"PalWorld" - the new open-world survival game (but with Pokemon-but-not-really!) - has had an amazing launch weekend. It
currently boasts the fifth largest concurrent player on Steam, and its
launch was bigger than "Elden Ring" or "Cyberpunk 2077".
And yet, it's such an ugly, unexciting game.
At its core, PalWorld* is basically "Ark: Survival Evolved"... except
the world is also populated with rip-off Pokemon that you can capture
(or kill!), to be used as labor, soldiers, or resources/food. And,
okay, I don't really get the appeal of these survival games, where
you're tossed naked onto the shore and have to craft your way up
towards civilization, but people have different tastes, so fine.
Actually, I do understand some of the appeal, having played survival
games myself. What I don't get is the CONTINUED appeal of the games,
since all these games are pretty much interchangeable and identical.
And - fake Pokemon aside - "PalWorld" doesn't really add anything new
to the genre. Artistically, it's a bit of a mess, and the gameplay
doesn't look all that exciting. Certainly the game's "please stop
calling them Pokemon we don't want to get sued" monsters (actually
called Pals) - while visually similar to the critters of its more
famous competitor - lack all the charm and character that made
Nintendo's brand so popular. And - given the lack of real utility -
they don't really add much to the game. They are basically dumb AI
companions (at best).
From everything I've seen, it's just not a very good game. It's a
cheap, unoriginal cash-in of the sort that should slip under the waves unnoticed. And yet this is the sort of game that has a player count
that would make even Bobby Kotick smile.
Is it just that the survival genre has been so lacking in innovation
over the past decade that fans will flock to any game that seemingly
offers any sort of new idea? Is this just a flocking reaction, a mass hysteria reaction to a successful marketing blitz, of the sort that
made Cabbage Patch Kids or eating Tide Pods a thing? I just don't get.
Am I so out of touch or is it the children who are wrong?
It makes me worry about the future of the hobby. My only hope is that
- after an initial mad-rush - people start coming to their senses and
abandon this game for something better (which, being such a low bar to
clear, is pretty much any other game). But looking back at how our
hobby has popularly embraced so many terrible games, that's not much
to go on.
-----------------------
* which, I admit, I never played myself but I did /watch/ a young
relative play it over the weekend... so that counts. ;-)
On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 10:03:09 -0600, candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net>
wrote:
On 1/22/24 09:51, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
"PalWorld" - the new open-world survival game (but with
Pokemon-but-not-really!) - has had an amazing launch weekend. It
currently boasts the fifth largest concurrent player on Steam, and its
launch was bigger than "Elden Ring" or "Cyberpunk 2077".
I hadn't even heard of the game until yesterday.
I first heard about it maybe a week ago, just prior to its official
launch, when it was lauded as "a new open world pokemon game!" except,
you know, without the official license. And that you got to give the
Pokemon guns.
So when I went visiting family on the weekend, and one of the younger
set mentioned that they had acquired the game, I eagerly invited
myself to watch them play it. I wasn't really sure what to expect from
the game... but it was a lot more than what I got.
It certainly was never a game I was ever going to play myself. I never
got into Pokemon. For one thing, I was a bit out of the intended age
bracket for that franchise when it launched (not that would have
really stopped me, were I interested enough). But mostly it was the
crassness of its marketing. "Gotta catch them all!" the adverts
said... but in order to do so, you gotta BUY multiple copies of nearly identical games (or lots of trading cards, or toys, or whatever). It
was the absolute worst aspects of rampant consumerism, but extremely
blatant about it, and pointedly aimed at young children.
Even back when I was much younger and far less cynical, it left me
incredibly sour on the whole franchise.
So PalWorld didn't have much of a chance with me. Still, had the game
simply been "Pokemon Silver"... but with guns I would have been a lot
more forgiving. I at least could have understood why others might have
gotten excited about. But the actual game we got: '"Ark: Survival
Evolved" but with Pokemun but with guns'... and not very well done
game at that?
It mystifies me.
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
At its core, PalWorld* is basically "Ark: Survival Evolved"...
except the world is also populated with rip-off Pokemon that you can
capture
"Ripoff" in its traditional sense is a tame word. They literally ripped
and merged the existing original models to create the new ones with AI.
It's like those Pokémon generator webs that allowed you to mix
Hitmonchan and Kingler to create Hitler.
To make matters worse, that company has such a Hollow Knight ripoff that
it is a bit too obvious on what they have trained the AI model.
I have my serious doubts that it would have gotten to these playercount numbers if it was not "Pokémon with guns, survival".
PS: It's ironic that people with zero knowledge would accuse Digimon of
being a Pokémon ripoff, but the idea of Palworld is basically Digimon
(the anime, not the digital pet or the games, those are completely different): Trapped in another world, surviving with your digimon
partners, which also happen to carry guns, from gatlings to railguns.
"PalWorld" - the new open-world survival game (but with
It makes me worry about the future of the hobby. My only hope is that
- after an initial mad-rush - people start coming to their senses and
abandon this game for something better (which, being such a low bar to
clear, is pretty much any other game). But looking back at how our
hobby has popularly embraced so many terrible games, that's not much
to go on.
"PalWorld" - the new open-world survival game (but with >Pokemon-but-not-really!) - has had an amazing launch weekend. It
currently boasts the fifth largest concurrent player on Steam, and its
launch was bigger than "Elden Ring" or "Cyberpunk 2077".
And yet, it's such an ugly, unexciting game.
"PalWorld" - the new open-world survival game (but with Pokemon-but-not-really!) - has had an amazing launch weekend. It
currently boasts the fifth largest concurrent player on Steam, and its
launch was bigger than "Elden Ring" or "Cyberpunk 2077".
And yet, it's such an ugly, unexciting game.
At its core, PalWorld* is basically "Ark: Survival Evolved"... except
the world is also populated with rip-off Pokemon that you can capture
(or kill!), to be used as labor, soldiers, or resources/food. And,
okay, I don't really get the appeal of these survival games, where
you're tossed naked onto the shore and have to craft your way up
towards civilization, but people have different tastes, so fine.
Actually, I do understand some of the appeal, having played survival
games myself. What I don't get is the CONTINUED appeal of the games,
since all these games are pretty much interchangeable and identical.
And - fake Pokemon aside - "PalWorld" doesn't really add anything new
to the genre. Artistically, it's a bit of a mess, and the gameplay
doesn't look all that exciting. Certainly the game's "please stop
calling them Pokemon we don't want to get sued" monsters (actually
called Pals) - while visually similar to the critters of its more
famous competitor - lack all the charm and character that made
Nintendo's brand so popular. And - given the lack of real utility -
they don't really add much to the game. They are basically dumb AI
companions (at best).
From everything I've seen, it's just not a very good game. It's a
cheap, unoriginal cash-in of the sort that should slip under the waves unnoticed. And yet this is the sort of game that has a player count
that would make even Bobby Kotick smile.
Is it just that the survival genre has been so lacking in innovation
over the past decade that fans will flock to any game that seemingly
offers any sort of new idea? Is this just a flocking reaction, a mass hysteria reaction to a successful marketing blitz, of the sort that
made Cabbage Patch Kids or eating Tide Pods a thing? I just don't get.
Am I so out of touch or is it the children who are wrong?
It makes me worry about the future of the hobby. My only hope is that
- after an initial mad-rush - people start coming to their senses and
abandon this game for something better (which, being such a low bar to
clear, is pretty much any other game). But looking back at how our
hobby has popularly embraced so many terrible games, that's not much
to go on.
-----------------------
* which, I admit, I never played myself but I did /watch/ a young
relative play it over the weekend... so that counts. ;-)
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 07:05:10 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
expecting it to be crap, but got into it.
It doesn't look like it's for us Spalls. We aren't the target audience.
No, I get that. I totally understand that the 'survival game' genre is
one that is weirdly popular, and I'm fine with it.
What I don't get is why "PalWorld" - which is such a mediocre survival
game - has garnered such numbers.
As far as I can tell, it SEEMS to be because people were expecting a
Pokemon style game... but PalWorld really isn't that, from what I can
tell. It just has monsters that are badly skinned replicas of Pokeman.
But - reading up on the game - that was pretty much known before
release too.
Good games that aren't targetted at me I've no problem being popular.
It's the bad ones that get huge sales that mystify me.
Maybe - once people realize that "PalWorld" isn't the Pokeman game of
their dreams, its numbers will drop precipitously. It would reinforce
my faith in humanity if that happens...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 125:49:24 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,951 |