>That is highly undervaluing the vision and talent of the art director.

I'm recognizing that the art director didn't exist in a vacuum. [1] I am not disparaging the artist, or any involved. As Stable Diffusion and Dalle are clearly showing, art isn't a process of creation. Art is discovery. When we create art, we are searching a pre-determined space of possible ideas and mediums/materials. Is Palworld very close to Pokemon, in this space? Yes, they're next door neighbors. But Pokemon first moved in next to Dragon Quest, and many others. Artistic expression doesn't occur in sporadic fits and starts, it occurs in traceable organic steps.

While I appreciate the Japanese style, my argument doesn't have anything to do with it specifically, besides disagreeing with your prior comment:

>"but everything is inspired" is bad faith in and of itself and doesn't capture why pokemon's art direction is so iconic.

"Everything is inspired" isn't bad faith, it's facts. You can disagree, but it does capture the artistic process exactly. Art that is produced too outside of the general consensus is like a non-viable genetic sequence. It can exist, but it will self-terminate.

If you disagree with the sentiment because it is used to justify exact copy-cats, I agree, exact plagiarism should not be allowed. The question is where in the creation process Palworld drew from Pokemon. If they took the character/genre design, then it's fine. If they stole core underlying structures [2], it's over the line.

>no one is saying this (except journalists who want to make clickbait. The title is the worst thing about this post so I won't entertain the idea of "oh, TPC is going to sue!"). But if anyone is really curious on why these are all called "pokemon knockoffs", you need to understand the qualities that make pokemon so distinct.

Again, [1]. It is not disparaging to say that Pokemon drew inspiration from Dragon Quest, or any other source. Clearly Pokemon took that inspiration, and innovated to a huge degree. That's why they were successful. I'm fine calling Palworld a Pokemon knockoff, but many people are saying Pokemon should sue, and that is clearly incorrect. Unless there's proof of direct asset ripping, Pokemon has no claim to what Palworld has created, except as proud ancestors.

>you can't complain about people critisizing your art as generic and uninspired if you do not in fact understand what you're doing with that style.

When Palworld is eventually used as inspiration for the next monster capture game, people will be saying that the Palworld art is 'iconic' and shouldn't be copied. They'll be wrong to say it then, like people are wrong to say it about Pokemon now. It's the incorrect view of the artistic process that bothers me, not the specifics of the case.

>You don't truly understand the art style you study, which means attempts to derive from the style will create uncanny effects.

Disagree, groundbreaking art is almost always judged as 'uncanny' by it's contemporaries. The history of art is covered with examples of masterpieces crossing the uncanny/canny valley. How often are geniuses not appreciated during their time? When it comes to art, there is no such thing as an incorrect 'derivative', there is only the consensus of the masses, and the artist's luck in catching it.

[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GEYrZuzXUAAjpkB?format=jpg&name=...

[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gylTfMAOYHI