Palworld lawyers state existence of Titanfall 2, Ark, and even The Legend of Zelda invalidates Nintendo’s patents
Palworld lawyers state existence of Titanfall 2, Ark, and even The Legend of Zelda invalidates Nintendo’s patents
by S4v1r1enCh0r4k
14 Comments
AutoModerator
This submission involves a controversial topic. Please remember to follow **Rule 1** and **Rule 5**.
* Avoid console wars and flamebaiting. Do not get into spats about which console or game is best or worst. Do not accuse other users of blind fanboyism. Avoid using terms like “bootlicker”, or “shill”.
* Do not link to, promote, or request illegal content.
Failure to follow these rules may result in comment removals or bans.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nintendo) if you have any questions or concerns.*
JLD2503
This whole situation reeks of GameFreak/the Pokémon Company forcing Nintendo to make a patent they shouldn’t have and then getting Nintendo to take full responsibility for it.
IMO, the Pokémon company needs a full restructuring and for a different development team to be in charge of the games. They are the most profitable IP, their quality should reflect that.
Sassy-irish-lassy
This seems like an incredibly bad strategy on their behalf.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Financial_Exit_7710
Is that fr
TheLoneTokayMB01
Guys let’s clear something, patents have to be specific enough, it’s not just throwing a ball or riding a creature but a set of specific actions interacting with each other in a specific way which results in a specific result.
Having a discussion about if it’s fair to patent game design or Pocketpair creative bankruptcy and ride of a gray zone is welcome but let’s not pretend to be experts in patent law, japanese one in particular, or to know everything happening backstage.
So many clear misconceptions in these, and every others elsewhere about this argument, comments.
Illustrathor
Did the Palworld guys hire the Amber Heard lawyers?!
RaiUchiha
My immediate thought was don’t throw Titanfall under the bus.
Wrong_Revolution_679
Grasping at straws
[deleted]
[deleted]
xxxNothingxxx
It’s astounding to me that so many people still think this is about the monster designs
Blanchimont
I get why they’re referencing other games, but I don’t understand why they would include The Legend of Zelda here. The Legend of Zelda is a Nintendo property, so if Nintendo gets these patents, they would be able to use it as they see fit, including on their other games such as TLOZ, right?
PocketTornado
**Pokémon’s Gameplay Recipe — Who Did It First (and Didn’t Patent It)**
Imagine what Pokemon would look like if every mechanic used to make it was patented by the games that came before it.
🎮 1. Turn-Based Combat System
Borrowed from: Dragon Quest (1986), Final Fantasy (1987)
Details: Menu-driven, turn-based party combat with HP, status effects, and elemental affinities.
Patent Status: Not patented.
Impact: Without Dragon Quest, Pokémon wouldn’t have its JRPG battle DNA.
Details: Catching enemies and converting them into allies.
Patent Status: Not patented in a general sense.
Impact: Pokémon made it a whole mechanic with Poké Balls, but again, the idea predated it.
🏆 8. Gym Badges / Progression Through Bosses
Borrowed from: Mega Man (1987), Final Fantasy IV (1991), Nobunaga’s Ambition
Details: Structured progression via unique leaders/bosses who grant access to new areas or powers.
Patent Status: Not patented.
Impact: Gym battles are just clever world-building around RPG boss fights.
🌍 9. Overworld Exploration & Random Battles
Borrowed from: Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy overworld systems
Details: Top-down map with random encounters.
Patent Status: Not patented.
Impact: Pokémon wrapped this into routes and tall grass, but the structure is 100% JRPG tradition.
🎨 10. Cute Art Style & Mascot Appeal
Borrowed from: Tamagotchi (1996), Hello Kitty culture, Kaiju shows, Monster in My Pocket
Details: Stylized, marketable creatures that appeal across age ranges.
Patent Status: Character design protected via trademark/copyright — not gameplay.
Impact: Pikachu is a marketing triumph, not a gameplay innovation.
🧠 TL;DR Summary
Pokémon didn’t invent its gameplay systems — it synthesized them. Every core mechanic came from existing games and genres that chose not to patent their innovations, allowing Game Freak to remix them into something magical. If the developers of Shin Megami Tensei, Dragon Quest V, or even Final Fantasy had taken the modern Nintendo approach and patented creature collecting, type-based battles, or monster evolution, Pokémon wouldn’t exist.
That’s the irony. Nintendo now patents systems they once benefited from being open.
Practical_Session_21
I really hope big N loses this one and has to pay the legal fees to Palworld. Not because I like the Palworld game – I don’t nor do I like Pokemon games, but because if they win the what’s next platformers? Bethesda during all shooters as Doom clones? Point is this would be really bad for creators and players going forward.
14 Comments
This submission involves a controversial topic. Please remember to follow **Rule 1** and **Rule 5**.
* Avoid console wars and flamebaiting. Do not get into spats about which console or game is best or worst. Do not accuse other users of blind fanboyism. Avoid using terms like “bootlicker”, or “shill”.
* Do not link to, promote, or request illegal content.
Failure to follow these rules may result in comment removals or bans.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nintendo) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This whole situation reeks of GameFreak/the Pokémon Company forcing Nintendo to make a patent they shouldn’t have and then getting Nintendo to take full responsibility for it.
IMO, the Pokémon company needs a full restructuring and for a different development team to be in charge of the games. They are the most profitable IP, their quality should reflect that.
This seems like an incredibly bad strategy on their behalf.
[deleted]
Is that fr
Guys let’s clear something, patents have to be specific enough, it’s not just throwing a ball or riding a creature but a set of specific actions interacting with each other in a specific way which results in a specific result.
Having a discussion about if it’s fair to patent game design or Pocketpair creative bankruptcy and ride of a gray zone is welcome but let’s not pretend to be experts in patent law, japanese one in particular, or to know everything happening backstage.
So many clear misconceptions in these, and every others elsewhere about this argument, comments.
Did the Palworld guys hire the Amber Heard lawyers?!
My immediate thought was don’t throw Titanfall under the bus.
Grasping at straws
[deleted]
It’s astounding to me that so many people still think this is about the monster designs
I get why they’re referencing other games, but I don’t understand why they would include The Legend of Zelda here. The Legend of Zelda is a Nintendo property, so if Nintendo gets these patents, they would be able to use it as they see fit, including on their other games such as TLOZ, right?
**Pokémon’s Gameplay Recipe — Who Did It First (and Didn’t Patent It)**
Imagine what Pokemon would look like if every mechanic used to make it was patented by the games that came before it.
🎮 1. Turn-Based Combat System
Borrowed from: Dragon Quest (1986), Final Fantasy (1987)
Details: Menu-driven, turn-based party combat with HP, status effects, and elemental affinities.
Patent Status: Not patented.
Impact: Without Dragon Quest, Pokémon wouldn’t have its JRPG battle DNA.
👾 2. Monster Collecting
Borrowed from: Shin Megami Tensei (1987–1992), Dragon Quest V (1992)
Details: Recruit enemies into your party through battle or negotiation.
Patent Status: Not patented.
Impact: Pokémon built its entire identity on this concept, evolving it into the “Gotta Catch ’Em All” hook.
🧪 3. Evolution and Monster Transformation
Borrowed from: Shin Megami Tensei (again), E.V.O.: Search for Eden (1993)
Details: Creatures change form based on level or conditions — a metaphor for growth and customization.
Patent Status: Not patented.
Impact: Pokémon made this visual and symbolic — but it wasn’t first.
🎭 4. Party Composition Strategy
Borrowed from: Final Fantasy III (1990), Phantasy Star II (1989)
Details: You build and switch party members based on type, stats, and synergy.
Patent Status: Not patented.
Impact: Pokémon turned it into a 6-mon team, but the idea of strategic party-building came from early JRPGs.
📚 5. Type Weakness/Strength System
Borrowed from: Wizardry series (1981–), Ultima, Fire Emblem (1990)
Details: Damage modifiers based on type matchups (e.g., fire > grass).
Patent Status: Not patented.
Impact: Pokémon refined it into the iconic “water beats fire” triangle, but the mechanic was common in RPGs and tactics games.
🔄 6. Trading Creatures Between Players
Inspired by: Card collecting culture and Game Boy Link Cable hardware.
Details: A real-world feature that created social connection and exclusive creature exchanges.
Patent Status: Nintendo patented specific hardware methods, but not the concept.
Impact: The idea of trading is ancient — marbles, cards, stickers — Pokémon digitalized it.
💥 7. Capturing Creatures Mid-Battle
Borrowed from: Shin Megami Tensei (negotiation), Dragon Quest V (random recruitment)
Details: Catching enemies and converting them into allies.
Patent Status: Not patented in a general sense.
Impact: Pokémon made it a whole mechanic with Poké Balls, but again, the idea predated it.
🏆 8. Gym Badges / Progression Through Bosses
Borrowed from: Mega Man (1987), Final Fantasy IV (1991), Nobunaga’s Ambition
Details: Structured progression via unique leaders/bosses who grant access to new areas or powers.
Patent Status: Not patented.
Impact: Gym battles are just clever world-building around RPG boss fights.
🌍 9. Overworld Exploration & Random Battles
Borrowed from: Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy overworld systems
Details: Top-down map with random encounters.
Patent Status: Not patented.
Impact: Pokémon wrapped this into routes and tall grass, but the structure is 100% JRPG tradition.
🎨 10. Cute Art Style & Mascot Appeal
Borrowed from: Tamagotchi (1996), Hello Kitty culture, Kaiju shows, Monster in My Pocket
Details: Stylized, marketable creatures that appeal across age ranges.
Patent Status: Character design protected via trademark/copyright — not gameplay.
Impact: Pikachu is a marketing triumph, not a gameplay innovation.
🧠 TL;DR Summary
Pokémon didn’t invent its gameplay systems — it synthesized them. Every core mechanic came from existing games and genres that chose not to patent their innovations, allowing Game Freak to remix them into something magical. If the developers of Shin Megami Tensei, Dragon Quest V, or even Final Fantasy had taken the modern Nintendo approach and patented creature collecting, type-based battles, or monster evolution, Pokémon wouldn’t exist.
That’s the irony. Nintendo now patents systems they once benefited from being open.
I really hope big N loses this one and has to pay the legal fees to Palworld. Not because I like the Palworld game – I don’t nor do I like Pokemon games, but because if they win the what’s next platformers? Bethesda during all shooters as Doom clones? Point is this would be really bad for creators and players going forward.