the problem is, palworld isn't "pokemon with guns", they used that slogan originally sure, but palworld 100% shows more similar mechanics and concepts to ark then pokemon, it's a mix of pokemon style mechanics and Arks RPG mechanics. I would say they had a stronger suit against trademark than they did mechanics side.

The only game mechanic similarity between the two is the ball capture system and the fact that it's called a trainer/leader when you battle the NPC's anything else is already present in other games.

By this logic, any game that features the ability to tame or capture monsters would be a pokemon clone. That's far too broad of a category to allow as a patent if challenged. I personally believe it will result in them losing the patent as a whole if it is that patent they are fighting with.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Anyways, it's very very clear what game palworld took it's creature design from. So I don't think the lawsuit is as silly as the Nintendo haters insist

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

that would be a trademark or copyright suit not a patent suit. Patents are strictly mechanics, they didn't sue on design, I agree I think they had a better case on that, but the Nintendo lawyers decided otherwise