1y ago

Palworld is terrible

I was stoked to boot it up and like......what? It's such a stupid game on all fronts. I get that stealing mechanics works if you're into that kind of gameplay, but there's no way that anyone other than pokemon obsessed people enjoy this. Even then, it's such a poor analog for actual pokemon games. I feel like it's "success" is all media buzz. Every actual human in my life agrees it's terrible. Even my partner who is actually pokemon obsessed lol. But the coverage on the internet would have you believe it's goty contender. I have never felt more convinced that we are living in a simulation lol. I can't be alone in this, am I? Is there where I learn that I'm that far out of touch? Like, truly, if you enjoy it, good for you. We all have things we love that others don't get. But like, someone please tell me I'm not the only one lol.

47 comments

- Aaaaaand now I understand why looking at gameplay footage really didn’t look all that fun to me. I generally dislike the crafting survival genre. Even No Man’a sky, with how light on the “survival” aspect it is, and as a space nerd with a deep space exploration fetish, didn’t manage to capture my attention for more than 10 hours. The endless resource gathering and crafting time just inevitably bores me to death after a couple of loops. Feels like work, and I am paying for it?
  
  At least in palworld, you don’t have to craft everything yourself. You can just have your workers craft for you!
  
  The resource and gathering is part of the exploration, and I rarely feel like I have to intentionally spend time gathering anything I particular. As you build up a base you can add resource things the past can use to gather more of the early resources as you find new things.
  That is to day if you don't it at all, then it wouldn't be a good fit. But if you don't like it because most games make it tedious, then this one solves the tedium part at least for the time I have played it so far.
- Wasn't looking for a pokemon game at all. Really had no expectations other than for it to be good. And I just found it lacked in pretty much every front. There are survival games that do the survival thing way better and collector games that are way better at the collecting thing too. And if anything, the buzz shaped my opinion in favor of the game. Which is why I'm so disappointed and confused lol. I only lean so hard on the pokemon comparison because those are the only people I could see enjoying this. The survival is so shallow, I would guess people who truly enjoy survival games would get bored so quickly.
  
  A lot of people like casual survival, which is the same reason Valheim was such a hit.
  Plus Palworld has very good tooltips so it is easy to know what is going on. Honestly it is just easily accessible with less punishing survival mechanics and lots of things to so, which explains the mass appeal.
It reached the second most concurrently played game on Steam. It didn't have a lot of hype around it when it was released, tbh. So there's gotta be something there that you're missing.
It's not a Pokemon game. It's what's been missing from Pokemon games since Gamefreak and Nintendo squandered the IP so badly with years and years of shoddy garbage release after shoddy garbage release.
This is just a goofy mon-game with guns. It's closer to ARK: Survival Evolved than it is Pokemon.
- It didn't have a lot of hype? I didn't see much in the way of advertising, sure, but there certainly was a lot of hype from people about it being pokemon with guns.
  I agree that it's not a Pokemon game, though, the gameplay is completely different. It's also early access so things are going to develop over time. I haven't bought it yet, but I'm interested in seeing what it turns into.
  
  No it didn't have a lot of hype. There was almost no marketing budget for it at all. Nobody talked about it until it was released. There was absolutely no hype for it. This isn't like Cyberpunk 2077 where millions of people were chomping at the bit for its release. Palworld came out of nowhere and became a favorite organically.
- Agreed, there is something I am missing for sure because I truly don't get it. Which is fine, I don't need to get it. but am I really the only one? Lol
I've played 69 hours so far (Nice.) and I run a dedicated server that is quite busy. Everybody who I've introduced the game to are completely addicted, there is definitely something there.
Personally I have mixed feelings about it. Yes most if not all mechanics are borrowed from other games but it is very well put together and that is not nothing. I haven't had this much fun just exploring a world and unlocking stuff like this in a long time.
It is extremely fun to play even though it is extremely "early access" and quite buggy in some areas, at least for those of us who are able to enjoy it. The world is pretty empty, there really isn't anything in terms of story or lore but that just has me hoping that they don't give up on this game and really flesh it out.
For me the hype is dying down a bit, the first 4 days I was basically playing from the time I woke up to the time I went to bed. Now I play maybe an hour or two a day, I'd rather not burn myself out on it completely and wait for updates and more content.
- Appreciate your insight! Thanks for taking the time!
I’m having more or less the total opposite experience. All of my coworkers (tech field) are playing and loving it. I’m enjoying it for the exploration and breeding mechanics. Right now I’m trying to breed up the best versions of my preferred team, for no real reason other then because I can.
It’s more Ark then it is Pokemon, people just constantly compare it to the latter because you capture cutesy monsters.
It's not a Pokemon style game lol, it's an Ark style game.
It's not Pokemon. It's not trying to be Pokemon.
People are comparing it to Pokemon because they wanted the company to expand the world to have games in different genres utilize the monster capturing and breeding mechanics. That's it.
- The pokemon comparisons are mainly because of the pals' designs. Aurorus + Meganium = Broncherry; Black and white Lycanroc = Direhowl, etc.
It is a good game, but you may not like it.
It is not a pokemon game, it's more like an ark survival evolved clone. It's much more casual, much more polished, lightweight and much less buggy.
The pokemon thing is a coat of paint, the universe, in a more mature version of it, which many people do like.
I don't think it's terrible, but I don't think it's amazing either: It's just kinda fun.
I like that it isn't Pokemon, and doesn't tread lightly for younger audiences, which you typically get in games that use this "cutesy" art style.
To me, Palworld is a mix of Ark, Fortnite, Zelda BOTW, Satisfactory, and the best bits of other games that connect up just right to make a genuinely fun experience IMO. It's not the best graphically or from a UX perspective, but 50 hours in I can tell that the devs knew exactly what they wanted to do, and created something with a lot of unexpected depth that isn't noticeable in the early game stages.
The only thing really taken from Pokemon IMO is just the monster collecting aspect, and some very similar looking designs for the monsters, which to be honest I would have done the same looking at how much other stuff the game allows you to do, not to mention the endless animations that are unique to each individual monster in the game - faces included!
All in all, the game will feel like a unity project, especially for console/AAA gamers typically used to seeing a certain level of polish and gameplay design. Beneath the rough appearance are some devs that have produced something that is actually fun and engaging. Extremely stable too at release for an early access game, unlike most other "full" games that have released in recent times. A full gameplay loop is about 2 hours, and even then there is still a lot more to discover in game.
I feel there are going to be a bunch of clones popping up, but none are going to have the same impact without the same amount of effort put in, and attention to certain gameplay elements that Palworld just gets "fun" IMO.
The guns and flamethrowers are a nice meme and great for getting people interested, but they are not a key part of the gameplay at all. At it's core Palworld is a survival monster collector, with light automation thrown in: a genre that it's kind of created itself
Let's be totally fucking honest, this game has only sold so many copies because it's a meme.
It's a game where you shoot bootleg pokemon with guns. That's it. If it didn't have art that could at best be generously described as "remixed" pokemon assets, few people would have cared about it, and even fewer people would have actually bought it. From the very first time I heard of this game a few weeks before its release, I've only ever heard it described as a game where you "play as an anime girl and shoot pokemon with guns". It's a great game for YouTubers, TikTokers and Streamers to "react" to and "get hype" about (the thumbnails almost make themselves), it's an easy topic for every game podcast to talk about, and that's about it.
Whether the developers intended for this to be the case or not doesn't change the fact that the game is a cheap knockoff of various other games mashed together, and it's very heavily riding on the coattails of a pokemon aesthetic. If the monsters didn't look almost exactly like pokemon that everybody knows and loves, nobody would give a damn about this game.
Personally I feel that the runaway success of Palworld shows just how shallow the video game world has become, both from developers and from players. There are so many good games out there that fail to find an audience, while a meme like Palworld sells millions of copies despite being utterly artless and devoid of creativity or individuality. I'm not sure if it's the influence-economy or what, but I miss the times when the subculture could collectively look at some creatively bankrupt bootleg-ass shit like Palworld and simply laugh it off instead of rewarding people for making low-effort legally-dubious bubblegum trash.
Or maybe I'm just jaded...
- Sounds like the music industry: Tons of amazing artists toiling in anonymity, and remixed pablum making all the money.
- If the monsters didn’t look almost exactly like pokemon that everybody knows and loves, nobody would give a damn about this game.
  Extremely probable, I'd say. Craftopia, their previous game, was pretty much "Breath of the Wild, but with survival crafting", and sold well on Steam. If you removed the copied aesthetic, in both cases, it would've flown under the radar.
  There are so many good games out there that fail to find an audience,
  Sad but true
  while a meme like Palworld sells millions of copies despite being utterly artless and devoid of creativity or individuality.
  Now now, there was some effort in making the pals. I mean, some genres have pretty much been done to death, so it's very hard to be creative. What would be a creative addition to a survival crafting game? Off the top of my head, I can only think of going underground, digging new spaces.
  Also, just because it copies from a lot of games, doesn't mean the end result is bad. If you separate a pizza into individual components, you have things that, by themselves, might be good, but together are much better.
- Yay! I'm not alone on the internet! Lol I'm shocked so many people who consider themselves savvy have eaten it up. You've just proven you are so easily bought. And bought by a demonstrably mediocre product. The devs hacked your brain. I'm actually surprised more people aren't outright pissed off about how obvious and blatant it is. Bread and circuses I suppose.
  
  Not at all. The gameplay loop is good. The exploration is good. They took a lot of good aspects of many different game types and mashed them together. The game is good -- Have you compared this to any of the pokemon releases lately? They're so bland, shallow, poorly made bullshit, from a multi-billion dollar company, and you're ragging on some relatively unknown newcomer to the scene.
  You're just being a hater. It's a $30 game that's better than MANY of the AAA titles that have been released in the past 5 years. It's telling that this "mediocre" product, not filled with season passes, and monetization schemes every turn you make, to have succeeded this wildly.
It’s an accessible version of Ark which is the apex of all games (come on, an open world dinosaur game where you start as a naked cave man and you can eventually catch dinos and ride them?! Underwater caves?! tech dinos?! gangs of dodos at your command?!)
Edit: With your friends?!?!)
I haven't played, but every irl person I have spoken to says the same as you. Also, they're surprised by the buzz.
Welcome to social media driven bandwagons
Out of touch is , well, contextual.
If youve played a decent variety of games, for a while, and start to become basically a connisseur...
... you tend to actually understand at a sort of core level... wait, this, and /this/, these are the actual relevant elements of the gameplay, and that and those are actually just functionally a different kind of costume for a said gameplay to appeal to different demographics.
If, on the other hand, you havent played many games, or dont take them very seriously, or are just not really a naturally analytical person...
You will basically either not really know or care /why/ you like certain kinds of games, and thats honestly fine.
Ooooor... you will become deeply invested in the few games you have played, develop objectively incorrect understandings of how your games and games in general actually work, and then youll say a bunch of misleading or objectively false nonsense to other people as basically an irrational fanboy/fangirl.
Yeah, this is the video game community, well known for gamers who generally have no idea what theyre talking about and get extremely emotional when confronted with actual facts that clash with their exuberant cognitive dissonance.
Literally yesterday I made a joke about a potential MilSim Dwarf Tac Squad Game, and this produced a person presenting Vermintide as an already existing MilSim/Tactical Squad Based FPS which features dwarves.
I then pointed out no, Vermintide is definetely not MilSim or a Tactical Squad Based FPS, and then outlined some objectively true differences between examples of them, and Vermintide, which is basically L4D2 in terms of gameplay, just a different setting, art design, styles of ranged and melee attacks.
This person then basically did a reddit 'Hrmph', followed by 'As if theres any difference between FPS anyway, theyre all the same.'
This is not actually a matter of personal preference or taste in games, at this point. This person is simply objectively wrong.
So... basically my answer is unfortunatelt it depends on what you mean by 'out of touch'
If you mean out of touch with an actual knowledge of how games work and what makes them different, then no, you are not out of touch, the vast, vaaast majority of video game players are.
If you mean out of touch in terms of following current fads and knowing what actually drives people to play games, then yes, you are very out of touch...
...but what actually drives most people to play most commonly played games is marketing, peer pressure, word of mouth, coverage by their favorite youtuber or whatever.
Very, very few video game players can actually honestly explain why they enjoy certain kinds of games and not others, and actually be both honest and non hypocritical about this.
Again, for many, this is fine if they dont spout nonsense or bully you into believing things that are not true.
But very few seem to able to do that, and even fewer actually can actually honestlt evaluate /why/ they like certain kinds of games and not others, and also have a generally solid grasp of how games and gameplay actually work, and what differences are actually meaningful in defining experiences, across the broader history and landscape of video games.
Yep, this is basically infuriating a lot of the time.
Knowledge is a curse, blame Prometheus or whatever I dunno.
- I agree with the premise, but not your conclusions. I don’t think one should have to be able to justify why they like something. It’s by definition extremely subjective. You could have all the best arguments in the world that some game is on paper superior to another one, I may prefer the first cause of when I played it, or who I played it with, or just what it made us feel at a certain point in time.
  To give you an example in another order or idea, I’m a classically trained pianist. I was raised with Beethoven and Bach. I then expanded to all sorts of metal, jazz, progressive, experimental or ethnic/traditional stuff. I should technically hate everything about it, but I’m also a sucker for pop punk. I know it’s musically trash, that they aren’t particularly good musicians, that most of the songwriting in the genre is extremely uninspired and generic, but I still love a good catchy hook that makes me feel like I’m a kid riding on my skateboard, listening to Blink or Good Charlotte on my Discman.
  However, yes, I have to agree that many gamers, and IMHO, more generally, many we’d qualify as the “nerdy” type, myself included, seems to like to pretend like they know more than they actually do. I try not to, nowadays, but teenage me half a lifetime ago seemingly thought otherwise…
  
  I don’t think one should have to be able to justify why they like something.
  Yep, and neither do I, generally speaking.
  See the parts where I said its fine if you just like a game and either don't really understand precisely why, or you can identify why, but you don't use that knowledge to promote false ideas about how games actually work and what differentiates them.
  It’s by definition extremely subjective.
  An individuals tastes and preferences are of course subjective.
  However, what actually constitutes a video game is objective.
  There are a wide variety of complex, but definable elements and features of a game. It is code, it is models, it is animations, it is gameplay elements and loops, graphical styles, narrative styles and themes... all these things exist objectively, and are designed with intent, crafted by human designers.
  Similar to how a movie... is a movie. You can have opinions about a movie, or a game, but if they directly clash with that actual source material, they're not factually based opinions, thus, they are irrational and misleading.
  In a similar vein, both movies and video games often have a social element to them. Buzz, hype, popularity, discussion around a game or movie before and after it is released tends to strongly influence people toward having one kind of opinion or another, regardless of the actual content of the media.
  This is further complicated in multiplayer games where the kinds of people you are playing with can dramatically improve or detriment an actual user experience, and quite often people will genuinely enjoy a game because they had a good time playing it with friends, or a very bad time maybe, and this will also often influence them to make factually false comparisons with other multiplayer games.
  You could have all the best arguments in the world that some game is on paper superior to another one, I may prefer the first cause of when I played it, or who I played it with, or just what it made us feel at a certain point in time.
  Yep, people can argue about whether an apple is superior to an orange.
  Doesnt mean theyre not both fruit. Doesnt mean they both dont have skin and are generally able to be held and thrown by an average human being.
  Doesn't mean that they arent different kinds of fruit with different chemical characteristics that combine with the physical experience of chewing differing material consistencies differently that are objectively understandable in great detail, but which people will have different preferences of the overall consumption of fruit experience about.
  Yep, you might really like oranges because of nostalgia.
  But if you start saying that apples dont even count as fruit because they arent as squishy and juicy to bite into as an apple, now your nostalgia has led you to make an objectively false statement.
  Music Example
  I mean basically I can 'yes, and' this.
  Just as you have a more technical understanding of music composition and theory than most, you can admit that you know what sometimes i do just enjoy a less creative, but still fun and enjoyable song... a gamer /could/ say that while they normally enjoy a complex, slow paces grand strategy game, from time to time they enjoy some dumb fast flashy action in a team based shooter or something like basically a comedy of errors game like fall guys.
  Fall guys is vastly more simple in concept and design than say, a very technical Mech Combat game. But that doesnt make one better or worse of course.
  What you run into all the time with gamers is people making up objectively false reasons why one game is better than another, or vastly, vastly mischaracterizing a game, usually because it bears superficial resemblance to another.
  So basically, now ive been able to see a good deal of PalWorld gameplay.
  Uh, to me this is an open world survival craft game that features capturable basically cute monsters, aka pokemon analogue.
  (and also a good deal of forcing them into slave labor)
  Theres no rpg style turn based combat.
  There does not appear to be a complex rock paper scissors to the 5th power of strategy involved in matching attack move types against pal types, no leveling system, no complex underlying stats system.
  Theres definitely a totally different tone and pace than pokemon games.
  It isnt really a pokemon game at all.
  Its more like Conan Exiles but with an art face lift, with pals taking the place of thralls, and far less well balanced and intricate combat and leveling mechanics.
  But, how many people right now are acting as if this is 'pokemon with guns' when its more like 'rust with pokemon'?
- Lol! I adore this comment. I mean that earnestly too. Quite a ride, but I like your take!
  
  Thanks!
  The wild part is... I could have written this sams comment for nearly any decently popular game currently uh, in play.
  I managed to avoid getting bogged down in the stereotypical actual horrible conversation with die hard fans of a game, which i would not do well in, having never played palworld.
  But... this kind of thing is so common these days that if you think a bit higher level, its not hard to broadly see whats going on.
  Long time gamers by now whove grown and matured loathe and despise the nonsense that was the rhetoric and misinformation thrown around during the era where CONSOLE WARS was what defined you as a gamer.
  But... the same basically toxic videogame fandom nonsense still happens, just in a slightly more subtle form, and its actually so widespread and easy to manipulate that for over a decade competent AAA studios have banked on it when making business decisions, and its even so easy to illicit and provoke that we are awash in an era of basically trash scam games built more on nice sounding dreams that anything that actually makes sense or is even realistically possible, or not obviously contradictory and thus impossible at a fundamental level, in terms of promised gameplay and features.
  Unfortunately, as video games became massively popular, theyve been managed as a new form of bread and circuses, and new way for people to argue endlessly about extremely technical but hardly ever meaningful statistical differences between sportsball teams, as a means to foment devotion.
  Consumerism, basically.

47 comments