The Energon Pub

News Credits: 767 · by **Dead Metal** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:18 pm

OK I want you to think before you post on this topic!
Do joints destroy playvalue?

Some how I think they do!
Look at the old G1 toys, they were bricks, they could move there arms, if you were lucky and that was it mostly.

But for that you had lots of accessories.

We had to emagen them doing poses and stuff like that.

While the new toys have mostly super articulation

I watched my little brothers play with Transformers and noticed one thing, they don't care about articulation, nether did we back in the days, or did we?!
They were just bricks, that stood there, today they can be posed in various poses.
That is good for displaying them, but doesn't ad much to the playing.
When kids play they take it with there hands and puch them about and lift there arms to say "I shot yours!"
They don't need articulation, and sometimes my brothers stopped playing with a certain toy cos it was to hard to let him stand up, which was due to the joints being loose.

So do joints ad something to playing, or do they take something away?

As a collector I don't care about playing with them anymore, I just pose them in a cool pose :grin:

News Credits: 3 · by **DISCHARGE** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:32 pm

Personally I like that I can make Megatron crush Autobot's
heads and not have to hold on to him.
But yeah, I don't think kids care either way.

Interestingly enough my 7 year old is standing right here.
As I was scrolling through the pics on this page
she commented that each pic of Optimus looked like the one she has, which is DVD Prime. The only one she didn't think looked like Prime was the Cybertron one. She is always loosing the head or feet to that on too. Kids don't care about the articulation as long as it looks like the character.

News Credits: 8 · by **Liege Evilmus** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:39 pm

I understand your point, and as someone who was around for G1 and has many figures, I can say joints definetly do add to the playability facter.

Kids may not apreciate it, but kids are stupid.

I love the G1 figures, but even as a kid who'd have Transformers and GI Joe interact all the time, I always wish the robots could do more like the Joe's did.

The bots I used most where Prime, Jetfire and Metroplex because in the few figures I had, they had the best range in movement.

Still I loved the idea of having 2 toys in one which realy kept my love for this line. If it wasn't for post G1 figures like Laser Prime, or the early BW figures with attention put into articulation, I probably wouldn't have gotten back into bots as I pretty much ignored G2(execpt Laser Prime).

Just to one up this, I'm buying more figures today that I wish I had back then. A couple months back I recieved SixShot after years of waiting. I was very dismayed by the fact that even a 6changer had no elbows, and for some reason guide bars in his lower legs to eliminate the chance of individual knees.

So to wrap this up, I love G1 and spend way more on it than I should, but I'm a strong fan of modern toy tech to the point where I frown on modern figures with limited range as there is no reason for it anymore(looking at you Armada Megs, Prime, and Cybertron scout SkaterShot).

And yes, pretty much all the kids I know that are into bots prefer the possable ones to the bricks.

by **thedistinctroom** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:46 pm

What about smoking joints near yr toys? I've heard about cigerettes yellowing the plastic, but does pot smoke make the plastic green? Just kidding. :-P

Actually, to be serious for a moment... the lack of articulation on earlier Transformers did bother me a bit, especially with G1 Metroplex not being able to bend his knees appropreately. Also, God Ginrai and Star Convoy are total bricks. But nowadays, I like the lack of articulation in the old bots.

News Credits: 767 · by **Dead Metal** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 2:46 pm

Hem interesting, two replies, two different statements.

Yes I do prefer articulation, since I no longer play with them, but as a kid I never really cared how good they could move, just as long as they could lift a arm to shoot.

Edit, OK 3 statements.

Oh I think Ginray is most excellent, I would love a articulated version of him anytime, but I'm really happy with him at the mo.

Oh and the thing with the grass, that was funny, must spell it correctly now.

News Credits: 387 · by **Nekoman** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 3:04 pm

I think joints add to play value, lets your imagination into your toys.

News Credits: 7 · by **Geekee1** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:19 pm

I can actually remember wishing for more articulation in my toys as a kid. But it's kind of funny, because now I look at all of my bricks fondly and love how simple some of them are!

News Credits: 4 · by **Bumblethumper** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:28 pm

I think you're onto something. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately.

One thing that added articulation can do is it over-complicates the transformation. I like to pose my transformers, but more than that I like to transform them back and forth.

As I see it, there are 3 types of transformations.

a. Overly simple transformations. G1 Goldbug for example.
b. Overly complex transformations. Anything that takes more than 10 minutes on the first attempt.
c. Satisfying transformations.

C is a little more difficult to define and is very much a matter of personal taste. Transformation shouldn't be either dead obvious nor overly complex, but it's not as simple as a happy medium between the two. It has a lot to do with the tactile quality of the toy, the use of diecast parts, and the way joints slide or rotate and click into place.

by **tentagil** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:17 pm

I liked a fair amount of articulation in my toys as a kid, but then I tended to set up massive bases on either side of the room with all my toys, G.I. Joes, Transformers, He-Man, all joined together in armies. Then once they were all set up I'd start the battle royal and start knocking them down. So being able to get neat poses was cool.

Allow me to say that Cobra often learned the had way that the bean bag mountain base was prone to being hit by giant body slam bombs that killed everybody.

News Credits: 1 · by **The Chaos Bringer** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:20 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJFaikldUJc

Bricks. But very fun bricks.

News Credits: 1 · by **Bonecrusher27** » Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:09 pm

Wouldn't joints be more important to a collector who wants to just display toys in a cool, pose?

As for play, I do agree that they needed a lot more imagination. A kick was just me lifting a toy up and then shoving another toy with the feet. Likewise a puinch.

But articulation is really important to some kids too. I remember when MOTU figures came out, the one thing I loved about them over the Star Wars figs were that they had these semi-flexed elbows and knees. Sure, to some it made them look like muscle-bound apes but to me and my bro it made them look action-packed and ready to kick ass. They had ball jointed hips which meant more poseability. Add the power punch feature meaning there was some waist articulation and we were over the moon!

That being said we started art very young, drawing all sorts of action poses so I daresay this would appeal more to some kids and not so much to others.

News Credits: 2 · by **bionic_radical** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:36 am

perhaps the application of joints and poses widen the horizon of the target market. more people get the happy face and that means more money for the corporation.

News Credits: 8 · by **Liege Evilmus** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:46 am

The Chaos Bringer wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJFaikldUJc

Bricks. But very fun bricks.

Terrific!

And I tell you what, again as a G1 fan(who's eagerly awaiting Dai Atlas' arival) give me a fraction of the extras those figures have, and I'd be willing to forfit articulation!

But realisticly, we can and should have both today, but it's a matter of cheapness and laziness on Has/Taks end(mostly the Has) that prevents ultra cool bots from emerging, yet still the cost of such being present anyhow :???:

by **schizophrenica** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 6:07 am

I prefer toys with more articulation.. As a kid my favourite toy was the Power Rangers Red Ranger action figure, the main reason being every part that should move can be moved.. I loved it so much that it is now white, has a leg broken at the knee and one arm missing.. Yet when I look at him now I can't help but smile and think about the past.. SUre he can't stand on his own but for me it was the articulation that really made that toy..

News Credits: 1 · by **Duke of Luns** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:34 am

Dead Metal wrote:Hem interesting, two replies, two different statements.

Yes I do prefer articulation, since I no longer play with them, but as a kid I never really cared how good they could move, just as long as they could lift a arm to shoot.

Yep, that's exactly how I was as a kid.

As for the topic at hand, I can see how it could destroy play value if an arm or leg or head that can easily be slipped off is lost, and the overly complicated transformations(like TM2 Megatron, Alternators) would limit playability.

But for me, it's the loss of accessories that kills playability somewhat. Your average Pretender was full of accessories, and has more play value to me than say, Energon Barricade, who has no accessories, but is wonderfully articulated.

News Credits: 7 · by **Omega Charge** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:12 am

I think articulation is great for play value. The only problem comes when the joints start to get extremely loose.

by **Lycantendencies** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:06 am

I don't think joints change anything.

When I used to play, my Trasnformers did things in my imagination that they still can't do.
They walked, they talked, they shrunk and grew, they fired lasers from their guns.
And when I spent two minutes Transforming multiple robots to roll out or whatever, it happened simultaneously and took less than a second.
Star Wars figures even fit inside Mini Autobots.

And when I've seen family play with TFs now, they play in the same way I did, with the figures static in reality, alive in their minds.

I think the only way joints improve playability for kids, is for those who like to set up a scene before playing.
That's the only time I felt lack of articulation.

News Credits: 127 · by **Counterpunch** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:16 am

Articulation is overrated.

News Credits: 1 · by **rpetras** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:51 pm

Ya know, there may be something to this.

Like a lot of folks I used to hold the brick-formers of old and kind of position them 'sort of' like they were punching or kicking or whatever.

On the other hand though, I do remember prefering the guys that were less bricky like prime and soundwave. When GI Joe came out I remember it blew away my less articulated Star wars guys. So maybe articulation did matter to me.

Nowadays when I play transformers with my nephew, he just bashes them around till they pop apart. Once all the joints get loose (or broken), he looses interest in that guy. I still have all my original stuff, but his stuff looks like a customizer's fodder bin.

So I guess maybe it depends on the kid?

by **thedistinctroom** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:01 pm

The Chaos Bringer wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJFaikldUJc

Bricks. But very fun bricks.

Hehe. Late G1 toys are my favorite! :grin:

by **Optimist Prime** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:44 pm

Articulation on some toys is pointless. If the upper body is too heavy or the joints too loose you end up with a Transformer that can't stand. I hated toys that couldn't stand on their own when I was a kid. All my G.I. Joes, He-Man and Ninja Turtle action figures took a backseat to my Transformers and even my Go-Bots. (Go K-Mart Transformers!)

News Credits: 1 · by **Creature SH** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:14 pm

I always wished for more articulated figures when I was a kid. I had one of those printed play-rugs and I used to make grandiose battle scene setups on it all the time. It really annoyed me that most figures couldn't do anything but stand up straight and point their guns right ahead.

News Credits: 4 · by **Bumblethumper** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:58 pm

When the first Transformers started showing up with ball and socket articulation, I have to say, I was very impressed. I think that was the tail end of G2, before Beast Wars.

Nowadays, I'd tend to side with this sentiment:

Counterpunch wrote:Articulation is overrated.

I don't think it's a bad thing, but I don't think it's always a good thing either. Sometimes it adds to a figure, a lot of times it subtracts.

News Credits: 767 · by **Dead Metal** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:44 am

Yes it seems to be up to the kid, if he likes them articulated or not.
My broes don't care all they do is bash them together.

by **rob_charb** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:03 am

As someone who spent the better of a decade addicted to Gundam models, I have a special place in my art for super-articulation when it comes to collecting. I love being able to put my guys (wether it be Gundam or Transformers) in amazing poses. That being said however, for play value, I'd take simple G1 bricks any day over the stuff we have now. Transforming the newer stuff can be a pain in the butt and when your a kid playing "blow the holy hell out of the enemy", every second counts. Spending 15 minutes trying to transform Optimus just so he can ran some Decepti-creeps kinda kills the play-mood.

Plus, the G1 stuff just seems tougher and longer-lasting to me. Honestly, how long would something like Movie Barricade or 08 BB last being smashed against each other?