A Serious Take on the Comparison to Pokémon

[Geschrieben]

...Not that the Steam Forums are an especially friendly place for it.

The question of how this game compares to Pokémon is pretty heavily involved in the discussion, but much of what I've seen is pretty simple "this is going to seriously mess up Pokémon" and "you're an idiot if you think this will affect Pokémon at all," both of which I disagree with.

An important thing to remember is that Pokémon balances multiple audiences. Fans of Pokémon's battle system won't care for Palworld at all, it's a completely different genre. The large competitive community for the games simply isn't going to be interested in this one, and people who enjoy Pokémon's turn-based battle system and wide variety of strategic movesets outside of competitive play won't find anything similar here.

The genre also differs in another way. Pokémon is an RPG, while Palworld is a survival game. People interested in the stories that are told with Pokémon aren't likely to be satisfied by the non-story-driven gameplay, even if Palworld does have an overarching story.

What audience Pokémon and Palworld do share is the creature-collector audience, and most importantly, the audience seeking an immersive world with those creatures. The people Palworld is going to draw in from Pokémon's audience are going to be those who were disappointed with how bland the Pokémon *world* has felt these past few games. It'll be the people who complained about the trees in Scarlet and Violet, the people upset that Pokémon Amie is no longer a feature, and those who felt Legends: Arceus was a step in the right direction.

Palworld isn't going to take a large portion of Pokémon's audience. It probably will be something people play *alongside* Pokémon rather than a replacement for it. What it is going to do, though, is provide a home for much of the audience that's been alienated with the last few entries in the series. It's going to remind people that a world like Pokémon's can be immersive, even if things are added to it that feel anachronistic.

Palworld will not kill Pokémon. It also, however, will still have some impact. It's not like Temtem, which was mostly just emulating what Pokémon does and people somehow expected it to have major impact. Palworld shows us what is missing, but desperately wanted (by some), from Pokémon, and that's going to earn it fans and give it competition in that regard. People who say they wish Pokémon felt more immersive or alive, or who lament that they can't really interact with their 'mons, will be pointed to Palworld.

Palworld will stand wonderfully on its own, I think. Holding out hope, though, that Pokémon will see what Palworld does and put more effort into pandering to the audience it and Palworld share. That's the impact Palworld will really have, either as a knife in the wound of those alienated by Pokémon's decreasingly immersive world, or as a kick in the pants for Pokémon to revive that world. It's up to Pokémon if they choose to compete on this front going foreward.

[xggoodwin93]

I hope that this game doesn't directly compete with Pokemon. Of course i want Pokemon to put out better made and refined games, but competing directly with Pokemon is a death sentence. Pokemon has just been around too long. If they decided to move to be more like PAlworld, palworld wouldnt last long.

I want Palworld to do its own thing and be the best it can be separately. Now i like the latest pokemon games and i can admit they are poorly made. I like palworld too for different reasons than pokemon. What I wouldnt like is people only playing palworld as a Pokemon sub and then leaving palworld once gamefreak makes their perfect game.

[Teratus]

Tbh the only thing this really has in common with Pokemon is that it's a creature capture game.

Most of the other features as well as gameplay is nothing like Pokemon tbh.
Combat feels more Digimon World like than Pokemon, and the creature designs feel far more in line with Temtem and Studio Ghibli works.

Gameplay wise I see far more Conan Exiles and especially ARK influences, as well as some Breath of the Wild inspirations.

So if Palworld is going to compete with anything it'll be ARK most likely, not Pokemon.

[awanderingswordsman]

I expect this game to do well in it's niche but that niche means nothing to pokemon. It's certainly unlikely to be the proverbial kick in the ass gamefreak need to start improving pokemon games (they already have probably millions of players complaining about the ♥♥♥♥ performance of scarlet and violet and have done nothing at all to fix that).

No company is more deaf to consumers than pokemon, and I guess why should they be when they are also the most money making franchise (not even just video games) of all time.

[Geschrieben]

Saying this game has nothing in common with Pokémon is straight up denial. Many of the designs are very clearly directly inspired by existing Pokémon, and saying they look more like Temtem is just silly... Yes, Palworld is a completely different genre, that was half the point of my post. That doesn't mean there aren't comparisons to be drawn, though. There is more to a game than just what genres it is.

As for wanting Palworld not to compete directly and not be abandoned if Pokèmon does do better, I definitely sympathize. I do think Palworld has enough of its own merit to stick around, and the fact it is a different genre means even if Pokémon does do better with immersion it'll definitely still have a community. I honestly don't think Pokémon has the time budget to actually achieve immersion with how it's being pumped out, anyway. I just hope Palworld will get them to care a bit more about it.

[Geschrieben]

Originally posted by awanderingswordsman:

I expect this game to do well in it's niche but that niche means nothing to pokemon. It's certainly unlikely to be the proverbial kick in the ass gamefreak need to start improving pokemon games (they already have probably millions of players complaining about the ♥♥♥♥ performance of scarlet and violet and have done nothing at all to fix that).

No company is more deaf to consumers than pokemon, and I guess why should they be when they are also the most money making franchise (not even just video games) of all time.

Consumers are consumers, competition is competition. Consumer complaints mean nothing if people still buy the game. Competition, though... It doesn't even need to actually drive people away from the Pokémon games themselves, they just need to see the dollar signs in how Palworld implements things. If they think they can get *more* people to buy the games if they implement them themselves, there's a chance they'll shift focus.

That's why games like Temtem and Coromon never changed anything. They were just emulating Pokémon, in Temtem's case all they added was poorly implemented faux-MMO aspects (which Pokémon tried with Sword and Shield) and monthly gamepasses (which are a known thing and unfriendly to Pokémon's image). Palworld has the chance to actually present something one can say is reasonably missing from Pokémon, and that Pokémon would benefit from integrating.

It's more unlikely than likely, "holding out hope" and all that. It's not, however, entirely unreasonable to expect it'll have some sort of impact.

[awanderingswordsman]

I'd say unless this game blows up and hits at least 10 mil sales that it's extremely unlikely gamefreak even become aware of it's existence. They would have to be insane not to already see dollar signs around just fixing their damn games. They've got bad reviews which lost them tons of real money for not hiring people that actually know how to code modern games and they did absolutely nothing with that information.

It's far more likely that some other company like tencent comes up to pokemon company and wants to make a ripoff of this game but with pokemon. That's the biggest splash you could expect to see from this reasonably. Basically the way pokemon go and unite got made.

[Dave from work]

This is assuming it's a "creature battler", wich it isnt.
The creatures in this are used differently.

More like Ark.

Comparing this to pokemon just basing it off on "the creatures look alike" isnt really all that great of a comparison.

[Geschrieben]

Originally posted by Dave from work:

This is assuming it's a "creature battler", wich it isnt.
The creatures in this are used differently.

More like Ark.

Comparing this to pokemon just basing it off on "the creatures look alike" isnt really all that great of a comparison.

People try actually reading my post challenge lmao? I specifically point out that it's not the same genre and wouldn't appeal to Pokémon fans that like it for its genre.

[Lydhe]

Yes there is capturing and collecting system of creatures in this game but it's only a thin portion of the game nothing comparable to "Pokemon" which is a game where you mainly collect pokemons to train and use for battle against other trainers, "Palworld" it's first and foremost a survival and a base-building game like "ARK", I consider "Palworld" a game like "The Front" or "Conan Exiles" where you capture thrall to make your slave and work for you.

[Kamakura]

Them pushing for a different genre of game will definitely do a lot to make Palworld stand out more. They probably should've pushed for a more unique art style/creature design since it's clear they are just copying Pokemon, but oh well...

That being said, there's zero chance of Pokemon paying Palworld any mind, let alone seeing it as a kick in the pants. When Pokemon can release crap games like Sword/Shield and Scarlet/Violet and sell 20+ million copies, the only thing that will make them take notice is if they aren't making those sort of numbers and being that Palworld isn't really the same type of game beyond creature collecting, it's not going to be a particularly strong competitor in the end.

Like I'm interested in this game for sure, but seeing that it's much less Pokemon than initially thought it was, that does put a damper on it being a good "Pokemon alternative".

[DJukor]

The game feel more like Ark survival whit Pokemon like creatures instead of prehistoric/fantasy beasts. Than a Pokemon game.

[BlackDino]

ok Fine! I will say it! I actually love the Palworld designs more then what Pokemon has been pooping out in a long ass time. Seriously That fire Lion Tiger looks sooo badass! I want a fire Sword to match it.

[Dave from work]

Originally posted by Geschrieben:

Originally posted by Dave from work:

This is assuming it's a "creature battler", wich it isnt.
The creatures in this are used differently.

More like Ark.

Comparing this to pokemon just basing it off on "the creatures look alike" isnt really all that great of a comparison.

People try actually reading my post challenge lmao? I specifically point out that it's not the same genre and wouldn't appeal to Pokémon fans that like it for its genre.

"Every reply is aimed at me" speedrun, any %

[.Master Jiren, The Strongest]

Heres the thing. If Pokemon actually takes notice and takes this game seriously, it will lead to only 1 thing: A real pokemon MMO.

Competition breeds evolution. If pokemon takes the bait, we the consumers/fans are the ones who will win no matter which company ends up with the better MMO, we'll all be the winners for it.

[z99o]

Pokemon's target audience is young children, that is why they can release sub-standard games and get away it, because the parents don't care and children are just as easily entertained by finger family videos on their ipad. Not to mention the merchandise and card sales that only need a Pokemon's design to sell, let alone a functional game. Palworld's audience is definitively 'young adult' (12+) and people who think pokemon with guns is funny. Even if this game was a masterpiece in game balance and competive design, the audience of people interested in Pokemon competitive is a fraction of a fraction. Hell, the Dragon Quest community thought that Dragon Quest Monsters 3 would destroy Pokemon, and that franchise is just as big as Pokemon (in Japan), targets a similar audience, yet the game coexists on it's own. The only way that Pokemon could be pushed out of its market is if multiple companies built monster-catching games targeting children that could be carried on IP alone and marketed it internationally, which if you look at the 90s pokemon craze, was attempted by many but failed across the board. As for infringement, probably not. Nobody owns the exclusive right to monster catching games, and they'd have to REALLY rip off a specific Pokemon to be in trouble. If the game does have an impact, if successful it will signal to game studios that there's market share to be had from the creature collecting genre (hopefully they are sick of making mediocre farming games).