Understanding Nintendo

The following is based on the Moon Channel's Deep Dive On Who Really Owns Pokémon.

The Pokémon Company handles branding, licensing, marketing, etc. The Pokémon Company International sends DMCAs on the International front.

Creatures Inc. does things like create 3D assets.

Game Freak is the developers.

Nintendo is the head, who owns the trademarks. If Game Freak broke away from Nintendo, Nintendo would still own Pokémon, as they own the trademarks. You can even check the back of your box of Scarlet and Violet to see this detail A complicated web with a 1/3 ownership due to how things work in Japan. Overall ending with Nintendo having ultimate control over everything, while not being super up front about it. Nintendo calls the shots. Written by Eris the Lorekeeper

Something I have come to find is a lot of people really don't understand the what the Palworld lawsuit is about, or what exactly the Nintendo patents are. Many people are just repeating what they heard other people say without any second thought about it, and others are just straight up lying about things. Overall a lot of false claims are going around with.

For example, a minor false claim that is made often in passing that gives people a bizarre perception about it; is how many people are claiming Pocketpair is an indie company. This makes it seem like a Big Corporation is trying to stomp out a small indie company. But this overlooks the fact Pocketpair was bought up by Sony, and basically became their Game Freak, and this is the reason why Nintendo is going after Palworld. Not because they are afraid of some indie company. In addition people bring up Nintendo being strict with copyright, and Sonic Team being lax with it; without understanding the why.

Another one is how people think one of Nintendo's Patents is trying to patent the idea of summoning a creature or character and having them battle another for you. It made it seem like Nintendo was trying to patent a whole entire concept seen in many forms of media like Digimon, or in games where you just summon an ally. But in reality the patent is very specific and technical, where it first must be a game on a device like a pc or console. Characters must move in a virtual space, a character is summoned and they perform a task such as auto battle, stay stationary, or be instructed to do things like collect resources. Aka it's referring to the Legends Arceus system. In addition it use pictures as well to go with it, alongside other specifics.

All that said I want to recommend 3 videos by Moon Channel, which actually go through all of this stuff. I share this in hopes it can help dispel the misconceptions people have.

So Sonic Team as many people know is fairly chill when it comes to copyright and allowing people to use the Sonic characters as opposed to Nintendo.

But something many fans of Sonic don't know is SEGA as a whole is not so chill when it comes to it's other IPs. For example, Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., the Streets of Rage Remake takedown, the article Atlus Keeps Hitting Tiny YouTube Channels With Copyright Strikes, Then Reversing Them(Atlus is a subsidiary of SEGA), etc.

So why is it like this? Well since someone else did the bulk of the research before I am linking this video for anyone interested in this topic. Written by Eris

Many fans of Nintendo's various IPs such as Mario are all too aware of their aggressive enforcement of their copyright as opposed to what we see with Sonic.

But turns out there does seem to be a reason on the why. It connects back to Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. and what happened to Universal when they lost control over King Kong, and it's all primarily about protecting their trademarks and patents and intellectually property as a whole.

So if you want an in-depth look into this, the following video talks about this topic having done the bulk of the research.

So it is a rather widespread notion that Miyamoto hates story and ruined Paper Mario.

So instead of talking about this topic ad nauseam myself in several posts, I decided to share these 2 videos that go over the topic made by one SuperMarioT. Their video No, Miyamoto DOESN'T Dislike Story in particular goes into a good amount of detail with a lot of research.

That being said while I aim not going to go over the points they make myself, I am gonna make a brief summary. But overall this is just summarizing the videos and not going in-depth. If you want that and the sources he cites watch both videos.

They go over how many games should have deeper and more compelling stories in an interview people quote mine often, and how the existence of the Zelda games and their story further proves this. In addition to how in the early early Zelda Miyamoto did have some problem with story, he would later change his mind. He also goes over how the plot of Zelda games couldn't have been snuck in behind Miyamoto's back, and the 2 different era of game development. On top of that as we know Pikmin a creation of Miyamoto's has a lot of lore and in-depth story. He would go on to talk about how Koizumi didn't sneak in the Rosalina's storybook and presented it to Miyamoto, and how the game doesn't hid said storybook. In addition, he brings up an Iwata askes interview where Miyamoto concludes philosophy of fun gameplay above story was actually him wanting resonance. And on top of that he talked about how Koizumi agreed with Miyamoto on how Super Mario Galaxy 2 didn't need story. He would eventually talk about how the teams at Intelligent Systems that made the first 3 Paper Mario games were different from the ones Sticker Star and beyond, and Tanabe mentioning they have had complete creative control since Color Splash. He brought up how Miyamoto found Sticker Star's gameplay boring, which is a similar criticism of people who played the game. He brought up Miyamoto's comments on whether or not Paper Mario needed a story wasn't a demand but a suggestion. On top of that they talked about how it seemed to be Tanabe staying in the past, and how many games like Odyssey had basically little limitations when it came to new characters.