Palworld has become one of the most talked-about games in recent years, but not always for the reasons developers hoped. The game, which launched to massive commercial success, has found itself at the center of a significant debate about creativity, inspiration, and the boundaries of game design. At the heart of this discussion lies a fundamental question: when does borrowing from existing games cross the line into something problematic?
The creature designs in Palworld have drawn the most immediate and intense scrutiny. Players and critics have pointed out that many of the creatures in the game bear striking visual similarities to Pokemon. These aren’t subtle nods or minor design choices—they’re creatures that look remarkably close to established Pokemon characters. This has raised serious concerns about copyright infringement and whether the game’s developers went too far in drawing inspiration from Nintendo’s iconic franchise. The resemblance is so pronounced that it has sparked conversations about what exactly constitutes original design in the gaming industry.
What makes this situation particularly interesting is that it reveals something deeper about the creative process in game development. When a game borrows heavily from another successful title, it raises questions about whether developers are pushing the boundaries of creativity or simply copying what already works. Palworld’s case suggests that the line between inspiration and imitation might be blurrier than many people realize.
The similarities don’t stop at creature design. Players have noticed that Palworld incorporates gameplay mechanics and design elements from multiple successful games. The game draws inspiration from Pokemon’s core mechanic of capturing creatures, but it also borrows from other titles. For instance, players have identified similarities to Elden Ring in various aspects of the game’s design. The dungeon structures, boss room layouts, and even specific sound effects have been compared to FromSoftware’s acclaimed title. The Sealed Prison dungeon, in particular, has been noted for its resemblance to Elden Ring’s design philosophy, with boss rooms positioned in the center of large circular arenas in ways that echo the Sealed Prison boss room from Elden Ring.
This multi-game borrowing approach raises an important question about creative limits in gaming. If a developer can take elements from multiple successful games and combine them into a new product, where does originality end and derivative work begin? The gaming industry has always built upon itself—developers learn from what came before and incorporate successful ideas into new projects. However, there’s a difference between learning from successful design principles and directly copying specific visual and mechanical elements.
The CEO of Palworld’s developer has acknowledged that the game incorporates elements from numerous games, including Elden Ring. This transparency is noteworthy because it suggests the developers were aware of what they were doing. They weren’t trying to hide their influences; they were openly drawing from multiple sources. However, this acknowledgment hasn’t quieted the criticism. Instead, it has intensified the debate about whether it was necessary to borrow so directly from these established titles, particularly when it comes to specific dungeon designs and sound effects.
The patent situation surrounding Palworld adds another layer of complexity to this discussion. Nintendo has obtained patents on various gameplay mechanics related to Palworld, including patents on summoning and battling with sub-characters. These patents cover mechanics that have existed in countless games for years. The fact that such broad patents were granted raises questions about the patent system itself and how it might be used to restrict creativity in gaming. When patents cover mechanics that are fundamental to many games, it creates a chilling effect on innovation. Developers might hesitate to include certain features because they fear patent litigation, even if those features are common in the industry.
This situation illustrates a paradox in modern gaming. On one hand, the industry celebrates innovation and original ideas. On the other hand, the most commercially successful games often build heavily on established formulas and mechanics. Palworld’s massive success suggests that players don’t necessarily demand complete originality—they’re willing to embrace a game that combines familiar elements in new ways. Yet the controversy surrounding the game shows that there are limits to how directly developers can borrow from existing titles before facing backlash.
The creature design issue is particularly telling because it touches on something fundamental about how we perceive creativity. A creature design is more than just a collection of visual elements. It’s a creative expression that represents hours of artistic work. When a creature in Palworld looks too similar to a Pokemon, it feels like that creative work has been diminished or appropriated. Players recognize this intuitively, which is why the visual similarities have generated so much discussion and concern.
The broader implications of the Palworld controversy extend beyond this single game. It raises questions about how the gaming industry should handle inspiration and borrowing. Should there be clearer guidelines about what constitutes acceptable inspiration versus unacceptable copying? Should the patent system be reformed to prevent overly broad patents on common mechanics? Should copyright law be adjusted to account for the collaborative nature of game development, where ideas build upon previous ideas?
These questions don’t have easy answers. The gaming industry has always been built on a foundation of developers learning from each other and building upon successful ideas. Many of the most beloved games incorporate mechanics and design elements that originated in earlier titles. The difference with Palworld seems to be one of degree rather than kind. The game doesn’t just borrow mechanics or general design principles—it borrows specific visual designs and particular implementation details that are recognizable to anyone familiar with the source material.
The controversy also highlights the tension between different stakeholders in the gaming industry. Players want original, creative games that push the medium forward. Developers want the freedom to draw inspiration from successful titles without facing legal consequences. Publishers and intellectual property holders want to protect their investments and prevent their creations from being copied. These interests don’t always align, and Palworld has become a focal point for these tensions.
Looking at the specific examples of borrowing makes the issue clearer. When players encounter the Penking boss room in Palworld’s Sealed Prison, they immediately recognize elements from Elden Ring. The boss room is positioned in the center of a large circular arena, just like the Sealed Prison boss room in Elden Ring. The atmosphere of the dungeon evokes the dark ruins of Elden Ring. Even the sound effects used for ice attacks are similar to the magic attack sounds in Elden Ring. These aren’t coincidences or inevitable similarities that would arise from similar design goals. They’re specific choices that echo another game so closely that players can’t help but notice.
The creature designs present a similar situation. The visual similarities between Palworld creatures and Pokemon aren’t subtle. They’re pronounced enough that players immediately recognize the connection. This raises the question of whether the developers were trying to create creatures that would appeal to Pokemon fans by being visually similar, or whether they genuinely believed they were creating original designs that just happened to resemble Pokemon creatures.
The patent situation adds a layer of irony to the discussion. While Palworld faces criticism for borrowing from other games, Nintendo has obtained patents on mechanics that are common across the industry. This suggests that the problem isn’t necessarily that developers are borrow
