6 questions related to Pokemon--

[Sonido]

Since this in pokemon general section, I would just like to know whether people really are knowledgable about pokemon before posting anything on the forums. I hate it when i see lots of terrible, misleading and horrendous information on the forums. Such as one of the previous post which states that digimon came out before pokemon, totally incorrect. Gosh, does anyone read news?

In addition, I can get a peace of mind by reading those really encouraging ones.

I guess I can agree with you in that sense of mind but you have to know that a lot of people in this forum are very knowledgeable when it comes to Pokemon, hence this forum's popularity.

 

[Legobricks]

Depends on what you mean by "oldest." In terms of mythology, science, or who was created first for the games?

Who was first created for the games can be immediately ruled out since the question states "in the Pokemon world".

 

[xiraiya]

1. Do you check out pokemon wikis, such as bulbapedia and wikipedia, before posting anything related to pokemon information?
I've gotten some slightly incorrect info from bulbapedia in the past so I usually double or (If nothing is concrete) even triple check whatever it is I am trying to find out about.

2. Do you know about the history of the pokemon world?
Yes, I could care less since the Anime has always sucked, I prefer the Manga (Pokemon Special) as it is 10 time better.

3. Do you play the pokemon games for the sake of the entertainment and do not know anything about it, e.g what pokemon are?
I'm pretty sure they're on that show where the song goes "Digimon Digital monsters da da da"
Seriously though, I feel like you came to a pretty big pokemon forum and assumed everyone is retarded for one reason or another.

4. Do you know that digimon copied the concept of pokemon?
Do you know I do not care, actually someone posted the correct answer to this further above, digimon doesn't have Pikachu, enough said...

5. Who do you think is the oldest pokemon (nothing pertaining to first drawn) in the pokemon's story?
Mew obviously, or even Arceus, hell it might be Magikarp next if Gamefreak feel like it.

6. Why do you like pokemon?
I don't really, not anymore, I do like the games because RPG's are fun and pretty easy to play haha, the concept is just good and addictive.

 

[JX Valentine]

I hate it when i see lots of terrible, misleading and horrendous information on the forums. Such as one of the previous post which states that digimon came out before pokemon, totally incorrect.

While it's true Digimon came about a year or so later (not in 1999, as was previously stated, but in 1997), the argument we had about who was based on what was still misinformation.

Which is to say, it's great that you're looking for people who know anything about Pokémon, but you may want to be careful about your own information. I don't mean to say that bitingly, exactly. I'm just saying that it's not a good idea to post something like that without proper evidence.

Who was first created for the games can be immediately ruled out since the question states "in the Pokemon world".

This is actually still an ambiguous term. It could mean within the Pokémon world (as if we're looking at it as characters in the storyline itself), or it could mean the first created by Satoshi Tajiri -- as in, the first Pokémon in the Pokémon world because it's the oldest concept.

 

[Lady Gaga]

1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. The Square Root of Pi.

1. Not really. Not for posting. I only check Serebii.net, and thats only for like POkemon stats and such.
2. Areuces = God.
3. I play becasue its fun, my friends play it, and we know alot about it, so its entertaining when we correct ech other and blah blah blah. So ya. Entertainment and knowledge
4. Yes
5. See Q 2
6. See Q 3

 

[Artyte]

Please know what you are saying

Seriously though, I feel like you came to a pretty big pokemon forum and assumed everyone is retarded for one reason or another.

Mind your words buddy, you might be surprised by some replies on this post. I didn't ask this because i think everyone was a retard...

For Xanthine, if you wanna read out about the essential 50, one for pokemon that i've told you in previous posts, here's the link https://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3136194 . Enjoy reading!

 

[xiraiya]

Mind your words buddy, you might be surprised by some replies on this post. I didn't ask this because i think everyone was a retard...

The internet DOES have some pretty "surprising" people in that aspect so I guess it can't really hurt to find out if those people exist on this forum.
I would hope they don't, even though they do...

 

[JX Valentine]

For Xanthine, if you wanna read out about the essential 50, one for pokemon that i've told you in previous posts, here's the link https://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3136194 . Enjoy reading!

So... basically, your only proof is a sentence in an article that, frankly, has neither sources to back said statement up nor explanation that details the similarities between the two. All it is is an article from someone who is, most likely, in the same Pokémon-biased mindset and hasn't actually thought that Digimon could possibly have a different basis than another franchise that has the word "mon" tacked at the end. (Proof? Ironically, the formula detailed in the section titled Catch 'Em All is not present in the Digimon games until Digimon hit the DS with Dawn/Dusk. So, yeah, it's fairly clear the writer of this article didn't actually play the original game either.)

Point is, you may want more proof than that. Try something else that goes into more detail about the Digimon-Pokémon comparison. Right now, this is like saying Harry Potter is a clear rip-off of Star Wars. There's similarities, but you're going to need a detailed essay to really drive the point home.

 

[Artyte]

reply

Dude, this is article is written for essential 50, which are 50 games that moulded the gaming world that we now know. What reasons does it have to be bias? How can you infer that the writer is bias? Besides, how do you know that digimon didn't copy pokemon? A proof then with an article or some link?
These 50 articles weren't written for brainwashing as all of them were very important ones.

 

[JX Valentine]

Dude, this is article is written for essential 50, which are 50 games that moulded the gaming world that we now know. What reasons does it have to be bias?

Because they're essentially reviews. They're the author's opinion as to what's the best and why it's the best. Note the lack of stats to back up even the fact that it's one of the best-selling games Nintendo's created. The quote concerning Digimon itself (the fact that it's "pitiful") shows a clear author's opinion, rather than actual objective analysis.

Besides, how do you know that digimon didn't copy pokemon? A proof then with an article or some link?

To answer the first question, I've actually played the original game, and I've already detailed how it's played in my other posts.

For the second question, read up on gameplay and a summary of the anime. Note the lack of similarities as to how the games are played and the way the storylines of the anime shows are laid out. Also, a comment that Digimon is based on/has more similarities to Tamagotchi.

Also, yeah, read my earlier posts on the subject again.

If you'd like to argue, please provide more articles than just one that only mentions Digimon as an off-handed comment.

 

[Artyte]

Reply

I loved digimon in the past, played its games before and watched the anime too. To me there are lots of similarities that digimon have as compared to pokemon.
I really don't understand why you think differently from me.
When I was young, I thought nothing of digimon being similar to pokemon until recently when I started to examine both of them carefully.
Yes I read your earlier posts but I just don't understand why you think that digimon is different from pokemon. I agree with that article on one thing, that digimon is blatant in a ran-off or whatever he said in that sentence.
About that pitiful part, the author was just trying to say how obvious it was, not describing it in a different tone so as to be bias. I agree that there was no objective analysis, but that is not the reason to why he was bias. I was taught that to identify a bias tone not just by the way the person comments, but where the source was adapted from. In this case, he was just writing his own opinion. If he was working for the pokemon company, you could say that he was bias.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

1. Do you check out pokemon wikis, such as bulbapedia and wikipedia, before posting anything related to pokemon information?
Yes, I usually do. I do not if I am almost certain about the answer.
2. Do you know about the history of the pokemon world (i mean the history of the story, not the real world of what it was created in)?
The legends, like the Pokémon created who created what and were meant to protect (insert thing here). If you mean that, then yes.
3. (I rephrased it) Do you play the pokemon games for the sake of the entertainment and do not know anything about it, e.g what pokemon are?

I understand Pokémon. You caputure monsters and battle them. I understand what they are supposed to be (I.E. an Owl Pokémon, HootHoot/Noctowl).
4. Do you know that digimon copied the concept of pokemon?
I, actually agree with Xanthine on this one. I really can't see any similarities that would be giving it the "copying" status. If they have monsters they are not copying Pokémon. I assure that monsters came out way before Pokémon. If Digimon is copying Pokemon because they have monsters and stuff like that, then I could say that Pokémon copied Digimon. Ya' know Digimon started out as eggs and then babys. Next thing ya know Pokémon can have eggs, and shortly after that, baby Pokémon. Now, you will say that Pokémon did not copy that, but if we in fact look at it the way you are, then it in fact did.
5. Who do you think is the oldest pokemon (nothing pertaining to first drawn) in the pokemon's story (there is an answer but i won't say it)?
Care to to explain it more?
6. Why do you like pokemon?
Because I do.

 

[Artyte]

Reply

Dude, pokemon's idea came from Satoshi Tahjiri's childhood days, and it was said in his interview, and digimon came out later than pokemon.
I said that pokemon and digimon are similar in a sense that they both require a person side by side, but instead of ordering, digimon uses the device.
Now Xanthine, I have read those links loong ago before you gave me them. I understand your point, but can you spot any similarities in it? I do spot the similarities and differences, and these similarities convince me that part of digimon's concept, not the full thing, was ripped off from pokemon's concept.

 

[JX Valentine]

I loved digimon in the past, played its games before and watched the anime too. To me there are lots of similarities that digimon have as compared to pokemon.

Just because it's similar doesn't mean one's a rip-off of the other. That's why we can't agree -- because we have different definitions of how many similarities there are between the two (as opposed to coincidences and tropes of the monster genre) and because I tend to see those similarities as not enough to prove without a doubt that Digimon's a rip-off.

When I was young, I thought nothing of digimon being similar to pokemon until recently when I started to examine both of them carefully.

I'm not sure how carefully you went, but yeah, I've looked at it carefully. It only made me think that there's less in common because of the way the games were originally set up. An article like the one you gave me isn't going to prove much; I need more evidence than just one sentence because I see Digimon as only a copy of Tamagotchi. Why? Because that's the way the original handheld was set up.

I agree with that article on one thing, that digimon is blatant in a ran-off or whatever he said in that sentence.

But he doesn't go into detail as to why.

Neither, for that matter, do you. You keep saying one's a rip-off of the other, but you only name either vague reasons or tropes of the monster genre (of which Pokémon's not necessarily the founding father because there are other monster-related franchises out there, none of which are based on Pokémon itself either).

About that pitiful part, the author was just trying to say how obvious it was, not describing it in a different tone so as to be bias.

Actually, it's still an opinion because "pitiful" is a skewed word. It conveys an opinion that not all (obviously) share. If he wanted to say it was obvious, there are words that aren't quite as strong, such as "clear" (so long as it's backed up by evidence).

Really, the problem here is that the statement is both strong and unfounded. He calls it a pitiful knock-off, but he doesn't explain how he came to that conclusion. That's a clear opinion, then, because there's no facts to back it up.

I agree that there was no objective analysis, but that is not the reason to why he was bias.

Because the word's strong, and there's nothing to prove that he wasn't -- or how he came to that conclusion.

I was taught that to identify a bias tone not just by the way the person comments,

So was I. Hence why I say it sounds biased.

but where the source was adapted from. In this case, he was just writing his own opinion

For a gaming review site, which means he's likely to be biased towards what he likes more because that's usually how gaming reviews work unless said reviews bring up more detail as to why it's bad or good. (IGN tends to be good about the latter, for example.) You don't have to work for the company to have your opinions skewed towards one side. Everyone who says Pokémon is the best thing since sliced bread, for example, is probably biased towards the franchise. (Not saying I don't like it myself, of course.)

 

[Artyte]

After looking through your reply, I have one question,
Why isn't digimon in the essential 50 since you said it in that way? Btw, tamagotchi isn't in there too, and it is a game (they don't have to be computer games).
I was very careful in my decision, not many ex-digimon lovers, although i still love to watch some of it now, can make decisions that describes digimon in an ill manner. I still like digimon in some sense.

Based on your first quote and reply, you said that doesn't mean it's similar that means it is not a rip-off. Well according to logicial deduction, pokemon was the first one to come out with that idea, and with digimon being similar to it and also being the second, this implies that digimon was copying it, unless it re-invented that idea. My similarities don't mean drawing monsters (if that is the case, then pokemon would have been copying), but the concept inside on how the monsters were dervied and the relationship between the monsters and the partner.
When i mean how the monsters were derived from in digimon, it is the same way as how pokemons were derived from. Digimon uses creatures from natures + inanimate stuff to make up one. Pokemon are just the mutated version of creatures in the world that we represent.
If you look carefully into the situation> pokemon and digimon both had partners, what was the relationship between the two groups? In pokemon, trainers and their pokemon are life partners unless they decide to abandon those pokemon. In digimon, they are both also life partners unless the digimon decides to leave.
Pokemon are just creatures that reside in a world, although fictitious, resembles our's a lot. Digimon was just changing the world into a parallel universe that originated from Earth's various communication networks.
For Argamendmon, you should already well known that pokemon's base for creating new concepts is nature. So obviously, pokemon was just thinking of ways that it could improve when they were making games of gen 2 by comparing it to the real world.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

Artyte, what you are saying is that is Digimon copies Pokémon because Pokémon came out first.

pokemon was the first one to come out with that idea, and with digimon being similar to it and also being the second, this implies that digimon was copying it, unless it re-invented that idea.

This implies nothing. That would be like saying that everyone who made jeans is copying Levi Strauss, but with their own few differences. You see, just because something comes out later, that doesn't mean it copied it. Otherwise, just about everything that anyone owns would be copied. I would write out a longer response, but I have a school bus to catch.

 

[Artyte]

Any thought?

Do you even read Argamendmon? I said the ideas maybe just re invented... Just like how soccer was re invented when the first ones to discover it was the chinese. Please read before you reply.

 

[JX Valentine]

I understand your point, but can you spot any similarities in it?

1. Both have monsters. (A defining trope of a genre, not an actual similarity per se.)
1a. Some of these monsters are based on the same things. (Also a defining trope because the creators have to get their ideas from somewhere. It just so happens that both were founded in Japan, so both have similar sources of inspiration.)

2. Evolution. (However, evolution for both franchises do not have similar principles. As I've stated before, Pokémon evolution is a one-way street that represents maturity and growth from one stage to the next, as shown by the change in psychology and power when a Pokémon evolves. Digimon evolution is a two-way street – as in, a Digimon can devolve – that represents only a rise in power, as shown by a lack of psychological change and the timing of evolution.)

3. Both are born from eggs. (However, Digimon's egg concept comes from Tamagotchi, which makes this a moot point.)

4. Both involve PvP battling. (However, this was set up differently in the originals. With Digimon, the keychain devices were set up so two players with fully evolved Digimon can battle via button-mashing. Pokémon had a GB and link cable to enable not only trading but also turn-based battling.)

5. Both attack. (Digimon's attacks were first named in the anime; they were unnamed in the original game. Furthermore, Digimon have attacks based on individual species, so no two Digimon actually have the same moveset. This contrasts with Pokémon, which has a certain list of defined attacks that can be mixed and matched with each monster. In other words, Digimon takes into consideration the individualism of a monster. Pokémon, not so much.)

6. Both have humans teaming up with monsters. (Trope. Also, in Pokémon, it's more of a master-servant relationship in that the trainer orders his Pokémon to perform strategies and is never directly involved -- or if they are, it's taboo. The original Digimon assumed your pets battled for you, yes, but as if you were standing on the sidelines and watching a rooster fight. In the anime, a Digimon's partner represented equal power. A Digimon knew how to attack without the partner's direction and, in many cases, attacked without orders. However, the partner held items that could boost a Digimon's power. For example, the crest, the egg, or the cards. Furthermore, a Digimon's partner stood on equal footing, not only because a Digimon could speak – and, therefore, was seen as an intellectual equal – but also because Digimon in later seasons had the potential to merge with their human partners. Also, human partners can only possess one Digimon, whereas Pokémon literally encourages you to capture at least 493.)

7. Both involve devices. (Digivice, Poké Ball. However, they don't work the same way.)

If I'm missing one, feel free to add, and we can discuss it.

Why isn't digimon in the essential 50 since you said it in that way?

Because it's not as popular. Seriously, the fanbase for Digimon has always been smaller than other games of the time, including and especially Pokémon.

Btw, tamagotchi isn't in there too, and it is a game (they don't have to be computer games).

This should tell you something about what the author's calling influential. Tamagotchi was one of the biggest fads of the 90's to the point where there was merchandise for it and rip-offs everywhere.

Of course, it also wasn't a video game. It was, first and foremost, a virtual pet, as was Digimon. It just so happened that Digimon also had PvP capabilities to appeal to boys. (Tamagotchi was a franchise aimed at girls because of the cutesy monsters and the concept of taking care of a baby. Digimon was an attempt by the same company to market the same idea to boys.)

Well according to logicial deduction, pokemon was the first one to come out with that idea, and with digimon being similar to it and also being the second, this implies that digimon was copying it,

This isn't logical deduction. Why? Because your reasoning is vague.

Put it this way. What you're saying (as it is in the above quote) is essentially the same as this: Legend of Zelda came before Final Fantasy. Does that mean Final Fantasy, which has a number of similarities to Zelda, ripped off Zelda? Eragon came after the Lord of the Rings. Given that they're both fantasy novels, does that mean Eragon ripped of LotR? Guitar Hero, a music-and-rhythm game that uses an instrument, came after Donkey Kong Jungle Beat (which can essentially be described the same way). Does that mean Guitar Hero's clearly a rip-off?

Point is, just because one game or whatnot came before the other doesn't mean it's clear that one was copying off the other. It just means there was a market for it at that time (or throughout time in the latter example), so someone tried to capitalize on it without using a predecessor for an example.

Edit: Yes, you mention reinvention, but to clarify, again, there was a market for monsters, not necessarily opened by Pokémon either. (If anything, it might've been opened by Tamagotchi and other earlier fads.) So, I wouldn't even call Digimon a reinvention of the monster genre.

 

[Artyte]

Xanthine, do you even know why Pokemon is written in the essential 50? If you say digimon is not in the essential 50 because it is not popular, you're wrong. It stated clearly in the description of the essential 50, "These are the innovators -- the creations which shaped entirely new genres. The revolutions that launched great designers to fame. The concepts that inspired countless other games. And of course the failures that brought mighty corporations to their knees." This source was from the main page of essential 50, describing why they wrote it...
Do you even read, I SAID RE INVENTION, SO WHY THE #### DID YOU SAY IT IS VAGUE? If you want to say it is vague, you got to be logicial in that deduction too, and you just stated it isn't a logical deduction because it is vague, dots...

 

[JX Valentine]

Xanthine, do you even know why Pokemon is written in the essential 50?

Because it's an immensely popular franchise -- one of the best-selling, and that's actually looking at how many games were sold (according to Wikipedia, at least). Additionally, it became a fad in that it was the center of a youth culture. Ironically, so was Tamagotchi, and as you've said before, Tamagotchi isn't there either.

"These are the innovators -- the creations which shaped entirely new genres.

But Pokémon didn't actually shape a new genre. It shaped a genre, but it wasn't necessarily new. If you want proof, check this series out. It came five years before Pokémon.

Not to mention the fact that if we're just looking at raising monsters, Tamagotchi still came first and opened up the genre that Digimon actually belongs to -- the virtual pets.

Do you even read, I SAID RE INVENTION, SO WHY THE #### DID YOU SAY IT IS VAGUE?

Read my edit. The way you worded it was still vague.

Not to mention you're implying that if one franchise came before another, the one that comes after needs to be a reinvention of the first franchise, which isn't necessarily true. Reinvention implies taking the old basis and completely updating it, which is not what other members of a genre do. As I've stated in my other post, there may be vague similarities, but it's completely possible for a franchise to have completely new stuff. That means it's not necessary for a younger member of a genre to be a rip-off, based on, or otherwise derived from the original work.