'Pokémon with Guns' Game Goes Viral, Angering Nintendo Loyalists(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
'Pokémon with Guns' Game Goes Viral, Angering Nintendo Loyalists
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-22/what-is-palworld-pokemon-like-game-with-guns-goes-viral-irks-nintendo-fans
64 comments
> I can't speak to the legality of it, but a great many of Pokemon's earliest monster designs seemed to take... "incredible inspiration" from a variety of Dragon Quest enemies.
Do you have some examples of this? I am having trouble finding comparisons between the two online
Do you have some examples of this? I am having trouble finding comparisons between the two online
This post shows some great examples: https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/19chvm3/palworld_is...
Dragon Quest essentially designed that type of game. DQ was 1986, FF1 was 87, essentially designed to ride that hype. Cute monsters in an RP setting acting as comic relief. DQ Slime is exactly that.
The first Zelda game was a month before DQ; but they are different enough from one another that it isn't generally considered a clone; there are a lot more 'adventure/action' mechanics within Zelda, and more importantly neither Zelda or FF1 embraced the 'cute monster' aesthetic as heavily as DQ.
The first Zelda game was a month before DQ; but they are different enough from one another that it isn't generally considered a clone; there are a lot more 'adventure/action' mechanics within Zelda, and more importantly neither Zelda or FF1 embraced the 'cute monster' aesthetic as heavily as DQ.
Pokémon is a reskin of FF1 basically. Instead of a poke center to revive, you go to a church, but it is the same basic stuff.
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Ditto_(Pok%C3%A9mon)
https://dragonquest.fandom.com/wiki/Slime
> I am having trouble finding comparisons between the two online
for some things, you just have to be a real fan :P
https://dragonquest.fandom.com/wiki/Slime
> I am having trouble finding comparisons between the two online
for some things, you just have to be a real fan :P
[deleted]
> a great many of Pokemon's earliest monster designs seemed to take... "incredible inspiration" from a variety of Dragon Quest enemies
And animals, real and mythological. We have:
An ordinary dragon, but with its tail on fire: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Charizard
A turtle, but blue: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Squirtle
A caterpillar: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Caterpie
A chubby moth: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Butterfree
A wasp, but with drills for hands: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Beedrill
A bird: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Pidgey
A purple rat (copying Milka's color scheme): https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rattata
A bigger bird: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Fearow
A snake: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ekans
A cobra: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Arbok
An armadillo: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Sandshrew
The nine-tailed fox from Japanese mythology: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ninetales
The child version of the same: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Vulpix
A bat: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Zubat
Another moth: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Venomoth
An earthworm, but with a face: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Diglett
Just a persian cat: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Persian
Pitcher plant, but with a face: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Victreebel
A pony, but on fire: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ponyta
A horse, but on fire: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rapidash
A seal: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Seel
Another seal: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Dewgong
A crab: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Krabby
Another crab: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Kingler
Flag of Monaco, but a sphere: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Voltorb
Flag of Poland, but a sphere: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Electrode
Eggs: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Exeggcute
Rhinoceros, but armored: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rhyhorn
A seahorse: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Horsea
A koi fish: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Goldeen
A bull, but with three tails: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Tauros
Literally just a fish: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Magikarp
I could keep going, but I think the point is made. The list at https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Generation_I_Pok%C3%... has an "Origins" section for each Pokemon, and almost always it is something from the natural kingdom or mythology. If everything that could be argued "takes inspiration from" Pokemon is banned from use by anyone other than the Pokemon company, then we've effectively handed them ownership over the entire animal kingdom and human mythology.
And animals, real and mythological. We have:
An ordinary dragon, but with its tail on fire: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Charizard
A turtle, but blue: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Squirtle
A caterpillar: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Caterpie
A chubby moth: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Butterfree
A wasp, but with drills for hands: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Beedrill
A bird: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Pidgey
A purple rat (copying Milka's color scheme): https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rattata
A bigger bird: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Fearow
A snake: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ekans
A cobra: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Arbok
An armadillo: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Sandshrew
The nine-tailed fox from Japanese mythology: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ninetales
The child version of the same: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Vulpix
A bat: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Zubat
Another moth: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Venomoth
An earthworm, but with a face: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Diglett
Just a persian cat: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Persian
Pitcher plant, but with a face: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Victreebel
A pony, but on fire: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Ponyta
A horse, but on fire: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rapidash
A seal: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Seel
Another seal: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Dewgong
A crab: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Krabby
Another crab: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Kingler
Flag of Monaco, but a sphere: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Voltorb
Flag of Poland, but a sphere: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Electrode
Eggs: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Exeggcute
Rhinoceros, but armored: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Rhyhorn
A seahorse: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Horsea
A koi fish: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Goldeen
A bull, but with three tails: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Tauros
Literally just a fish: https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/Magikarp
I could keep going, but I think the point is made. The list at https://pokemon.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Generation_I_Pok%C3%... has an "Origins" section for each Pokemon, and almost always it is something from the natural kingdom or mythology. If everything that could be argued "takes inspiration from" Pokemon is banned from use by anyone other than the Pokemon company, then we've effectively handed them ownership over the entire animal kingdom and human mythology.
> I could keep going, but I think the point is made.
You should have stopped sooner. There's zero point being made here. Not one made in good faith at least.
You should have stopped sooner. There's zero point being made here. Not one made in good faith at least.
The point is there's practical real world inspiration for nearly all Pokemon, invalidating the criticism. The fact that it's exhaustive doesn't make it bad faith.
Micky mouse was inspired by "a real world animal". That doesn't mean that all IP is suddenly void.
But it does mean other cartoon mice don't necessarily infringe on Mickey, even though nearly all could be argued to be "inspired by" him.
Just looking at various Warner Brothers properties and it is pretty clear that you can do lot even in something that is somewhat similar in style. If not in substance.
I think the "but everything is inspired" is bad faith in and of itself and doesn't capture why pokemon's art direction is so iconic (even if its naming can be a bit too on the nose... Seel).
If you want to go that far, acting like Pokemon did more than take animals and slightly twist them is bad faith. They're iconic designs because the Pokemon games were ground breaking for their time, not because they were truly original or innovative. That doesn't entitle them to own 'monsters based on real life creatures' in perpetuity.
>acting like Pokemon did more than take animals and slightly twist them is bad faith.
That is highly undervaluing the vision and talent of the art director. Ken Sugimori wasn't just some fresh intern out of college who took pictures of animals and drew anime eyes on them. And that's why his designs are considered iconic decades later.
Its no different from Akira Toriyama or Hayato Miyazaki. Japanese animation tends to have a simplistic but very disctinct style, and it's why they tend to stand the test of time. The test of time in ways that people try to dismiss them outright as "well I can do it". But few others do.
>That doesn't entitle them to own 'monsters based on real life creatures' in perpetuity.
no one is saying this (except journalists who want to make clickbait. The title is the worst thing about this post so I won't entertain the idea of "oh, TPC is going to sue!"). But if anyone is really curious on why these are all called "pokemon knockoffs", you need to understand the qualities that make pokemon so distinct. Not copy some designs and change it up. You are free to do that, but you can't complain about people critisizing your art as generic and uninspired if you do not in fact understand what you're doing with that style.
That's the equivalent of saying "well this sort is less efficient, let's change it to quicksort" in some 20 year old legacy code base and wonder why suddenly everything slows down or breaks. You don't truly understand the art style you study, which means attempts to derive from the style will create uncanny effects.
That is highly undervaluing the vision and talent of the art director. Ken Sugimori wasn't just some fresh intern out of college who took pictures of animals and drew anime eyes on them. And that's why his designs are considered iconic decades later.
Its no different from Akira Toriyama or Hayato Miyazaki. Japanese animation tends to have a simplistic but very disctinct style, and it's why they tend to stand the test of time. The test of time in ways that people try to dismiss them outright as "well I can do it". But few others do.
>That doesn't entitle them to own 'monsters based on real life creatures' in perpetuity.
no one is saying this (except journalists who want to make clickbait. The title is the worst thing about this post so I won't entertain the idea of "oh, TPC is going to sue!"). But if anyone is really curious on why these are all called "pokemon knockoffs", you need to understand the qualities that make pokemon so distinct. Not copy some designs and change it up. You are free to do that, but you can't complain about people critisizing your art as generic and uninspired if you do not in fact understand what you're doing with that style.
That's the equivalent of saying "well this sort is less efficient, let's change it to quicksort" in some 20 year old legacy code base and wonder why suddenly everything slows down or breaks. You don't truly understand the art style you study, which means attempts to derive from the style will create uncanny effects.
>That is highly undervaluing the vision and talent of the art director.
I'm recognizing that the art director didn't exist in a vacuum. [1] I am not disparaging the artist, or any involved. As Stable Diffusion and Dalle are clearly showing, art isn't a process of creation. Art is discovery. When we create art, we are searching a pre-determined space of possible ideas and mediums/materials. Is Palworld very close to Pokemon, in this space? Yes, they're next door neighbors. But Pokemon first moved in next to Dragon Quest, and many others. Artistic expression doesn't occur in sporadic fits and starts, it occurs in traceable organic steps.
While I appreciate the Japanese style, my argument doesn't have anything to do with it specifically, besides disagreeing with your prior comment:
>"but everything is inspired" is bad faith in and of itself and doesn't capture why pokemon's art direction is so iconic.
"Everything is inspired" isn't bad faith, it's facts. You can disagree, but it does capture the artistic process exactly. Art that is produced too outside of the general consensus is like a non-viable genetic sequence. It can exist, but it will self-terminate.
If you disagree with the sentiment because it is used to justify exact copy-cats, I agree, exact plagiarism should not be allowed. The question is where in the creation process Palworld drew from Pokemon. If they took the character/genre design, then it's fine. If they stole core underlying structures [2], it's over the line.
>no one is saying this (except journalists who want to make clickbait. The title is the worst thing about this post so I won't entertain the idea of "oh, TPC is going to sue!"). But if anyone is really curious on why these are all called "pokemon knockoffs", you need to understand the qualities that make pokemon so distinct.
Again, [1]. It is not disparaging to say that Pokemon drew inspiration from Dragon Quest, or any other source. Clearly Pokemon took that inspiration, and innovated to a huge degree. That's why they were successful. I'm fine calling Palworld a Pokemon knockoff, but many people are saying Pokemon should sue, and that is clearly incorrect. Unless there's proof of direct asset ripping, Pokemon has no claim to what Palworld has created, except as proud ancestors.
>you can't complain about people critisizing your art as generic and uninspired if you do not in fact understand what you're doing with that style.
When Palworld is eventually used as inspiration for the next monster capture game, people will be saying that the Palworld art is 'iconic' and shouldn't be copied. They'll be wrong to say it then, like people are wrong to say it about Pokemon now. It's the incorrect view of the artistic process that bothers me, not the specifics of the case.
>You don't truly understand the art style you study, which means attempts to derive from the style will create uncanny effects.
Disagree, groundbreaking art is almost always judged as 'uncanny' by it's contemporaries. The history of art is covered with examples of masterpieces crossing the uncanny/canny valley. How often are geniuses not appreciated during their time? When it comes to art, there is no such thing as an incorrect 'derivative', there is only the consensus of the masses, and the artist's luck in catching it.
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=...
[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylTfMAOYHI
I'm recognizing that the art director didn't exist in a vacuum. [1] I am not disparaging the artist, or any involved. As Stable Diffusion and Dalle are clearly showing, art isn't a process of creation. Art is discovery. When we create art, we are searching a pre-determined space of possible ideas and mediums/materials. Is Palworld very close to Pokemon, in this space? Yes, they're next door neighbors. But Pokemon first moved in next to Dragon Quest, and many others. Artistic expression doesn't occur in sporadic fits and starts, it occurs in traceable organic steps.
While I appreciate the Japanese style, my argument doesn't have anything to do with it specifically, besides disagreeing with your prior comment:
>"but everything is inspired" is bad faith in and of itself and doesn't capture why pokemon's art direction is so iconic.
"Everything is inspired" isn't bad faith, it's facts. You can disagree, but it does capture the artistic process exactly. Art that is produced too outside of the general consensus is like a non-viable genetic sequence. It can exist, but it will self-terminate.
If you disagree with the sentiment because it is used to justify exact copy-cats, I agree, exact plagiarism should not be allowed. The question is where in the creation process Palworld drew from Pokemon. If they took the character/genre design, then it's fine. If they stole core underlying structures [2], it's over the line.
>no one is saying this (except journalists who want to make clickbait. The title is the worst thing about this post so I won't entertain the idea of "oh, TPC is going to sue!"). But if anyone is really curious on why these are all called "pokemon knockoffs", you need to understand the qualities that make pokemon so distinct.
Again, [1]. It is not disparaging to say that Pokemon drew inspiration from Dragon Quest, or any other source. Clearly Pokemon took that inspiration, and innovated to a huge degree. That's why they were successful. I'm fine calling Palworld a Pokemon knockoff, but many people are saying Pokemon should sue, and that is clearly incorrect. Unless there's proof of direct asset ripping, Pokemon has no claim to what Palworld has created, except as proud ancestors.
>you can't complain about people critisizing your art as generic and uninspired if you do not in fact understand what you're doing with that style.
When Palworld is eventually used as inspiration for the next monster capture game, people will be saying that the Palworld art is 'iconic' and shouldn't be copied. They'll be wrong to say it then, like people are wrong to say it about Pokemon now. It's the incorrect view of the artistic process that bothers me, not the specifics of the case.
>You don't truly understand the art style you study, which means attempts to derive from the style will create uncanny effects.
Disagree, groundbreaking art is almost always judged as 'uncanny' by it's contemporaries. The history of art is covered with examples of masterpieces crossing the uncanny/canny valley. How often are geniuses not appreciated during their time? When it comes to art, there is no such thing as an incorrect 'derivative', there is only the consensus of the masses, and the artist's luck in catching it.
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=...
[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylTfMAOYHI
>As Stable Diffusion and Dalle are clearly showing, art isn't a process of creation.
As current LLMs are showing, art isn't just creation, indeed. Making art is easy. We all did it as kids doodling on paper.
It also shows that if is very easy to be "slightly off" and have it tank the entire artistic integrity of the piece. It's hard to criticize a stick figure, we're very good at filling in blanks as long as the general details are there and the art style is consistent. It's easy to criticize a hyperrealistic drawing with a human missing a finger and light casting incorrectly on their body, because we spend every waking moment seeing the world around us. These are important artistic details with nigh objective natural properties behind them, but an LLM as is lacks that 3d data space artists have, since it learns from 2d art pieces that projects from a 3d world.
All of this is to say: LLMs as they are now are a great analoige for why pal world feels off. It has the right "creation" but the wrong "direction". That's why art directors who can explain that process are key (i unfortunately lack the eye and vocabulary to explain why exactly Palworld feels off, but I'm sure a proper art director can)
(p.s. This also isn't an accusation of Palworld using AI. Them using AI to make fully rigged/textured game ready models would be a bigger story than any of the sales news).
>Everything is inspired" isn't bad faith, it's facts. You can disagree, but it does capture the artistic process exactly
If you understand my above arguments, I hope you understand now why I call this bad faith. An artist is "just getting inspiration" as much as a programmer is "just using math", or a musician is "just hitting keys/strings". There are entire curriculums designed to break down why those keys or lines of code can make pleasing sounds or process some given logic. Likewise, we do indeed have art theory and artist studies to break down why art looks good (or at least, distinct). Again, not everyone can describe why something sounds/tastes/or looks good, an expert can and then applies it to produce more good stuff.
I don't particularly care about the arguments of "ripoff" nor "copycats". I care about emphasizing the work an artist puts into a style and why ripoffs/copycat look lower quality. It's a literal skill issue (or more kindly, knowledge gap).
I guess you can take offense to an artist "owning" a style, but that's a societal quirk. We love assigning namesakes as a mark of credit or legacy (even if the person the self is fictitious, "flanderization" is a favorite example). I wouldn't take too much stock to it other than that, I think we both agree that art styles can't be copyrighted.
>When Palworld is eventually used as inspiration for the next monster capture game, people will be saying that the Palworld art is 'iconic' and shouldn't be copied.
I'll take you up on that wager. I don't see the inspiration nor strong art direction for that. The only future accusations people will have for future copycats is "the gave an animal guns" or "they subjected animals to slavery". It will lose a bit of its edge factor the second time, though.
>Disagree, groundbreaking art is almost always judged as 'uncanny' by it's contemporaries.
Maybe in the grand history of it all. I feel in the last century of commercialization, and especially the last 20 years that art is used as a hook. Often misleading hook (it's easy to make a good ad banner. Hard to make a good game), but there's nothing more telling than a AAA key art making social media go a buzz, showing how instantaneously a certain style can resonate with millions. That isn't done by accident. Pandering, perhaps. But effective nonetheless.
What you describe still can happen (e.g. Klasky Csupo of Rugrats fame was and still is contentious. But there's definitely mode appreciation now for the grungy style than before), but most commercial art is made to be appealing by contemporaries.
As current LLMs are showing, art isn't just creation, indeed. Making art is easy. We all did it as kids doodling on paper.
It also shows that if is very easy to be "slightly off" and have it tank the entire artistic integrity of the piece. It's hard to criticize a stick figure, we're very good at filling in blanks as long as the general details are there and the art style is consistent. It's easy to criticize a hyperrealistic drawing with a human missing a finger and light casting incorrectly on their body, because we spend every waking moment seeing the world around us. These are important artistic details with nigh objective natural properties behind them, but an LLM as is lacks that 3d data space artists have, since it learns from 2d art pieces that projects from a 3d world.
All of this is to say: LLMs as they are now are a great analoige for why pal world feels off. It has the right "creation" but the wrong "direction". That's why art directors who can explain that process are key (i unfortunately lack the eye and vocabulary to explain why exactly Palworld feels off, but I'm sure a proper art director can)
(p.s. This also isn't an accusation of Palworld using AI. Them using AI to make fully rigged/textured game ready models would be a bigger story than any of the sales news).
>Everything is inspired" isn't bad faith, it's facts. You can disagree, but it does capture the artistic process exactly
If you understand my above arguments, I hope you understand now why I call this bad faith. An artist is "just getting inspiration" as much as a programmer is "just using math", or a musician is "just hitting keys/strings". There are entire curriculums designed to break down why those keys or lines of code can make pleasing sounds or process some given logic. Likewise, we do indeed have art theory and artist studies to break down why art looks good (or at least, distinct). Again, not everyone can describe why something sounds/tastes/or looks good, an expert can and then applies it to produce more good stuff.
I don't particularly care about the arguments of "ripoff" nor "copycats". I care about emphasizing the work an artist puts into a style and why ripoffs/copycat look lower quality. It's a literal skill issue (or more kindly, knowledge gap).
I guess you can take offense to an artist "owning" a style, but that's a societal quirk. We love assigning namesakes as a mark of credit or legacy (even if the person the self is fictitious, "flanderization" is a favorite example). I wouldn't take too much stock to it other than that, I think we both agree that art styles can't be copyrighted.
>When Palworld is eventually used as inspiration for the next monster capture game, people will be saying that the Palworld art is 'iconic' and shouldn't be copied.
I'll take you up on that wager. I don't see the inspiration nor strong art direction for that. The only future accusations people will have for future copycats is "the gave an animal guns" or "they subjected animals to slavery". It will lose a bit of its edge factor the second time, though.
>Disagree, groundbreaking art is almost always judged as 'uncanny' by it's contemporaries.
Maybe in the grand history of it all. I feel in the last century of commercialization, and especially the last 20 years that art is used as a hook. Often misleading hook (it's easy to make a good ad banner. Hard to make a good game), but there's nothing more telling than a AAA key art making social media go a buzz, showing how instantaneously a certain style can resonate with millions. That isn't done by accident. Pandering, perhaps. But effective nonetheless.
What you describe still can happen (e.g. Klasky Csupo of Rugrats fame was and still is contentious. But there's definitely mode appreciation now for the grungy style than before), but most commercial art is made to be appealing by contemporaries.
I dunno geodude is pretty damning. not that I care that much for originality
Isn't geodude just a rock?
I mean, I think it's less that Nintendo doesnt want to do it and more that they don't fit with how Pokemon is run. Animal Crossing is one of Nintendo's 5 great pillars now and I'm sure all of that (except perhaps survival elements) would fit in fine. All that in a pokemon game sounds like the gimmick of the generation that pokemon's had since gen 3 (contests, Pokestar studio, pokemon amie, etc.).
>the models are nicer with more unique animations than anything GameFreak has put out yet, too.
ehh, I'm not sure I agree. this is a huge asethetic vs. fidelity argument. And honestly the pokemon models aren't even that bad when you look through the files.
I looked through the pals and they just feel so generic, like most other monster raising compettiors.
>the models are nicer with more unique animations than anything GameFreak has put out yet, too.
ehh, I'm not sure I agree. this is a huge asethetic vs. fidelity argument. And honestly the pokemon models aren't even that bad when you look through the files.
I looked through the pals and they just feel so generic, like most other monster raising compettiors.
The success of Palworld speaks volumes about Nintendo/Gamefreak's failure to produce any meaningful gameplay innovation over the past few decades
S/V sold 10 million copies in the first 3 days and ~25 million copies in the first year. Nintendo is doing fine.
To me the success of Palworld shows two things: 1, the survival-crafting genre is still a gold mine after all these years YET no AAA studio wants to touch it for some reason. Only Early Access indie games in the field. 2, Nintendo would break all records if they start releasing their games on multiple platforms.
To me the success of Palworld shows two things: 1, the survival-crafting genre is still a gold mine after all these years YET no AAA studio wants to touch it for some reason. Only Early Access indie games in the field. 2, Nintendo would break all records if they start releasing their games on multiple platforms.
>he survival-crafting genre is still a gold mine after all these years YET no AAA studio wants to touch it for some reason
games take years to make. If a AAA started making a survival game the second Valheim came out, it'd still be 2-3 years out. Indies are more agile and can capitalize on trends before they are sucked dry.
>2, Nintendo would break all records if they start releasing their games on multiple platforms.
if you need to spend 3 times the amount of money to make twice the money, the business choice is clear unless you can show something like stocks soaring over the decision. Japan hasn't had inflation for 30 years, so there's much less incentive to chase those kinds of stock gains. So you play it safe.
Also, why is death such a make or break feature for you?
games take years to make. If a AAA started making a survival game the second Valheim came out, it'd still be 2-3 years out. Indies are more agile and can capitalize on trends before they are sucked dry.
>2, Nintendo would break all records if they start releasing their games on multiple platforms.
if you need to spend 3 times the amount of money to make twice the money, the business choice is clear unless you can show something like stocks soaring over the decision. Japan hasn't had inflation for 30 years, so there's much less incentive to chase those kinds of stock gains. So you play it safe.
Also, why is death such a make or break feature for you?
This is exactly it. Dreadful games I’ve avoided since the late 00’s, a lack of innovation or even apparent care. The latest games are poorly optimised and leave SO much on the table.
It’s widely acknowledged Game Freak simply aren’t investing in the games in the way they should: Nintendo should be making Palworld, with their own IP. They’d take over the world.
The crux of it is that Pokemon games don’t need to be good to sell… so they’re crap instead.
It’s widely acknowledged Game Freak simply aren’t investing in the games in the way they should: Nintendo should be making Palworld, with their own IP. They’d take over the world.
The crux of it is that Pokemon games don’t need to be good to sell… so they’re crap instead.
Does it? Survival/crafting games are popular these days, including shooters. I think someone was bound to make this kind of game eventually, and it's not a surprise people will play it.
This is a pretty good video (11 minutes) where a video game IP lawyer discusses palworld vs pokemon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkNcV0kpxvg
Mostly surrounding the similarities in pokemon vs pal visual design.
Spoiler...it's complicated.
Mostly surrounding the similarities in pokemon vs pal visual design.
Spoiler...it's complicated.
Every day the idea that people (or even corporations!) can own ideas becomes more and more absurd to me.
The more I hear about it the more convinced I am that we should only allow IP to be held by individuals (and make it non-transferrable). Instead of selling your idea to some company you could instead just sell a promise not to sue them for the duration of your claim (which I'd be fine setting to your natural lifetime under this system).
I really just think that repealing the system that imposes artificial scarcity on ideas would be the best at this point. It doesn't encourage creative work. No one decides to make art because they want to own its likeness. Tons of people have certainly stopped or decided not to start because we aren't allowed to stand on the shoulders of previous generations anymore though.
How would that be any different than the current system, aside from the fact that IP rights always dies with the originator?
Can you agree to let the firm renting the rights sue others for using it without contract?
Can you agree to let the firm renting the rights sue others for using it without contract?
I wish every software developer who talks about "fair use" in software licensing would learn the first point they make in the video - fair use is a defense for infringement, it has to be argued in court.
The most comical part to me is the moral outrage by some folks who are "against Palworld" because you can essentially force your collection of animals into slave labor.
Because storing them in balls and only allowing them out when you want them to fight to the death for you is such a great moral alternative.
Because storing them in balls and only allowing them out when you want them to fight to the death for you is such a great moral alternative.
Ye.
The first Pokemon movie made Ash and friends realize "why are we pitting our pokemons against each other? It is cruel".
But then Mewtwo made them all forgot everything.
Kinda good self-reflection of the franchise though, really.
It is essentially coq fights.
The first Pokemon movie made Ash and friends realize "why are we pitting our pokemons against each other? It is cruel".
But then Mewtwo made them all forgot everything.
Kinda good self-reflection of the franchise though, really.
It is essentially coq fights.
The second movie showed the main villain’s entire game plan was to “catch them all”, and that he was inspired to capture the Legendary Bird Trio because of a Mew trading card, so there was definitely some amazing self-reflection going on back then. Nowadays the Pokémon movies are just ads for the merch of that Pokémon, rather than an interesting story + merch ads.
Ye. I turned on some of the new series on Netflix for my 4 yo son. But, the new ones are way too violent.
And it is not just that they are too violent, they are violent in the wrong way. Like, glorifies it.
The old series were much more nuanced, with Ash failing upwards. And the fights more like wrestling than gladiator games.
And it is not just that they are too violent, they are violent in the wrong way. Like, glorifies it.
The old series were much more nuanced, with Ash failing upwards. And the fights more like wrestling than gladiator games.
I mean, they laid the groundwork 20 years ago if you look around for it. They made a huge emphasis (and still do to some extent) to show how Pokemon are intelligent beings and humanity is in a utopic state where they work alongside nature and pokemon to achieve goals. The anime emphasizes how a pokemon can defy a pokeball even after capture and can ignore a trainer's orders if inclined to. Pokemon have been shown to prefer or not prefer battling and have their own personal aspirations. some supplemental works detail how a pokeball is extremely comfortable and adapts to provide an environment that is suitable for each mon.
It's a razor-thin line but The Pokemon Company put a lot of advertising money into painting that clean image. Which is why it's survived years, decades of narrative against them, even from other million dollar corporations trying to argue animal abuse.
It's a razor-thin line but The Pokemon Company put a lot of advertising money into painting that clean image. Which is why it's survived years, decades of narrative against them, even from other million dollar corporations trying to argue animal abuse.
I have such mixed feelings about this product.
On one hand it's an obvious rip off and that's really lame and companies should be dissuaded from doing that.
On the other hand these guys wanted to do some silly stuff that they knew Nintendo would never do (eg. what if you could shoot guns at Pokemon?) and so they made their own game to scratch that itch. That's cool.
I dunno I wouldn't feel bad about it if it was like a free fair use fan game, but seems worse as a for-profit product that's competing with Nintendo.
On one hand it's an obvious rip off and that's really lame and companies should be dissuaded from doing that.
On the other hand these guys wanted to do some silly stuff that they knew Nintendo would never do (eg. what if you could shoot guns at Pokemon?) and so they made their own game to scratch that itch. That's cool.
I dunno I wouldn't feel bad about it if it was like a free fair use fan game, but seems worse as a for-profit product that's competing with Nintendo.
I don't really see the issue with rip offs, as long as it's better. In fact it's a prime opportunity to innovate on an existing product. Tons of stuff we use nowadays are rip offs. Oreos, Android OS, Chief Wiggums...
Main issue is we can never argue what's "better" 99% of the time, especially while in the heat of the conversation. And in this case Palword isn't necessarily "better" unless you utterly hate the core loop of Pokemon as a turned based monster raising battler.
Which apparently many people do. But we're now arguing against game genres, not competitors. Comparing Pokemon to Palworld makes about as much sense as comparing Skyrim to Breath of the Wild. They are superfically open world adventure games with a large area to explore and basic combat, but the lore, battle loop, aesthetic, narrative feel, and a dozen other factors make them night and day. You will very likely not like BOTW at all if you go in expecting Skyrim and vice versa.
Which apparently many people do. But we're now arguing against game genres, not competitors. Comparing Pokemon to Palworld makes about as much sense as comparing Skyrim to Breath of the Wild. They are superfically open world adventure games with a large area to explore and basic combat, but the lore, battle loop, aesthetic, narrative feel, and a dozen other factors make them night and day. You will very likely not like BOTW at all if you go in expecting Skyrim and vice versa.
Realistically this game doesn't compete with anything Nintendo puts out, because they'd never in a million years make a game with a similar gameplay loop (shoot Xmon, catch/kill, put into forced labour, repeat)
All of the pokemon enthusiasts I know have flocked to the game and are loving it. The breeding/traits in particular.
I have been running a dedicated server with ~10 people on it since launch and it has been incredible.
We'll see how it looks in a month, but massive success out of the gate.
I have been running a dedicated server with ~10 people on it since launch and it has been incredible.
We'll see how it looks in a month, but massive success out of the gate.
Regular Pokémon has breeding/traits
I know! That's a cross over in functionality that the serious (like, competitive, gen specific) pokemon players that I know are loving about palworld.
Palworld is certainly more interesting than Pokémon, especially as you can actually breed monsters together and make hybrids. I don’t know the specifics of the breeding yet however, but given the various traits on Pals it seems like that may be an interesting part as well. However I wonder if it will be as complex as Jogress lines in the old Digimon Story games.
Essentially, every Digimon (sans Calumon) can turn into every other Digimon, and moves can be carried over. So for instance, if you want a Gabumon with Pepper Breath/Baby Flame you go Agumon > Greymon > MetalGreymon > WarGreymon + MetalGarurumon = Omegamon, Omegamon + WarGreymon = MetalGarurumon, then devolve back down to Gabumon. I’m not sure if it’s still possible in the newer DS games, but I know I spent hours pouring over lists to make fun thematic Digimon.
Essentially, every Digimon (sans Calumon) can turn into every other Digimon, and moves can be carried over. So for instance, if you want a Gabumon with Pepper Breath/Baby Flame you go Agumon > Greymon > MetalGreymon > WarGreymon + MetalGarurumon = Omegamon, Omegamon + WarGreymon = MetalGarurumon, then devolve back down to Gabumon. I’m not sure if it’s still possible in the newer DS games, but I know I spent hours pouring over lists to make fun thematic Digimon.
How Nintendo is still in business is beyond me.
They are adversaries to their own customers, aggressively pursue meaningless IP violations, aggressively decrease the value of their own products (Wii store anyone?) and failed to innovate in decades pushing out the same trite and formulaic games over and over again.
They are adversaries to their own customers, aggressively pursue meaningless IP violations, aggressively decrease the value of their own products (Wii store anyone?) and failed to innovate in decades pushing out the same trite and formulaic games over and over again.
Probably becasue they serve a global market beyon internet trends and have spent decades investing in their IP's, unlike many studios who are one mid release away from shutting down and having their IP hoarded by a business not interested in development.
And it's clearly not a fluke. Splatoon was a huge hit out the gate despite launching on Nintendo's worst system, in 2016. Nintendo truly does house and foster some of the best designers in the industry and its a bit of a shame to chastise them indirectly due to business decisions. A factor I'm sure every creative business can agree is a constant clash.
And it's clearly not a fluke. Splatoon was a huge hit out the gate despite launching on Nintendo's worst system, in 2016. Nintendo truly does house and foster some of the best designers in the industry and its a bit of a shame to chastise them indirectly due to business decisions. A factor I'm sure every creative business can agree is a constant clash.
People are blind if they see pokemon in the game.
Very little but catching palms resembles pokemon gameplay-wise.
Very little but catching palms resembles pokemon gameplay-wise.
Gameplay wise yeah, but some Pals are very Pokémon-like (and I love it).
Pokemon's are super generic themselves or look like creatures from other videogames (such as Dragon Quest) bar few that are more unique.
It looks like the Palworld developers really pissed of the customers of their previous game, Craftopia:
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1307550/Craftopia/
That one was in Steam "Early Access" for several years, with people buying it at full price expecting it to be finished and released. Except the devs used the money to create Palworld instead, abandoning their Craftopia users.
The recent Steam reviews for Craftopia don't paint a pretty picture at all.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1307550/Craftopia/
That one was in Steam "Early Access" for several years, with people buying it at full price expecting it to be finished and released. Except the devs used the money to create Palworld instead, abandoning their Craftopia users.
The recent Steam reviews for Craftopia don't paint a pretty picture at all.
Now this is what’s actually important. No one should care that Nintendo’s IP was “stolen” when they “stole” the IP from DQ first. However the possibility of Palworld being abandoned in the future like Craftopia is a possibility. Part of the reason I’ll be waiting out for the 1.0 release before purchasing.
With Early Access titles you should only invest when you are happy with the current state of the product even if it was not developed further. If you are not, do not buy.
ha that's so funny I just heard about this from my friends a few days ago. They are all pretty loyal Pokemon fans despite being in their 30's.
They were all excited for this game, and as a fan myself, I have to agree that it does look pretty cool.
There's already several copycat franchises that are obvious knock-offs of Pokemon, the biggest of which is probably Digimon.
How is this any different than Digimon?
They were all excited for this game, and as a fan myself, I have to agree that it does look pretty cool.
There's already several copycat franchises that are obvious knock-offs of Pokemon, the biggest of which is probably Digimon.
How is this any different than Digimon?
> the biggest of which is probably Digimon
Digimon is more about "other self", with exception of Cybersleuth and like Season 4 (which was Digimon but Power Rangers transformations). Only Cybersleuth (and other more recent games) were Pokemon "catch them" like plot-lines.
Digimon are fully sentient beings equal to humans (or even in some cases, divinely inspired angels, devils, or gods). In many cases, they are the representation of a person's soul and the "other self" reflected in the digital-world. This is why when Tai feels courageous (his Crest is Courage), Agumon gets powered-up. Because Agumon is specifically connected to Tai.
Palworld seems to be closer to Pokemon if anything, though the crafting stuff makes it look closer to Minecraft if anything. Some of my friends compare it to Ark:Evolved.
"Pokemon but more grimdark" was probably Monster Rancher, if I were to pick a 90s clone series.
Or the Persona series even.
Digimon is more about "other self", with exception of Cybersleuth and like Season 4 (which was Digimon but Power Rangers transformations). Only Cybersleuth (and other more recent games) were Pokemon "catch them" like plot-lines.
Digimon are fully sentient beings equal to humans (or even in some cases, divinely inspired angels, devils, or gods). In many cases, they are the representation of a person's soul and the "other self" reflected in the digital-world. This is why when Tai feels courageous (his Crest is Courage), Agumon gets powered-up. Because Agumon is specifically connected to Tai.
Palworld seems to be closer to Pokemon if anything, though the crafting stuff makes it look closer to Minecraft if anything. Some of my friends compare it to Ark:Evolved.
"Pokemon but more grimdark" was probably Monster Rancher, if I were to pick a 90s clone series.
Or the Persona series even.
I feel like this is all beside the point, though.
Game and story mechanics can't be copyrighted. Art—including character design—can be copyrighted. And that is where I think Palworld might have a problem, because at least to me, many of the models look very similar.
Game and story mechanics can't be copyrighted. Art—including character design—can be copyrighted. And that is where I think Palworld might have a problem, because at least to me, many of the models look very similar.
Yeah. No one will ever confuse "Lucemon" (Digimon) with anything from Pokemon, its very distinct.
But Palworld's Fenglope is *damn* close to Cobalion (same animal, same color scheme, same subdivisions with the same color on those subdivisions).
But Palworld's Fenglope is *damn* close to Cobalion (same animal, same color scheme, same subdivisions with the same color on those subdivisions).
> pretty loyal Pokemon fans despite being in their 30's
Pokémon is 28 years old, so people now in their 30s would have been the core demographic of Pokémon fans at the start. I would expect them to be the most loyal fans, no "despite" needed.
> How is this any different than Digimon?
The criticism I've seen is of specific creature designs that look very close to those of specific Pokémon. I don't particularly care about that either – but the criticism is not just that it's another mon collection game.
Pokémon is 28 years old, so people now in their 30s would have been the core demographic of Pokémon fans at the start. I would expect them to be the most loyal fans, no "despite" needed.
> How is this any different than Digimon?
The criticism I've seen is of specific creature designs that look very close to those of specific Pokémon. I don't particularly care about that either – but the criticism is not just that it's another mon collection game.
I found the borrowing from Zelda (Sounds, Fonts) to be more concerning than the Pokemon similarities. Like you mentioned, there are a ton of capture game clones that are similar. The Zelda lifts are the area where I feel they may be flying too close to the sun. Either way, the game has a fun loop and I'm not a Pokemon player more of a survival games enthusiast. Been a good time with friends I hope they are able to navigate the IP issues.
> There's already several copycat franchises that are obvious knock-offs of Pokemon, the biggest of which is probably Digimon.
Yeah no. The only thing similar about them is the name and that they are monster-based games. Art is HEAVILY distinct, gameplay is distinct (original V-Pets were LED toy monster care simulators while Pokémon was rip-off Shin Megami Tensei with Dragon Quest designs), and the animes cannot even be compared (Pokémon is episodic with very little plot, Digimon Adventure is a monster-of-the-week with dedicated character growth episodes and an overarching plot that features the pains of divorce, adoption, child abuse, and finally growing up from the eyes of children.)
So to wrap this all back to Palworld, it’s different than Digimon because Palworld is mimicking Pokémon while Digimon did its own thing.
Yeah no. The only thing similar about them is the name and that they are monster-based games. Art is HEAVILY distinct, gameplay is distinct (original V-Pets were LED toy monster care simulators while Pokémon was rip-off Shin Megami Tensei with Dragon Quest designs), and the animes cannot even be compared (Pokémon is episodic with very little plot, Digimon Adventure is a monster-of-the-week with dedicated character growth episodes and an overarching plot that features the pains of divorce, adoption, child abuse, and finally growing up from the eyes of children.)
So to wrap this all back to Palworld, it’s different than Digimon because Palworld is mimicking Pokémon while Digimon did its own thing.
Personally, I think the visual designs in Digimon are significantly more distinct from Pokemon.
Plus, the best parts of Palworld are the parts that do things with the game formula that Nintendo would never do -- yes, sure, guns, but also consequential crafting, base building & defense, survival elements, automation, and such. Sure, people grow attached to the design of the various monsters, so changing them now would be hard without drawing the ire of existing customers, but the game is absolutely not "Pokemon with Guns", it's an entirely different game that has creatures that bear a resemblance to popular Pokemon.
(Oh, and the models are nicer with more unique animations than anything GameFreak has put out yet, too. I dunno, I find it hard to consider being a "Nintendo Loyalist" in this particular instance.)