Hacker News Reader

Comment by echelon | Hacker News Reader

Is Nintendo going to sue these guys?

If you haven't been following, the game copies from several games, most notably Nintendo and Game Freak's Pokemon (but also Zelda, and several non-Nintendo games).

And when I say copied, they designed their monsters after the Nintendo IP directly [1,2,3]. Some are suggesting AI Pokemon generators were used given that the company has previously dabbled in generative art, though there isn't any evidence of this.

The mechanics of the game are obviously quite similar to Pokemon, except that Palworld adds guns and other unusual elements. But the similarities between their creatures and Nintendo's character designs are the most startling aspect of this.

[1] https://gamerant.com/palworld-pokemon-controversy-stolen-des...

[2] https://twitter.com/onion_mu/status/1748108600935919688

[3] https://twitter.com/Yoriden150/status/1748135297471127693

View on HN

There is currently no hard evidence that Palworld uses AI-generated designs. The primary evidence cited that AI generations were used is a tweet from the developer's CEO in favor of generative AI for creating Pokemon: https://twitter.com/urokuta_ja/status/1470996141949218816

Incidentally, that tweet was in response to my demo of AI-generated Pokemon. I've had a hard weekend.

Support for AI doesn't mean it's used it in a product, and Pokemon similarity doesn't require AI to copy it. IMO, it seems to be more frequently used as a scapegoat to justify hating on a popular game, which does a disservice to the anti-AI movement.

> Incidentally, that tweet was in response to my demo of AI-generated Pokemon. I've had a hard weekend.

Wow, kudos for both your experiment and the traction! I don't envy all of the AI hate you must be getting. I'm sorry that some people choose to misdirect their feelings of discomfort and angst.

> Support for AI doesn't mean it's used it in a product, and Pokemon similarity doesn't require AI to copy it.

Absolutely. And I hope this isn't the point that people latch onto. The interesting thing about Palworld and the thing people should pay attention to is the closeness of the IP and the art. It doesn't really matter what technique the team used arrive at that; it's still close enough to cause confusion and probably rile up Nintendo's lawyers.

> And I hope this isn't the point that people latch onto.

Too late!

Design-wise, the popular examples of overly-similar-Pokemon are distinct enough legally.

Really?

https://twitter.com/CeciliaFae/status/1749183059877085396

Yes. "Distinct enough legally" is different from "no similarity whatsoever" (which is why most of those examples are getting dunked on)

i don't think these images are enough to rule in nintendo's favor. they're similar but not exact copies.

I have only played Palworld for a couple hours, but so far it's completely different from Pokemon. The core gameplay loop involves building a base and capturing pals to help you gather food, stone, etc. It's more like Valheim or Ark with an anime-inspired aesthetic.

Those examples are quite a stretch as well. There are 900 Pokemon now, many inspired by preexisting animals, mythological creatures, etc. Nintendo does not own the concept of a sheep (Mareep) or pterodactyl (Aerodactyl). Or Ekans, which is literally just a snake with the name spelled backwards.

What would they sue them for? Making anime characters? I mean even if they do, I’d be surprised if it held up.

From looking at the screenshots of gameplay, a lot of the "monsters" look like straight up copies of pokemon. I don't think you can copyright gameplay, but those monster designs, one could argue are replicas of an established IP.

I definitely thought it was a Nintendo product for a couple of seconds when I saw it on steam, until the basic improbability of that sunk in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com