If you want to go that far, acting like Pokemon did more than take animals and slightly twist them is bad faith. They're iconic designs because the Pokemon games were ground breaking for their time, not because they were truly original or innovative. That doesn't entitle them to own 'monsters based on real life creatures' in perpetuity.
>acting like Pokemon did more than take animals and slightly twist them is bad faith.
That is highly undervaluing the vision and talent of the art director. Ken Sugimori wasn't just some fresh intern out of college who took pictures of animals and drew anime eyes on them. And that's why his designs are considered iconic decades later.
Its no different from Akira Toriyama or Hayato Miyazaki. Japanese animation tends to have a simplistic but very disctinct style, and it's why they tend to stand the test of time. The test of time in ways that people try to dismiss them outright as "well I can do it". But few others do.
>That doesn't entitle them to own 'monsters based on real life creatures' in perpetuity.
no one is saying this (except journalists who want to make clickbait. The title is the worst thing about this post so I won't entertain the idea of "oh, TPC is going to sue!"). But if anyone is really curious on why these are all called "pokemon knockoffs", you need to understand the qualities that make pokemon so distinct. Not copy some designs and change it up. You are free to do that, but you can't complain about people critisizing your art as generic and uninspired if you do not in fact understand what you're doing with that style.
That's the equivalent of saying "well this sort is less efficient, let's change it to quicksort" in some 20 year old legacy code base and wonder why suddenly everything slows down or breaks. You don't truly understand the art style you study, which means attempts to derive from the style will create uncanny effects.
>That is highly undervaluing the vision and talent of the art director.
I'm recognizing that the art director didn't exist in a vacuum. [1] I am not disparaging the artist, or any involved. As Stable Diffusion and Dalle are clearly showing, art isn't a process of creation. Art is discovery. When we create art, we are searching a pre-determined space of possible ideas and mediums/materials. Is Palworld very close to Pokemon, in this space? Yes, they're next door neighbors. But Pokemon first moved in next to Dragon Quest, and many others. Artistic expression doesn't occur in sporadic fits and starts, it occurs in traceable organic steps.
While I appreciate the Japanese style, my argument doesn't have anything to do with it specifically, besides disagreeing with your prior comment:
>"but everything is inspired" is bad faith in and of itself and doesn't capture why pokemon's art direction is so iconic.
"Everything is inspired" isn't bad faith, it's facts. You can disagree, but it does capture the artistic process exactly. Art that is produced too outside of the general consensus is like a non-viable genetic sequence. It can exist, but it will self-terminate.
If you disagree with the sentiment because it is used to justify exact copy-cats, I agree, exact plagiarism should not be allowed. The question is where in the creation process Palworld drew from Pokemon. If they took the character/genre design, then it's fine. If they stole core underlying structures [2], it's over the line.
>no one is saying this (except journalists who want to make clickbait. The title is the worst thing about this post so I won't entertain the idea of "oh, TPC is going to sue!"). But if anyone is really curious on why these are all called "pokemon knockoffs", you need to understand the qualities that make pokemon so distinct.
Again, [1]. It is not disparaging to say that Pokemon drew inspiration from Dragon Quest, or any other source. Clearly Pokemon took that inspiration, and innovated to a huge degree. That's why they were successful. I'm fine calling Palworld a Pokemon knockoff, but many people are saying Pokemon should sue, and that is clearly incorrect. Unless there's proof of direct asset ripping, Pokemon has no claim to what Palworld has created, except as proud ancestors.
>you can't complain about people critisizing your art as generic and uninspired if you do not in fact understand what you're doing with that style.
When Palworld is eventually used as inspiration for the next monster capture game, people will be saying that the Palworld art is 'iconic' and shouldn't be copied. They'll be wrong to say it then, like people are wrong to say it about Pokemon now. It's the incorrect view of the artistic process that bothers me, not the specifics of the case.
>You don't truly understand the art style you study, which means attempts to derive from the style will create uncanny effects.
Disagree, groundbreaking art is almost always judged as 'uncanny' by it's contemporaries. The history of art is covered with examples of masterpieces crossing the uncanny/canny valley. How often are geniuses not appreciated during their time? When it comes to art, there is no such thing as an incorrect 'derivative', there is only the consensus of the masses, and the artist's luck in catching it.
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=...
[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylTfMAOYHI
>As Stable Diffusion and Dalle are clearly showing, art isn't a process of creation.
As current LLMs are showing, art isn't just creation, indeed. Making art is easy. We all did it as kids doodling on paper.
It also shows that if is very easy to be "slightly off" and have it tank the entire artistic integrity of the piece. It's hard to criticize a stick figure, we're very good at filling in blanks as long as the general details are there and the art style is consistent. It's easy to criticize a hyperrealistic drawing with a human missing a finger and light casting incorrectly on their body, because we spend every waking moment seeing the world around us. These are important artistic details with nigh objective natural properties behind them, but an LLM as is lacks that 3d data space artists have, since it learns from 2d art pieces that projects from a 3d world.
All of this is to say: LLMs as they are now are a great analoige for why pal world feels off. It has the right "creation" but the wrong "direction". That's why art directors who can explain that process are key (i unfortunately lack the eye and vocabulary to explain why exactly Palworld feels off, but I'm sure a proper art director can)
(p.s. This also isn't an accusation of Palworld using AI. Them using AI to make fully rigged/textured game ready models would be a bigger story than any of the sales news).
>Everything is inspired" isn't bad faith, it's facts. You can disagree, but it does capture the artistic process exactly
If you understand my above arguments, I hope you understand now why I call this bad faith. An artist is "just getting inspiration" as much as a programmer is "just using math", or a musician is "just hitting keys/strings". There are entire curriculums designed to break down why those keys or lines of code can make pleasing sounds or process some given logic. Likewise, we do indeed have art theory and artist studies to break down why art looks good (or at least, distinct). Again, not everyone can describe why something sounds/tastes/or looks good, an expert can and then applies it to produce more good stuff.
I don't particularly care about the arguments of "ripoff" nor "copycats". I care about emphasizing the work an artist puts into a style and why ripoffs/copycat look lower quality. It's a literal skill issue (or more kindly, knowledge gap).
I guess you can take offense to an artist "owning" a style, but that's a societal quirk. We love assigning namesakes as a mark of credit or legacy (even if the person the self is fictitious, "flanderization" is a favorite example). I wouldn't take too much stock to it other than that, I think we both agree that art styles can't be copyrighted.
>When Palworld is eventually used as inspiration for the next monster capture game, people will be saying that the Palworld art is 'iconic' and shouldn't be copied.
I'll take you up on that wager. I don't see the inspiration nor strong art direction for that. The only future accusations people will have for future copycats is "the gave an animal guns" or "they subjected animals to slavery". It will lose a bit of its edge factor the second time, though.
>Disagree, groundbreaking art is almost always judged as 'uncanny' by it's contemporaries.
Maybe in the grand history of it all. I feel in the last century of commercialization, and especially the last 20 years that art is used as a hook. Often misleading hook (it's easy to make a good ad banner. Hard to make a good game), but there's nothing more telling than a AAA key art making social media go a buzz, showing how instantaneously a certain style can resonate with millions. That isn't done by accident. Pandering, perhaps. But effective nonetheless.
What you describe still can happen (e.g. Klasky Csupo of Rugrats fame was and still is contentious. But there's definitely mode appreciation now for the grungy style than before), but most commercial art is made to be appealing by contemporaries.