Cell shaded figures are awful looking to me .

 

Whatever. You directly said you took offense to my post and then suggested "loyalist" was an insulting term after I had used it. It seems a logical inference that you were very obviously replying to my comments. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I do try to be careful about the way I phrase my comments so that no one feels attacked, and I want that to be understood. It's like when I discipline my kids and try to focus on their behavior and not their character.

From my perspective, I haven't seen negativity from mixed collectors towards HasTak collectors. It's largely been the reverse. I've read many comments that exude a distinctive "not invented here" attitude-- as in, if it wasn't made by Hasbro or Takara, then it's not worthy of consideration. While I collect 3P figures in addition to MPs, I don't rally behind any of the companies in particular. My collection is a mix of TT, MMC, XTB, MT, TFC, FT, PX, Zeta, and others. I will readily point out their faults as quickly as I will their merits. And while I will "stand behind" a particular figure, it doesn't mean I endorse everything the manufacturer makes. I absolutely love MP-42 but I despise MP-47. Maketoys Gundog 2Y is one of my absolute favorite figures, but for my "Grapple" I eschewed MT's Wrestle (and TT's MP Grapple) in favor of MMC's Girder. I pick and choose based on my own criteria, and it doesn't include the brand name.

I will admit that I'm not a "subscribing" type of person anyway. I have things that I like, causes I believe in, and values that I cherish. I'm not a follower of particular individuals (ok, @chchchch is an exception, haha), I'm not terribly patriotic, I have no political affiliations, and I'm not religious. I feel like I have an internal "code" that I apply to the world and I seek out things that are compatible with it... be it friends, companions, places to live, things to collect, cars to drive, foods to eat, hobbies to start, charities to support, etc. I don't decide on a partner, leader, brand, or whatever and declare "THIS is my thing and will forever be my thing". That's why I don't understand brand loyalty.

So anyway, no offense intended to you or anyone else, Dachande. Like what you like. I've not noticed you in particular badmouthing 3P collectors, but there are HasTak purists that do. And I'm sure there are some 3P collectors out there that discriminately badmouth the Hasbro/Takara collectors. Neither behavior makes any sense to me.

 

I'm with you on that one.

 

I enjoy robots and science fiction stuff, especially such that transforms.

I don't care about brand, maker, company, or anything. I don't care about any particular character, but I care about the figure itself and how fun and good it looks.

What matters to me is that the robot/TOY is well made, I prefer a touch of realism to them. I love to have as much articulation as possible, be made with good plastic, have no gaps, a good accessory (or many), and the transformation be smart, easy enough and quick to do as much as possible. And both the robot and alt mode should be equally great, one shouldn't be sacrificed over the other as much as possible.

While I'm happy with a new figure comes out that fits the parameter, I actually don't care if the toy is new or decades old.

I don't gush all over the latest and newest, I always consider the toy for it's merit, not because it's new and shiny.

Heck, if I pick up a 15 year old figure that I never had, I'll consider it "new" to me and will "judge" it for it's merits. Any review or comments I see/read that oozes "newitist" is of no value to me.

 

Wey, yo vivo en un país del tercer mundo :v

 

I've already stated that I'm no fan of the "earth" Kingdom Ultra Magnus as I just find him too bright (white) and too flat. Even the chest doesn't follow that small "flying fighter" look of the G1/Diaclone version.

But today a picture that someone posted solved one of the reason that I couldn't pin-point out to my dislike of the design: His shoulder pylons look like small bookcases that were tacked on.

I guess that Hasbro being too cheap to close them up (again) had that impact on how those look to me.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

My reason for disliking him is his kibble on his back, mainly on his calves.

 

The last truly amazing A+ 10/10 Deluxe Hasbro / Takara has made was TR Triggerhappy. There is a lot of good deluxes out there since then but a lot of the G1 WFC deluxes are refined experiences and not creative new imaginative experiences.

Now recent Voyagers from WFC and SS 86 are pretty top notch and rarely have duds.

 

My unpopular opinion is that just because something looks the way it did in the 80s, doesn't make it a good design.

Some of the cartoon designs are downright ugly to me: I can't stand Studio Series Wreck-Gar and Gnaw, I find them absolutely stupid-looking, and I much prefer the "modern reimaginings" of their toys in Reveal the Shield and Titans Return. That's not to say those toys were objectively better, but I vastly prefer how Hasbro interpreted the characters.

I dread the day they remake Cosmos, his cartoon appearance looks so dumb to me. I'll take Thrilling 30 Cosmos any day of the week.

 

"G1 accurate, it's not always a complement." - Thew Adams.

 

While I do like some individual combiner team members, I don’t like the Combiner concept at all. I also dislike triple-changing. Both generally compromise design, lessening the appeal of one or more modes of a toy.

 

Boy, I agree with that. And I imagine a lot of people do. For myself, I am not putting together a massive collection. Just a "curated" one. I have a mixture of Siege, Third Party, and SS to make a group that fit together in my head canon.

I think combining has been way overdone. It was cool when it was a rare thing. But then the lines quickly changed to cheaper-made toys relying on the combiner gimmick. The original Aerialbots were a letdown after getting them. All the robot forms were square robots with jet backpacks and two points of articulation. With the exception of Silverbolt. But that was the rule. They only really tried with one out of five molds that way. Brought down the overall expectations of the line, I think.

 

Here's an unpopular opinion: I am very pro parts-forming. I take it to mean people refer to parts-forming as a transformation in which the forms are more lego-like in how they come apart/together than flipping levers.

For me, the real pet peeve in transformers were parts that come out of nowhere. Like all the G1 figures that had no weapons storage, or needed their entire hands or heads to be kept on the side when they were in vehicle mode.

I find a lot of the female Autobots in Siege to be the worst kind of mold. A female robot unfolds from inside an eggshell that makes a massive backpack. Would this really be worse than if the elements of that backpack/panels were able to separated and plug in on the bot body to make, say, armor?

I was looking at a Bell helicopter, imagining how I would get a robot form out of it. You either have to compromise on one side or the other without partsforming. Engineering-wise, the only way I can see getting a highly-articulated, "masterpiece" styled figure from machines with highly tapered parts along with a highly accurate alt mode would involve partsforming. The other option with something like a helicopter is something like Bayformer Blackout or Siege Spinister: a robot that is wearing the skin and kibble of a helicopter like a trenchcoat, or one that has a massive fin sticking up out of his back.

 

Parts-forming works for a toy, but in my opinion doesn’t really make for a “transformer” so much as a puzzle with two solutions. If I want that experience, I’ll buy Lego sets. Much of what I appreciate about Transformers is the engineering, and pulling off parts to relocate them feels like a “cheat”. Even if what you say about parts-forming armour is potentially a tidy solution, it doesn’t fit with my own view of what a Transformer should be.

Additionally, parts-forming doesn’t translate well to the fiction, in my opinion. I’ve never liked the way Optimus’s trailer would magically appear and disappear in the cartoon.

 

I don't mind the kind of backpack-shield partsforming like with Earthrise Cliffjumper. I wish Siege Chromia's backpack could detach and form a shield like in IDW and Cyberverse. As-is, it's not terrible, but it could be better put to use.

 

I agree that a toy coming apart like a Lego kit becomes a puzzle more than a transformer. I would say key to a transformer is the engineering of joints and folding parts. But it doesn't stretch the disbelief for me if a piece comes off and reassembles itself.

As far as the fiction goes, the transforming often involved lots of tiny things sliding around to theoretically get the representation of the robot. In the cartoon or comics, they practically get away with some T-1000 style transformations. Or if you go to the Bay movies, the transforming ended up looking like a cloud of metal bees swarming. Or they stopped transforming altogether. (But enough of my pet peeves of those movies…)

I agree entirely about the trailer thing. I like the idea of the toy (and the fictional character) being self contained. They don't have a "pocket dimension" for their weapons, their fists and everything are there. I like "mass shifting" even less.

I'll use the case of the Brunt toy as a perfectly good use of parts-forming. He forms a fictional tank-gun thing in alt mode, but gets to make a decent dimension robot with articulation. And he does come apart like a puzzle, which is kind of his thing. I think that adds to the play value of the toy, and works for a character in a fantastical setting.

There are a lot of faux parts in the better engineered toys these days. Masterpiece and Siege Prime look great, but they do it with faux chests. I'd prefer Prime's chest be the grill. I still prefer SS-38 over Siege Prime for reasons like that. But with masterpiece engineering, we got a lot of faux chests and other pieces into Siege and SS. They look the part, but it is imperfect that they have to fake it to do in real life what you can only do in animation. I don't think parts-forming is any worse than this.

I'll take parts-forming preferably over
1) Extensive shell-forming
2) Extensive panel-forming
3) Losing articulation
4) Awkwardly proportioned robot mode

Hell, maybe if some third party wants to start a fictional car-robot line and call it The Partsformers™ then maybe I'd be all over it.

 

You bring up a good point about faux parts. Those bug me as well, though there are situations where it’s okay. If a part itself transforms to look like a slightly changed version of itself, then I don’t mind it. The rotating chest piece on MP Sunstreaker, for example, is brilliant. It still represents the same part, but re-scales itself depending on the mode. But the fake chests on SS86 Hot Rod or Siege Mirage? Those irritate me.

The parts-forming on Earthrise Ironhide (where the entire top of the van becomes a shield) is a no-go for me. I don’t like the parts-forming on Earthrise Cliffjumper either, but at least the part is legitimately an element of both modes.

In general, I’m willing to sacrifice articulation and presentation/proportions in order to avoid:
parts forming,
faux parts,
shell forming,
panel forming (part hiding),

I have much greater respect and appreciation for a figure that creatively utilizes the alt-mode parts in the robot mode than one which achieves the desired target appearance using cheap tricks.

 

I'd say yes, but…

Perhaps the perfect engineering to me in the modern CHUG line would be the Sideswipe/Red-Alert, etc mold. It looks like a proper car. It has a fairly minimalistic transformation, and it makes a proportioned robot with excellent articulation. But to get the same thing out of differently proportioned vehicles just won't be as easy. The parts-forming of massive panels on Ironhide/Cliffjumper becoming shields or huge backpacks don't look good, I agree. I would take a little more engineering to have those do partsforming in other ways, such as become several pieces which could otherwise close up hollow gaps on the mold. Personally, that would be the kind of inclusive use of parts I would be eager to see a line do.

 

I like partsforming when they do something fun and interesting with it. Like with CRID Optimus ending up only being the cab of the firetruck for his robot mode, with the rest forming a battle platform and supermode armor, or Energon Towline, who while he might technically only form the top of the van, has the bottom turn into a battle platform that he can combine with for a sick centaur mode. Stuff like that is fun to me, but taking the back half of the car and removing it before sticking it on the back of the robot later or trying to call it a "shield" isn't.