some kind of depth [you end up actually caring what happens to character X, Y, or Z], and the plot is much more robust. IV. Dialog in the show My opponent accepts that the dialog in the show is good, since he failed to respond to my claims about it. V. Action in the game It's true that the battles represent an inching forth toward some goal, however, that does not change the fact that the action in the battles sucks. As far as the ACTION of the battles is concerned, it's LITERALLY, sprites wiggling back and forth and making some bars get shorter. It's very bad as far as action is considered. Sure, a person might be inching toward a goal by battling, but the same can be said of the chartacters in the show. VI. Action in the show As my opponent admits, the show has much better battle animations. It actually LOOKS like two pokemon are battling... imagine that! As far as the actual action is concerned, the show destroys the game. However, my opponent brings up an unrelated point here: characters often use the same tactics in the battles. However, characters use the same tactics over and over even MORESO in the game. If there's a pokemon of type X out, you bring out something with a type Y move that'll kill it in one or two hits. The tactics are even MORE repetitive in the game, so that cannot be a reason to vote against the show. VII. Game vs. Show in general My opponent makes the point that the game is more entertaining simply because it is a game. However, this is hugely a matter of personal preference. Even gamers today are shifting towards more casual gaming, where the story is emphasized and the actual game-playing is not. Especially RPG players, and Pokemon is certainly an RPG. Some people prefer to watch a plot unfold, some people prefer to interact with a story. My opponent claims that "when watching the show you are only watching, and not playing with/as the characters, which makes the game more entertaining." However, this is a matter of personal preference. Even so, even a game enthusiast like myself has to say that playing a bad game is worse than watching an alright show, and I've certainly shown that as far as games and shows are concerned, the Pokemon show is much better than the Pokemon game. I look forward to my opponent's closing argument.