I'm not saying there's anything immediately wrong with it, all I've said is that it's disappointing. There is a lot of wasted potential bogged down by cliche, for lack of a better term. Not just this studio by any means.

It reminds me of how I feel for Dauntless, which just feels soulless to me when by every right it should be a fine game. But... It already existed as Monster Hunter. It doesn't really do anything new, better, or different it's just an always online version with a different skin - a distinct style with unique visual designs, mostly. I can absolutely see the appeal, even though it doesn't cut it for me. Oh, or a game that my friend is working on that has not been well received, I can't even remember the name of it... It's a battle royale game with some Tencent backing, it's like PubG meets Spellbreak. It's an okay game it's just... It feels like it would be better if it weren't trying to use something that already exists.

There's also nothing wrong with liking it, by the books things work and are well liked for a reason. I mean Stardew Valley and My Time at Portia, or Harvest Moon rather (2 different mediums of a similar/same genre) also have their litany of "clones", mostly relying on their ability to differentiate the characters while keeping the core gameplay loop the same. I'd say most of those are more well received than not, and I'd wager the heavy characterization helps a lot with that. It's not always a bad thing, heck even most of the time it isn't a bad thing.

I get it. You can check all the boxes and make a game that has historically sold well and why take a risk, or take time to make something about it really unique, especially if it's people's livelihood on the line. I don't blame the studio or think less of them - I hope my comments aren't insinuating that - I'm just disappointed that something like Palworld or their previous game whose name I also can't remember can have a solid, likeable foundation feels like they have to rely on something that already exists to be liked. An image of Palworld and Pokemon monster similarities, such as teeth and eyes or body models. I am specifically thinking of the eyes and teeth on the model. It's so clearly an existing style, all of the examples in that thread are pretty egregious. They could have had these incredibly unique and different monsters, but some of them are, well, I've just been through this a few times before I guess. Remember, like I said, I've got no love for Pokemon lmao. They are just as bad.

Again, none of what I'm saying is me feeling negatively towards the studio, rather just saddened by how much potential is lost by any studio feeling like it has to put out something that will be liked. ARK has the benefit of using dinosaurs. These guys created something of their own and people rightfully pointed out similarities, when that creativity could have been put towards a single overarching theme of biodiversity in a fictional world.

But instead we got Pokemon who got Digimon evolutions. It's fine, fun even. And on the other hand, it is kind of cute that we can have all these things exist in tandem. There's certainly no harm in being able to one day buy cute plush of 3 variations of the inspired work. Also with the game being early access, I think there could be a fair chance of it being successfully supported, right now it's clear that the games shortcomings are just that it isn't finished (it just sort of "ends").

Although I would worry for the studio, GameFreak would seem to have a pretty strong case. If the soundtrack for A DBZ game got hit with a lawsuit for plagiarism of popular songs then these guys are in trouble lmao.