Is Palworld a complete ripoff of Pokemon?

[nightglow]

It's not a pokemon rip off and it doesn't even feel like pokemon. It plays much different but in a nice way. However, I'm a fan of monster battling games period, so maybe I'm more open?
So far I'm really enjoying the game, and it runs really well for early access (playing pc). There is crafting and base building, exploration and dungeons, boss battles, monster breeding, hunting, and power ups. It has many customization options so you can play how you want.
I think maybe the best way to describe the game is a mix between a survival game and digimon.
I've been playing multiplayer on a private server.

As for the question of palworld pushing Nintendo/parties involved to make better (better quality?) pokemon games? Nah. The games simply aren't comparable beyond them both having magical beasts, so I don't think Nintendo will see palworld as a true competitor. They are two very different games. I think Nintendo will continue doing what they have been doing in terms of quality. However I can see them turning back around to their Arecus game idea and working on that more since more people seem to be into open world and crafting.

And no, Nintendo can't sue palworld for having magical monsters to catch and battle with. No one owns that idea and the idea cannot be owned. And the monster designs are different enough. Maybe it was a genuine question, but honestly i'm tired of people pointing at certain corporations all the time as if they own everything and are supreme. Lamball and Woolio are sheep. They are gonna look like sheep. And if people are gonna say they aren't different enough, then we are all in trouble.
And if palworld is a rip off of pokemon but with violence then I'd like to hear modern day thoughts on digimon which on the surface looks more violent than palworld does. Sometimes I wonder if the digimon are just forgotten by most people tbh.

 

[Belle T]

And no, Nintendo can't sue palworld for having magical monsters to catch and battle with. No one owns that idea and the idea cannot be owned.

Well, they could potentially make a case (though an admittedly weak one) for trademark infringement. The design of the monsters is definitely intended to evoke the general "essence" of Pokémon's branding. There is no way anyone wouldn't look at the game without being reminded of it. And if the developers used assets modified from Nintendo's games as I've been seeing float around (but can't confirm) then they definitely would have grounds for a lawsuit. For the record, I'm not saying I wish Nintendo would, but that to say they absolutely can't is a bit naive.

However, I also don't think they will. Microsoft seems heavily invested in the console versions being available on the Xbox family, and Valve heavily--heavily--advertised this, not long after shutting down a fan project (a move that is very uncharacteristic of them) because they didn't want Nintendo knocking at their doors when it was found to be using copyrighted Nintendo infrastructure. I highly doubt either company would do this if they expected to bash heads with Nintendo over it.

 

[nightglow]

Well, they could potentially make a case (though an admittedly weak one) for trademark infringement. The design of the monsters is definitely intended to evoke the general "essence" of Pokémon's branding. There is no way anyone wouldn't look at the game without being reminded of it. And if the developers used assets modified from Nintendo's games as I've been seeing float around (but can't confirm) then they definitely would have grounds for a lawsuit. For the record, I'm not saying I wish Nintendo would, but that to say they absolutely can't is a bit naive.

However, I also don't think they will. Microsoft seems heavily invested in the console versions being available on the Xbox family, and Valve heavily--heavily--advertised this, not long after shutting down a fan project (a move that is very uncharacteristic of them) because they didn't want Nintendo knocking at their doors when it was found to be using copyrighted Nintendo infrastructure. I highly doubt either company would do this if they expected to bash heads with Nintendo over it.

I have to disagree. Just because a magical monster is designed in a 3d anime style or has rounded body parts isn't enough for court.

 

[Belle T]

I have to disagree. Just because a magical monster is designed in a 3d anime style or has rounded body parts isn't enough for court.

Certainly not, but it's not just magical monsters designed in a 3D anime style. It's magical monsters designed explicitly to appear like they were designed by Ken Sugimori. Those side-by-side comparisons I was complaining about earlier might actually come in handy for this-

These aren't by any means superficial similarities. It would be impossible to deny that these models aren't at least heavily referenced from official Pokémon artwork. Which again, probably isn't the strongest case. But it doesn't mean that Nintendo can't pursue it they wanted.

If Nintendo decided to pursue legal action on these grounds, I don't think they would necessarily win, nor should they. But they wouldn't be entirely without any angle to pursue. Particularly when you're a corporation large enough that the court skews in your favor anyway.

 

[Violet Witch]

anyways, is palworld any good from anyone who’s played it? i’ve heard so much hype but i was wondering if it was just a meme.

I've not played the game yet as I was waiting for a few minor glitches on the Xbox to be addressed which has now happened but I've seen a lot of gameplay footage online and everyone who's playing it are all having a blast. They're also all coming to same the conclusion in that Palworld is what Scarlet and Violet should've been, but obviously wasn't.

 

[rocketspruggs]

I just looked this thing up on the internet, it does look like a Pokémon ripoff.

 

[nightglow]

Certainly not, but it's not just magical monsters designed in a 3D anime style. It's magical monsters designed explicitly to appear like they were designed by Ken Sugimori. Those side-by-side comparisons I was complaining about earlier might actually come in handy for this-

These aren't by any means superficial similarities. It would be impossible to deny that these models aren't at least heavily referenced from official Pokémon artwork. Which again, probably isn't the strongest case. But it doesn't mean that Nintendo can't pursue it they wanted.

If Nintendo decided to pursue legal action on these grounds, I don't think they would necessarily win, nor should they. But they wouldn't be entirely without any angle to pursue. Particularly when you're a corporation large enough that the court skews in your favor anyway.

The side by side shows they are clearly different. Lucario and Anubis are based off the Egyptian God Anubis. Same as Anubismon the digimon. And palworld has other pals designed to reference ancient Egypt too, such as Faleris, rayhound, and warsect. Or at least I feel that way about warsect due to color pallet. Speaking of color pallets..
The second set is based off a deer and have a similar color pallet. I don't thinking having a blue deer is a crime. I also find it convenient that people aren't looking at the whole model. Fenglope has a sleeker body build, and has actual deer feet and flowing tail, and more stylized antlers, unlike Cabolion. You can easily tell they are different.
The third, heaven forbid we have a magical monster like the purple grinning cat from Alice and wonderland? Alice and wonder land is Disney. The pal's name is Grintale.
The fourth one, with a blank model, is boltmane which a black and white lion with yellow accents. Since we are looking at a blank model it's even easier to tell the difference in build. Boltmane is more fluff and smaller ears. Are we gonna say raican from temtem is a pokemon ripoff too? I'm not seeing the problem here.
The last is nox which I assume people gonna point at Eevee because it is a well known pokemon? So no one can have a small fluffy fox monster now?

If these are true problems, then we are in trouble on who owns what. The models are clearly different. Color pallets cannot be owned.

Are we gonna say we can't tell the difference between mega seadramon from digimon, jormungold from cassette beasts, jormuntide from palworld and gyarados from pokemon too?
Or the difference between houndtrion from coromon and cerberusmon from digimon?

Is rampede from monster sanctuary a problem too because tyrantrum from pokemon exists?

I recommend people look up the photos. I could post them here, but this is getting long enough as it is. The list could go on.
It's cool if people disagree with me btw, but I feel this is important to point out. By the standards some are saying, only large corporations, in particular Nintendo, can create magical monsters for battling and collecting and that is just wrong.

Edit I missed the rabbit. They are still different enough too. What exactly is the problem with it? It's a standing rabbit with more fluff and more nature colors than Pokemon's cinderace. It even has a fluffy tail.


What is generally suggested in this thread is that Nintendo would have to prove what about the monsters is infringement. Is it because it is a deer that is blue with white fluff and yellow antlers? Is that the problem? Is that what Nintendo, and solely Nintendo, owns?

 

[Violet Witch]

I find it hilarious that Pokemon fans are desperately trying to find every reason to show everyone that Palworld should be boycotted because they feel it's a blatant rip off of Pokemon. Yet there are hundreds of other games that do the exact same thing and never get a mention. Coral Island is a blatant rip off of Stardew Valley which in turn is a blatant rip off of Harvest Moon, but because they're all deemed "cosy" their (lack of) originality is completely overlooked.

As far as I'm concerned Pokemon is not a perfect or an untouchable franchise and having a bit of competition from another company should be welcomed as it could force the franchise and Nintendo to do better. I'd rather spend $30 dollars on an indy game with modern graphics as oppose to $60 on a game with outdated graphics thats also riddled with bugs and glitches.

 

[daringred_]

i mentioned in my previous comment that i've already seen the comparisons, as well as videos highlighting how several models look either ripped or directly traced, and i still think the designs are problematically similar even if not necessarily legally; my mind's not going to be changed on that, because that's just how i feel, and i don't expect anyone else's mind to be changed vice versa either. however, i do think it's kind of rude and also a sweeping generalization for others to claim all people who have my point of view are just jealous and/or blinded-by-devotion pokemon fanboys who think Nintendo owns the monster battling/catching genre.

there are very drastic differences between, say, digimon and pokemon vs. palworld and pokemon, and multiple people i've seen criticize the designs have prefaced that they have no issue with it being a monster collecting/battling game specifically. i've been pretty vocal about my own dislike for scar/vio; didn't even buy the DLC, and it's not as if the two opinions -- disliking current pokemon and thinking palworld's designs are a ripoff -- cannot both be held in concert. not sure where the massive insistence came from that Anyone and Everyone who dares not like palworld's designs must just be a butthurt pokemon fan.

at the end of the day, i don't care if people buy or enjoy palworld; that's their decision, and i hope they have fun! what bothers me more is the way people talk about others who aren't happy with or a fan of the design similarities, and the possibility (based on the devs' seemingly pro-AI art stance) that some of these designs were created or helped along by AI.

 

[Corrie]

With Palworld's huge success, I'm excited for all the other "clones" that come after it. Like how the farming sim genre blew up. I want more games in this same vein.

 

[nightglow]

With Palworld's huge success, I'm excited for all the other "clones" that come after it. Like how the farming sim genre blew up. I want more games in this same vein.

My hope for the future is a massive mmo monster game that is kinder than Digimon Masters Online.

 

[Belle T]

The side by side shows they are clearly different. Lucario and Anubis are based off the Egyptian God Anubis. Same as Anubismon the digimon. And palworld has other pals designed to reference ancient Egypt too, such as Faleris, rayhound, and warsect. Or at least I feel that way about warsect due to color pallet. Speaking of color pallets..
The second set is based off a deer and have a similar color pallet. I don't thinking having a blue deer is a crime. I also find it convenient that people aren't looking at the whole model. Fenglope has a sleeker body build, and has actual deer feet and flowing tail, and more stylized antlers, unlike Cabolion. You can easily tell they are different.
The third, heaven forbid we have a magical monster like the purple grinning cat from Alice and wonderland? Alice and wonder land is Disney. The pal's name is Grintale.
The fourth one, with a blank model, is boltmane which a black and white lion with yellow accents. Since we are looking at a blank model it's even easier to tell the difference in build. Boltmane is more fluff and smaller ears. Are we gonna say raican from temtem is a pokemon ripoff too? I'm not seeing the problem here.
The last is nox which I assume people gonna point at Eevee because it is a well known pokemon? So no one can have a small fluffy fox monster now?

If these are true problems, then we are in trouble on who owns what. The models are clearly different. Color pallets cannot be owned.

Are we gonna say we can't tell the difference between mega seadramon from digimon, jormungold from cassette beasts, jormuntide from palworld and gyarados from pokemon too?
Or the difference between houndtrion from coromon and cerberusmon from digimon?

Is rampede from monster sanctuary a problem too because tyrantrum from pokemon exists?

I recommend people look up the photos. I could post them here, but this is getting long enough as it is. The list could go on.
It's cool if people disagree with me btw, but I feel this is important to point out. By the standards some are saying, only large corporations, in particular Nintendo, can create magical monsters for battling and collecting and that is just wrong.

Edit I missed the rabbit. They are still different enough too. What exactly is the problem with it? It's a standing rabbit with more fluff and more nature colors than Pokemon's cinderace. It even has a fluffy tail.


What is generally suggested in this thread is that Nintendo would have to prove what about the monsters is infringement. Is it because it is a deer that is blue with white fluff and yellow antlers? Is that the problem? Is that what Nintendo, and solely Nintendo, owns?

Mate, with all due respect, you're missIng the trees for the forest and it's extremely disingenuous. No, Nintendo does not own the vague concept of ideas like Anubis, or a blue deer, a fluffy fox creature, or the Cheshire cat. But you're acting like these are static ideas which would naturally lead to this conclusion, or refusing to see the specifics.

Here's an image I also don't agree with but is useful for illustrating my point.

Here are two game series with similar themes, both having similar monsters drawn in an "anime" style, but no one is going to confuse Dragon Quest for Pokémon, and particularly not these specific Pokémon. Everything from body formation to eye shape. The fact that they are similar does not make them infringing.

It is the execution of these ideas. No, Nintendo does not own any of the ideas. But these are not just broad ideas. These are specific executional methods. You used the Cheshire cat one as an example as though that's the only thing they have in common, and not the fact that you can probably take each of their faces and line them up in a photo editor and there would be nary a difference. You can literally Google "cheshire cat" and see an enormous wealth in differences in the way people draw the same concept.


No, Nintendo does not own the idea of a blue deer, but a blue deer that both allegedly share a similar color scheme AND those different colors all allegedly happen to be in similar locations, AND allegedly the eye shape happens to bare a lot of similarities to Ken Sugimori's distinct method of drawing them AND allegedly it's contextually in a game with a similar mechanical purpose.

And all this to point out that something does not have to be 1:1 identical to be legally regarded as infringement. Just as another example...

(image from Reddit)

Hasbro does not own the exclusive rights to a blue horse. They do not not own the rights to multicolored hair. They do not own the rights to hairclips or rainbows or stars or wings. But I'm assuming you didn't look at this and think "Oh what a completely original idea!" I'm going to assume your immediate thought was "That's a knockoff My Little Pony innit." And you can tell that it is because of its alleged myriad of artistic similarities.

Here's some stock Clip Art I found looking for "blue horse with wings"

These are the same broad idea, but the shape of the eyes is different, the shade of blue is different, the patterns on the body are different, the proportions of the body are different and the general usage and market place value is differerent. The point I'm getting at is that these concepts don't exist in binary. There are many ways you can express the same general idea. The characrers you mentioned (Rampede, Mega Seadramon, etc.) are so out there that I honestly wasn't sure if you were being honest with me. The art style, proportions, narrative context, personalities, and general essence, while bearing some superficial similarities, are so completely unalike that you can barely tell their inspirations.

The final picture in my last post didn't even have a point of comparison and you still said "Oh, looks like Eevee." That's uh... literally the point. The fact that without prompting you looked at it and said it looked like Eevee means that there are probably, allegedly, more similarities than just the concept of "fluffy fox" to evoke that feeling. There is a reason I posted that picture and not a picture of Tails from Sonic, Todd from Fox and the Hound, Shippo from InuYasha, Lucky from Super Lucky Tale, or Parisa from Shimmer and Shine. All of which are cute, fluffy fox creatures with some overlapping design elements. Because those ones wouldn't make you think "Oh it's Eevee innit," which again, it clearly did. That is the very reaction that trademark laws are designed to protect people and companies from in the first place. Remember that PUBG and Fortnite are also different games just a glance, but their connecting similarities were enough to substantiate a lawsuit (which to be fair was about more than just infringement, but my point is that it doesn't take a direct theft in order to be taken seriously by the courts).

And finally, the avenue I put forth was trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. The alleged crime in that hypothetical case wouldn't be plagiarism but deception. Considering the alleged similarities of design, their mechanical context in the game, AND the enormous social media blowup as "the Pokémon game with guns." It would probably not be a tall order to have a court consider the possibility that this was made with the intent to indirectly capitalize on another brand.

This would not be completely indefensible, however. For the same reason that the greatly distasteful parody game that PETA made around the release of Black/White is technically legal, Palworld is likewise obviously parody. Nintendo probably wouldn't necessarily win, but they'd have avenues to tackle it with. But again, I don't think they will (or should) either way.

EDIT: Just pointing out for technicality's sake that I am arguing for a hypothetical scenario, not making any decisive judgments on the actions of any individual or company, or making the suggestion that any action need be done. Also, not a lawyer, not legal advice, what have you.

 

[DarthGohan1]

I know it's probably difficult to take my opinion seriously because, you know, my name and icon - but I do get the feeling that a lot of the people talking about how Palworld will put Game Freak in their place are the same ones who completely ignored more creative monster catching games like Yo-kai Watch when they came out?

I agree that Pokémon games have kind of sucked in terms of quality in recent years, and would like to see more competition to make the creators kick themselves into gear - but I wish people would turn to the far better games out there to do that, instead of the one with some designs that are, admittedly, far too similar to some Pokémon.

Also, the black-and-white thinking that everyone who doesn't like Palworld is just a butthurt Pokémon fan is really immature tbh. Especially when, as someone else here pointed out, the creators have dabbled in AI - that shows that they have a pretty dubious amount of respect towards artists as a whole. These kinds of discussions need to be had without blanket assumptions about the people trying to express that.

Totally agree with this. I don't understand why non-Pokemon fans are so immature. It doesn't have to be black and white.

Palworld creatures are no doubt ripoffs of Pokemon designs. Numerous game developers have come out saying it's impossible for models to be so similar without either intentionally copying Pokemon designs or the use of AI using Pokemon designs as inputs.

At the same time, I agree Palworld looks like a much better / more robust game than Legends Arceus or any of the Switch Pokemon games.

I also have no interest in a Pokemon game with guns.

People can have different opinions on any of these points. I don't get why Palworld fans are so anti-Pokemon though... they're extremely similar.

Post automatically merged: Jan 23, 2024

I wish Pokemon fans didn't attack it just because it's in a monster catching genre.

I don't think this is the controversy. There are plenty of monster catching / creature catching games besides Pokemon. The "pals" are ripoffs of Pokemon... and not just 1 or 2, dozens of "pals" are ripped and slightly modified Pokemon models.

 

[nightglow]

Mate, with all due respect, you're missIng the trees for the forest and it's extremely disingenuous. No, Nintendo does not own the vague concept of ideas like Anubis, or a blue deer, a fluffy fox creature, or the Cheshire cat. But you're acting like these are static ideas which would naturally lead to this conclusion, or refusing to see the specifics.

Here's an image I also don't agree with but is useful for illustrating my point.

Here are two game series with similar themes, both having similar monsters drawn in an "anime" style, but no one is going to confuse Dragon Quest for Pokémon, and particularly not these specific Pokémon. Everything from body formation to eye shape. The fact that they are similar does not make them infringing.

It is the execution of these ideas. No, Nintendo does not own any of the ideas. But these are not just broad ideas. These are specific executional methods. You used the Cheshire cat one as an example as though that's the only thing they have in common, and not the fact that you can probably take each of their faces and line them up in a photo editor and there would be nary a difference. You can literally Google "cheshire cat" and see an enormous wealth in differences in the way people draw the same concept.


No, Nintendo does not own the idea of a blue deer, but a blue deer that both allegedly share a similar color scheme AND those different colors all allegedly happen to be in similar locations, AND allegedly the eye shape happens to bare a lot of similarities to Ken Sugimori's distinct method of drawing them AND allegedly it's contextually in a game with a similar mechanical purpose.

And all this to point out that something does not have to be 1:1 identical to be legally regarded as infringement. Just as another example...
View attachment 532831
(image from Reddit)

Hasbro does not own the exclusive rights to a blue horse. They do not not own the rights to multicolored hair. They do not own the rights to hairclips or rainbows or stars or wings. But I'm assuming you didn't look at this and think "Oh what a completely original idea!" I'm going to assume your immediate thought was "That's a knockoff My Little Pony innit." And you can tell that it is because of its alleged myriad of artistic similarities.

Here's some stock Clip Art I found looking for "blue horse with wings"
View attachment 532832

These are the same broad idea, but the shape of the eyes is different, the shade of blue is different, the patterns on the body are different, the proportions of the body are different and the general usage and market place value is differerent. The point I'm getting at is that these concepts don't exist in binary. There are many ways you can express the same general idea. The characrers you mentioned (Rampede, Mega Seadramon, etc.) are so out there that I honestly wasn't sure if you were being honest with me. The art style, proportions, narrative context, personalities, and general essence, while bearing some superficial similarities, are so completely unalike that you can barely tell their inspirations.

The final picture in my last post didn't even have a point of comparison and you still said "Oh, looks like Eevee." That's uh... literally the point. The fact that without prompting you looked at it and said it looked like Eevee means that there are probably, allegedly, more similarities than just the concept of "fluffy fox" to evoke that feeling. There is a reason I posted that picture and not a picture of Tails from Sonic, Todd from Fox and the Hound, Shippo from InuYasha, Lucky from Super Lucky Tale, or Parisa from Shimmer and Shine. All of which are cute, fluffy fox creatures with some overlapping design elements. Because those ones wouldn't make you think "Oh it's Eevee innit," which again, it clearly did. That is the very reaction that trademark laws are designed to protect people and companies from in the first place. Remember that PUBG and Fortnite are also different games just a glance, but their connecting similarities were enough to substantiate a lawsuit (which to be fair was about more than just infringement, but my point is that it doesn't take a direct theft in order to be taken seriously by the courts).

And finally, the avenue I put forth was trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. The alleged crime in that hypothetical case wouldn't be plagiarism but deception. Considering the alleged similarities of design, their mechanical context in the game, AND the enormous social media blowup as "the Pokémon game with guns." It would probably not be a tall order to have a court consider the possibility that this was made with the intent to indirectly capitalize on another brand.

This would not be completely indefensible, however. For the same reason that the greatly distasteful parody game that PETA made around the release of Black/White is technically legal, Palworld is likewise obviously parody. Nintendo probably wouldn't necessarily win, but they'd have avenues to tackle it with. But again, I don't think they will (or should) either way.

EDIT: Just pointing out for technicality's sake that I am arguing for a hypothetical scenario, not making any decisive judgments on the actions of any individual or company, or making the suggestion that any action need be done. Also, not a lawyer, enot legal advice, what have you.

Are pretty big differences of a depiction of a blue deer, at least in my opinion and not any different than the questions I presented across many monster games. The questions I present you seem to agree they look very different from each other, and that's how the pals look to me compared to pokemon. Yet they may have a vague similar concept a red t rex.
As for the main reason and only reason why I am replying to your post, as your opinion is fine and I'm not interested in arguing it, but I just wanted to point out what I did in my last post which is done...
Nox, no I do not think it looks like Eevee and I don't get that feeling and I don't appreciate making up quotes of what I said about it nor the thoughts or feelings I have about Nox. I said... " I assume people gonna point at Eevee because it is a well known pokemon? So no one can have a small fluffy fox monster now?"
Eevee was a guess as Eevee is often an advertising asset of pokemon. Something many are familiar with, even if they are not that familiar with the pokemon franchise.
As for personal feelings about Nox I had a psychic feeling about it but the psychic element doesn't exist in palworld. Nox is a dark type though and appears only at night. My first thought wasn't Eevee at all. And though I like palworld and pokemon equally Eevee's design is better impo. And fenglope is a better design than colbalion impo. Which I didn't think nor feel colbalion when looking at fenglope either. I have loved pokemon since generation 2 and are very familiar with pokemon. Yet, pokemon didn't come to my mind when looking at pal designs. If anything comes to mind when looking at both, is that certain aspects of both remind me of japanese anime art.. such as the eyes.. for example.

 

[Holla]

As a Pokemon fan I’m totally cool with a monster catcher that challenges Gamefreak to potentially make better games. I haven’t played the game but it looks super fun. I’m aware it is also quite different gameplay wise so it’s not a Pokemon ripoff in that sense.

What I’m not cool with however is the clear copying of Pokemon assets they’ve done in creating their monsters (granted some are worse than others). Inspiration is one thing but parts of what I’ve seen straight up look like a copy paste with a some tweaks and changes. So I consider it a ripoff in terms of monster designs.

If they would just take more time and create original monsters then I wouldn’t consider it a ripoff at all.

 

[Belle T]

Nox, no I do not think it looks like Eevee and I don't get that feeling and I don't appreciate making up quotes of what I said about it nor the thoughts or feelings I have about Nox. I said... " I assume people gonna point at Eevee because it is a well known pokemon? So no one can have a small fluffy fox monster now?"

I did not make up what you had said, because what you just said and helpfully highlighted literally means the exact same thing. By voicing the assumption that other people are going to find similarities between it and Eevee, you are tacitly admitting that there are similarities to begin with. That is how language works. You even qualified it by stating how it resembles Eevee. You opened this post attempting to further explain to me how Cobalion doesn't resemble the Palworld equivalent (with a shot that is even more damning, but I'll put that aside for now), but if that's the case, why would I or anyone else not just assume the Cobalion lookalike was Eevee? After all, in the logic you're presenting me, the only reason you made the comparison to Eeevee was because Eevee is a popular Pokémon that many people will recognize, not because there are any aesthetic similarities. So why wouldn't I assume not-Cobalion is Eeevee? Because they look nothing alike, right? You can not just vocalize an assumption of what people are going to say and then pretend like you made it up completely in a vacuum. If I were to say "I assume that people are going to look at this picture of Phoenix Wright and point to Mario as aesthetic inspiration, because Mario is the most famous video game character of all time" then people here would rightfully slap me upside the head because I'd be making a connection between the two despite the fact that they look nothing alike.

Anyway, I think I'm done as well. I have no interest in continuing this further. My apologies for derailing the thread.

 

[Snek]

Thought about this again.

Is Palworld fun or is Pokemon fun?

As someone who's played Pokemon since the beginning I can say that Pokemon has gotten less and less "fun" as the series continues into each new generation. Are some designs a "ripoff" of some Pokemon? Sure...many do look like copypastes...but for me, as long as the game is fun and puts a smile on my face thats enough for me. Modern Pokemon has given me more frustration than smiles, that's for sure. I don't have the time or money to play it but judging by other people's reviews most said it was fun to play.

 

[nightglow]

Eevee is an advertising aid for pokemon. It is a well known monster to many people, including those outside of the franchise. Nox didn't have a pokemon picture pasted next to it. It's best to guess a well known pokemon that is a fluffy fox since the context is what Pokemon and Pal look alike to a very large general audience online.

If I had to sit down and pick from pokemon, what pokemon is closest to nox impo, I would have gone with Espeon or maybe even espurr but id go with Espeon because of Nox's vibe I get and colors chosen, but since much of this topic originated in the twitter realm, the best guess for a fluffy fox and not a deer or dog or fish was Eevee. But looking at nox itself, I don't automatically think Espeon. I see nox as nox.

Honestly.. I wouldn't mind hearing from others who have actually been playing palworld what they think of palworld designs, vibes, and their roles in game vs pokemon designs, vibes, and roles in game.

 

[Belle T]

Eevee is an advertising aid for pokemon. It is a well known monster to many people, including those outside of the franchise. Nox didn't have a pokemon picture pasted next to it. It's best to guess a well known pokemon that is a fluffy fox since the context is what Pokemon and Pal look alike to a very large general audience online.

This is the enormous flaw in your argument. You keep saying that you did not find Nox to be similar to Eevee, but then keep explaining your rationale for bringing up Eevee with wording that is implicitly synonymous with "because they have a passing resemblance." You just implicitly but intrinsically explained the process of drawing visual comparisons between the two creatures to see which one best fit what you assumed people would most likely recognize and draw comparisons to based only on the existence of the one screenshot. That is why I made that absurd "Why didn't you assume we would think the Cobalion lookalike was Eeevee?" rhetorical. Because even with the best of faith, you both linguistically and physically can not make an internal comparison and then come to the conclusion that people would feel it resembled Eeevee without addressing the similarities that exist in the first place. Because when you make an assumption about something, it's usually based on perceived connecting evidence, not just randomly.

To your second points, I feel I must emphasize a few key things, in order to properly define terms and establish the parameters of the discussion (which is the only reason I've decided to make a follow up despite my previous post). My hope here in doing so is to come to some sort of understanding as to where the conversation is even at, since I feel like we're on separate pages on what's being argued in the first place.

1. Nobody is making the suggestion that there are no differences between Pokémon and Pals. The argument being made is that the design philosophy takes such blatant cues from the visual language of Pokémon that it is obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes. At the moment, I am choosing to discuss this under the good faith that this was not achieved by actually swiping in-game materials, but it needs to be noted that allegations are being tossed around (see the Cheshire cat example for a more blatant one) and not just for Palworld, but for other games by the same developer.
2. Nobody is making the suggestion that any of the Pals (be it Nox for Eevee or Cobalion for Thinner-Cobalion) draw sole inspiration from a single Pokémon. Indeed, most things regarded as blatant copycats do not lift from a single source but from several. The MLP bootleg I showed earlier was to demonstrate that point. That does not make their design language any less apparent. It is the art style and general design ethos that is being compared and scrutinized, not whether or not they are an exact match to a specific set of Pokémon. Nox seemingly takes design elements from Eevee, Vaporeon, Espeon, Fennekin, and one other I'm struggling to remember at the moment. (The eyebrows are a clue.) (EDIT: ZORUA!!!! OH MY GOD!!) The reason he's being compared to Eeevee isn't because people are most familiar with that specific Pokémon, but because that is what the body shape, tail design, and face most resemble.
3. These are compounded issues. Meaning that they are emphasized by the existence of all factors at play simultaneously, not just individually. Many of your counters have seemingly been made with the mindset that countering one will inherently invalidate the others, which is absolutely not how that works, neither in a discussion of the legality of the game (which, again, #notalawyer, #notlegaladvice, etc.) or in general principle.
4. I can't speak for any other corners of the internet, but nobody is making the argument here that Nintendo, GameFreak, etc. own the exclusive rights to magical monster capturing mechanics.

 

[nightglow]

This is the enormous flaw in your argument. You keep saying that you did not find Nox to be similar to Eevee, but then keep explaining your rationale for bringing up Eevee with wording that is implicitly synonymous with "because they have a passing resemblance." You just implicitly but intrinsically explained the process of drawing visual comparisons between the two creatures to see which one best fit what you assumed people would most likely recognize and draw comparisons to based only on the existence of the one screenshot. That is why I made that absurd "Why didn't you assume we would think the Cobalion lookalike was Eeevee?" rhetorical. Because even with the best of faith, you both linguistically and physically can not make an internal comparison and then come to the conclusion that people would feel it resembled Eeevee without addressing the similarities that exist in the first place. Because when you make an assumption about something, it's usually based on perceived connecting evidence, not just randomly.

To your second points, I feel I must emphasize a few key things, in order to properly define terms and establish the parameters of the discussion (which is the only reason I've decided to make a follow up despite my previous post). My hope here in doing so is to come to some sort of understanding as to where the conversation is even at, since I feel like we're on separate pages on what's being argued in the first place.

1. Nobody is making the suggestion that there are no differences between Pokémon and Pals. The argument being made is that the design philosophy takes such blatant cues from the visual language of Pokémon that it is obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes. At the moment, I am choosing to discuss this under the good faith that this was not achieved by actually swiping in-game materials, but it needs to be noted that allegations are being tossed around (see the Cheshire cat example for a more blatant one) and not just for Palworld, but for other games by the same developer.
2. Nobody is making the suggestion that any of the Pals (be it Nox for Eevee or Cobalion for Thinner-Cobalion) draw sole inspiration from a single Pokémon. Indeed, most things regarded as blatant copycats do not lift from a single source but from several. The MLP bootleg I showed earlier was to demonstrate that point. That does not make their design language any less apparent. It is the art style and general design ethos that is being compared and scrutinized, not whether or not they are an exact match to a specific set of Pokémon. Nox seemingly takes design elements from Eevee, Vaporeon, Espeon, Fennekin, and one other I'm struggling to remember at the moment. (The eyebrows are a clue.) (EDIT: ZORUA!!!! OH MY GOD!!) The reason he's being compared to Eeevee isn't because people are most familiar with that specific Pokémon, but because that is what the body shape, tail design, and face most resemble.
3. These are compounded issues. Meaning that they are emphasized by the existence of all factors at play simultaneously, not just individually. Many of your counters have seemingly been made with the mindset that countering one will inherently invalidate the others, which is absolutely not how that works, neither in a discussion of the legality of the game (which, again, #notalawyer, #notlegaladvice, etc.) or in general principle.
4. I can't speak for any other corners of the internet, but nobody is making the argument here that Nintendo, GameFreak, etc. own the exclusive rights to magical monster capturing mechanics.

Sigh...
Yeah they are small fluffy foxes. Flareon which wasn't mentioned is also a small fluffy fox.
That is the common denominator. They are all small fluffy foxes. Idk why picking Eevee in the context of pokemon vs palworld is so hard for you to understand. Eevee is heavily advertised with pokemon. It made logical sense to throw it as a guess for that very reason.

That is literally what I said in the beginning: we can't have a small fluffy fox now? Fennecmon is also a small fluffy fox.

Nintendo doesn't own small fluffy foxes. I'm also going to ask you again to stop saying I am saying there are characteristics of Nox that are clearly explicitly Eevee other than it's small fluffy fox. Because a small fluffy fox is all Nox has going for it being anything like Eevee in particular.

It's fine if you feel it looks like Eevee btw. I don't care. But I don't feel that way or see it and I don't appreciate you trying to say my words actually mean x when I clearly explained my position and thoughts.