If you’re calling palworld a ripoff, then pokemon is a ripoff. Which puts them on par with each other at the bare minimum.
Making cute monsters and taming them is not new and just because pokemon has a bajillion mons to find similarities in, doesn’t mean everything is ripping off of pokemon.
Sure, Pokémon ripped off that or whatever the first monster catching game was.
But if you’re telling me any of those examples look half as much of a complete copy paste and recolor as the “designs” in Palworld, you’re either arguing in bad faith or blind. Most of those examples look absolutely nothing like their supposed counterpart.
complete copy paste and recolor as the “designs” in Palworld
If this statement was even close to factually accurate you realize that Nintendo would have sued and taken down Palworld already right? I can’t be arguing in bad faith if Nintendo’s litigious lawyers basically agree with my statements.
Come on now. Anyone can tell they’re knockoffs and I’m sure you do as well. Just cause they’re technically legally distinct enough doesn’t mean they’re not obvious copies.
Then I’ll have to refer you to this comment. And we’re dead set into circular logic land. Congrats! Enjoy your stay.
Just because Pokemon was legally distinct enough from Dungeon Quest doesn’t mean they’re not obvious copies. What you need to realize is that there’s only so many ways you can draw a “fire-based dog”, “grass-based turtle”, or “electric mouse” before you run into something that looks similar to some other IP.
Like I said before.
just because pokemon has a bajillion mons to find similarities in, doesn’t mean everything is ripping off of pokemon.
What you COMPLETELY miss out on… Dragon Quest is an old enough series that people who worked on the original Pokemon would have been highly influenced by the series as kids. Much like Palworld developers likely grew up on Pokemon to some extent. You’re going to see similarities… that doesn’t mean it a knock off… and if it was a knock off, Nintendo would have killed it long ago. Any other “belief” doesn’t matter.
What the hell are you talking about, there are infinite ways to draw a fire dog, Pokemon alone has like 5 of them (at least 2 of which “inspired” Pals lol) When you take into account all the kind of dogs there are and the infinite flourishes an artist could make its shocking anyone would think their design doesn’t look like a rippof. One might even say thar someone is arguing in bad faith again.
Just because you don’t like the argument doesn’t make it bad faith. Considering that 100% of pals are distinctly different enough that Nintendo cannot go after them and win is sufficient evidence that they’ve made enough of the “infinite flourishes” you claim to exist. Yet here you are claiming that they’re ripoffs.
Pokémon haven’t been part of society tens of thousands of years. A better example would be someone taking a Crocs shoe and making it even worse. Each specific reason those things are ugly is probably not their intellectual property, and there’s probably knockoffs they haven’t sued into oblivion, but everyone knows what a Crocs is.
Come on now
Cool. Then Pokemon ripped off Dungeon Quest.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=large
If you’re calling palworld a ripoff, then pokemon is a ripoff. Which puts them on par with each other at the bare minimum.
Making cute monsters and taming them is not new and just because pokemon has a bajillion mons to find similarities in, doesn’t mean everything is ripping off of pokemon.
Sure, Pokémon ripped off that or whatever the first monster catching game was.
But if you’re telling me any of those examples look half as much of a complete copy paste and recolor as the “designs” in Palworld, you’re either arguing in bad faith or blind. Most of those examples look absolutely nothing like their supposed counterpart.
If this statement was even close to factually accurate you realize that Nintendo would have sued and taken down Palworld already right? I can’t be arguing in bad faith if Nintendo’s litigious lawyers basically agree with my statements.
Come on now. Anyone can tell they’re knockoffs and I’m sure you do as well. Just cause they’re technically legally distinct enough doesn’t mean they’re not obvious copies.
Then I’ll have to refer you to this comment. And we’re dead set into circular logic land. Congrats! Enjoy your stay.
Just because Pokemon was legally distinct enough from Dungeon Quest doesn’t mean they’re not obvious copies. What you need to realize is that there’s only so many ways you can draw a “fire-based dog”, “grass-based turtle”, or “electric mouse” before you run into something that looks similar to some other IP.
Like I said before.
What you COMPLETELY miss out on… Dragon Quest is an old enough series that people who worked on the original Pokemon would have been highly influenced by the series as kids. Much like Palworld developers likely grew up on Pokemon to some extent. You’re going to see similarities… that doesn’t mean it a knock off… and if it was a knock off, Nintendo would have killed it long ago. Any other “belief” doesn’t matter.
What the hell are you talking about, there are infinite ways to draw a fire dog, Pokemon alone has like 5 of them (at least 2 of which “inspired” Pals lol) When you take into account all the kind of dogs there are and the infinite flourishes an artist could make its shocking anyone would think their design doesn’t look like a rippof. One might even say thar someone is arguing in bad faith again.
Just… come on now.
Just because you don’t like the argument doesn’t make it bad faith. Considering that 100% of pals are distinctly different enough that Nintendo cannot go after them and win is sufficient evidence that they’ve made enough of the “infinite flourishes” you claim to exist. Yet here you are claiming that they’re ripoffs.
Didn’t we just go over this? You’re right, we are in a loop.
Every shoe made is a knockoff of the original shoe, but some look slightly different but we aren’t calling every new shoe release a knock off.
Pokémon haven’t been part of society tens of thousands of years. A better example would be someone taking a Crocs shoe and making it even worse. Each specific reason those things are ugly is probably not their intellectual property, and there’s probably knockoffs they haven’t sued into oblivion, but everyone knows what a Crocs is.