I am currently working on a co-op game inspired from overcooked. My game has some similar elements such as tables, sinks etc. though my ‘recipes’ are completely different. My understanding is that as long as the artwork and levels of my game do not look absolutely similar to overcooked, i should be in the clear.
Here is a screenshot from my game. Is my artwork ‘different’ enough or do I need to rethink my design?
I am not a lawyer, and I have not seen the game you are trying not to copy too much. If you have to ask if your game is different enough, it probably isn't. But what it really comes down to is your comfort level with risk. What risk are you taking? And how much of a risk is that? You are the only one who can determine how much risk you are willing to take. Most likely, if the owner of the game you're trying not to copy thinks you failed to not copy it, they'll send you a Cease & Desist letter. That's what's most likely to happen - but they might also sue you for money, if they think you've cost them revenue. So: how comfortable are you with the risk of those things happening?
If you copy all their mechanics and leave the artwork the same, that still sounds like copying.
But can't you come up with different mechanics? There are thousands of things that go on in a kitchen, and the games are just a simplified model of that. Special requirements like vegetarian, vegen, nut free, etc. Different methods of cooking. Different skills/attributes for the cooks. Different types of meal maybe, cooked to order, buffet, or maybe a combination of both.
If look at the games out already, there are dozens of things you can say are very similar to another given example. And a lot have very similar mechanics, I can often pick up a game, go “I don't care” to the tutorial instructions as try to skip them as fast as possible, glance at the keyboard bindings and off I go. But each is recognisably different.
To not be a copyright violation, it should be far enough to look like an accident. Posting a confession about knowing the game's similarity here would be used as evidence after a quick web search. I would advice against it, but either way, an original game will be more succesful at standing out.
For a part of a game to be patentable and receive a more far reaching protection than copyright, it has to solve a real-life problem as a thing or method. The inventor must also have applied for the patent before showing it to the public. LEGO failed to claim copyright violation in a case where the defender making LEGO compatible products ascended the product from artwork into invention, for which the producer had not applied for any patent. If the physical analogy for game rules is a boardgame, then it's artistic work and no patent would be approved. Just like a soup recipe that comes and goes by accident all the time depending on what's left in the fridge. If the game however comprises an advanced method for video compression, the patent of that technique would refer to a dedicated machine for making the video take less space.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have written a patent application as a part of my old job. Everything is a gray area when dealing with firmware for mobile phones because it's often competing against dedicated hardware solutions running the same methods. The same applies to computer games that are essentially simplified simulations of the real world. Both worlds have trolls.
Laws are fuzzy and constantly changing, so don't ever think that you're safe from a single detail. Sweden even has an unused law against extremely morally wrong actions, which could counter any loophole being exploited.
