Please note that you were the one who started to talk aggresively
Actually, if we want to really start with who's been talking aggressively, we can start with the fact that you posted this thread to weed out the apparent n00bs of this forum while stating your opinion as fact. To be honest, while I'm blunt, I'm not attempting to insult anyone unless I feel they insult me. All you've been doing is trying to assert your own opinion as fact.
I would like to apologize if I've been coming off insulting. That's not my original intention. All I intended on doing is essentially to point out the fact that one of your original questions isn't necessarily accurate because of the way it's worded. In fact, it's actually not entirely true in any case because Digimon and Pokémon are two different franchises.
But in the end you have been doing those repetitive statements, asserting I am wrong in your intution,
The only reason why it seems repetitive is because you keep on repeating the same arguments as well, so I end up having to repeat facts I've already posted. And yes, fact. *motions to the articles I've linked to earlier*
At least I could understand that those that you described as unpopular, such as spacewar, herzog zwei, populous, dragon's lair, played an important role in influencing some games,
The way I see it is if it attempted to do something that isn't liked enough to be repeated, then it's not influential.
Yes, I've read some of the other articles. However, you're also not giving some of these titles some credit. Yes, Spacewar wasn't popular, but it was the first of its kind as well. It opened up an entire market and proved that it's possible to create video games in the first place. In a sense, though, it was also reincarnated several times throughout the years.
The other games are well-known titles (with the exception of Herzong Zwei, although if it's the game I think it is, then it's actually got a fair-sized fanbase as well). Sonic? The Sims? Space Invaders? Pong? Even One-on-One, King's Quest, and Ultima were popular back in their days. The only title there that doesn't seem to fit is E.T., though that's arguable on general gaming sites anyway. (The article itself seems to go back and forth as to whether or not it's actually influential, given how it's saying it's not actually solely responsible for the downfall of Atari anyway. So, I just WTFed there.)
Seriously, use the word famous instead of popular.
Famous = popular in the case of the gaming industry unless there's something seriously wrong, at which point, we should hope you're also not influential. (Like with E.T.) As in, if a lot of people like the game, it will be famous because word about it would spread around. If not a lot of people have heard of it, then it won't be as popular.
I thought that those information were too clear for me
The way you worded things wasn't, as stated twice, not only by me but also by another poster.
but i'm surprised at the way you're explaining, criticising not just me but the author.
Because I disagree with the both of you, and you seem to be hailing your own opinion and his as absolute fact. Or you keep on using his opinion as proof for our original argument (that question #4 isn't accurate) and nothing else.
AND I TOLD YOU NOT TO REPLY PLEASE?
Don't request in all caps and with that kind of tone. It makes me want to reply anyway.
Do you know how well these people are trained in rating games?
Yes, but that doesn't mean one person's opinion is absolute fact. If you want to talk about facts, you'll have to look up multiple articles and try to figure out where people are coming from.
As it stands, knowing about games is one thing, but the author of these articles is mostly stating fact. Yes, I'm looking over the articles, and really, he's opinionated and snarky in some cases, and I'll have to disagree with some of his choices. (E.T. being the most notable case. Or, at least, his reasoning for stating why it's influential.)
And that still doesn't change the fact that you were trying to use one sentence in all of these articles to state a fact about an entirely different argument.
and what's more is that they work in a group.
This depends on the company. Usually, there's only one author of an article for obvious reasons. There might be an editor, but really, no one knows the content of the article better than the original author.
I would only debate on topics with people who argue gracefully,
I tried to start out gracefully. It only devolved because of your lack of support for your argument (i.e., one article does not a fully supported argument make), failure to fully support your claims (i.e., When you argued, you only spent a sentence detailing your thought process.), and tendency to not only state your opinions as fact but also insult your opposition.
So, to get back on topic, please provide more evidence as to why you think Digimon's a copy of Pokémon, given that that's what you originally stated.
It's only useless because you're being rather stubborn here. =/
It's also fairly rude to attempt to speak to the opposition in a foreign language because it makes them think you're attempting to insult their intelligence.
