Support NeoGAF

[Reizo Ryuu]

Dude your circular logic makes my head hurt. I sincerely hope you are being intentionally obtuse just to mess with me.

you're talking about a physical object being removed from your possession

if an object is no longer in your possession, you could have sold it, given it to someone else

I said being removed from your possession, as in it's taken, selling something or gifting it doesn't mean being removed, it's giving it up voluntarily.

No "circular logic", I always said being removed since your fallacious example was specifically about it being removed from your porch, and being removed =/= selling/gifting, that's just how you interpreted it for some reason even though that's not what your example was about.
But I digress, the point was the example of a physical object was incredibly dumb and not applicable at all on this topic.

 

[BlackTron]

The "eyes" example is dumb as bricks because almost every pokemon has different eye design, some are solid colours, some are human like, some have arches, some are slits, some are angled etc. etc., and all of them have been done a billion times already in other anime/manga, there's nothing that can be "stolen" there.

Just gonna have to agree to disagree on this. If I see a character that's a Pokemon without a Pokemon logo anywhere, even though I'm pretty bad with them beyond the first 151/maybe 250, I can usually identify it as a Pokemon instantly. I'm not confused it came from a different anime, or Digimon or Monster Hunter, or anything like that. The only characters to ever challenge this are from Palworld, a bunch of Pokemon and Palworld characters are easy for me to confuse while observing casually, and there must be a reason for that.

 

[Deerock71]

Fuck Nintendo.

Attacking indies using dodgy patents. Just make better Pokemon games and let people decide which game is best, you fucks.

 

[BlackTron]

No "circular logic", I always said being removed since your fallacious example was specifically about it being removed from your porch, and being removed =/= selling/gifting, that's just how you interpreted it for some reason even though that's not what your example was about.
But I digress, the point was the example of a physical object was incredibly dumb and not applicable at all on this topic.

Dude, you said that being removed from your possession is evidence of theft. I was listing all the other possible ways an object might leave your possession that are not theft, therefore, the simple removal from your possession cannot be evidence of theft in itself.

"Your honor, the object was removed from my possession by the defendant."

"Can you prove it?"

"Yes your honor"

"How?"

"It was removed, not sold. This proves everything".

BRUH

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

I was listing all the other possible ways an object might leave your possession that are not theft

And as I mentioned none of those were being removed, those were voluntary.

"Your honor, the object was removed from my possession by the defendant."

You're just creating more and more hypotheticals, but there's no need to because the entire premise of comparing alleged copyright infringement to physical theft was dumb from the jump

 

[Saber]

Everyone's an autist now, great excuse to just be an asshole.

Exactly his intention

Just gonna have to agree to disagree on this. If I see a character that's a Pokemon without a Pokemon logo anywhere, even though I'm pretty bad with them beyond the first 151/maybe 250, I can usually identify it as a Pokemon instantly.

I doubt you could say that about Zigzagoon for instance. Back a time that thing looks exactly like a Digimon, specially because of Digimon signature eyes. Don't be so rash to come on conclusion about pokemon designs, even the shittest hardcore fans couldn't tell if Sword and Shield DLC were even pokemons(some even accused them of being fakes).

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Nintendo wins again. Fuck Palworld.

 

[BlackTron]

Exactly his intention



I doubt you could say that about Zigzagoon for instance. Back a time that thing looks exactly like a Digimon, specially because of Digimon signature eyes. Don't be so rash to come on conclusion about pokemon designs, even the shittest hardcore fans couldn't tell if Sword and Shield DLC were even pokemons(some even accused them of being fakes).

I mean...your example is pretty much just saying Zigzagoon ripped Digimon, and I don't understand the relevance of the Pokemon DLC example. In fact, suggesting that those DLC monsters didn't really look like Pokemon and might be mistaken for fakes, just reinforces that Pokemon does in fact have a distinctive style that is associated with it that can be ripped off and cause confusion.

 

[Solarstrike]

I fixed it boss.

 

[Saber]

I mean...your example is pretty much just saying Zigzagoon ripped Digimon, and I don't understand the relevance of the Pokemon DLC example. In fact, suggesting that those DLC monsters didn't really look like Pokemon and might be mistaken for fakes, just reinforces that Pokemon does in fact have a distinctive style that is associated with it that can be ripped off and cause confusion.

My point is that you give Pokemon designs way too much credit as something that people could tell the difference. People can tell the difference between Digimon because of their eyes structure or even DQ monsters goofy looking details. Pokemon? Not really, and the example I gave is proof of this. A Zigzagoon could be classified as a Digimon because it sports Digimon eye design, not saying that they stolen. Just that Pokemon is not as characteristic as you think, specially with recent designs and leaks proving that theres not much into concept process.

 

[AyraSutoraifu]

"I fold."

 

[BlackTron]

My point is that you give Pokemon designs way too much credit as something that people could tell the difference. People can tell the difference between Digimon because of their eyes structure or even DQ monsters goofy looking details. Pokemon? Not really, and the example I gave is proof of this. A Zigzagoon could be classified as a Digimon because it sports Digimon eye design, not saying that they stolen. Just that Pokemon is not as characteristic as you think, specially with recent designs and leaks proving that theres not much into concept process.

I get your intended point, I just think it did a good job of proving mine, sorry.

It's pretty much impossible to say "hey, is that even a Pokemon? It doesn't even look like one!" unless there is actually some core style to Pokemon that makes it distinct, especially over so many different types of monsters. Like how do you know on sight that Dragonite isn't from Dragon Quest? Because he looks like a Pokemon and not a DQ monster...

The assertion that every single last Pokemon must have the same cohesive elements doesn't make sense to me. Some are so lame they are like rods and geometric shapes. If they weren't on a Pokemon card or game I wouldn't know wtf they were. If you copied "style" from them you wouldn't be infringing anything. It doesn't mean Pokemon doesnt have a style to take, it just means there is some generic content in it no one wants to take anyway.

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

For what it's worth, PAL World was more of a popular meme than a complete or worthy game, if anyone is being honest about it's quality.

 

[DaciaJC]

Amazing that people cheer for Nintendo in cases like this.

Fanboyism is a particularly tragic form of mindrot. Those afflicted very commonly lose all capacity for logic and rational thought, very sad to see unfold.

 

[Saber]

I get your intended point, I just think it did a good job of proving mine, sorry.

It's pretty much impossible to say "hey, is that even a Pokemon? It doesn't even look like one!" unless there is actually some core style to Pokemon that makes it distinct, especially over so many different types of monsters.

If your point is that it's impossible to say whats a pokemon then Palworld in no account copied Pokemon since theres no distinctiviness to descrive what is a pokemon.

 

[Danjin44]

I'm not 100% onboard what Nintendo is doing but at the same time I feel zero sympathy for Palworld devs.

They could have design their own creatures instead of let AI shamelessly copy Pokemon.

They moment they decided copy Pokemon they should have known Nintendo would come after them.

 

[graywolf323]

I'm not 100% onboard what Nintendo is doing but at the same I feel zero sympathy for Palworld devs.

They could have design their own creatures instead of let AI shamelessly copy Pokemon.

They moment they decided copy Pokemon they should have known Nintendo would come after them.

the monster design is not what Nintendo is going after them for though

 

[Danjin44]

the monster design is not what Nintendo is going after them for though

I guess but is such a blatant copy, I wouldn't be surprised is what got Nintendo's attention.

 

[SHA]

I love how multi billion dollars gaming corporations solve their problems in a silly way.

 

[Spukc]

And people accept shit quality like this as if they're three guys in a basement programming their first game, when they're making hundred of millions in yearly profits. The professional fluffers like Serebii are always there to pretend this is acceptable.

Pokemon has never been about the gfx son.

 

[tomato shrub]

And people accept shit quality like this as if they're three guys in a basement programming their first game, when they're making hundred of millions in yearly profits. The professional fluffers like Serebii are always there to pretend this is acceptable.

Serebii is a retarded and admited being an autist when he stupidly trying to mock people saying moronic stuff only to be criticized for his lack of knowledge, which resulted in him insulting members on Reera. But since he is "protected" he was left unpunished when things that he said would result members permanently banned. Don't waste your time on craps like him neither his site, he lives from other people work and even though he is on this market for ages he still incredibly stupid about Pokemon.

That special specimen is one of the reasons I'm allergic to even the slighest sniff of Nintendo fanboyism, even though I still like their games and hate all corporate warriors alike. Wen he was still on GAF he simply couldn't admit that WiiU was selling poorly so he claimed that people only didn't buy it because the weather was bad in Japan. Source: "I run a Pokemon website, I know this stuff". Another classic was him shouting down anyone who dared to suggest Nintendo make mobile games, then have a mental breakdown for an hour when they announced their first mobile games, then another hour later proclaimed that actually Nintendo is obviously the best candidate to make the best mobile games ever. Daring to be critical of the WiiU on GAF exposed me to some of the biggest freaks back in the day. Caping for multibillion dollar companies is always a sign of mental illness, but it's especially bad when said companies make kid's products.

 

[Evil Calvin]

How is this possible? Didn't Nintendo file the patent AFTER Palworld came out?

?

 

[Moses85]

Always win