Board Thread:Plants vs. Zombies 2/@comment-26239911-20160123135050/@comment-1764483-20160126203121

IG Gaming + Maramok= Awesome wrote: Brainulator9 wrote: IG Gaming + Maramok= Awesome wrote
 * 1) The lightning effect could very well be something else.
 * 2) What the hell are you getting at? Why does that matter?
 * 3) Haha, no.
 * 4) And yet these are the same people who lack any critical thought to playtest their creations in earnest. In fact, Gary Clay indirect stated that he hates how new content is being leaked, but that doesn't stop PopCap from leaking their own content.
 * Huh, what? I'm sorry, if you're saying "you can't use my statements against me because I'm innocent before proven guilty," that's not the case. Criminals, at least in the United States, may have their statements used against them.

As for the second post, I was talking about PvZ2 code that no longer exists, and hasn't existed since at least late 2013. 1. Like what? A final boss? Sheesh, where would the zomboss head go?

2. It would only be TT if it had all the lawns combined.

3. That's one of your problems. Haha, no? Why? What does that even do for you? You might think that won't happen, but that's the whole reason you're arguing with me!

4. Of course! For example a copyright by an inventor team. They don't want others to sell the product because they will obviously want to sell it themselves.

5. You added an s! It matters because I was refering to a single statement "even if that doesn't prove it 100 percent"

6. Existing in the past is better than not existing at all, which is the case in new content. If new content gets made, why not stuff they already started making in the past? Relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWmVlgIR2HA&t=1m30s
 * 1) Why would the time rift link to anything? It's a "tap-to-mess-with" effect like with the brains on a dish. Oh, you mean replacing it with something? Like what, the final boss? Wouldn't that go in Modern Day?
 * 2) So Time Twister would combine all the lawns' gimmicks? Wouldn't that nullify the point of Modern Day?
 * No, I'm arguing with you because I find your reasons to be bullcrap.
 * 1) This isn't about distribution, this is about hacking in order to find unused content.
 * 2) Pluralizing the statement doesn't matter. If I left it at a singular statement, it wouldn't have made a difference. Also, a classic example of ad hominem: rather than use more misinformed legal logic to refute my point, you just pointed out a trivial error.
 * 3) ...except that old content is no longer relevant. There could be multiple factors as to why a concept may be scrapped and never revisited: retooling, avoiding repetitiveness, lack of interest... do you not see the problems with reusing scrapped concepts?