The pink elephant thought experiment makes sense to me. I can appreciate that the concept is shared in both cases, but presenting it as a challenge frames it in a way that invites consideration and analysis once the challenge has been failed. It's often further explored with other thought experiments or contextualized with an application of the futility of the concept. This framing gives you space to ponder the self referential nature of the single sentence instruction.

I think my hang up is solely that this is presented as a game, but doesn't fit any definition of a game aside from the fact that there's a method to lose. Also, since it's ongoing, attempting to prevent further losses actively bars you from putting in effort to analyze anything beyond the surface level immediate understanding of the paradox.