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: twitter.com/…/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.
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
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.
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.
Kind of disappointed they aren’t taking the opportunity to introduce a more interesting map. Having completely flat and level lanes always felt weird to me in a full 3d environment.
Oh yeah absolutely. And i was now saying that the projections on the ground are probably easier to code than having to deal with the projections going on weird terrain. Basically they’re just going the easy route I think ;p
Predecessor is awesome, just needs more traction and a larger player base. It’s very hard game to get started in because only salty vets are playing lol.
Wondering when they’re gonna market it… Probably when it goes open beta. Console is a huge chunk of the player base (I myself got started with Paragon and then smite on console) But agree, need more players. Almost every single player on right now is people who’ve been playing for a year+.
The last Pokemon game I played was Y. It was largely the same game as Blue and Gold. This expands on the concept in fun, crazy ways, and it's got me intrigued.
The creature designs are similar to Pokémon but that's where it begins and ends. Palworld is a survival sandbox with creature collecting, it doesn't even have turn-based battles. It's far more similar to Ark or Rust than Pokémon.
If anyone wanted a game that "is but isn't Pokémon" they should look into TemTem or Cassette Beasts.
Different degrees of shaking up the formula. This is Pokemon-but-survival, and I've got another game in my backlog already that's Pokemon-but-metroidvania.
Yeah, but I would say that already makes it more markedly different, even compared to, say, Monster Hunter Stories. Sure, there's cutesy creatures which gives it some similar aesthetics but the gameplay experience is not even remotely similar.
Compared to Lies of P which looks and plays like Bloodborne, it's not really that close.
Heh, maybe I'm splitting hairs, but if you want a game "like Pokemon", they've been making exactly that game for 30 years, but there's only a handful of games in the ballpark of Bloodborne. If you want the fantasy of roaming a world, catching creatures, and battling with them, there are lots of ways to skin that cat that GameFreak and Nintendo haven't been doing that aren't at odds with preserving those core pieces. Likewise, I don't enjoy Monster Hunter, but some of its core pieces are present in the likes of Horizon and Mercenary Kings, and I love those games for taking the high level parts of Monster Hunter that do work for me.
I get it, but part of my point is that there are games that are very much like Pokémon for someone who wants 90% of that with a little bit of a different twist. Meanwhile I'm seeing some people looking into Palworld and going "Wait is this Minecraft? I wanted Pokémon with guns."
To be fair, those were so simple that they were barely a challenge when I was 9 years old. When I played Y as an adult, they probably wouldn't have even felt like puzzles.
Doesn't come out of nowhere to my knowledge. It is quite anticipated game by many, as it was shown with trailers before on big shows. Everyone was wondering what kind of game this will be and everyone just knew it as "Pokemon with guns" where you can catch and slave other Pokemon like creatures. I'm actually surprised that so many didn't heard of the game before.
As far as the ethics of it, whatever, there are games where you can do worse. I just think it’s annoying that the devs went this far out of their way to cynically controversy-bait up attention for themselves. There was no need for this - it adds nothing to the gameplay beyond shock value.
When your console is highly compatible between generations, such as x86/amd64 … maybe should just sale ‘the game’ and give users access to the older console version, and the version with any enhanced features only accessible on the newer console.
Maybe treating these console generations as though they're somehow super different is more trouble than it's worth. Meanwhile, PC games I bought 20 years ago can easily be run on new hardware at higher frame rates and resolutions than when I bought them.
It’s 100% moral to pirate Ubisoft games. I exclusively play Anno, since 2070 I DON’T pirate them.
I love the series, but I’d be happy if Ubisoft went belly-up tomorrow and never saw another game in the series. It’s a fair exchange to see a bloated, rotting corpse of a monster finally die.
I don’t know why everyone is so angry at this comment. The question was about what will it take for subscriptions to increase and become dominant in industry, the guy answered that. The interview was with the guy about Ubisoft’s subscription service, what else people expected?
If anyone talks to the guy in-charge of Gamepass, and they ask them how will gamepass increase, they wont’ say, well, if everyone keeps buying physical, that will be great for us.
I think the Ubisoft guy is pushing for subscriptions when a lot of people are not keen. See any of the recent articles about NatGeo pulling videos from Sony, etc etc.
As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don’t lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. That’s not been deleted. You don’t lose what you’ve built in the game or your engagement with the game. So it’s about feeling comfortable with not owning your game.
First of all, not here to defend Ubisoft, I completely agree about not trusting them to do what’s good for gamers.
So, my point was, everything said in this interview, is pretty much same thing you will hear from any “head of subscription” of any company. I think MS is currently the most aggressive one, with their Gamepass. Keep in mind this interview is specifically about their subscription service, and the changes they made it isn’t about anything else. Sony is currently (or well last I read about it) most defensive with subscription, often talking about how it’s bad for the industry, but if you ask whoever is incharge of PS+, and ask them, what needs to happen before subscription will really take off, he would probably say the same thing.
As for closing down of online servers, it’s always sad when that happens. That’s a valid reason to blame a company, but pretty much all companies do that. As a patient gamer, I don’t even remember how many times I have come across a game where I would find out you can’t get all trophies because online servers have shut down. So, all companies should be blamed for this.
Ubisoft Exec Says Gamers Need to Get ‘Comfortable’ Not Owning Their Games for Subscriptions to Take Off
I’m already comfortable not owning any Ubisoft games.
Seriously, I will be quite happy missing a game or franchise if there’s a lack of physical media in their lineup of releases. I know it doesn’t make sense for every game, but if it’s to push me towards a subscription service, then I’m just not going to be a customer.
ign.com
Aktywne