Looking up those patents, the first alludes to a system where a player aims and fires an “item” toward a character in a field, and in doing so triggers combat, and then dives into extraordinary intricacies about switching between modes within this. The second is very similar, but seems more directly focused on tweaking previous patents to including being able to capture Pokémon in the wild, rather than only during battle. The third, rather wildly, seems to be trying to claim a modification to the invention of riding creatures in an open world and being able to transition between them easily.
Really buggy at launch (not sure if it still is). “Pokemon with guns” is the least creative direction to take the concept. Devs reportedly don’t know how to use any sort of SCM, a basic development tool
People say “Pokemon with guns” as if that was some kind of core gameplay. You can play through the game without ever using them. It’s a small feature, that absolutely is there, but reducing the game to that is missing the forest for the trees.
It’s an open world crafting base building game to enjoy with co-op, that has catchable creatures like Pokemon. There is no Pokemon game that fits this niche. The guns are not important to what the game is.
I would absolutely classify it as “core gameplay” given that it’s the primary ranged weapon of both the playable character and most of the NPCs, past the crossbow. Saying “oh just ignore the stuff you don’t like” is pretty dismissive of critique.
And don’t get me wrong - mons with base building is a good idea, which is why I played it. But IMO palworld doesn’t do much with it but put the two concepts together.
I’m not saying ignore it, it’s a valid reason to not like the game, like any other subjective reason.
I’m saying calling the game “Pokemon with guns” is dismissive of what the game is. It’s like calling Minecraft “Rust with animal husbandry”, which completely misses what the game is about.