Finally, pokemon taken to its logical conclusion.
Right? I see people saying āoh but the violence! the slavery!ā as if it wasnāt a collective act of childhood goodwill that prevented such associations being made to PokĆ©mon. They talk a lot about friendship, but itās a friendship built on beating up creatures in the wild, which then obey and fight for you unquestioningly. Even some which are human-like and stated to be as intelligent as humans.
I consider myself a PokĆ©mon fan and I defended them often, but itās a concept that gets a little iffy if you think about it for more than a minute.
Sounds like any RPG to me. Except that your party consists of the same creatures that youāre fighting. In that sense itās maybe more egalitarian than RPGs featuring classical enemy races like orcs or goblins.
In PokĆ©mon the concept of evil comes in the Form of Team Rocket and other shady exploitative organisations. Interestingly Palworld also has a counterpart organisation called Syndicates. But I still donāt know what their crime really is since youāre really doing the same thing of fighting and catching Pals. Nevertheless you have to treat the creatures in your party right, if you want to make progress in the game.
Like any RPG? Nah. Cāmon, in most RPGs the characters are brought together by the story. Even the occasional antagonist who is fought and then allied with has a whole discussion where they are convinced of the merits of the protagonists. I could grant that in the PokĆ©mon anime fairly often the creatures are convinced or decide to come along willingly, but in the games that hardly ever happens.
How do you reconcile the idea that the creatures want to come along with the active resistence of fighting them and having them break your pokƩballs repeatedly?
Of course if you take the story by its word theyāll say that trainers are good and friendly and only these criminal teams really are evil. And for fun I indulge that fantasy while Iām playing it, that these are martial artists pets that just love fighting so much and that pokĆ©balls must be super comfy inside. But if you take a moment to compare what is happening youāll see that it isnāt that different from what Palworld is doing.
Okay not like any RPG. Itās a special kind of RPG. And as a game it has many elements that make video game RPGs so addictive.
I agree with you on the ethics. Maybe Palworld in that sense is more honest than PokĆ©mon. In the PokĆ©mon anime however I always had the impression that they try to depict PokĆ©mon as having humanlike character tendencies, e.g. some liking to get into fights and others just working as nurses in the PokĆ©mon centerā¦
Thereās actually multiple different hostile organizations, but you wonāt run into the others until youāre higher level.
I see people saying āoh but the violence! the slavery!ā as if it wasnāt a collective act of childhood goodwill that prevented such associations being made to PokĆ©mon.
I think the issue with the slavery (at least for me) is that there is human slavery that has exactly zero consequence. It doesnāt have much to do with the Pals themselves
I heard the game warns you against it and there are police forces that chase you if you commit crimes against humans. Though I donāt know if that happens if you capture a human specifically.
Still, distasteful but I wouldnāt see it much differently than, say, killing innocent bystanders in Hitman. The game allows you to do it but it doesnāt encourage you to do it. It just doesnāt block it either. Itās not something I do or Iād approve of, but considering itās a more edgy version of the genre I can understand the game not making humans immune to the device that traps and essentially brainwashes living beings. Because, why would they be?
From what I have read about, the only thing that happens when you capture a human is that it tells you it is inhumane and frowned upon. I have not seen anything mentioning actual consequences beyond that, but it may be that people have not encountered them. If that is the case, the consequences might as well not be there.
People will really eat anything
Itās a legitimately good game. My brother was shitting on it too til he played it.
Doesnāt it literally use stolen pokemon assets?
They are extremely similar to the point that I think they are edging very close to Nintendo caring if they donāt already.
But I donāt think the assets are directly stolen from looking at them.
There are artists who disagree. Theyāre saying the proportions are identical to models used in Pokemon Violet/Scarlet.
I looked up a video showing some model proportion comparisons. Yeah they do look to be pretty similar, but I guess it just comes down to: Where do you draw the line between copyright infringement and fair use? Like obviously palette swapping a squirtle to be red and making him a fire type is probably illegal? But if you take the squirtle model, change him to be all fuzzy, with a spiky shell, different eyes, etc to the point where the model meshing is no longer the sameā¦ is that really infringement?
I donāt know myself, and will leave it up to TPC to figure it out, but it doesnāt really bother me one bit either way.
I mean, the problematic part here is that they take the model in the first place, or at least that all signs point to that being the case. Sure, you can coldsteel the hell out of an existing character, but if youāre using an asset you didnāt develop and didnāt license to make a product that you then sell for money, no matter how different the end result looks from the original, that is absolutely infringement. Itās infringement that might have gone unnoticed had the models been more sufficiently edited, but at the end of the day itās the theft of someone elseās labor.
I donāt know if thatās what happened here, but when the industry professionals say itās hard to get model proportions that close even moving the same asset into a different engine, and the whole roster is uncannily similar? If it looks like a duckā¦
None of the assents are from pokemon, proportions donāt even get close to indicating that.
Thatās interesting, but itās ultimately not up to the artists.
The creators lawyers felt comfortable that they are in the clear. I donāt think that will stop Nintendo from burying them in litigation but Iād say if the lawyers are willing to say that then the assets are likely created in house.
The idea that the assets were stolen was the comment I replied to.
Proportions do not constitute imitating a copyrighted character.
Everything Palworld does is legal, people who disagree donāt understand copyright law or what is protected.
You can argue with me if you want, but youāre wrong.
They are extremely similar to the point that I think they are edging
Nope
After 4 decades of active video game play, the last year or so has been very empty for me.
Nothing seemed to be satisfying, nothing captured my attention for long.
Sure I got my Elden Ring character ready for the DLC, but not with enthusiasm.
Sure I made it to diamond in Duel Masters finally, but it brought me no joy.
I bought Palworld last night on a whim and it has been 15 hours and the only time I have stopped was to take care of basic needs.
I am engaged, excited, and enthusiastic to game for the first time in a very, very long time. And the last time I liked a game this much it was Elden Ring at launch and I literally did nothing for 3 months than eat, sleep, work and Elden Ring.
I feel that Palworld is heading in the same direction.
Is there jank? Sure, but nothing that has broken my enjoyment yet.
I just cannot go past the bootleg aspect of everything they
take inspiration fromcopied straight from other games. It just look like a soulless AI-generated game to me.But sure it didnāt sell for nothing, the game is surely enjoyable and I didnāt mean to take that from you in my (somewhat caustic) comment.
People must be bored, that game is less than mediocre
Or theyāve been dying for a different way to play Pokemon than what Nintendoās been selling them for decades.
Yup, itās pretty fun š
Bought it last night, have been playing 15 hours straight and I regret the absence of sleep.
But not enough to quit, I havenāt found a dungeon yet.
Itās a blast and brings together the best parts of so many games I love.
Not to mention in a more impressive format. I thought Arceus looked graphically barren and I know there are still plenty of people annoyed at the pop-in in Scarlet and Violet. I know it isnāt really Nintendoās thing to play into the performance competition but a lot of people just expect better these days and the much bigger scope of Breath of the Wild and impressive level of expansion in Tears of the Kingdom has made even Nintendo fans see that thereās better out there.
Arceus: graphically barren but mechanically superior
Was my take.
Iād generally have to agree. When it came out, I definitely recall saying that Iādāve grown up a pokemon fan (because Digimon was superior in anime šŖš»š) if Arceus had come out back then. That said, thereās still plenty of places it could be better. The lack of many of my favourite pokemon was why I ended up quickly dropping it.
Nah, itās actually pretty great. Iāve played hundred of hours of ARK, and this scratches the same āsurvival-crafting with monstersā itch that ARK does, but with a lot of big improvements (not being heavily PvP-focused, being able to safely store your ādinosā when youāre away, having a reason [loot, npcs, pokedex completion] to explore the worldspace beyond finding dinos or resources, etc).
Itās a fun game with a nice mixture of looting & leveling, survival, base optimisation and progress, exploration and fighting.
I also like the humor of paldex entries hahaha.
Itās just the āpokemon with gunsā hype
āPokemon with guns on PC.ā
Thatās a great sales pitch.
While thatās part of it, itās definitely not ājustā that.
Sadly, part of it is that the game has released in a fairly stable/polished state, which is considered a positive in the world of broken releases. The multiplayer also just works with little issue as opposed to some problems of yesteryear.
Thereās also a perhaps surprising pent up demand for good co-op PvE focused games. They blow-up hard but tend to fade out depending on gameplay quality. Part of this is the streamer effect, streamers like to play group games with other streamers because it helps cross-pollinate their audiences. Sales are also improved due to group/peer-pressure, if someone can pull in their friend group, thatās a lot of sale multiplication.
I also think that the developers tried to make a game thatās fun. A lot of decisions seem to have followed the rule of cool for this type of game e.g. pal mounts, firearms, catching people, automation of survival elements via slavery.
It also manages to have both a clear and guided progression system while maintaining the freedom for the player to just fuck off and do whatever they want while still at least partially progressing.
My only honest gripes with the game are how world saves are handled (they should use the Grounded system in addition to having dedicated servers) and that I for some reason canāt find the exit button on the title screen so to quit I need to alt-f4, for the rare times I need it.
I played a bunch over the weekend, didnāt even get to use a gun yetā¦ the game is so much more than that.
Sorry, youāre wrong. Itās good.
Sorry, youāre wrong. Itās bad.
Iāll play when itās out of early access
Thier last game (released over three years ago) is still in Early Access and they already got thier pay day. This is why I hate modern gaming. Gamers canāt help but pre-maturely ejaculate over some new thing, so devs are able to keep shoveling eternal Early Access games. I vote with my wallet and donāt buy EA games, but my game group still does. I miss out on a lot of gaming sessions because of it.
Personally I think gaming companies should not be allowed to charge for Early Access and basically just go back to free betas for testing. Or if they do have an Early Access, they should be forced to have a published release date or automatic refund if they miss. That will prevent devs from releasing half baked content and coasting on it for years.
They can still provide content and fixes via standard updates.
But you said yourself that you miss out on a lot of gaming sessions because you wonāt buy EA games. If the game is fun, then who cares what itās labeled? Presumably, your friends think the game is fun enough to play in its current state.
I donāt really understand the problem with āEarly Accessā; just make a decision based on whether the game is currently worth what theyāre asking for it.
Itās more that I would like a complete experience than have features and content trickled to me. I generally donāt have time to play a game more than once, so I want the time I invest to get the best return. For me, thatās not until a game is released.
This. Pay money for fun.
I donāt care if itās in early access if Iām enjoying it. I do care if Iām paying money for an extremely frustrating experience, but this game does look fun if you have friends to play with.
I just wish the devs didnāt make such blatant ripoffs, it seems their whole studio is taking existing Nintendo games and remaking them. Their previous game is literally a breath of the wild clone, down to the game starting in a cave, exiting and seeing the panorama of the world zooming in on where you need to go. ~~For comparison: https://twitter.com/Potatoe4Bored/status/1749271229025092052~~ I guess the link is dead, sorry.
The monsters in this game arenāt much better in that regard, someone posted a thread comparing 111 of the monsters to Pokemon (and Digimon) and it was pretty ridiculous. Itās hard to say theyāre even āinspirationā because so many of them are just changing the color palette and type of animal. Even some of the attacks are the same (like one of the monsters with a bow).
Donāt get me wrong, Iām no fan of Pokemon. Iām not upset that they ripped it off, itās more that Iām disappointed that itās not very original when the game seems like itās already a no brainer. It seems like there are very few strong Ark style games so it would have been nice to have a new IP mostly unrelated outside of mechanics. Instead we get a bunch of Pokemon that went through Digimon evolutions. Itās just too bad since the game is clearly decent enough overall.
a breath of the wild clone, down to the game starting in a cave, exiting and seeing the panorama of the world zooming in on where you need to go
Wow, I didnāt know BotW predated Fallout 3!
I also feel like Elden Ring did thisā¦ damn BotW clones everywhere! /s
https://twitter.com/Potatoe4Bored/status/1749271229025092052
Thatās not fallout 3, thatās breath of the wild.
That embed is showing as deleted for me, so I donāt know what it shows.
But in Fallout 3, you step out of a cave and are shown a giant panoramic view of the worldspace, with your immediate goal (Megaton) strategically positioned for you to see. So yes, that is Fallout 3.
Oh my mistake, I donāt know why that is. Oh well, it wasnāt my vid so I donāt have an alternate link for it, Iām sorry.
Games have been doing what I described since Spyro and Crash Bandicoot. Personally I find FO3 and BOTW to have quite different intros, and while yes there are surface level similarities, this studios previous game is shot for shot the intro to BOTW. Thereās a fine line between
inspiration edit: meant to sayimitation and homage.Plus the general sound effects for the fast travel points and the area labels are clearly BotW inspired, itās very blatant. I still like it though, even if it feels derivative it still works imo
Iām not saying thereās anything immediately wrong with it, all Iāve said is that itās disappointing. There is a lot of wasted potential bogged down by cliche, for lack of a better term. Not just this studio by any means.
It reminds me of how I feel for Dauntless, which just feels soulless to me when by every right it should be a fine game. Butā¦ It already existed as Monster Hunter. It doesnāt really do anything new, better, or different itās just an always online version with a different skin - a distinct style with unique visual designs, mostly. I can absolutely see the appeal, even though it doesnāt cut it for me. Oh, or a game that my friend is working on that has not been well received, I canāt even remember the name of itā¦ Itās a battle royale game with some Tencent backing, itās like PubG meets Spellbreak. Itās an okay game itās justā¦ It feels like it would be better if it werenāt trying to use something that already exists.
Thereās also nothing wrong with liking it, by the books things work and are well liked for a reason. I mean Stardew Valley and My Time at Portia, or Harvest Moon rather (2 different mediums of a similar/same genre) also have their litany of āclonesā, mostly relying on their ability to differentiate the characters while keeping the core gameplay loop the same. Iād say most of those are more well received than not, and Iād wager the heavy characterization helps a lot with that. Itās not always a bad thing, heck even most of the time it isnāt a bad thing.
I get it. You can check all the boxes and make a game that has historically sold well and why take a risk, or take time to make something about it really unique, especially if itās peopleās livelihood on the line. I donāt blame the studio or think less of them - I hope my comments arenāt insinuating that - Iām just disappointed that something like Palworld or their previous game whose name I also canāt remember can have a solid, likeable foundation feels like they have to rely on something that already exists to be liked. An image of Palworld and Pokemon monster similarities, such as teeth and eyes or body models. I am specifically thinking of the eyes and teeth on the model. Itās so clearly an existing style, all of the examples in that thread are pretty egregious. They could have had these incredibly unique and different monsters, but some of them are, well, Iāve just been through this a few times before I guess. Remember, like I said, Iāve got no love for Pokemon lmao. They are just as bad.
Again, none of what Iām saying is me feeling negatively towards the studio, rather just saddened by how much potential is lost by any studio feeling like it has to put out something that will be liked. ARK has the benefit of using dinosaurs. These guys created something of their own and people rightfully pointed out similarities, when that creativity could have been put towards a single overarching theme of biodiversity in a fictional world.
But instead we got Pokemon who got Digimon evolutions. Itās fine, fun even. And on the other hand, it is kind of cute that we can have all these things exist in tandem. Thereās certainly no harm in being able to one day buy cute plush of 3 variations of the inspired work. Also with the game being early access, I think there could be a fair chance of it being successfully supported, right now itās clear that the games shortcomings are just that it isnāt finished (it just sort of āendsā).
Although I would worry for the studio, GameFreak would seem to have a pretty strong case. If the soundtrack for A DBZ game got hit with a lawsuit for plagiarism of popular songs then these guys are in trouble lmao.
Maybe itās just a consequence of growing up poor but I just donāt get all the drama going on about what a ripoff it is. Itās not like off brand stuff is anything remotely new.
Why is this an issue for you? Taking stuff and remixing it is how new stuff gets made. Nintendo surely wonāt go into bankruptcy anytime soon.
I literally said I have no issue with it, just that Iām disappointed they couldnāt make something more original.
Hereās the comparison https://twitter.com/CeciliaFae/status/1749183059877085396
Iām not comfortable with this image
Excuse me while I buy and download this game to further add to the brainrot
