Palworld has come under fire for the aesthetic of its pirated Pokémon, with some commenters cross-referencing the models as if they were amateur detectives entering a crime scene. While claims of model piracy seem unlikely (even if the designs are clearly derivative), another argument has emerged: are interesting Pokémon and survival genre games AI?

Forgive me for putting on my deerstalker hat and putting on my best Sherlock Holmes impression. The evidence in support of this charge (first pointed out by imZaytri on Twitter/X, though it should be noted that they do not consider this concrete evidence) is as follows.

Evidence A My dear Watson: In 2021, Pocket Pair's current CEO Takuro Mizobe made a series of tweets expressing surprise at the AI-generated "fake monsters" after Buzzfeed's data scientist Max Woolf created a bunch of little monsters using machine learning.

My favorite is this one, which looks like a sin against God begging for the sweet release of death.

Exhibit B: Pocket Pairs has used AI generation in video games before; 2022's "AI Impostor" uses image generators as the basis for a jackbox-like social deduction game. Everyone uses AI to generate pictures for an exhibition, but the impostor does not know the theme. It seems to take some of the fun out of the group drawing game, but oh well.

Finally, Exhibit C: Mizobe's blog post about the creation of the game mentions an artist with miraculous delivery time for the design of the game's 100+ pals. Granted, this speculation is based on a machine translation that shifts the pronouns of that artist rather than the AI software putting its finger on it.

The problem is that trying to determine whether Palworld is using generative AI from this evidence alone is the game equivalent of pulling red string on a corkboard, and there is no substantial evidence here.

There are several points that contradict this scenario. First, Steam's AI policy requires game developers to disclose whether they used AI on Steam. Of course, it is entirely possible for a company to obfuscate the use of its tools enough to get a pass simply by saying "no." Lying on the Internet is well known.

Second, things can go badly wrong. I actually wrote about this at length, but AI ruins the critique of the game by muddying the pool and imposing the role of AI detective on all of us, rather than telling us why the thing itself is bad.

Palworld's pal designs are shockingly derivative, bordering on traced, even if they are not directly taken from assets or generated by the AI. Since the dawn of gaming, companies have been creating copycat designs.

Returning to the model comparison for a moment, while the similarity in proportions is certainly suspect, I genuinely believe that it takes more effort to pull off a 3D model and painstakingly edit it than it does to kit-bash a design with different properties at the concept art stage.

Similarly, does having AI generate fake Pokémon actually save anyone any time at all? Tracing and adjusting a design is easy enough for a trained concept artist, but morally suspect.

Not that I don't have my own doubts, but accusations based on vibes are not evidence except in a court of public opinion. I have contacted Pocket Pair about this matter, but have not yet been able to obtain comment. Until a full statement is issued beyond a plea to cease their vile attitude toward artists, none of us will know for sure. [If AI was used, Palworld presents us with an entirely different problem. Sometimes the company itself is unaware, as in the case of the Wizards of the Coast and D&D books last year. As for Palworld, I think some of the derivative stuff is unsettling. Sometimes Pikachu is just yellow.