Board Thread:Plants vs. Zombies 2/@comment-26239911-20160128181203/@comment-24275721-20160129210733

Zombotanist wrote: TheGollddMAN wrote: Zombotanist wrote: CompliensCreator00 wrote: Zombotanist wrote: TheGollddMAN wrote: Zombotanist wrote: TheGollddMAN wrote: Nikel23 wrote:

TheGollddMAN wrote:

Master3530 wrote: So truth about t-rex has been revealed!

And why would he lie on the ground for no reason? To take a dump on the other side? Also, what's the excuse that he acts like a dog? Why does it matter if he lies on the ground? Because it exactly explains the laziness of the devs who just came up with a way to make a half sprite instead of making a fully functional one. The raptor was made earlier before they realised, "Hey! Why bother? We can just show one part of their body instead!" That's why. If they wanted it to be something different they should have made it something different that is considered good; with how it is, people hate it more than they like it because of the liberties they took. Here that "originality" sunk into the ground because of how retarded it was. Since we see the T-rex in every media the same, it gives a sense of disbelief as to how awesome it is. Here, the "originality" you're supporting is just plain crap; a dinosaur acting like a freaking drooling dog. Yeah, originality my as*.

Also, considering they literally made every dino sprite only a half of what they are supposed to be except for the Raptor, that is definitely being lazy rather than "original". Here, in this context "original" equals stupid, moronic, dumb and something that looked so badass got turned into a joke. If given the option, I'd rather take stereotypes than "originality" if this is level of par they display.

You really need to differentiate between something that's a fact and something that's just your opinion. Just because you or some other people don't like it or would've rather had something else doesn't mean it is objectively bad. Now me saying the opposite isn't gonna be true either, I was just stating a fact that PopCap tried to do something original with their idea and that I for one appreciate their effort instead of just going with the easy way out, whether it was a good or bad choice no one can say for sure, you can only have an opinion on it. Honestly, I prefer the dog version of the T-Rex. I find it funny. Yeah me too, I'm sure that's what they were going for, cause afterall that's what the character designs in this game are supposed to be: fun. We're fighting zombies for christ's sake, something that's always been associated with horror and violence, yet here they are wearing traffic cones and buckets on their heads. Just because you think that's what they were going for doesn't mean it has to or that everyone will find them "funny" (that's debatable). Figues you'll like the Dog Rex (wasn't that shocking) but I don't. I have a theory for why they decided to go that route with T-Rex's design actually:

They probably didn't want the dinosaurs' sprites to be too large, or else the right side of the lawn would get incredibly cluttered, (even more than it currently does anyway), so they had to make T-Rex's sprite smaller than they would've liked, and it's hard to make something look menacing if it's so small compared to how you're used to seeing it, so they approached it in a different way, make the T-Rex be hunched over so you would still get a sense that it's large in size without the sprite itself being too big, and from there they probably got the idea to give it the behaviour of a dog since it fits with the position it's in.

I'm not saying this is a fact, but it makes a lot of sense to me. That's also what came to me way back when JM Part 2 came out but I still and won't ever forget that they went this despicable route with a creature that is considered to be a vicious hunter widely. Whether it makes sense or not, the end result is something I'm personally not happy with. Case closed.