Is Palworld a complete ripoff of Pokemon?

[Millysaurusrexjr]

Both sides seem to make good arguments here but I do think that it's pretty blatantly obvious that the designs for many of the monsters/creatures/whatever they're called in Palworld are way too similar to many of the designs used in Pokémon. It literally looks like fan-art of already existing Pokémon, except the fan artist is trying to put their own "spin" on the design or coming up with an alternate evolution or whatever. I think it goes beyond simply being in the same category of creature collecting games, as there are other games in that category that at least seem to try to be original with their designs (for example, I haven't played Nexomon but from what I have seen, many of the creature designs look really cool and unique.. Masquiti and Behilda go hard).

I mean... come on, Wooloo (nearly called it Woolio lmao) was practically a meme some years back, there's no way it wasn't referenced heavily here in this Palworld design.​

It's giving "Leafeon... but with a gun"

Wait... Totoro you're not a Pokémon, what're you doing here?!​

I'm not automatically anti-Palworld; I think it's neat that Palworld is at least introducing other mechanics, I wish Pokémon would. An Ark/Minecraft creature collecting game sounds awesome, just... make more original designs! And maybe don't use AI art, that's lame.

 

[Violet Witch]

Palworld has officially sold over 7 million copies in 5 days and the number is continuing to climb so it's safe to say this game isn't going anywhere especially now that the devs have released a roadmap for the game's future.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1750103684971987108

 

[Corrie]

Palworld has officially sold over 7 million copies in 5 days and the number is continuing to climb so it's safe to say this game isn't going anywhere especially now that the devs have released a roadmap for the game's future.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1750103684971987108

We love to see it!! I'm not going to play multiplayer, personally, so I don't care for the multiplayer stuff they're planning, BUT I am excited for the new islands and pals!

 

[Romaki]

I feel like a lot of edgelords are going to make their first experience with an early access game. The game idea is fun, the dev rips off other games and that lack of creativity does not bode well. Maybe he's good with gameplay continuing being fun, but I do not support this,

Post automatically merged: Jan 24, 2024

Oh yeah, this game won't stop Pokemon sales at all. Pokemon fans are known to be loyal to a fault and will buy anything with a Pokemon label on it, quality or not.

Having a game like Palworld (or Coromon, Nexomon, etc) is not a bad thing whatsoever and I personally welcome it. Palworld scratches that open world Pokemon game itch perfectly since Gamefreak just fails to deliver. Dunno why Pokemon fans think it'll be Pokemon's doom cause it won't be. Why play one or the other? What's wrong with playing both?

We definitely need more monster collecting games, that genre never took off on PC. Cassette Beasts is loads of fun and so creative.

 

[LuchaSloth]

After playing the game for a bunch of hours and honestly enjoying it a lot...I don't think it's fair to call it a complete rip-off. - Honestly, Pokémon has been given a lot of goodwill for a long time, as well as a LOT of space to evolve (pun not intended) into something more fleshed out.

I think Palworld is obviously inspired by Pokémon. And there are definitely designs that I would consider questionably plagiarized. HOWEVER...it's high time that we accept "creature collecting" or "creature battling" as a genre of its own, and stop pretending that Pokémon deserves exclusivity over that area of things. - Especially with so many shortcomings in recent offerings.

Palworld is fun. - It's a lot of fun...and it gets a lot of things right.

It's a shame that there a bunch of designs that have been obviously lifted from Pokemon...because, the game stands up just fine on its own. - If you didn't have a handful of very blatant creature designs...I think there wouldn't really be any argument to be made against any other aspect.

I also think we should be able to keep what we like from a Pokémon experience while changing the things we don't like...since it seems fairly obvious that Pokémon is set in its ways and refuses to give a large portion of the fanbase what they want. - And I'm not talking about violent themes, or the addition of guns, or any of that...just some rudimentary changes. People have been asking for a change in direction for Pokémon for a LONG time now.

People have wanted the ability to play as an adult, to join Team Rocket, to make more choices that aren't your standard "kid goes on an adventure and defeats the Elite Four". - I think Palworld is what naturally happens when you choose to just ignore what your fans have asked for...and the numbers really don't lie. (It isn't just a fad, or a viral cultural moment...it's more than that. It's a legitimate reaction to being denied specific things for a long time.) If Pokémon had taken the requests seriously and made even a small attempt to give the fans a new experience, I don't think Palworld would have even got off the ground. - It exists for very legitimate reasons, and it deserves praise for accomplishing exactly what people have been asking for. It isn't a groundbreaking formula...it just delivers exactly what it needs to.

 

[olliebugge]

i think it's obvious that they at least sought some sort of ... 'inspiration' from pokemon's designs.

but i gave into the craze today and bought it. ive heard it's fun, so we'll see.

 

[Belle T]

All right, very well. This will definitely be the last post I make on this matter, and then I'm moving on, since it's clear we can't move on past extremely broad concepts and we're just going in circles at this point.

Yeah they are small fluffy foxes. Flareon which wasn't mentioned is also a small fluffy fox.
That is the common denominator. They are all small fluffy foxes. Idk why picking Eevee in the context of pokemon vs palworld is so hard for you to understand. Eevee is heavily advertised with pokemon. It made logical sense to throw it as a guess for that very reason.

And Flareon, as you are aware, is an evolution of Eevee. It uses specific design language to indicate that fact. That's... very much not a gotcha moment.

But I didn't tell you it was a fluffy fox. You looked at a screenshot to determine it. What I don't understand is why you are trying to make a distinction between drawing visual comparisons and -double checks, triple checks to make sure I am not putting words in your mouth or taking you out of context- making assumptions based on purely visual evidence. The problem that it is logical to guess Eeevee. Because you logically guessed it based on a screenshot. You're regarding these statements as mutually exclusive when they're not.

More to the point, no one--not one single person on this planet--would look at this statement...

The last is nox which I assume people gonna point at Eevee because it is a well known pokemon? So no one can have a small fluffy fox monster now?

...and not read it as drawing intrinsic comparisons.

That is literally what I said in the beginning: we can't have a small fluffy fox now? Fennecmon is also a small fluffy fox.

Dismissing any similarities by reducing pointed and intricate aspects of Eevee's design to an extremely broad concept is a little bit intellectually dishonest. I have given you several examples of fluffy fox creatures, even other Pokémon, that nobody would draw genuine comparisons to Eeevee with.

Nintendo doesn't own small fluffy foxes.

No, but they do own the specific execution of those ideas, and you keep circling back and dismissing intricate design analysis as purely conceptual and not integral to the execution of those ideas. It has already been pointed out that you can take aspects of multiple Pals' designs, shove them in a photo editor, and their contours will line up eerily well, which is something that can not be said for any of the other examples I gave, nor the non-Palworld examples that you have given. Which, again #notalawyer #notlegaladvice this is not proof of copyright infringement, trademark infringement or any other form of blatant stealing, nor am I saying it is. But it does highly suggest heavily-referenced design elements. There is a reason why Greg Land is so reviled in the comics world, despite nothing he does (as far as I am aware) being legally regarded as plagiarism.

SEGA does not own the rights to bipedal hedgehogs, but it is not difficult to identify when something is intended to evoke their design ethos. The entire internet is ablaze with memes about that very fact. Even Pokémon has a phenomenon called "fakemon" to distinguish when something is not an official Pokémon but has eerily similar design philosophy.

It's fine if you feel it looks like Eevee btw. I don't care. But I don't feel that way or see it and I don't appreciate you trying to say my words actually mean x when I clearly explained my position and thoughts.

This is where we will probably not agree with, and I'm not going to argue the point any further. I have not changed the meaning of anything you said. I have reiterated your points back to you. I have gone out of my way to ensure that I am not quoting you out of context or putting words in your mouth, but instead of providing counters, you've only elaborated on what I'm saying you did in the first place or rephrasing it.

To be clear, I'm not accusing you of actually believing that Nox and Eevee are identical creatures and denying it, though I'll be fair and say that I definitely come across that way now that I've had some time to rest and look back at that. For that I will apologize. That is complete egg on my face, and I will own it. But what I am asserting is that you're the one who made the initial comparison and attempted to move the goalpost when the significance of that fact was pointed out to you.

Anyway, I'm done. This has been quite exhausting.

 

[DarthGohan1]

It's a shame that there a bunch of designs that have been obviously lifted from Pokemon...because, the game stands up just fine on its own. - If you didn't have a handful of very blatant creature designs...I think there wouldn't really be any argument to be made against any other aspect.

I think this is the key point. They made a very appealing game to millions of people. Maybe without the controversy it wouldn't have picked up steam so quickly. But if palworld hadn't copied a bunch of Pokemon designs, the game would only be getting praise without any downside.

 

[Belle T]

I think this is the key point. They made a very appealing game to millions of people. Maybe without the controversy it wouldn't have picked up steam so quickly. But if palworld hadn't copied a bunch of Pokemon designs, the game would only be getting praise without any downside.

Indeed. I only know about this game because of the "Pokémon with guns" gimmick, but what surprises me is that it appears to be a well-thought-out and well made game in spite of that. I was expecting this game to be a quick bit of shovelware pushed to market to get a few curious purchases from fans of those streamers that would be played for maybe half an hour before everyone got bored and gave up. But from what I've been reading and watching, while the "inspirations" are obvious and the visual presentation could stand to be better in general, the actual amount of polish the game has is much higher than I expected. There does seem to be some kind of love and care put into it. One thing that struck me a bit ago was watching a clip where a streamer accidentally set their house on fire, and their water-type Pal responded by attempting extinguish the flames without even being told to do so. That's the kind of foresight and attention to detail that I would not have expected of this game at all. It's not like the most novel thing in the world or anything; I just think it's neat.

So that thing I said a couple pages ago about Palworld being a game that lives and dies on its premise alone, forget about that. I was wrong!! I'm still not itching to play it (and I doubt my PC could handle it) but I am pleasantly surprised to see that there's more to the game than what was evident from the trailers.

 

[-Blue-]

I've heard of it, but I haven't really taken the time to really look into it or play it. I've heard both that it's a ripoff (and ngl from an outside perspective it does look like they were a little too inspired by the Pokemon creature designs) but if it's selling so well and fast they must be doing something right.

And maybe this is just the kick in the butt that Gamefreak needs to realize they need to do better. The fans have really let them slide for far too long. Scarlet and Violet should had never released in the state that it was in. I finally got around to trying the game out (borrowed from my cousin) and 2 years later the game is still a glitch and lagfest. I've ran into so many glitches and performance issues. Each time a glitch happened I saved a screenshot or vid and then I ran out of space on my Switch memory.

 

[Belle T]

Oh boy.

Inquiries Regarding Other Companies’ Games


We have received many inquiries regarding another company’s game released in January 2024. We have not granted any permission for the use of Pokémon intellectual property or assets in that game. We intend to investigate and take appropriate measures to address any acts that infringe on intellectual property rights related to the Pokémon. We will continue to cherish and nurture each and every Pokémon and its world, and work to bring the world together through Pokémon in the future.



The Pokémon Company

 

[-Blue-]

Oh boy.

I haven't played the game and don't have any intention to do so, but just quick searches do look like rip-offs of Pokemon characters. The poster art has a penguin thing that looks like that one Pokemon Piploup? Among others. And I saw mention here that some of the art looks very AI-generated? So it's not that surprising they might be taking action.

I don't think they would have taken action if it weren't for the whole gun thing. There have been plenty of other games within 2020 that looked like they were ripped off of Pokemon or inspired by it but I never heard of them taking action. Then again I don't really pay attention if they did.

 

[Belle T]

I haven't played the game and don't have any intention to do so, but just quick searches do look like rip-offs of Pokemon characters. The poster art has a penguin thing that looks like that one Pokemon Piploup? Among others. And I saw mention here that some of the art looks very AI-generated? So it's not that surprising they might be taking action.

I don't think they would have taken action if it weren't for the whole gun thing. There have been plenty of other games within 2020 that looked like they were ripped off of Pokemon or inspired by it but I never heard of them taking action. Then again I don't really pay attention if they did.

I don't know about AI generated, although that is not entirely out of the question, either. But a lot of the allegations I've seen floating around (that I agree are at least a little suspicious) are using Pokémon as bases and swiping assets. The Galarian Meowth face I was throwing a conniption fit over earlier isn't even "really close" as much as it is more or less identical.

However, while I speculate this has to do with Palworld itself, this may also be in regards to the user mod which replaced the in-game characters with official Pokémon. I'm not sure if even Nintendo would be petty enough to sue for that, and even if they did, they wouldn't be able to keep a lid on it. But it's a thought that crossed my mind.

 

[Millysaurusrexjr]

"Inquiries Regarding Other Companies’ Games


We have received many inquiries regarding another company’s game released in January 2024. We have not granted any permission for the use of Pokémon intellectual property or assets in that game. We intend to investigate and take appropriate measures to address any acts that infringe on intellectual property rights related to the Pokémon. We will continue to cherish and nurture each and every Pokémon and its world, and work to bring the world together through Pokémon in the future.



The Pokémon Company"

I think The Pokémon Company does have a case here as far as copyright infringement (in regards to design) goes. But it's not necessarily the end of the world for Palworld should they get sued; I think if Palworld just focuses on re-designing their Pals/overall character style to be more original then the game could really give Pokémon a run for its money.

Like.. if you're gonna be in the creature collecting/monster taming genre, why WOULDN'T you want to set your game apart as much as possible from Pokémon? They're SO close, just re-design and find your own signature style!

 

[Belle T]

I think The Pokémon Company does have a case here as far as copyright infringement (in regards to design) goes. But it's not necessarily the end of the world for Palworld should they get sued; I think if Palworld just focuses on re-designing their Pals/overall character style to be more original then the game could really give Pokémon a run for its money.

Like.. if you're gonna be in the creature collecting/monster taming genre, why WOULDN'T you want to set your game apart as much as possible from Pokémon? They're SO close, just re-design and find your own signature style!

Well, if they are simply told to stop it, then no that wouldn't necessarily be a big deal. They'd just have to rework the designs. But lawsuits are expensive, and that's why they're effective, and that's why people look down on Nintendo's traditional eagerness to hand them out. Even if Nintendo/Gamefreak/TPC lost, they could walk away having incurred virtually no loss, while the developers of Palworld could end up bankrupt.

This is all assuming that they're planning on doing anything at all. Someone else has pointed out to me that their letter could easily be a very corporate way of saying "Stop spamming our inboxes with this nonsense." The letter is vague enough to entail both these possibilities. Anyway, we'll have to see.

 

[MiniPocketWorld]

I haven't played the game and don't have any intention to do so, but just quick searches do look like rip-offs of Pokemon characters. The poster art has a penguin thing that looks like that one Pokemon Piploup? Among others. And I saw mention here that some of the art looks very AI-generated? So it's not that surprising they might be taking action.

I don't think they would have taken action if it weren't for the whole gun thing. There have been plenty of other games within 2020 that looked like they were ripped off of Pokemon or inspired by it but I never heard of them taking action. Then again I don't really pay attention if they did.

I think this guy has a good perspective on if they used AI or not and he referenced statements that came from pocketpair.
And no, he isn't pro AI.

But the most that AI can be used in designs is vague 2d concepts.
Though some seem to think Nintendo has a case about copyright infringement, they simply don't legally. The designs are different enough. And some things people have been nitpicking on is simply japanese anime style. An anime small fluffy fox is a grand example... And is seen in multiple anime and clothing. And even if pocketpair made theirs bipedal, the criticism would still exist. The reason why I say this, is because of the Wooloo and Lamball criticism that has been going around too dispite differences. They are both based off of a specific species of sheep that has black skin and white wool. It was commonly seen in the 90s where I live when sheep are depicted. One is on fours the other on two. Sheep are round. One has buttons the other has ropes like those winter hats that have ropes.
And no one bats an eye at similar monsters between other games even though the games play much more similarly. Pokemon is just so well known and huge, and they chose animals that are pretty known to people. 1st gen is very full of this.

Pocketpair is in Japan, where Nintendo would have the most advantage on legal ground. Nintendo had plenty of time to take action before Pocketpair's publicity and success appeared.

Phone keyboard typos..

 

[daringred_]

to be fair, most people aren't saying the models etc. are AI-generated, the main suspicion/allegation for that is that they threw existing pokemon into an AI generator and then based the in-game models/designs on the concepts that came out. (because this is something the dev apparently did previously on his twitter, and AI has come a long way since he did it.) i don't know if there's really any way to prove if they did or didn't, and i'm personally more inclined to believe they borrowed directly from pokemon than running it through a generator, but i'm not comfortable with the possibility or the creator's AI art stance, as someone who supports a lot of artists, which is why i'm currently leaning more towards not buying the game. (and because palworld fans have been so needlessly rude and/or passive aggressive to people questioning the designs, lumping them all in as "jealous, blinded pokemon devotees" and trying to rub in the game's success. makes me apprehensive to interact with that community at all.) there are also much more questionable comparisons than the sheep or the fox, and most people making said comparisons know that. i think it's disingenuous to act like the sheep is even close to the "worst offender" or that there's no borrowing, however heavily or legally, from pokemon at all.

 

[.: Meri :.]

Is Palworld a complete rip-off? I'd say no. From what I've heard in terms of gameplay/mechanics, definitely not.

In terms of designs, though? Well...

If Lamball was the closest, I'd give it a pass. It and Wooloo both share the concept of "ball-shaped sheep", but no one owns concepts and the execution is pretty drastically different imo. A lot of the others, though, seem to be trying to directly emulate Ken Sugimori's iconic art style and unfortunately share a few too many similarities with existing Pokémon as well. Grintale having Galarian Meowth's exact face (when there are plenty of other ways to draw a very recognizable Cheshire cat face), the Cinderace/Leafeon fusion, the bumblebee-hued lovechild of Totoro and Zangoose... I feel like it's too close, and too many of them.

There's nothing wrong with taking some inspiration/influence from Sugimori's art, but for an unrelated creative work I think it's important to develop one's own style as well. Akira Toriyama designs some really cool and memorable creatures for the Dragon Quest series, and I think Minako Iwasaki does a great job of designing both cute, cool, and creepy tameable monsters for the Rune Factory series. Even though they're all in the realm of anime-style monsters, I'd never mistake any of them for a new Pokémon or Fakemon. I personally can't say the same for all the Palworld Pals.

Palworld does a lot of interesting stuff, but the guns/ability to eat Pals would've turned me away from the game even if I thought the designs were very cool and creative. I'm honestly a fairly casual Pokémon fan—I do enjoy the mainline games, but even some of the most highly-regarded of them are just "okay" to me. I play them because I love the monster designs tbh, but I much prefer the gameplay of the Mystery Dungeon side series and whatever Legends: Arceus counts as. What I'm getting at here is that I'm not a super-hardcore fan saying any of this out of belief that Pokémon somehow owns the monster catching genre (I mean, the monster catching aspect was part of what drew me in to Rune Factory games, and I have the latest Dragon Quest Monsters game sitting on my shelf right now), because that's silly. But there's definitely ways to go about the genre without lifting so much in terms of design ethics from Pokémon.

I just want to be clear that I'm also not calling for a boycott of Palworld, or saying that anyone's bad for enjoying it. If you love it and are having a blast with it, genuinely, I think that's great and I'm happy for you! I just wanted to share my thoughts here as someone who loves character and monster design.

 

[MiniPocketWorld]

to be fair, most people aren't saying the models etc. are AI-generated, the main suspicion/allegation for that is that they threw existing pokemon into an AI generator and then based the in-game models/designs on the concepts that came out. (because this is something the dev apparently did previously on his twitter, and AI has come a long way since he did it.) i don't know if there's really any way to prove if they did or didn't, and i'm personally more inclined to believe they borrowed directly from pokemon than running it through a generator, but i'm not comfortable with the possibility or the creator's AI art stance, as someone who supports a lot of artists, which is why i'm currently leaning more towards not buying the game. (and because palworld fans have been so needlessly rude and/or passive aggressive to people questioning the designs, lumping them all in as "jealous, blinded pokemon devotees" and trying to rub in the game's success. makes me apprehensive to interact with that community at all.) there are also much more questionable comparisons than the sheep or the fox, and most people making said comparisons know that. i think it's disingenuous to act like the sheep is even close to the "worst offender" or that there's no borrowing, however heavily or legally, from pokemon at all.

Yeah the video addresses that (using AI generator then developing models/concepts) if I remember. There are alot of people saying pocketpair is outright pledgerizing regardless of AI. And there is a big difference between inspired vs pledgerizing/complete ripoff (if those two terms are not synonyms let me know!). I find this problematic because it gives question on who actually owns what in the legal world, which can have a huge effect on self employment, regardless if they are in game development or just a digital artist for clothing or party supplies, or even corporation monopolies. But the world will turn however it wants in the years to come..
I can agree that palworld is inspired by pokemon, but I can also say that palworld is also inspired by digimon and even more so with digimon than pokemon. At least that is what I am seeing. Even with monsters standing by themselves. Sure we can pick more examples of pals vs pokemon, but my point is at the end of the day what is enough? Lifmunk and Leafeon was mentioned above. If I happened to have made a game that played just like palworld, and palworld didn't exist and I made a monster that was a rabbit with leaves for ears and had the same color pallet and eyes as Lifmunk, as rodents do have red eyes sometimes and they are all one color unless you look close, I wouldn't be surprised if the same criticism existed. And though the majority of people not playing the game may not know the name of Lifmunk, Palworld didn't name it. Their fans did in polls. But let's pick on Verdash. If he was put on all fours, I am sure the critisim would still exist. Verdash has a melee thing going on and is grass type. Cinderrace is a fire element and as a soccer/football thing going on. What exactly does Nintendo own? I am pretty sure Nintendo owns Cinderrace and not parts and piece and Palworld owns Verdash and not parts and piece. Temtem owns Saku and Pokemon owns Skiploom.
I mean, I feel like nothing has been said about Kindred Fates and their monsters. But then again, they haven't had the success that palworld has yet. All they have currently is a battle stadium. Nexomon, though successful but not as successful as Palworld hasn't gotten criticism that I have seen. Their dex can be found here. Sure Pokemon doesn't have a tomato monster, but they also don't have a monster that is similar to Palworld's Pyrin, which I found it interesting that it has scales.
It's cool if people don't like pals or palworld. But I just think we (as in the people in the whole controversy movement of palworld vs pokemon) should ask ourselves why there is a problem here all of a sudden and not elsewhere.
--
And Dragonquest art that was shared above has a similar style to Dragonball. Pokemon nor Nintendo isn't the standard of what is considered plagiarism or complete rip off. Nor is entertainment being the same category even though they can overlap sometimes, video games vs tv shows. nvm I guess the same artist was involved in both. but the white fox thing has a similar style to some digimon. And though both art pieces as a castle man, one has more detail and is a different color to the other. How is that different between monsters in monster collecting/catching games?

 

[daringred_]

snip

"i think it's disingenuous to act like [...] there's no borrowing, however heavily or legally, from pokemon at all."

as i've already stated, whether or not it's illegal and/or plagiarism and/or copyright/trademark infringement is irrelevant to the fact that i find some of the designs glaringly similar, enough so that thousands of people -- including those less familiar with pokemon, such as my own sister -- can make the comparison and point to the same examples. if you want to go to bat for palworld because nintendo doesn't own x, y, z specific design aspect -- which almost nobody in this thread is even arguing they do -- then that's obviously your prerogative, but my stance remains the same, and i still think they deliberately evoked the feel/style/look of pokemon in multiple of their designs, some more blatantly than others. yes, cinderrace is a fire-type and has a red color scheme while the other is green. yes, nintendo doesn't own the exclusive use of "bipedal rabbits" or whatever other specific detail you want to argue. (which, again, basically nobody was even claiming.) no, that does not change the fact that the palworld version looks questionably alike to the point of beyond what i would personally consider "inspiration". there are 101 ways to design a bipedal rabbit, and there are 101 cutesy/anime-esque art styles to design it in. given that some of the game's creature designs actually are unique, i see no reason that couldn't have been true for all of them. if this were a case of maybe two or three palworld designs being eerily similar to specific pokemon, or borrowing design elements from them, or the worst offender just being the sheep, maybe i wouldn't care, but there is a very clear pattern of design lifting, regardless of whether or not it falls under plagiarism.

the reason there "isn't a problem elsewhere" (which, with all due respect, this discussion is about this specific case) is because none of the other games you've mentioned throughout this thread have designs anywhere near as similar to pokemon's as palworld's are. of course, you're free to disagree with that, but general consensus seems to be that digimon designs are visibly different from pokemon's, and from just a quick google, so are nexomon's as far as i'm concerned. if nothing else, the latter (and temtem, as another example) is proof that you can design cute monsters without heavily borrowing from pokemon to the degree palworld has. you're trying to counter an argument that nobody here (or at least not me, who you're quoting) has made, because i haven't made any comments re: whether or not nintendo owns certain characteristics or an art style or whatever else, nor have i said they can/should sue. my "problem" is that i find it morally dubious and a little creatively bankrupt, and i would feel this way regardless of whose design/s they had heavily emulated.