People be like "tHiS gAmE wiLl KiLl pOkEmOn" then show you fucking ark survival with a mildly bigger emphasis on cute monsters and bare bones ass gameplay

Oh what's that you made a witty meme about "GREAT GRAPHICS"? You mean to tell me the GRAPHICS are you selling point when the game you keep jerking off is literally just ARK with worse graphics? WOWIE

Pick up fucking Cassette Beasts or the upcoming Beastie Ball, not plagiarism simulator 9000. At least those games are made by people who support LGBT instead of someone who couldn't give less shit about your right to exist.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jackalope@lemmy.ml 17 points 9 months ago (3 children)

It looks like a shit game but calling it plagiarism because they're both games about capturing monster seems a bit silly.

[–] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 19 points 9 months ago

You don’t get it there can only ever be ONE game everything must be PERFECTLY ORIGINAL and TOTALLY UNIQUE we don’t NEED another game we already HAVE a game at home

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Well it's also a little absurd because you can't actually copyright game mechanics. Throwing a ball to capture a creature would fall under "mechanics" I would assume.

You can copyright Pikachu and Ash Ketchum and Pokemon and the name Pokeball, but you can't actually copyright the game mechanic of using the ball to capture a mob.

[–] jackalope@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why is it absurd?

You think a movie should be able copyright plot elements?

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It's absurd to call it plagiarism, because it's not a copyrightable thing. I was agreeing with you and extending the point.

[–] WerDei@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

The plagiarism part is about creature designes. They are very simillar to Pokemon at times, down to proportions being nearly identical

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That isn't the most especially convincing thread to me (I'm not entirely sure I buy that those models being similar means anything, but will wait for more info before rushing to judgment), but more to the point it's so sad that after leveling these accusations, they have to go so far out of their way to tell people not to harass the artist. Like yikes, it's wild that people who don't like a game have to be convinced not to harass somebody instead of, you know, just.... not buying the game?

[–] jackalope@lemmy.ml 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And? You realize how little that holds up in copyright court? Have you heard of aquaman and namor? Or Donald duck and daffy duck?

[–] WerDei@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why does this has to mean anything legally? I see an obvously traced asset, and what I get from that is that there was not a drop of passion put into the designs. It just adds to the feeling of this game being uninspired as fuck.

[–] jackalope@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

Whether it's legal or not has nothing to do with if it has a drop of passion.

Look dude, I don't get a rats ass about this game. It looks like a shit game. But it's not illegal to be a shitty game.