Palworld’s astonishing success swelled over the weekend, with the ‘Pokémon with guns’ survival and crafting game shooting up Steam’s most-played games list and selling millions more copies.
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 same… is that really infringement?
I don’t know myself, and will leave it up to TPC to figure it out, but it doesn’t 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 you’re using an asset you didn’t develop and didn’t 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. It’s infringement that might have gone unnoticed had the models been more sufficiently edited, but at the end of the day it’s the theft of someone else’s labor.
I don’t know if that’s what happened here, but when the industry professionals say it’s 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 duck…
That’s interesting, but it’s ultimately not up to the artists.
The creators lawyers felt comfortable that they are in the clear. I don’t think that will stop Nintendo from burying them in litigation but I’d 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.
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 from copied straight from other games. It just look like a soulless AI-generated game to me.
But sure it didn’t sell for nothing, the game is surely enjoyable and I didn’t mean to take that from you in my (somewhat caustic) comment.
Right? I see people saying “oh but the violence! the slavery!” as if it wasn’t a collective act of childhood goodwill that prevented such associations being made to Pokémon. They talk a lot about friendship, but it’s 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 Pokémon fan and I defended them often, but it’s 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 you’re fighting. In that sense it’s maybe more egalitarian than RPGs featuring classical enemy races like orcs or goblins.
In Pokémon 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 don’t know what their crime really is since you’re 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. C’mon, 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 Pokémon 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 pokéballs repeatedly?
Of course if you take the story by its word they’ll say that trainers are good and friendly and only these criminal teams really are evil. And for fun I indulge that fantasy while I’m playing it, that these are martial artists pets that just love fighting so much and that pokéballs must be super comfy inside. But if you take a moment to compare what is happening you’ll see that it isn’t that different from what Palworld is doing.
Okay not like any RPG. It’s 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 Pokémon. In the Pokémon anime however I always had the impression that they try to depict Pokémon as having humanlike character tendencies, e.g. some liking to get into fights and others just working as nurses in the Pokémon center…
I see people saying “oh but the violence! the slavery!” as if it wasn’t a collective act of childhood goodwill that prevented such associations being made to Pokémon.
I think the issue with the slavery (at least for me) is that there is human slavery that has exactly zero consequence. It doesn’t 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 don’t know if that happens if you capture a human specifically.
Still, distasteful but I wouldn’t see it much differently than, say, killing innocent bystanders in Hitman. The game allows you to do it but it doesn’t encourage you to do it. It just doesn’t block it either. It’s not something I do or I’d approve of, but considering it’s 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.
Idk, it’s definitely not some sort of life changing experience or high art or whatever. It is however kinda cute, a little bit funny, has an enjoyable gameplay loop, adequate exploration, and satisfy combat. It’s also pretty cheap.
The monster mechanics are surprisingly well integrated into the world. Just basic shit like pulling out a burny fox to see when in a cave is pretty immersive. Then discovering special mechanics like the boar that rapidly mines by charging rocks has you throw out your pick and start careening around like a loon.
It only really has legs during the discovery phase I think, but that’s fine. Games aren’t bad if they end.
Id hope they use the popularity to improve it further but I really don’t wanna get invested in the same way I have with valheim, they have been mostly resting on their laurels so far and these developers will probably do the same. I hope I’m wrong tho, seems like a game I’d enjoy if it had more depth.
It would be nice, I wouldn’t bet on it though and don’t recommend buying something in the chance it gets better later. I’m enjoying myself atm and wont be mad if it never becomes more than it is.
Hopefully it’s at least a signal to other devs that there is real market interest in base building + monster collection or just open world monster collecting
Yeah, that’s always good advice, I don’t mind missing out on hype since I’d be playing single player anyway. Enshrouded is also out and it might turn out to be the better option too, who knows. Seems like a good start of the year for survival games enjoyers either way.
While that’s part of it, it’s definitely not “just” 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.
There’s 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, that’s a lot of sale multiplication.
I also think that the developers tried to make a game that’s 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 can’t find the exit button on the title screen so to quit I need to alt-f4, for the rare times I need it.
Nah, it’s actually pretty great. I’ve played hundred of hours of ARK, and this scratches the same “survival-crafting with monsters” itch that ARK does, but with a lot of big improvements (not being heavily PvP-focused, being able to safely store your ‘dinos’ when you’re away, having a reason [loot, npcs, pokedex completion] to explore the worldspace beyond finding dinos or resources, etc).
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 isn’t really Nintendo’s 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 there’s better out there.
I’d generally have to agree. When it came out, I definitely recall saying that I’d’ve grown up a pokemon fan (because Digimon was superior in anime 💪🏻😜) if Arceus had come out back then. That said, there’s still plenty of places it could be better. The lack of many of my favourite pokemon was why I ended up quickly dropping it.
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 can’t 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 don’t 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 won’t buy EA games. If the game is fun, then who cares what it’s labeled? Presumably, your friends think the game is fun enough to play in its current state.
I don’t really understand the problem with “Early Access”; just make a decision based on whether the game is currently worth what they’re asking for it.
It’s more that I would like a complete experience than have features and content trickled to me. I generally don’t have time to play a game more than once, so I want the time I invest to get the best return. For me, that’s not until a game is released.
I don’t care if it’s in early access if I’m enjoying it. I do care if I’m 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 didn’t 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 aren’t much better in that regard, someone posted a thread comparing 111 of the monsters to Pokemon (and Digimon) and it was pretty ridiculous. It’s hard to say they’re even “inspiration” 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).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Pokemon. I’m not upset that they ripped it off, it’s more that I’m disappointed that it’s not very original when the game seems like it’s 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. It’s just too bad since the game is clearly decent enough overall.
Maybe it’s just a consequence of growing up poor but I just don’t get all the drama going on about what a ripoff it is. It’s not like off brand stuff is anything remotely new.
That embed is showing as deleted for me, so I don’t 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 don’t know why that is. Oh well, it wasn’t my vid so I don’t have an alternate link for it, I’m 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. There’s a fine line between inspiration edit: meant to say imitation and homage.
Plus the general sound effects for the fast travel points and the area labels are clearly BotW inspired, it’s very blatant. I still like it though, even if it feels derivative it still works imo
I’m not saying there’s anything immediately wrong with it, all I’ve said is that it’s 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. But… It already existed as Monster Hunter. It doesn’t really do anything new, better, or different it’s 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 doesn’t cut it for me. Oh, or a game that my friend is working on that has not been well received, I can’t even remember the name of it… It’s a battle royale game with some Tencent backing, it’s like PubG meets Spellbreak. It’s an okay game it’s just… It feels like it would be better if it weren’t trying to use something that already exists.
There’s 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 “clones”, mostly relying on their ability to differentiate the characters while keeping the core gameplay loop the same. I’d say most of those are more well received than not, and I’d wager the heavy characterization helps a lot with that. It’s not always a bad thing, heck even most of the time it isn’t 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 it’s people’s livelihood on the line. I don’t blame the studio or think less of them - I hope my comments aren’t insinuating that - I’m just disappointed that something like Palworld or their previous game whose name I also can’t 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. It’s 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, I’ve just been through this a few times before I guess. Remember, like I said, I’ve got no love for Pokemon lmao. They are just as bad.
Again, none of what I’m 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. It’s fine, fun even. And on the other hand, it is kind of cute that we can have all these things exist in tandem. There’s 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 it’s clear that the games shortcomings are just that it isn’t finished (it just sort of “ends”).
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.
It’s probably Twitter being dumb and needing a login to view the whole thread, I had the same issue. In a different comment I posted a screenshot of just a couple, but not all 31
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !gaming@beehaw.org
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it’s gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
People will really eat anything
It’s a legitimately good game. My brother was shitting on it too til he played it.
Doesn’t 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 don’t already.
But I don’t think the assets are directly stolen from looking at them.
They are extremely similar to the point that I think they are edging
There are artists who disagree. They’re saying the proportions are identical to models used in Pokemon Violet/Scarlet.
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/palworld-pokemon-plagiarism-accusations-pile-up-as-ceo-responds/
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 same… is that really infringement?
I don’t know myself, and will leave it up to TPC to figure it out, but it doesn’t 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 you’re using an asset you didn’t develop and didn’t 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. It’s infringement that might have gone unnoticed had the models been more sufficiently edited, but at the end of the day it’s the theft of someone else’s labor.
I don’t know if that’s what happened here, but when the industry professionals say it’s 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 duck…
That’s interesting, but it’s ultimately not up to the artists.
The creators lawyers felt comfortable that they are in the clear. I don’t think that will stop Nintendo from burying them in litigation but I’d 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.
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 didn’t sell for nothing, the game is surely enjoyable and I didn’t mean to take that from you in my (somewhat caustic) comment.
Finally, pokemon taken to its logical conclusion.
Right? I see people saying “oh but the violence! the slavery!” as if it wasn’t a collective act of childhood goodwill that prevented such associations being made to Pokémon. They talk a lot about friendship, but it’s 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 Pokémon fan and I defended them often, but it’s 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 you’re fighting. In that sense it’s maybe more egalitarian than RPGs featuring classical enemy races like orcs or goblins.
In Pokémon 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 don’t know what their crime really is since you’re 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. C’mon, 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 Pokémon 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 pokéballs repeatedly?
Of course if you take the story by its word they’ll say that trainers are good and friendly and only these criminal teams really are evil. And for fun I indulge that fantasy while I’m playing it, that these are martial artists pets that just love fighting so much and that pokéballs must be super comfy inside. But if you take a moment to compare what is happening you’ll see that it isn’t that different from what Palworld is doing.
Okay not like any RPG. It’s 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 Pokémon. In the Pokémon anime however I always had the impression that they try to depict Pokémon as having humanlike character tendencies, e.g. some liking to get into fights and others just working as nurses in the Pokémon center…
There’s actually multiple different hostile organizations, but you won’t run into the others until you’re higher level.
I think the issue with the slavery (at least for me) is that there is human slavery that has exactly zero consequence. It doesn’t 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 don’t know if that happens if you capture a human specifically.
Still, distasteful but I wouldn’t see it much differently than, say, killing innocent bystanders in Hitman. The game allows you to do it but it doesn’t encourage you to do it. It just doesn’t block it either. It’s not something I do or I’d approve of, but considering it’s 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 must be bored, that game is less than mediocre
Idk, it’s definitely not some sort of life changing experience or high art or whatever. It is however kinda cute, a little bit funny, has an enjoyable gameplay loop, adequate exploration, and satisfy combat. It’s also pretty cheap.
The monster mechanics are surprisingly well integrated into the world. Just basic shit like pulling out a burny fox to see when in a cave is pretty immersive. Then discovering special mechanics like the boar that rapidly mines by charging rocks has you throw out your pick and start careening around like a loon.
It only really has legs during the discovery phase I think, but that’s fine. Games aren’t bad if they end.
Id hope they use the popularity to improve it further but I really don’t wanna get invested in the same way I have with valheim, they have been mostly resting on their laurels so far and these developers will probably do the same. I hope I’m wrong tho, seems like a game I’d enjoy if it had more depth.
It would be nice, I wouldn’t bet on it though and don’t recommend buying something in the chance it gets better later. I’m enjoying myself atm and wont be mad if it never becomes more than it is.
Hopefully it’s at least a signal to other devs that there is real market interest in base building + monster collection or just open world monster collecting
Yeah, that’s always good advice, I don’t mind missing out on hype since I’d be playing single player anyway. Enshrouded is also out and it might turn out to be the better option too, who knows. Seems like a good start of the year for survival games enjoyers either way.
It’s just the “pokemon with guns” hype
While that’s part of it, it’s definitely not “just” 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.
There’s 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, that’s a lot of sale multiplication.
I also think that the developers tried to make a game that’s 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 can’t find the exit button on the title screen so to quit I need to alt-f4, for the rare times I need it.
“Pokemon with guns on PC.”
That’s a great sales pitch.
I played a bunch over the weekend, didn’t even get to use a gun yet… the game is so much more than that.
Nah, it’s actually pretty great. I’ve played hundred of hours of ARK, and this scratches the same “survival-crafting with monsters” itch that ARK does, but with a lot of big improvements (not being heavily PvP-focused, being able to safely store your ‘dinos’ when you’re away, having a reason [loot, npcs, pokedex completion] to explore the worldspace beyond finding dinos or resources, etc).
It’s 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.
Or they’ve been dying for a different way to play Pokemon than what Nintendo’s been selling them for decades.
Yup, it’s pretty fun 👍
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 isn’t really Nintendo’s 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 there’s better out there.
Arceus: graphically barren but mechanically superior
Was my take.
I’d generally have to agree. When it came out, I definitely recall saying that I’d’ve grown up a pokemon fan (because Digimon was superior in anime 💪🏻😜) if Arceus had come out back then. That said, there’s still plenty of places it could be better. The lack of many of my favourite pokemon was why I ended up quickly dropping it.
Sorry, you’re wrong. It’s good.
I’ll play when it’s 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 can’t 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 don’t 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 won’t buy EA games. If the game is fun, then who cares what it’s labeled? Presumably, your friends think the game is fun enough to play in its current state.
I don’t really understand the problem with “Early Access”; just make a decision based on whether the game is currently worth what they’re asking for it.
It’s more that I would like a complete experience than have features and content trickled to me. I generally don’t have time to play a game more than once, so I want the time I invest to get the best return. For me, that’s not until a game is released.
This. Pay money for fun.
I don’t care if it’s in early access if I’m enjoying it. I do care if I’m paying money for an extremely frustrating experience, but this game does look fun if you have friends to play with.
I’m not comfortable with this image
Excuse me while I buy and download this game to further add to the brainrot
I just wish the devs didn’t 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 aren’t much better in that regard, someone posted a thread comparing 111 of the monsters to Pokemon (and Digimon) and it was pretty ridiculous. It’s hard to say they’re even “inspiration” 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).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Pokemon. I’m not upset that they ripped it off, it’s more that I’m disappointed that it’s not very original when the game seems like it’s 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. It’s just too bad since the game is clearly decent enough overall.
Maybe it’s just a consequence of growing up poor but I just don’t get all the drama going on about what a ripoff it is. It’s not like off brand stuff is anything remotely new.
Wow, I didn’t know BotW predated Fallout 3!
I also feel like Elden Ring did this… damn BotW clones everywhere! /s
https://twitter.com/Potatoe4Bored/status/1749271229025092052
That’s not fallout 3, that’s breath of the wild.
That embed is showing as deleted for me, so I don’t 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 don’t know why that is. Oh well, it wasn’t my vid so I don’t have an alternate link for it, I’m 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. There’s 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, it’s very blatant. I still like it though, even if it feels derivative it still works imo
I’m not saying there’s anything immediately wrong with it, all I’ve said is that it’s 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. But… It already existed as Monster Hunter. It doesn’t really do anything new, better, or different it’s 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 doesn’t cut it for me. Oh, or a game that my friend is working on that has not been well received, I can’t even remember the name of it… It’s a battle royale game with some Tencent backing, it’s like PubG meets Spellbreak. It’s an okay game it’s just… It feels like it would be better if it weren’t trying to use something that already exists.
There’s 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 “clones”, mostly relying on their ability to differentiate the characters while keeping the core gameplay loop the same. I’d say most of those are more well received than not, and I’d wager the heavy characterization helps a lot with that. It’s not always a bad thing, heck even most of the time it isn’t 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 it’s people’s livelihood on the line. I don’t blame the studio or think less of them - I hope my comments aren’t insinuating that - I’m just disappointed that something like Palworld or their previous game whose name I also can’t 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. It’s 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, I’ve just been through this a few times before I guess. Remember, like I said, I’ve got no love for Pokemon lmao. They are just as bad.
Again, none of what I’m 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. It’s fine, fun even. And on the other hand, it is kind of cute that we can have all these things exist in tandem. There’s 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 it’s clear that the games shortcomings are just that it isn’t finished (it just sort of “ends”).
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.
Why is this an issue for you? Taking stuff and remixing it is how new stuff gets made. Nintendo surely won’t go into bankruptcy anytime soon.
I literally said I have no issue with it, just that I’m disappointed they couldn’t make something more original.
Here’s the comparison https://twitter.com/CeciliaFae/status/1749183059877085396
The link you posted looks like a post with little text and an image. Is there an article it’s supposed to link to? I don’t know how Twitter works.
It’s probably Twitter being dumb and needing a login to view the whole thread, I had the same issue. In a different comment I posted a screenshot of just a couple, but not all 31
You can use Nitter.net to help “expose” the tweets and threads. Here’s this one: https://nitter.net/CeciliaFae/status/1749183059877085396
Nice thank you :)
LOL, maybe they fed an ai all the Pokémon and asked it for 150 new creations.