This argument does not make sense to me.
njb902 wrote:lets see on the one hand you have a $600 dollar 3rd party, and on the other a $60 dollar hasbro/takara......which one again is a waste of plastic?
Is cost a component in objectively evaluating the quality of a figure?I mean, of course it's something to consider but no one puts a BMW next to a Kia and calls the BMW a piece of garbage because they can't afford it.
Actually, njb902 didn't say anything about not being able to afford the $600 figure(at least not in the post you quoted). There's a huge difference in not being able to afford something expensive versus not thinking the toy is worth the expense. Maybe one would even rather have 5 Bruticuses(Brutici?) than one Hercules... who knows?
I know it's easy if you think that the expensive one is bar none the best the market has to offer to assume that everyone else thinks so too and just claims to dislike it because they merely can't afford it, but you must understand that people do have different opinions than you do, regardless of how seemingly unlikely it is.
Counterpunch wrote:Perhaps the price makes one figure a better suit for a particular buyer but there is zero, absolutely zero question that the recent 3rd party combiners are better combining robot figures than FoC Bruticus in any color scheme when considering engineering.
If it's going to be an honest discussion at least keep it in the realm of reasonable
But that also can be debated. There is more to consider than amount of articulation, size, transformation, or number of parts being used. We must also consider that Hasbro has many other aspects to their toy engineering that limit what they can and can't practically make. The main and IMO most obvious one is that Hasbro isn't aiming for adult collectors, they're aiming at kids. That does not
necessarily include the detail they put on the figure, but the aesthetics of the figure, the pricing, and the safety of the toy.
Hasbro has to adhere to modern-day toy safety standards, which hinder the construction of a toy a lot.Sharp parts need to be dulled or configured for less risk to the young consumers. The toys have to survive drop tests so parts won't fly off and injure or kill a random bystander. The toy mustn't look like a weapon to a law enforcement officer so the wielder of the toy won't get shot in self-defense.
But there's more. The toys must be set at a price that appears affordable to the average parent. Most parents won't bother with a 6-inch robot toy if it costs too much, no matter how good an adult collector might think it looks. The toy also has to be easy to understand for the average consumer, which helps on designing costs.
And considering all those rules, let's take a look at Fall of Cybertron Bruticus again. Okay, modern day 5-bot combiner with at least deluxe-sized component bots, check. An average-level of modern-day articulation on both component bots and all combined formations, check. A "scramble city"-type gimmick that raises play value and chances of completing a full combined form, check. Zero combiner kibble so consumers won't lose a whole giant robot if they lose a piece while playing, check. Component weapons combine, check. Cheap enough for parents to buy(not to mention the components all looking different), check. Plenty of colors to choose from, check.
Considering all of the rules Hasbro engineers had to adhere to while making a modern-day combiner, yes, it could be debated whether or not it has better engineering than 3rd-party combiners. Consider if the 3rd-party engineers worked for Hasbro, limited by the same rules. What are the odds that they could come up with something better?