If memory serves, the plagiarism allegations were doctored. Nintendo tried to find whatever they could sue them for, and it wasn’t plagiarizing monster designs; it was for things like “riding a captured creature” and “catching creatures by throwing a ball at them”. Some aspect of Japanese law allowed for them to make new patents after Palworld came out and then sue them for it retroactively.
Aielman15@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
I’m not talking about what went into court. Most pals are “legally distinct” monsters, but that’s what brought the game to public awareness, what started the comparisons with Pokémon, and why Nintendo hated their guts. Monster collectors have existed outside of Pokémon for decades and still do, Nintendo only sued Palworld because they copy-pasted their monsters with a different color palette.
Arcadeep@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Yeah, as someone who has been playing Pokemon since Pokemon Blue, I don’t see much of a similarity in the monsters from Palworld, other than them having the same inspirations such as a sheep, a cat, an owl and so on. They are “legally distinct” in the same way that the shotgun in Halo is legally distinct from the shotgun in Doom
Aielman15@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Coincidentally, those that look similar the most are not the simple animal-shaped ones.
Electabuzz, Lucario, Cinderace, Lycanroc, Cobalion, Luxray, Aggron.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
What brought the game to court compared to the other monster collectors is that this one made a shit-ton of money, and the other ones didn’t, so Nintendo and The Pokemon Company were, for the first time, threatened.
Aielman15@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
They wouldn’t feel threatened by Palworld if it wasn’t for the legally distinct™ designs because, at its core, Palworld is a completely different game that only vaguely resembles Pokémon on a very superficial level (the monster themselves).
cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
If it’s legally not considered copy-pasting their monsters, why do you feel like you can assert that it is plagiarism? I suppose that’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it, but I also think people have a right to call you out on it for saying it as if it’s a fact when it is not actually a recognized fact. Plenty of people would dispute that, including myself, and certainly Pocketpair would, and evidence suggests the courts probably would’ve agreed with them hence it wasn’t even worth pursuing legally.
Aielman15@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
You can dispute that Palworld didn’t copy-paste Pokémon body parts and palette swap their designs to create their legally distinct clones, but I’d call that bullshit. People only side with PocketPair because they plagiarized Nintendo, which people (rightfully) hates. If it was done to anyone else, nobody would defend them. I can hate Nintendo and still posit that what PocketPair did was shitty and an insult to all the devs who actually take pride in their work and put effort in creating something original.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
This entire medium is built on iteration. Basically every fantasy thing you ever played was basically a palette swap of Tolkien or someone who copied Tolkien before them. Original D&D had “hobbits” until they were changed into halflings. Palworld is also parody, which thrives on the similarity as it calls pals bastards for breaking out of their capture, or arms them with modern weaponry. Not only that, but “survival game with a riff on Pokemon” is creating something original.
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 11 hours ago
If you dont like that you should see the titan bars I got from Aldi.