I’m not talking about what went into court. Most pals are “legally distinct” monsters, but that’s what brought the game to public awareness, what started the comparisons with Pokémon, and why Nintendo hated their guts. Monster collectors have existed outside of Pokémon for decades and still do, Nintendo only sued Palworld because they copy-pasted their monsters with a different color palette.
Yeah I love Pokemon and everything, but this kind of Nintendo apologism is gross. They don’t have a copyright on dog monster or derpy dragon. These are all based on animals and yokai, so obviously there will be similarities. But the idea that there was plagiarism/re-used assets was complete fabrication from the start.
If you want to see an ACTUAL ripoff, watch the trailer for Palworld then watch the Pickmon trailer. I’m certain this game indeed plagiarized Mammorest at least, and the game design is identical.
Yeah, as someone who has been playing Pokemon since Pokemon Blue, I don’t see much of a similarity in the monsters from Palworld, other than them having the same inspirations such as a sheep, a cat, an owl and so on. They are “legally distinct” in the same way that the shotgun in Halo is legally distinct from the shotgun in Doom
What brought the game to court compared to the other monster collectors is that this one made a shit-ton of money, and the other ones didn’t, so Nintendo and The Pokemon Company were, for the first time, threatened.
They wouldn’t feel threatened by Palworld if it wasn’t for the legally distinct™ designs because, at its core, Palworld is a completely different game that only vaguely resembles Pokémon on a very superficial level (the monster themselves).
If it’s legally not considered copy-pasting their monsters, why do you feel like you can assert that it is plagiarism? I suppose that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but I also think people have a right to call you out on it for saying it as if it’s a fact when it is not actually a recognized fact. Plenty of people would dispute that, including myself, and certainly Pocketpair would, and evidence suggests the courts probably would’ve agreed with them hence it wasn’t even worth pursuing legally.
You can dispute that Palworld didn’t copy-paste Pokémon body parts and palette swap their designs to create their legally distinct clones, but I’d call that bullshit. People only side with PocketPair because they plagiarized Nintendo, which people (rightfully) hates. If it was done to anyone else, nobody would defend them. I can hate Nintendo and still posit that what PocketPair did was shitty and an insult to all the devs who actually take pride in their work and put effort in creating something original.
Nintendo sucks. Pokémon can fall off a cliff for all I care. Palworld is a tired asset flip.
There are tons of unique monster collectors out there that try to do their own thing without stealing other people’s work. Again, if they pulled that shit with anything else, it wouldn’t fly. You collectively decide it’s ok because Nintendo bad.
This entire medium is built on iteration. Basically every fantasy thing you ever played was basically a palette swap of Tolkien or someone who copied Tolkien before them. Original D&D had “hobbits” until they were changed into halflings. Palworld is also parody, which thrives on the similarity as it calls pals bastards for breaking out of their capture, or arms them with modern weaponry. Not only that, but “survival game with a riff on Pokemon” is creating something original.
Uh, didn’t know Earthsea, Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time were Tolkien clones. And that’s the most recognizable ones, I could mention a few dozens fantasy books I’ve read in the past few years that have nothing to do with Tolkien outside of a very superficial reading. People who say “everything is derivative” are those who don’t have enough imagination to create something unique themselves.
Also, “survival game with a riff on Pokémon” is unique and I’ve never disputed that, because I’m not an idiot who thinks that Pokémon is the only IP allowed to do the monster collecting thing. “Cinderace but green” is not.
Yes, and those similarities end in book 1 of 11-and-a-half written by Jordan and were developed in different directions than LotR. Padan Fain is not Gollum but an alternative and equally powered entity to the Dark One, the Two Rivers are not the Shire but the remnant of a powerful empire, Moraine is no Gandalf, Lan is no Aragorn, neither Mat nor Perrin are Sam, and so on.
The recolored Cinderace is a recoloured Cinderace, there’s no thought process behind it apart from making it legally distinct from its Pokémon counterpart. There’s a difference between creating a derivative copy and creating a unique world with some superficial level similarities. Calling WoT a palette-swap of Tolkien or something that copies Tolkien is wrong on so many levels.
Do you research anything before posting on the internet? Pokémon Red and Blue are basically a mixup of a lot of different games from back then.
Somehow you find it Okay when Pokémon does it, but when someone else does it it’s wrong?
Why must you assume that I like, care about, or am willing to defend Pokémon in any way? Yes, I know of that same picture that must have been circulating for a decade at this point. Yes, I think that some of those designs are derivative. Yes, I also believe that Palworld’s art style is slop with no coherent thought process put into it, and everyone that says otherwise is delusional.
Palworld was an incoherent blend of (Pokémon-like) cartoonish artstyle and realistic artstyle that doesn’t blend in any way. Their preceding game’s artstyle was, likewise, suspiciously derivative of Breath of the Wild. This is in no way a judgement on the game’s quality or how it plays like, nor an endorsement of Nintendo’s IP, which I care very little about. It’s just me using my functioning pair of eyes, which anyone could do if they weren’t blinded by fanboyism or hatred for Nintendo.
And say what you want about that picture, but at least Pokémon, even in the very first gen, had a consistent artstyle. Palworld was straight up an asset flip. If the game is good and fun, great! Their artstyle is still slop, and it would be great if people stopped being so defensive of it, especially in an era where AI plagiarism is being normalised so much.
I’m not talking about what went into court. Most pals are “legally distinct” monsters, but that’s what brought the game to public awareness, what started the comparisons with Pokémon, and why Nintendo hated their guts. Monster collectors have existed outside of Pokémon for decades and still do, Nintendo only sued Palworld because they copy-pasted their monsters with a different color palette.
Yeah I love Pokemon and everything, but this kind of Nintendo apologism is gross. They don’t have a copyright on dog monster or derpy dragon. These are all based on animals and yokai, so obviously there will be similarities. But the idea that there was plagiarism/re-used assets was complete fabrication from the start. If you want to see an ACTUAL ripoff, watch the trailer for Palworld then watch the Pickmon trailer. I’m certain this game indeed plagiarized Mammorest at least, and the game design is identical.
Fuck off which this. Pokemon pulled the same shit when they copied Dragon Quest with the first games
Oh, wow. Dragon Quest’s are way cuter.
Yeah, as someone who has been playing Pokemon since Pokemon Blue, I don’t see much of a similarity in the monsters from Palworld, other than them having the same inspirations such as a sheep, a cat, an owl and so on. They are “legally distinct” in the same way that the shotgun in Halo is legally distinct from the shotgun in Doom
Coincidentally, those that look similar the most are not the simple animal-shaped ones.
Electabuzz, Lucario, Cinderace, Cobalion, Luxray, Aggron.
What brought the game to court compared to the other monster collectors is that this one made a shit-ton of money, and the other ones didn’t, so Nintendo and The Pokemon Company were, for the first time, threatened.
They wouldn’t feel threatened by Palworld if it wasn’t for the legally distinct™ designs because, at its core, Palworld is a completely different game that only vaguely resembles Pokémon on a very superficial level (the monster themselves).
If it’s legally not considered copy-pasting their monsters, why do you feel like you can assert that it is plagiarism? I suppose that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but I also think people have a right to call you out on it for saying it as if it’s a fact when it is not actually a recognized fact. Plenty of people would dispute that, including myself, and certainly Pocketpair would, and evidence suggests the courts probably would’ve agreed with them hence it wasn’t even worth pursuing legally.
You can dispute that Palworld didn’t copy-paste Pokémon body parts and palette swap their designs to create their legally distinct clones, but I’d call that bullshit. People only side with PocketPair because they plagiarized Nintendo, which people (rightfully) hates. If it was done to anyone else, nobody would defend them. I can hate Nintendo and still posit that what PocketPair did was shitty and an insult to all the devs who actually take pride in their work and put effort in creating something original.
Fuck off with this. If Palworld ripped off Pokemon, the Pokemon ripped off Dragon Quest
Quit licking corpo boots
Quit rewarding creative bankruptcy.
Nintendo sucks. Pokémon can fall off a cliff for all I care. Palworld is a tired asset flip.
There are tons of unique monster collectors out there that try to do their own thing without stealing other people’s work. Again, if they pulled that shit with anything else, it wouldn’t fly. You collectively decide it’s ok because Nintendo bad.
This entire medium is built on iteration. Basically every fantasy thing you ever played was basically a palette swap of Tolkien or someone who copied Tolkien before them. Original D&D had “hobbits” until they were changed into halflings. Palworld is also parody, which thrives on the similarity as it calls pals bastards for breaking out of their capture, or arms them with modern weaponry. Not only that, but “survival game with a riff on Pokemon” is creating something original.
Uh, didn’t know Earthsea, Game of Thrones, Wheel of Time were Tolkien clones. And that’s the most recognizable ones, I could mention a few dozens fantasy books I’ve read in the past few years that have nothing to do with Tolkien outside of a very superficial reading. People who say “everything is derivative” are those who don’t have enough imagination to create something unique themselves.
Also, “survival game with a riff on Pokémon” is unique and I’ve never disputed that, because I’m not an idiot who thinks that Pokémon is the only IP allowed to do the monster collecting thing. “Cinderace but green” is not.
Especially the first book of Wheel of Time famously has lots of similarities with LotR.
Yes, and those similarities end in book 1 of 11-and-a-half written by Jordan and were developed in different directions than LotR. Padan Fain is not Gollum but an alternative and equally powered entity to the Dark One, the Two Rivers are not the Shire but the remnant of a powerful empire, Moraine is no Gandalf, Lan is no Aragorn, neither Mat nor Perrin are Sam, and so on.
The recolored Cinderace is a recoloured Cinderace, there’s no thought process behind it apart from making it legally distinct from its Pokémon counterpart. There’s a difference between creating a derivative copy and creating a unique world with some superficial level similarities. Calling WoT a palette-swap of Tolkien or something that copies Tolkien is wrong on so many levels.
Do you research anything before posting on the internet? Pokémon Red and Blue are basically a mixup of a lot of different games from back then. Somehow you find it Okay when Pokémon does it, but when someone else does it it’s wrong?
You‘re kind of wild.
Just one small example: https://preview.redd.it/pokémon-was-in-the-same-boat-many-years-ago-with-dragon-v0-ag13h0dd95fc1.jpeg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=ac5bf84dd86f9ee4d24a7371ab68cc8897543bc8
Why must you assume that I like, care about, or am willing to defend Pokémon in any way? Yes, I know of that same picture that must have been circulating for a decade at this point. Yes, I think that some of those designs are derivative. Yes, I also believe that Palworld’s art style is slop with no coherent thought process put into it, and everyone that says otherwise is delusional.
Palworld was an incoherent blend of (Pokémon-like) cartoonish artstyle and realistic artstyle that doesn’t blend in any way. Their preceding game’s artstyle was, likewise, suspiciously derivative of Breath of the Wild. This is in no way a judgement on the game’s quality or how it plays like, nor an endorsement of Nintendo’s IP, which I care very little about. It’s just me using my functioning pair of eyes, which anyone could do if they weren’t blinded by fanboyism or hatred for Nintendo.
And say what you want about that picture, but at least Pokémon, even in the very first gen, had a consistent artstyle. Palworld was straight up an asset flip. If the game is good and fun, great! Their artstyle is still slop, and it would be great if people stopped being so defensive of it, especially in an era where AI plagiarism is being normalised so much.
Busy unironically proved the dude aboves point an thinks they’re in the right, hilarious
That’s on you.
If you dont like that you should see the titan bars I got from Aldi.