“Please make Gimp relevant” would be a pretty interesting pull request.

Ah. So gimp is going to stop being 15 years out of date and instead going to be just 10 years out of date. Cool.

Isn’t Sims 2 still the most robust and fleshed out Sims out there?

Eyup. That was a really big one. Birds of Prey came after. All those outlets crying everyone was a woman hating asshole were mysteriously silent when loads of people liked Wonder Woman.

Remember what the news was all about when Baldur’s Gate 3 came out?

Oh but that’s the fun part; people criticise that a game or a series or a movie prioritises D.E.I. over telling a good story and then they get lumped together with the few who are actual bigots. It’s easy to pretend that all the failings of something is because of nasty people rather than it just sucking.

So, examples?

NuTrek, especially Discovery and Picard. The Acolyte. Rings of Power. The Marvels. Black Panther 2. She Hulk. Wish.

I personally find that identity politics is far too often used as a shield against genuine criticism. Some corporate types create something bland, or just outright terrible, and add a whole lot of tokenism. Someone points out that the story is terrible, the characters are terrible, and that it seems to do nothing but pander, and they’re immediately likened to some of the worst people on Earth.

Surely only the most militant alt-right extremist would criticise these committee curated progressive consumable products!

Short answer is “yes”, although it’s much less of a tribe and more just the average person.

Character design, at first look. Some original concept art was ignored or altered for reasons of inclusivity. For some reason “inclusivity” means making characters ugly, fat, and unappealing.

Essentially, from appearance, it seems someone in their D.E.I. department wanted to force a subversion of beauty standards (and believability) down everyone’s throats. Top that off with it being Yet Another Live Service Hero Shooter, and you have the majority of the gaming community taking one look at it… And then looking the other way. With a lot of others making fun of it.

For those who did bought it there seemed to be a completely pointless pronoun element to the game, and people are getting seriously sick and tired of seeing identity politics in everything.

500,000 copies sold is not insignificant. Nintendo fries even the smallest of fish. They’ll literally go out of their way to fuck up someone’s small hobby project only a niche few even care about. So if Nintendo is turning blind eye to a game that copied them in every way one could possibly copy a Pokemon game, then there’s something else going on.

Remember, this is not a copyright case, this is a patent case. Considering Palworld is the only game vaguely similar to Pokemon in some minor ways that I’ve seen use spheres as a catching tool, I’m just (blindly) guessing it MIGHT have something to do with that.

There are only two things Dragon Quest V and Pokemon have in common; monster taming through battle and they’re both turn based RPGs.

Have you played or seen TemTem? It’s literally Pokemon in every way, from mechanics, level design, to even how and what kind of moves the Tems can learn.

Nintendo goes after even the smallest infringements, so since they’ve never gone after TemTem it tells me the patent isn’t “monster catching RPG”. It’s more specific than that, and Palworld somehow infringes on it. As of yet we can only guess what the patent is.

So… Um… If Nintendo patented elements of Pokemon (we don’t know what the patents are yet), then… Why is TemTem allowed to live? TemTem is literally one-to-one Pokemon, all but in name.

If, somehow, TemTem isn’t in violation of Nintendo’s patents, despite just being Pokemon made by someone else, then I’m very curious what Nintendo’s patent actually is.

Could it be the capture ball? TemTem uses cards. Palworld uses balls like Pokemon. Did Nintendo patent the idea of capturing creatures inside of balls, specifically? Is that why Nintendo never went after TemTem?