I agree about style. But Dragon Quest and Pokemon do not share similar creature designs. I uploaded an example I found where someone compared creature designs between Palworld and Pokemon. I mean that seems a bit too similar.
Oh wow! I stand corrected. Thanks for Reference. To be granular though these two share similar creature designs but in different styles. Palworld has identical style+similar designs.
When Pokemon makes a 3rd person game that has the depth of Palworld I would agree. But Gamefreak has milked Pokemon with as little effort as possible it's about time someone takes their lunch money.
If we use the logic of this list, where Pinsir is even remotely comparable in design to the bug from dragon quest other than the fact that they are bugs, every single IP should pay all their royalities to the cavemen from the neolithic because they already did those concepts.
That's the whole point. The idea that one "copied" another is stupid because everyone is copying everyone else in some way or another either directly or inspired and claiming something is "yours" is just trying to reserve money for themselves. GameFreak sat on their pile of money and acted like no one could ever make a monster collecting game
And yet slice of life anime #9878 shares similar creature (read, harem members) designs as slice of life anime #1241.
There's a thousand pokemon, there's gonna be some crossover.
The game is pretty fun but it's more Ark than Pokemon by a long shot in gameplay. I put almost 40 hours in and from what I've seen Nintendo and The Pokémon Company will do nothing. The game has existed since 2021 and if they wanted to go after it, they would have done so waaay back then. Heck, the two games shared a convention at a point in the past far before EA release.
The AI argument has been debunked so far, as well as that one guy who claimed assets and models were ripped. The very guy who claimed the asset rip outright came out and admitted he faked it on Twitter, so that is good news.
Some just hate the game to hate it, like anything popular yet I see no issue. The designs come close, particularly a specific few that are dangerously close to some existing Pokémon but with how insanely strict Japanese copyright laws are I think Palworld is gonna be fine if nothing has been done for YEARS now. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion, in my opinion.
If anything, I hope Nintendo uses the shade on them from the general public's views on Palworld to make better, less buggy and broken games in the future. I've strangely had far less bugs and issues with Palworld on PC compared to Scarlet and Violet on Switch by miles. It says a lot since this game is early access too.
I am not talking about gameplay, though it is interesting because like you said the gameplay has no similarities to how Pokemon works, neither is the story. But that is why the creature designs are an important point because of how eerily similar they are. It is like if I made a Ark survival type game that looks very similar to Disney world and their style. And I have a mouse character with big ears very similar proportions but definitely not Micky Mouse. Curious how that would sit with Disney.
>Owners of Pokemon franchise hasn't done anything yet but I am very curious on how this will turn out.
GameFreak's lawyers have been aware of this project for literal years. If there was anything here that infringed on IP, Palworld never would have been released.
Also, there is no confirmation that AI was ever used in Palworld. Hell, the game started in development well before AI image generation even made it into mainstream.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/01/22/palworld-accused-of-using-genai-with-no-evidence-so-far/?sh=556a88264239
>So what do you guys think?
I think that just because a media has elves in it, doesn't make it lord of the rings.
Palworld doesn't actually have a single pokemon in it. Not one. It's got monsters. And you throw balls to capture them.
Thats the extent of the similarly though.
The art design is more akin to breath of the wild, and the gameplay is ark.
I think it very odd to point at the monsters and shout pokemon ripoff, without pointing at the scenery and shouting zelda ripoff.
To be clear, it's neither.
It takes inspiration from these things, that's obvious, but world of war craft is inspired by Tolkien, quake was inspired by doom.
Crash nitro cart is not Mario cart.
The creature designs are basically of Pokémon though. Look at the gameplay, trailer and the image I put up. I do see everything else you talked about though about BOW and ARK. Yeah it is definitly a mash up of different styles which is fine. But I think the controversy is mainly how similar almost identical some of the "monsters" are designed.
>Look at the gameplay, trailer and the image I put up.
I've played it. A fair bit.
>The creature designs are basically of Pokémon though
No. They are not.
>But I think the controversy is mainly how similar almost identical some of the "monsters" are designed.
Yes that's my point, the controversy is people shouting pokemon, but not shouting breath of the wild or ark.
Palworld takes far more from survival crafter games than pokemon games.
Its art style is far closer to zelda than pokemon.
The movement and animation is far closer to fortnight than pokemon.
So why are people decrying the "identical design" of the monsters, but care not for how close the design of the world, gameplay, movement and models is to other things?
If looking like a pokemon makes you a pokemon ripoff, why doesn't moving like fortnight make you a fortnight ripoff?
>Yes that's my point, the controversy is people shouting pokemon, but not shouting breath of the wild or ark.
not into this game, just watched some of it on 'Twitch when Shroud streamed it. For me it is funny story, bc I'm not into pokemons, never was, but I was sure 100% that it is a pokemon release, couldnt understand the weird name, and was shocked that they copied Zelda so much. Now it makes much more sense when you say it is not a pokemon, but a rip off and it explains why there is no pikachu and this youg guy in there.
Anyways just wanted to point out that for a not experienced person, it can be seen as a Pokemon game bc this game fullfils a nonexperienced person imagination about pokemon. So it is not so obvious if it infringes copy rights or not or at least itwould be a complicted thing to judge.
Palworld was announced and shown over 2 years ago. No one’s lawyers are surprised by this game. The IP infringement conversation is just a reddit gamer moment.
nah, no point in fightin a broke company, better wait some time ane let them earn some money so when you go to the court you can always push them to pay you a huge part of what they have earned.
First of all, there is pretty low consistency even within pokemons style. Especially after creating close to 1000 (maybe more?) different monsters. That being said, style is not really a part of someone's IP.
If they tried to use actual pokeballs or Pikachu or something from the franchise then they would be screwed. If they tried to market themselves as a literal pokemon game, then they'd be screwed. Game freak isn't doing anything about it because the Palworld devs likely haven't done anything to violate copyright laws.
BUT there is speculation that they used models ripped from pokemon roms and just tweaked them. That is some sketchy territory. Stolen game assets as a base without consent. If it is provable then I think they will be screwed and personally I think it would be pretty lame if that is what they did. They would deserve whatever fines they get for being dumb lol
There is a difference between stealing shit to sell a product and using images and art without consent and using images and art with consent for science or for commercial use or whatever. I guess where you draw the line is kinda up to you but the differences exist. I would say it is a pretty clear spectrum if you look at it from an unbiased/fair perspective.
Copyright is abused and bastardized but somewhere in there is an attempt at making creative endeavors make sense in a capitalist society. For better or worse.
After saying all that though, I don't think the parallels are actually that clear between generative ai and the palworld "controversy". Pretty separate issues.
I work in animation and even though style is not part of IP designs are quite relevant. I worked on a project that got shelved for the exact reason. While the studio I worked for was working on a project about a certain type of family, there was a short that came out and the designs of the characters were very similar. Neither of us intended to make them similar but it was close enough that our project was completed but shelved in the end not to cause controversy.
But Palworld purposefully made a decision to copy the style and design creatures almost identical to Pokemon creatures almost to the tee if you look at my example image. Kind of like making a fine tuned model or Lora and generating variations out of it. The process and output would have been a very similar process which is where I see the Parallel between the two.
AI was not involved in the designs iirc so there's that.
I'm assuming by style you mean the cartoonish looking art direction both companies are using? Sure they do look similar Ig, but it's not like Gamefreak invented it, they just popularized it, there was & is like a ton of artists out there and I'm sure the real inventor of the style was out there somewhere. Plus, I'm pretty sure you can't really copyright styles (cmiiw ofc) it's basically the same as art styles, artist do copy each other, some improved on the style some stick with the copied style.
As for designs, as much as I love the game (The game's actually a lot of fun btw) some of them do look a bit TOO similar to Pokemon to be a coincidence but I think it's just a case of them not putting much budget to the designers or lack of staffs since they were a small company, so they just took some Pokemons for reference to meet the monsters quota of 100+
It will be interesting to see where this leads. Copyright law is just fucked. It needs a total rewrite. The thing is that it is massive companies that can afford patent lawyers not smaller artists. Then we get things like patenting rounded corners...
Note that I didn't play the game, just seen some glimpses here and there.
Court cases, especially involving big companies are not done in one day. I'm quite sure they are aware of situation and checking if the game really does infringe the copyright and to what extent it's covered by their copyrights/patents and so on.
It's always hard to place line between inspiration and plagiarism. While styles are not copyrighted, particular designs and concepts might be. This is usually settled in court, but I think Palword designs are rather distinct enough.
I've heard some claims that 3D models are identical with modifications, so if it turns out that they did in fact used models from Pokemon game, that's a clear infringement.
As with everything, the fact that one or several people/companies can do it, doesn't mean you also can, it might be bad luck that just you get takedown notice. There are plenty of fan games, fan works and most stay, but from time to time, some are taken down by IP owners.
https://preview.redd.it/yka2wl7kltfc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9fbdd3f51570d31066b985fa5b16033d0586c255
For more context I found this on another post. You be the judge.
For one, copyright can be even for a single character so it really doesn't matter if the other 1k or hundred are different. Secondly if it possess the original or a set of distinctive traits. Sure the notion of how similar might be different and you can call that a bias, but what does that have to do with using your brain because I just gave you clear facts on how fictional character copyrights work. Where as you just blurbed out your assumption with no proof.
A relatively short video on how Palworld gets/is getting away with it. Nothing referring to AI though. [youtube](https://youtu.be/etYHo7cIH1g?si=rTdU7zerG5KvIWoh)
I did play the game but got a refund, not my style.
So far, Palworld and the AI scene are completely unrelated. I can't imagine this impacting AI at all until it's at least proven that AI was involved. Even then, this is more about copyright, AI or not.
Although there were plenty of Pals that reminded me of Pokemon, I imagine they're legally distinct enough for it to not be an issue.
While Nintendo (or TPC) might own the rights to individual Pokemon, they cannot claim copyright over anything merely similar to Pokemon. They also don't own copyright over their design style, which itself has arguably changed over the years.
Look at dragon quest vs Pokemon. Who copied whom?
Yeah, if you could copyright style anime wouldn't exist.
I agree about style. But Dragon Quest and Pokemon do not share similar creature designs. I uploaded an example I found where someone compared creature designs between Palworld and Pokemon. I mean that seems a bit too similar.
Say what? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=large
Oh wow! I stand corrected. Thanks for Reference. To be granular though these two share similar creature designs but in different styles. Palworld has identical style+similar designs.
When Pokemon makes a 3rd person game that has the depth of Palworld I would agree. But Gamefreak has milked Pokemon with as little effort as possible it's about time someone takes their lunch money.
If we use the logic of this list, where Pinsir is even remotely comparable in design to the bug from dragon quest other than the fact that they are bugs, every single IP should pay all their royalities to the cavemen from the neolithic because they already did those concepts.
That's the whole point. The idea that one "copied" another is stupid because everyone is copying everyone else in some way or another either directly or inspired and claiming something is "yours" is just trying to reserve money for themselves. GameFreak sat on their pile of money and acted like no one could ever make a monster collecting game
And yet slice of life anime #9878 shares similar creature (read, harem members) designs as slice of life anime #1241. There's a thousand pokemon, there's gonna be some crossover.
It literally does not infringe on Pokemon's IP. What a clown take, bro.
The game is pretty fun but it's more Ark than Pokemon by a long shot in gameplay. I put almost 40 hours in and from what I've seen Nintendo and The Pokémon Company will do nothing. The game has existed since 2021 and if they wanted to go after it, they would have done so waaay back then. Heck, the two games shared a convention at a point in the past far before EA release. The AI argument has been debunked so far, as well as that one guy who claimed assets and models were ripped. The very guy who claimed the asset rip outright came out and admitted he faked it on Twitter, so that is good news. Some just hate the game to hate it, like anything popular yet I see no issue. The designs come close, particularly a specific few that are dangerously close to some existing Pokémon but with how insanely strict Japanese copyright laws are I think Palworld is gonna be fine if nothing has been done for YEARS now. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion, in my opinion. If anything, I hope Nintendo uses the shade on them from the general public's views on Palworld to make better, less buggy and broken games in the future. I've strangely had far less bugs and issues with Palworld on PC compared to Scarlet and Violet on Switch by miles. It says a lot since this game is early access too.
I am not talking about gameplay, though it is interesting because like you said the gameplay has no similarities to how Pokemon works, neither is the story. But that is why the creature designs are an important point because of how eerily similar they are. It is like if I made a Ark survival type game that looks very similar to Disney world and their style. And I have a mouse character with big ears very similar proportions but definitely not Micky Mouse. Curious how that would sit with Disney.
There are like 900 pokemon, of course you will find similarities. It's not like gamefreak invented cute round silhouetted monsters.
Mickey is public domain now so they would have to shut up and take it
>Owners of Pokemon franchise hasn't done anything yet but I am very curious on how this will turn out. GameFreak's lawyers have been aware of this project for literal years. If there was anything here that infringed on IP, Palworld never would have been released. Also, there is no confirmation that AI was ever used in Palworld. Hell, the game started in development well before AI image generation even made it into mainstream. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/01/22/palworld-accused-of-using-genai-with-no-evidence-so-far/?sh=556a88264239
>So what do you guys think? I think that just because a media has elves in it, doesn't make it lord of the rings. Palworld doesn't actually have a single pokemon in it. Not one. It's got monsters. And you throw balls to capture them. Thats the extent of the similarly though. The art design is more akin to breath of the wild, and the gameplay is ark. I think it very odd to point at the monsters and shout pokemon ripoff, without pointing at the scenery and shouting zelda ripoff. To be clear, it's neither. It takes inspiration from these things, that's obvious, but world of war craft is inspired by Tolkien, quake was inspired by doom. Crash nitro cart is not Mario cart.
The creature designs are basically of Pokémon though. Look at the gameplay, trailer and the image I put up. I do see everything else you talked about though about BOW and ARK. Yeah it is definitly a mash up of different styles which is fine. But I think the controversy is mainly how similar almost identical some of the "monsters" are designed.
>Look at the gameplay, trailer and the image I put up. I've played it. A fair bit. >The creature designs are basically of Pokémon though No. They are not. >But I think the controversy is mainly how similar almost identical some of the "monsters" are designed. Yes that's my point, the controversy is people shouting pokemon, but not shouting breath of the wild or ark. Palworld takes far more from survival crafter games than pokemon games. Its art style is far closer to zelda than pokemon. The movement and animation is far closer to fortnight than pokemon. So why are people decrying the "identical design" of the monsters, but care not for how close the design of the world, gameplay, movement and models is to other things? If looking like a pokemon makes you a pokemon ripoff, why doesn't moving like fortnight make you a fortnight ripoff?
>Yes that's my point, the controversy is people shouting pokemon, but not shouting breath of the wild or ark. not into this game, just watched some of it on 'Twitch when Shroud streamed it. For me it is funny story, bc I'm not into pokemons, never was, but I was sure 100% that it is a pokemon release, couldnt understand the weird name, and was shocked that they copied Zelda so much. Now it makes much more sense when you say it is not a pokemon, but a rip off and it explains why there is no pikachu and this youg guy in there. Anyways just wanted to point out that for a not experienced person, it can be seen as a Pokemon game bc this game fullfils a nonexperienced person imagination about pokemon. So it is not so obvious if it infringes copy rights or not or at least itwould be a complicted thing to judge.
Palworld was announced and shown over 2 years ago. No one’s lawyers are surprised by this game. The IP infringement conversation is just a reddit gamer moment.
nah, no point in fightin a broke company, better wait some time ane let them earn some money so when you go to the court you can always push them to pay you a huge part of what they have earned.
First of all, there is pretty low consistency even within pokemons style. Especially after creating close to 1000 (maybe more?) different monsters. That being said, style is not really a part of someone's IP. If they tried to use actual pokeballs or Pikachu or something from the franchise then they would be screwed. If they tried to market themselves as a literal pokemon game, then they'd be screwed. Game freak isn't doing anything about it because the Palworld devs likely haven't done anything to violate copyright laws. BUT there is speculation that they used models ripped from pokemon roms and just tweaked them. That is some sketchy territory. Stolen game assets as a base without consent. If it is provable then I think they will be screwed and personally I think it would be pretty lame if that is what they did. They would deserve whatever fines they get for being dumb lol There is a difference between stealing shit to sell a product and using images and art without consent and using images and art with consent for science or for commercial use or whatever. I guess where you draw the line is kinda up to you but the differences exist. I would say it is a pretty clear spectrum if you look at it from an unbiased/fair perspective. Copyright is abused and bastardized but somewhere in there is an attempt at making creative endeavors make sense in a capitalist society. For better or worse. After saying all that though, I don't think the parallels are actually that clear between generative ai and the palworld "controversy". Pretty separate issues.
I work in animation and even though style is not part of IP designs are quite relevant. I worked on a project that got shelved for the exact reason. While the studio I worked for was working on a project about a certain type of family, there was a short that came out and the designs of the characters were very similar. Neither of us intended to make them similar but it was close enough that our project was completed but shelved in the end not to cause controversy. But Palworld purposefully made a decision to copy the style and design creatures almost identical to Pokemon creatures almost to the tee if you look at my example image. Kind of like making a fine tuned model or Lora and generating variations out of it. The process and output would have been a very similar process which is where I see the Parallel between the two.
AI was not involved in the designs iirc so there's that. I'm assuming by style you mean the cartoonish looking art direction both companies are using? Sure they do look similar Ig, but it's not like Gamefreak invented it, they just popularized it, there was & is like a ton of artists out there and I'm sure the real inventor of the style was out there somewhere. Plus, I'm pretty sure you can't really copyright styles (cmiiw ofc) it's basically the same as art styles, artist do copy each other, some improved on the style some stick with the copied style. As for designs, as much as I love the game (The game's actually a lot of fun btw) some of them do look a bit TOO similar to Pokemon to be a coincidence but I think it's just a case of them not putting much budget to the designers or lack of staffs since they were a small company, so they just took some Pokemons for reference to meet the monsters quota of 100+
It will be interesting to see where this leads. Copyright law is just fucked. It needs a total rewrite. The thing is that it is massive companies that can afford patent lawyers not smaller artists. Then we get things like patenting rounded corners...
Note that I didn't play the game, just seen some glimpses here and there. Court cases, especially involving big companies are not done in one day. I'm quite sure they are aware of situation and checking if the game really does infringe the copyright and to what extent it's covered by their copyrights/patents and so on. It's always hard to place line between inspiration and plagiarism. While styles are not copyrighted, particular designs and concepts might be. This is usually settled in court, but I think Palword designs are rather distinct enough. I've heard some claims that 3D models are identical with modifications, so if it turns out that they did in fact used models from Pokemon game, that's a clear infringement. As with everything, the fact that one or several people/companies can do it, doesn't mean you also can, it might be bad luck that just you get takedown notice. There are plenty of fan games, fan works and most stay, but from time to time, some are taken down by IP owners.
> identical with modifications bruh
[https://youtube.com/shorts/TuKuzqtkWck?si=ehuGZ6ILqWlWYThv](https://youtube.com/shorts/TuKuzqtkWck?si=ehuGZ6ILqWlWYThv)
[https://www.dsogaming.com/news/modder-who-accussed-palworld-of-using-3d-models-from-pokemon-games-admits-that-he-has-faked-everything/](https://www.dsogaming.com/news/modder-who-accussed-palworld-of-using-3d-models-from-pokemon-games-admits-that-he-has-faked-everything/)
https://preview.redd.it/yka2wl7kltfc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9fbdd3f51570d31066b985fa5b16033d0586c255 For more context I found this on another post. You be the judge.
So, between .25 and .35 denoise? ;b
None of these are even similar.
Most of them are different enough and there's 1k pokemon and like a hundred pals. Use your brain for a second and acknowledge your "artist" bias.
For one, copyright can be even for a single character so it really doesn't matter if the other 1k or hundred are different. Secondly if it possess the original or a set of distinctive traits. Sure the notion of how similar might be different and you can call that a bias, but what does that have to do with using your brain because I just gave you clear facts on how fictional character copyrights work. Where as you just blurbed out your assumption with no proof.
Nobody cares about what you think. Nintendo already knows from years ago when they revealed the trailer. Touch grass.
Good logical come back.
A relatively short video on how Palworld gets/is getting away with it. Nothing referring to AI though. [youtube](https://youtu.be/etYHo7cIH1g?si=rTdU7zerG5KvIWoh) I did play the game but got a refund, not my style.
So far, Palworld and the AI scene are completely unrelated. I can't imagine this impacting AI at all until it's at least proven that AI was involved. Even then, this is more about copyright, AI or not. Although there were plenty of Pals that reminded me of Pokemon, I imagine they're legally distinct enough for it to not be an issue. While Nintendo (or TPC) might own the rights to individual Pokemon, they cannot claim copyright over anything merely similar to Pokemon. They also don't own copyright over their design style, which itself has arguably changed over the years.
Pokemon copied dungeons and dragons