Xeno, I think I can explain where TJ and Mcshark are coming from. You wrote: I don't know if I can necessarily agree with that sentiment either. There are scenarios where it is obviously okay for you to return a toy. If it wasn't opened, then the retailer can just put it back on the shelf and another customer can have it good-as-new--you see this all the time when kids get gifted multiples the same toy. Or, if the item broke during regular usage, then the fault can be traced back to the manufacturer/retailer who didn't provide a product of the advertised quality. But how do you justify a returning a toy just because you didn't like it? You can't blame the manufacturer for making a toy (or the retailer for selling a toy) didn't meet your exact expectations. And I don't believe you can qualify it by saying you researched it either. For example, we (supposedly) research cars just as much as we research figures (probably even more), yet we can't return a car "just because we didn't like it." The principle behind the two cases is similar--how could you justify the latter case with the same rationale as the former?
All transformers are designed with kids in mind, but I think the Leader Classes are way to complicate for kids. Picture a kid playing a war with his friends following the following scenario: The 'cons have found an Energon source and they are about to take it to their secret base. Just in time Bumblebee appears. Starscream, cowardly as he is, flies of before Bumblebee shoots him. Just imagine it. A kid spending 30 minutes or so to transform Starscream while Bumblebee gets a new paint job. Not a very good 'war', is it? Spending most of the time transforming a figure. Now imagine the following scenario: The 'cons have found an Energon source and they are about to take it to their secret base. Just in time Skyburst appears. Bombshock, cowardly as he is, drives away before Skyburst combines with his drones. Because the PCC line consist of smaller figures, they are easier to transform than the leader figures. They make for better wars, thus have more playability. Because, play is in the word playability for a reason. Yeah, Starscream may look awesome and may be the best movie Starscream ever, but as a toy, he just pales in comparison with any scout class (and PCC) figure.
Not really. Ease of transformation doesn't equate with playability. There's more you can do in both modes with Starscream than with the PCCs (or any Scout class toy), regardless of how long it takes to transform (< 2 minutes if you're remotely competent). Your example falls down because I'm assuming that xeno isn't a little and and actually knows how to transform his toys, unlike the hypothetical child taking half an hour to transform Starscream.
Actually, Sharky, I think iTeruri's example falls down for another reason: isn't transforming your Transformer part of playing? It's like saying LEGO has low playability because you have to put the sets together... isn't that the point?
aggressed on trivial matters?? Right, now lets get back to the important matter of figuring out which TOY is more fun to PLAY with.
ephbot, I understand the point being made, but one: I disagree and two: using the sale of a car is a false analogy, cars and toys are not the same and neither is the monetary value attached to each. But you may have a point since GM just announced that you can return a car if you don't like it within sixty days.
