And I don't hear the same complaints levied against the sound design and cinematics, even though the sound, magical tablet, and walking out to the edge of a cliff during sunrise are straight up riffing on Breath of the Wild. since most of the critters you can show to an everyman and ask "is this the same thing as " and the answer is going to be "no", it seems to me the designs themselves would fall under the category of Legally Distinct Bootleg, which sure you can socially snub the developers for but I don't think it's something the parent company could successfully sue over. Just assumptions from armchair warriors looking at a past game that used AI to generate prompts for an amongus-like game (wherein the normal people all get the same prompt but the imposter does not and the goal is to figure out who the imposter is) assuming this means AI was used for everything everywhere the devs touched.Īs for the legality of their designs. I don't see how anyone who has a problem with the way Game Freak is handling Pokémon would ever think to elevate this development team as some kind of positive contrast.Īs far as I understand it, there has been 0 evidence at all to indicate the involvment of more recent AI techniques. And Pocket Pair has a terrible track record of highly derivative games that chase popular trends, such as Craftopia (a previous game of theirs that is somehow still in early access) straight up copying Breath of the Wild right down to the opening. Obviously the CEO of Pocket Pair - the developer of Palworld - being a crypto-bro and an enthusiast for AI leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well. In both cases you end up with a product that is heavily derivative of different intellectual properties and thus feels cobbled together haphazardly rather than something that was conceptualized and developed from the ground up. I don't think you'd have any way of telling the difference between a developer using AI to design Pokémon-like monsters for their game, and what they did with Palworld. The problem as I see it is that whether they used AI or just went with plain old-fashioned ripping off, the end result is ultimately the same. To me, the problem isn't whether they made the game with AI, as we don't know if they did and we probably never will. If you've ever seen Craftopia, the opening for that is 1:1 the BotW "running out of a cave to gaze over a cliff" thing. Whether Palworld is bad enough to warrant legal action I can't say, but they definitely have a history of copying homework. Of course, plenty of ripoffs exist in the world, and this one only got so noticed because of how it blew up. It's about plagiarizing artists and their work in a landscape that is growing increasingly hostile to creatives. There is some debate about whether or not they either directly ripped or traced over some Pokemon models, as the geometry matches well for some of them.Ī lot of people are retorting with "oh won't someone protect the poor massive corporation", but to me it's not about defending Pokemon. With Palworld specifically, it's that the designs are obviously taken from Pokemon- and not just ideas, but very specific design elements. To be more precise, there is no evidence that Palworld uses AI (but the company has released an AI "art"-based game before, and the CEO expressed interest in AI). It's that there are allegations that the Palworld devs used AI to rip Pokemon designs for their designs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |