This game has been Greenlit by the Community!

The community has shown their interest in this game. Valve has reached out to this developer to start moving things toward release on Steam.

Minimon 3D
IceGuru Jan 20, 2014 @ 5:13am
Intellectual Property is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvPXfJbx9tE

Watch the video
Study economics
Stop ♥♥♥♥♥ing about pokemon
Let the game either fail or succeed

@the devs this game looks VERY promissing and I wish you the best. I have liked your FB page and I hope you continue to develop this game.
Showing 1-15 of 16 comments
< >
[CGC] Vivian James Jan 20, 2014 @ 8:19am 
Comparisons with Pokemon are inevitable, I'm afraid. In the end, each and every single game about collecting pets and making them fight is gonna be compared to Pokemon, because it is the game that kickstarted the genre.

That said, I agree that saying this is plagiarism is stupid. You want to compare the game with Pokemon? Fine, you can do that. But the catch is, the most basic presime of this genre (Capturing pets and making them fight) is something that can not be subjected to the concept of intellectual property, because it is too abstract.
larein Jan 20, 2014 @ 10:49am 
Oh no no, I'm totally fine with having another game where you catch monsters. I don't consider the *concept* a ripoff since then I would have to consider Digimon, Monster Rancher, and other monster games ripoffs as well. The thing is the DESIGNS are ripoffs. You can clearly see how some of the monster designs are copies of existing Pokemon. Pretty sure I saw Zebstrika, Arcanine, Galvantula, Golem, Golduck's head slapped onto a tiny bird body, and that's clearly some kind of Nidoqueen in the promo art. I would support the game, but they clearly just ripped existing designs off. All they did was change a few things on them to make them "different".

And so, I will not support a game with lazy design like this. The gamplay might be good/different from Pokemon, but they couldn't be bothered to design their own monsters? They had to resort to copying? One of the sprites for the monsters looks like they just drew over an existing sprite for Gengar. To draw over someone else's art and then say "Oh, I made this!", that is wrong and that is basically what they are doing with the designs of these monsters. I don't know if you'll see it as being wrong though, with your view on IP and such but, I just want to make sure it is clear that it's more than just the concept of the game being a ripoff.
IceGuru Jan 20, 2014 @ 12:15pm 
Seriously? That dragon with a serpent tail is nidoqueen? Get over your fandom. I love pokemon too but most concepts on "monsters" have been beaten to death. For him to come up with hundreds of COMPLETELY "Unique" monsters is a HUGE request.
Kawatta-kun Jan 20, 2014 @ 5:03pm 
"with hundreds of COMPLETELY "Unique" monsters is a HUGE request." This. You can't possibly ask for SUCH innovation when the Pokemon Company itself is nowadays quite "recilcing" their own monsters, just to keep it going. Or doing Ice-creams... xD

The author himself says YES this is inspired in Pokemon YES it is quite a lot like Pokemon because it is is version about it. NO it isn't a ripoff or copyright infringment, I guess he would have searched/studied enough about it before doing all those models, coding, etc.
Qon Jan 21, 2014 @ 8:38am 
Ehm, how would you design a giant reptile to make it any more different from nidoqueen?
I mean do you really mean that "giant purple reptile" is something that has been done in pokemon and everything else is a copy? It's not really possible to go further from a nidoqueen without resorting to a more complex art style. And design shouldn't be all about being different in all possible ways just to avoid a good predecessor. Then you throw out everything that is good and just make crap art.
[V] Amy Jan 23, 2014 @ 1:31am 
Really? I also like the game but not listed
Information Fox Jan 23, 2014 @ 5:58am 
If you want to talk about if he is or isnt stealing. He did mention some are placeholder sprites. But he shouldnt have those in a greenlight page as that implies that those would be in the full game. Zebraska and Zebstrika are extremely alike. Theres no real denying that. But this game looks somewhat interesting. And I would be totally for it if it wasnt for the fact that it does not seem like he developed a unique system behind it,it is seen in the video that it has the same type matchup...and types as in pokemon. And what seems to be the same moves from pokemon as well. The idea behind it all seems rather interesting,having a pokemon-like game where you could very well could be a bad guy in a world of other players. But it I think really where the main focus of these debates around stealing or not is the base gameplay more than sprites themselves for the time being. If you check in the video,around the 16-17 second mark. The capricornus entry. Its rather obvious that it all runs on a pokemon system, which very may well get it in legal trouble. Either way,id hope for the best for the developer. But I honestly do worry about the game.
Helleri Feb 7, 2014 @ 8:31pm 
That this is a direct derivative of Poke'mon is not even debatable (the author freely admits to it in the announcments). There are a few things that can be fairly argued about it though:

- Given that the developers changed enough aspects and included enough of their own ideas to not directly be infringent. And, given that the mode it comes to us in is something Nintendo isn't willing to invest in. Does this constitute fair use?


- This is not a question of if Nintendo will do something about this; But a question of how and when will they act on this. So, what will their treatment of it be; What should it be?

Personally I think Nintendo has always been a rather smart company. They have never been willing to risk turning Poke'mon into an MMORPG. Nor, would they publicly aknowledge allowing someone to try just that on their behalf (because then they would be liable for any losses). But, someone decides to take a whack at it of their own accord and assume all the risk?

Nintendo would be crazy to not simply pretend that they know nothing about it and see if it actually succeeds or not.

And, if it does succeed or seems like it will. I think they probably have a limited window of opertunity to act on it. And, they would have to in some manner at some point...

I am sure many are familiar with the philips drive. The man who invented that in 1937 was a canadian sales person of drives and drivers. Ford initially apporached him for licensing. He turned them down. And, after several clear patent violations that he did not persue he lost the rights to it. The philips drive is now public domain along side the slotted drive (which always was since around 1315 -where we get some of our earliest examples of the slotted drive).

The thing is. If there is a possibility that a higher claims court could find in favor of Nintendo and their copywright being infringed upon. Then Nintendo has an obligation to persue litigation or risk loosing claim over their existing franchise. Modern copywright and patent law doesn't just grant the claimant with intellectual property over something indefinately. It forces them to feircly defend that or risk loosing it.

Nintendo will have to act on this. They don't really have a choice. They can choose how they act on it though. They can simply use their pull to get it removed/blocked/halted in any arena they are capable of influencing in order to force the developer into acquiescing to their wishes.

Depending on where they developer is located versus where nitnendo or nintendo of america is head quartered. That may be their best option. Especially since there is always the chance that Nintendo may loose a (or a series of) judegment(s).

Now, I think if they are really smart. They will buy it. They can through to much money at it to be refused (but enough that it is still a drop in the bucket to them) and buy it outright. After which they can either dismantel it. Or make the developers "employees" and have the assets replaced (likely with salvaged assets from other games that they already have).

The most risky thing Nintendo can do though, is wait and see for too long.
Qon Feb 8, 2014 @ 1:04pm 
There's no pokemons in it. Do nintendo own all pet RPG games? Doesn't matter if it's direct derivative, it has no Poke and therefore isn't PokeMon. It has the Mon, but so has DigiMon and many others, right?
IceGuru Feb 8, 2014 @ 3:31pm 
That's the spirt! ...not

Watch the above video bro.

Originally posted by Helleri:
That this is a direct derivative of Poke'mon is not even debatable (the author freely admits to it in the announcments). There are a few things that can be fairly argued about it though:

- Given that the developers changed enough aspects and included enough of their own ideas to not directly be infringent. And, given that the mode it comes to us in is something Nintendo isn't willing to invest in. Does this constitute fair use?


- This is not a question of if Nintendo will do something about this; But a question of how and when will they act on this. So, what will their treatment of it be; What should it be?

Personally I think Nintendo has always been a rather smart company. They have never been willing to risk turning Poke'mon into an MMORPG. Nor, would they publicly aknowledge allowing someone to try just that on their behalf (because then they would be liable for any losses). But, someone decides to take a whack at it of their own accord and assume all the risk?

Nintendo would be crazy to not simply pretend that they know nothing about it and see if it actually succeeds or not.

And, if it does succeed or seems like it will. I think they probably have a limited window of opertunity to act on it. And, they would have to in some manner at some point...

I am sure many are familiar with the philips drive. The man who invented that in 1937 was a canadian sales person of drives and drivers. Ford initially apporached him for licensing. He turned them down. And, after several clear patent violations that he did not persue he lost the rights to it. The philips drive is now public domain along side the slotted drive (which always was since around 1315 -where we get some of our earliest examples of the slotted drive).

The thing is. If there is a possibility that a higher claims court could find in favor of Nintendo and their copywright being infringed upon. Then Nintendo has an obligation to persue litigation or risk loosing claim over their existing franchise. Modern copywright and patent law doesn't just grant the claimant with intellectual property over something indefinately. It forces them to feircly defend that or risk loosing it.

Nintendo will have to act on this. They don't really have a choice. They can choose how they act on it though. They can simply use their pull to get it removed/blocked/halted in any arena they are capable of influencing in order to force the developer into acquiescing to their wishes.

Depending on where they developer is located versus where nitnendo or nintendo of america is head quartered. That may be their best option. Especially since there is always the chance that Nintendo may loose a (or a series of) judegment(s).

Now, I think if they are really smart. They will buy it. They can through to much money at it to be refused (but enough that it is still a drop in the bucket to them) and buy it outright. After which they can either dismantel it. Or make the developers "employees" and have the assets replaced (likely with salvaged assets from other games that they already have).

The most risky thing Nintendo can do though, is wait and see for too long.
Sushi  [developer] Apr 4, 2014 @ 8:53am 
Hi guys, this is an interesting discussion. I spent lots of time investigating about this, and as I far as I know, there is no copyright infringement at all, Nintendo won't care much about
this game.

Minimon is surely inspired by Pokemon, and reuses many concepts from it. The main idea behind Minimon was to make a Pokemon style game, that improved on Pokemon and brought new options/features.

First, online play, for this kind of game, I think it is a must. Some people told me in the comments that this is actually a bad point and wont want to play the game because of it.
I dont really understand what they mean, this game can surely be played in offline mode 100%, and even if you play in online mode, no one forces you to interact with other players.

Two, about the difficulty of the game. I love Pokemon, but I think we all agree that Pokemon has no challenge at all, even a baby could complete the game easily. When I play Pokemon I always disable the option to allow me to switch Pokemon upon defeating an enemy, that makes the game a bit more challenging, but it is not enough. The artificial inteligence of the opponents is plain stupid (I'm pretty sure that in the early generations, all the opponents did was to select random moves, with no artificial inteligence at all!). I spent lots of time working on the artificial inteligence of trainers in Minimon. The trainers know when to switch monsters, how to make good use of elemental advantages, how to proper boost stats and use status effects, and many other things. Many of the game testers said that the trainers were too smart, some even accused them of cheating, and I think that is exactly what I wanted.

Three, scope of the game, quests, world size etc. This are all factors that I wanted to expand, adding two whole continents to explore, with a big storyline that tied them both, with a branching path that would allow the players to either pick the good or bad side midway. Also filling the world with side quests is something that is missing in Pokemon and that I wanted to address in my game. Basically I want to add as much content as possible, as much as possible for a one man team. The original version of this game was released some months ago, and theres people that already clock 100 hours of gameplay or more, and the game is not even finished, so I think this is a good thing.

But basically, game ideas/concepts cannot be copyrighted, anyone can make a pet/monster capture game as long as it is within the copyright law .
Things like type names also can't be copyrighted (Pokemon has like 600 moves, with so many common words like Thunder, Blizzard, Earthquake etc, inventing alternative names for those would be a pain in the ♥♥♥).

And about types, those also cant be copyrighted, and Pokemon has so many types, myself can't think of any other new type that dont exist in Pokemon. I changed some of the names, just because I think they make more sense, but yeah, Pokemon already covers all usable elements, if you have an idea for a new type tell me. Some people suggested Sound, but I don't like it too much.
Here's the list of my changes:
Ground -> Earth
Steel -> Metal
Fairy -> Light
Dark -> Shadow

However other things like names, logos, monsters, sounds etc can be copyrighted. No real Pokemons appear on this game, nor any pokemon trainers, locations etc, because of course I not neither stupid nor a thief.
No pokemon game assets are used, all 3d models, sprites, textures, logos and sounds are original (and they costed thousands of dollars to create).
Sometimes Pokemon, Digimon or Final Fantasy 3d models are used as placeholder art until the monsters 3d model is done, but of course, they wont appear on the final product. If you know how a game is made, you know most of the time placeholder stuff is used to advance the programming/gameplay, while the artists work in the final versions of 3d models, pictures, sounds etc. See last paragraph for more info about this.

And well, not exactly all sprites are made by me, around 150 of them belong to two artists that gave me authorization to use them (I paid them money, and they gave me a commercial license for the designs/sprites). Also they were quite excited to see their designs finally being used in a real game and being brought into 3d.

About my monsters designs not being original, and about the dragon in the login screen looking like a Nidoqueen. Really? I dont even remembered how Nidoqueen looks like, since last time I played the games was years ago, but I just checked it, it looks nothing like my dragon at all, besides both having reptile-like features.
So what about the others, is the dragon-egg monster a ripoff of Togepi just because it is an egg? Or the yellow bird a ripoff of Zapdos just because it is an eletric bird, even though it looks nothing like it? Or well, just a clone of Pikachu, just because it is yellow? (I'm pretty sure someone in the comments actually compared it to a Pikachu).

About other designs, the zebras for example, how original can you make a Zebra monster? The Zebra from Pokemon is an electric monster, mine is a ice/dark monster. Not exactly original I know, but I really like Zebras and wanted one in my game.If people continue saying this monster is a ripoff, well, I might try to change it a bit, but a zebra is nothing more than a horse with stripes, what differences can I add more, unless I give it wings or horns or something, and still, people would still say it is ripoff since it has zebra stripes. If I remove the stripes then they would say it is a Rapidash ripoff, so I guess I can't really make a horse/zebra monster at all.

Some could argue that I could design only animals that were not done by Pokemon yet, but if you think about it, Pokemon has like 750 designs, I think they covered already most animals. I don't know many animals that did not appear in Pokemon yet, one that was missing was Pandas, but that got fixed in the last generation. I can only think about a Playtypus maybe, and so, should I make a monster game that only has 300 Playtypus of different colors and sizes since this way it is more "original"?
If you play Minimon you will see hundreds of designs, some very unique and original, others not as original. I'll admit that there are monster designs based on some existing Pokemons, mostly because I really liked them and wanted to have something similar in my game. Those are a small number though, and then you have other designs that you can't really compare to Pokemon at all, like a zombie, wizard, bone dragon, treasure box, snowman, salamander, hedgehog, etc.
And of course, there are kinds of monsters that were created just because it was almost required to have them, like bats to put in caves, carnivorous plants for a jungle or fishes/sharks to put in water zones.

Finally, there were was only one problem that I fixed already, as some of you might have seen in the original video (that was replaced as fast as I can, when I learned about the mistake). There was a monster that looked too much like a Galvantula from Pokemon. And that's exactly because that was a 3D model of a Galvantula. Minimon contains around 350 monsters, and well, making a 3D monster costs time and money. I have many skills, but 3d modelling is not one of them, so I work with freelancer artists to make the 3d monsters, I already invested lots of my money into it. And not all monsters are finished yet, I would say, only around 70%. The others right now have placeholder 3d models, that are replaced as soon as the artists finish them. Usually it takes from 2 days to 1 week to make a new monster.

What happened was, I was not the one making the video, a friend made it, and he did not know much about which monsters were final or placeholders. As soon as people notified me of the Galvantula appearing on the trailer, I asked him to edit the video, as you can see, the current video does not have it anymore, nor does the current game version, a proper custom 3d model was done for that monster already.

Any more questions just ask, and I'm pretty open to suggestions, so talk with me :)
Lucavi May 28, 2014 @ 6:10pm 
3 words: Dragon Quest Monsters
Otawo Jun 11, 2014 @ 3:38pm 
Originally posted by Relfos:
*Snip*

Listen I am also a game designer, and I am trying to start an indie game studio. I have not played the game, but I have been working on my own Pokemon inspired RPG for a while now, and I have been a Pokemon fan since Red & Blue.

To be quite honest, some of your models are Pokemon, I saw a Golem in the screenshots. People have said other models are as well, and to top it off you are already making money on this game. I am assuming that you are not a native English speaker, which hopefully for you will give you some protection, but Apple and Goolge are both American companies, and Nintendo is gonna sue the frack out of them, and you too. If you where making no money on it, then you could release the game with all Pokemon models, and there really wouldn't be much Nintendo could do other than sending you a cease and decist letter. You can try to hide behind the, "They are placeholders," line all you want, but a Judge here in America is gonna laugh at you and rule in their favor. It's not a matter of if, only when.

*Edit* It's also not a MMORPG. MMORPGs feature persitent worlds that you have to connect to or you can not play the game. What this is, is more like a MUD (Multi User Dungeon). The Diablo series is also kinda like that.
Last edited by Otawo; Jun 11, 2014 @ 3:42pm
Qon Jun 11, 2014 @ 4:30pm 
Originally posted by Otawo:
Originally posted by Relfos:
*Snip*
*Edit* It's also not a MMORPG. MMORPGs feature persitent worlds that you have to connect to or you can not play the game. What this is, is more like a MUD (Multi User Dungeon). The Diablo series is also kinda like that.
When did you get to decide what Massive Multiplayer Online Role PLaying Game means?
Yes most MMOs have a persistent world, not all of them do. Like this one.
Look up the dictionary definitions of massive, multiplayer, role, playing and game and tell me which one of them means "persistent world".
Doesn't matter what you think it means, those words can imply persistent world, but they don't have to.
Sushi  [developer] Jun 16, 2014 @ 8:23am 
Otawa, I don't see any different in 'persistency" between Minimon and for example World of Warcraft. There are lots of stuff that is persistent in the Minimon server (eg: auctions, clans/guilds, etc). Just having the option to play offline does not stop it from being an MMORPG.
Showing 1-15 of 16 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50