It’s one thing to draw inspiration, and another to directly copy the art style and mechanics of an established franchise to piggyback on their brand recognition.
I’ve seen enough gameplay to be able to draw informed conclusions, and I’d rather not reward the developers financially for their sketchy practices anyway. There are much better survival crafting games out there which have their own unique art style and mechanics.
That would require giving the developers money, which I’m not going to do. I’ve watched over an hour of gameplay, which I feel gives a pretty good idea of the mechanics. You still haven’t told me what I said that was incorrect, which makes me think there isn’t anything.
K first of all, the mechanic you’re referencing was already an established mechanic before Pokemon Red/Blue came out. The Pokemon Company didn’t invent the “creature catcher” genre of video games.
Second of all, as I’ve said already, the catching mechanic in Palworld is absolutely distinct enough to be considered as drawing inspiration from Pokemon, and not copying. If you wanna get into the nitty gritty, I’ll meet you down there, but if you’re just gonna continue to spout meaningless contrarianisms I’ve got better things to do
Third of all, “cell shaded anime art style” describes hundreds if not thousands of video games, not just Pokemon games. You can’t realistically claim that Palworld copied Pokemon’s art style* just because it uses a cell-shaded anime style, especially because Pokemon has only used that art direction for the last two generations of games, and the style has been in use long before sword and shield came out.
It seems like you’re just willfully ignoring my actual meaning to defend the game.
Yes, creature capturing existed prior to Pokemon, but not capturing by weakening the creature and throwing a ball at them.
Yes, cell-shaded graphics existed before Pokemon, but Palworld explicitly copies the style of creature design from Pokemon, mixing and matching parts to make something that is different enough to not be a direct copy of any one design, but similar enough that a casual observer would be hard pressed to tell them apart. There’s a good reason that pretty much every review of the game refers to it as “Pokemon with guns.”
The developers knew exactly what they were doing, so to claim it wasn’t intentional is disingenuous at best.
but not capturing by weakening the creature and throwing a ball at them.
If you think “throwing a ball” is a patentable (or even copyrightable) mechanic, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Palworld explicitly copies the style of creature design from Pokemon
Some pals are similar to Pokemon, sure, but a lot are quite distinct. If you have a problem with that though, take it up with The Pokemon Company, because they did it first.
The developers knew exactly what they were doing, so to claim it wasn’t intentional is disingenuous at best.
Of course it was intentional to make a game in the same genre as Pokemon, with similar mechanics. That’s how video games in the same genre work. You make them similar to things you know people like, so that there’s a greater chance they’ll like your game too, but you also introduce new, unique things so that you’re not copying. Yes, Palworld did that intentionally.
None of that is illegal though, or shouldn’t be anyways, unless they’re straight up stealing assets/code from a Pokemon game and using it in Palworld.
If you think “throwing a ball” is a patentable (or even copyrightable) mechanic, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Again, the mechanic is capturing a creature by weakening them and throwing a ball at them. Not just throwing a ball. I’m not suggesting that The Pokemon Company can or has patented throwing a ball. You’re being deliberately disingenuous with your replies, implying that I’m saying something I’m not.
Some pals are similar to Pokemon, sure, but a lot are quite distinct.
Again, they have taken recognisable parts of Pokemon and mixed them together. None of the creatures I’ve seen are entirely new designs, but rather hybrids of existing, well known Pokemon.
Of course it was intentional to make a game in the same genre as Pokemon, with similar mechanics.
They didn’t make a game in the same genre as Pokemon. They made a clone of Ark, replacing the dinosaurs with Pokemon and copying the capture mechanic.
I understand fans of the game defending them, but outright lying to defend them and ignoring obvious facts does nothing to forward the conversation. It’s fine to admit that a thing you like has flaws, and admit that those flaws need addressing.
the mechanic is capturing a creature by weakening them and throwing a ball at them. Not just throwing a ball.
And like I’ve said before, Shin Megami Tensei did this before Pokemon. This concept was not original to Pokemon, and exists in several other creature catcher games.
None of the creatures I’ve seen are entirely new designs, but rather hybrids of existing, well known Pokemon.
Then you haven’t seen a large portion of Pals. Plenty of pals are unique. Some of them look similar to Pokemon, sure, because they’re based on the same real world animal.
outright lying to defend them and ignoring obvious facts does
🙄🙄🙄
It’s fine to admit that a thing you like has flaws, and admit that those flaws need addressing.
K, Palworld has flaws. Never claimed otherwise.
We’ve run far field of the point though. Palworld is being sued for patent infringement. If there was ever a patent on the “weaken creature then capture” mechanic, it’s long expired, so they’re not being sued over that. They’re not being sued over art or Pal designs, because that would be copyright infringement, not a patent violation.
Given those facts, what do you think Palworld is being sued for?
We don’t know which patent they’re being sued over, as that information hasn’t been made public yet. We can only guess at this point, but it’s obviously a patent that’s intrinsic to the Pokemon franchise and a reasonable guess would be the capture mechanic. The fact is that Nintendo believe they have a case.
Copying would imply a one to one duplication. The catching system in Palworld differs in multiple ways from the Pokemon system. I think that’s enough to call it borrowing and not copying.
Where is the line drawn between borrowing and copying?
If you can’t draw inspiration from other games, then the gaming industry as a whole is in trouble.
It’s one thing to draw inspiration, and another to directly copy the art style and mechanics of an established franchise to piggyback on their brand recognition.
You obviously haven’t actually played the game.
I’ve seen enough gameplay to be able to draw informed conclusions, and I’d rather not reward the developers financially for their sketchy practices anyway. There are much better survival crafting games out there which have their own unique art style and mechanics.
Obviously not
So enlighten me, as you’re obviously the expert in the room. What have I said that’s incorrect?
Just play the game and find out.
That would require giving the developers money, which I’m not going to do. I’ve watched over an hour of gameplay, which I feel gives a pretty good idea of the mechanics. You still haven’t told me what I said that was incorrect, which makes me think there isn’t anything.
K first of all, the mechanic you’re referencing was already an established mechanic before Pokemon Red/Blue came out. The Pokemon Company didn’t invent the “creature catcher” genre of video games.
Second of all, as I’ve said already, the catching mechanic in Palworld is absolutely distinct enough to be considered as drawing inspiration from Pokemon, and not copying. If you wanna get into the nitty gritty, I’ll meet you down there, but if you’re just gonna continue to spout meaningless contrarianisms I’ve got better things to do
Third of all, “cell shaded anime art style” describes hundreds if not thousands of video games, not just Pokemon games. You can’t realistically claim that Palworld copied Pokemon’s art style* just because it uses a cell-shaded anime style, especially because Pokemon has only used that art direction for the last two generations of games, and the style has been in use long before sword and shield came out.
It seems like you’re just willfully ignoring my actual meaning to defend the game.
Yes, creature capturing existed prior to Pokemon, but not capturing by weakening the creature and throwing a ball at them.
Yes, cell-shaded graphics existed before Pokemon, but Palworld explicitly copies the style of creature design from Pokemon, mixing and matching parts to make something that is different enough to not be a direct copy of any one design, but similar enough that a casual observer would be hard pressed to tell them apart. There’s a good reason that pretty much every review of the game refers to it as “Pokemon with guns.”
The developers knew exactly what they were doing, so to claim it wasn’t intentional is disingenuous at best.
If you think “throwing a ball” is a patentable (or even copyrightable) mechanic, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Some pals are similar to Pokemon, sure, but a lot are quite distinct. If you have a problem with that though, take it up with The Pokemon Company, because they did it first.
Of course it was intentional to make a game in the same genre as Pokemon, with similar mechanics. That’s how video games in the same genre work. You make them similar to things you know people like, so that there’s a greater chance they’ll like your game too, but you also introduce new, unique things so that you’re not copying. Yes, Palworld did that intentionally.
None of that is illegal though, or shouldn’t be anyways, unless they’re straight up stealing assets/code from a Pokemon game and using it in Palworld.
Again, the mechanic is capturing a creature by weakening them and throwing a ball at them. Not just throwing a ball. I’m not suggesting that The Pokemon Company can or has patented throwing a ball. You’re being deliberately disingenuous with your replies, implying that I’m saying something I’m not.
Again, they have taken recognisable parts of Pokemon and mixed them together. None of the creatures I’ve seen are entirely new designs, but rather hybrids of existing, well known Pokemon.
They didn’t make a game in the same genre as Pokemon. They made a clone of Ark, replacing the dinosaurs with Pokemon and copying the capture mechanic.
I understand fans of the game defending them, but outright lying to defend them and ignoring obvious facts does nothing to forward the conversation. It’s fine to admit that a thing you like has flaws, and admit that those flaws need addressing.
And like I’ve said before, Shin Megami Tensei did this before Pokemon. This concept was not original to Pokemon, and exists in several other creature catcher games.
Then you haven’t seen a large portion of Pals. Plenty of pals are unique. Some of them look similar to Pokemon, sure, because they’re based on the same real world animal.
🙄🙄🙄
K, Palworld has flaws. Never claimed otherwise.
We’ve run far field of the point though. Palworld is being sued for patent infringement. If there was ever a patent on the “weaken creature then capture” mechanic, it’s long expired, so they’re not being sued over that. They’re not being sued over art or Pal designs, because that would be copyright infringement, not a patent violation.
Given those facts, what do you think Palworld is being sued for?
We don’t know which patent they’re being sued over, as that information hasn’t been made public yet. We can only guess at this point, but it’s obviously a patent that’s intrinsic to the Pokemon franchise and a reasonable guess would be the capture mechanic. The fact is that Nintendo believe they have a case.
Copying would imply a one to one duplication. The catching system in Palworld differs in multiple ways from the Pokemon system. I think that’s enough to call it borrowing and not copying.