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 one of the biggest Pokémon fanboys there is on this planet. I don’t plan on defending or hating on them. They delivered slop since they went big on switch, even the 3DS was questionable. Palworld was something that finally looked like it forced them to increase their quality and seeing the trailers for Winds and Waves it finally looks like they did.
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.
I‘m one of the biggest Pokémon fanboys there is on this planet. I don’t plan on defending or hating on them. They delivered slop since they went big on switch, even the 3DS was questionable. Palworld was something that finally looked like it forced them to increase their quality and seeing the trailers for Winds and Waves it finally looks like they did.
I don’t want to dispute anything you said, but it doesn’t disprove my point, either.
Palworld may or may not have forced Pokemon to be better. Their artstyle is still Unreal Engine asset-flip slop.
That’s on you.
Busy unironically proved the dude aboves point an thinks they’re in the right, hilarious