>>10000263>have no argument against thisAgainst what, this
>>9998218 and this
>>9998191? You're so full of it. Hasbro's marketing specifically mentioned the Japanese design. Not this vague definition of "design" you pulled out of your ass, but the actual concept art as stated in
>>9998105. They cleary had a source to pull from and recreate. Flame Toys has never said "based on X" because it's clearly its own thing with no expectation of accuracy.
>but "based on" and "inspired by" doesn't mean they have to be accurate!There is no reason to mention the original design except to imply it's using it as a direct source. It invites the comparison and creates the expectation in the buyer's mind that the product will actually look like the artwork. The ZAP figure clearly doesn't do this. Saying these are empty marketing words is not a defense of Hasbro, since you'd be admitting they mislead customers at best, and straight up lie to people at worst.
>lol it doesn't matter cause the drawing is shit anywayYou're defending the ZAP, so obviously your taste can't be trusted. I guess it makes sense since you work at Hasbro.
