Aquatica is very clearly a flOw knock off, so Aquatica is plagiarism if and only if the author did not explain that flOw inspired him.
All these terms have very different meanings with very different real purposes, but all cover an aspect of "depriving the creator".
Plagiarism the closest to theft by far because plagiarism deprives the creator of the credit due for their creation. Plagiarism has no legal status for various sound reasons, like being only indirectly tied to compensation and not being abused by large corporations, but society tries to punish it indirectly nevertheless.
Copyright exists solely to prevent those who control distribution channels from distributing works without compensating the creators. Copyright is vastly further from theft than plagiarism since the creator has far less intrinsic right to distribution than to credit. Copyright has legal status because (a) the criteria is fairly well defined and (b) publishers will never reward authors otherwise. Btw, copyright is basically functioning correctly when shutting down commercial distribution channels like Napster and TPB who have no intention of compensating creators, but copyright is being grossly misused when attacking individual file sharers.
Patents exist solely to protect the investments of venture capitalists while creating new industries. Patents are by far the furthest IP device from "theft" since they protect venture capitalists not creators. Patents are more just a contract between society and the capitalist that says "If you fund this, then we'll grant you a monopoly for a few years." Clearly patents have also drifted extremely far from their original purpose, now functioning more as a "currency" between businesses.
I can distinguish it, but don't really care.
A good game is a good game regardless of who wrote it, or who came up with the original idea. The logo on the box is unimportant.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."