Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

by **Ultra Markus** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:27 pm

Manterax Prime wrote:
Ultra Markus wrote:i would rather sacrifice posability and have all the figures look better than what we have going on here

What kind of reasoning is that? Anyone with sense would rather have posability over a brick! You'd rather have a brick?

so you actually like this?
http://cdn-ak.f.st-hatena.com/images/fo ... 154656.jpg

News Credits: 3 · by **Manterax Prime** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:50 pm

Well, its 100% better than a brick. And plus, I could care less about the back of a Transformers figure. People display them facing forward anyway.

Sacrificing articulation is what led to the BAD TOYS of the Armada and Energon lines. Remember those? That very statement of yours about sacrificing articulation for a gimmick is the main reason Armada Hot Shot and others are hated by many.

Who cares what the back looks like?

News Credits: 438 · by **Sabrblade** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:00 pm

Emerje wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
fenrir72 wrote:In others words, Saberblade is right Emerje. Unless you want to refer to MP or Encore or any pre 2007 Optimus Primes/Convoy, he is now and forever Optimus Prime.
I did forget to mention that MP and Encore are the sole exceptions.

Exactly. I wasn't trying to be a jerk or anything, just saying they aren't retroactivly renaming Convoy to Optimus Prime; the name is still in play for characters that were already named Convoy.

Emerje

Well... technically there are new versions of G1 Convoy, such as his United toys, that use the "Optimus Prime" name.

Beast Wars Convoy also got an "Optimus Primal" toy in United, too.

Ultra Markus wrote:LAME!!
i get the whole combining thing but these things all look too funky
i would rather sacrifice posability and have all the figures look better
than what we have going on here

The thing has FIVE modes, with only one of them suffering in any capacity. I fail to see how this is a travesty.

chuckdawg1999 wrote:I think I see now the legs extending into the chest area. Might just be me.

It's just you. The legs only go to his waist like they would on a normal figure, since this toy doesn't have a "pants mode" or "torso w/ head & arms" mode to require such long legs.

Ultra Markus wrote:its called common sense, having legs that go clear up to the head of the figure looks horrible

Well, it's a good thing there's none of that going on with this toy.

News Credits: 3 · by **Manterax Prime** » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:20 pm

Ultra Markus wrote:its called common sense, having legs that go clear up to the head of the figure looks horrible

i would rather have a cool looking robot than one that looks weird

anyone with sense would have a figure that looks good in robot and alt and combined form

1. That's when it's shown with it's back facing you, which does not make it horrible and is a stupid way to judge a figure. Anyone with common sense would know that the appearance from the front is more important on a toy. Issues with the back are merely nitpick worthy, not complaint worthy.

2. They don't really look that weird. In fact, they look rather cool!

3. Based on the reviews I've seen from those who have these guys in hand, they look good in all modes. They're not perfect, no, but so far, everyone I know of who owns these figures does recommend them. Again, nitpicks.

News Credits: 60 · by **fenrir72** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:24 am

Ultra Markus wrote:
Manterax Prime wrote:
Ultra Markus wrote:i would rather sacrifice posability and have all the figures look better than what we have going on here

What kind of reasoning is that? Anyone with sense would rather have posability over a brick! You'd rather have a brick?
so you actually like this?
http://cdn-ak.f.st-hatena.com/images/fo ... 154656.jpg

Not wanting to pile on you markus but, though I agree it looked kind of knocked up (pregnant), the Shinobi and Samurai sets are meant to be played merged. So yes, certain sacrifices were made in the transform /robot design.

Don't judge it yet.

And, my self fulfilling prophecy has begun, the "butt ugly" jokes are flowing again. Yet, despite its "ugliness" there's a lot of interest in him.

by **Heckfire** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:09 am

Huh...I kinda dig it. Won't commit either way until I see clearer pics of it, but it looks like a winner.

News Credits: 438 · by **Sabrblade** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:55 am

Manterax Prime wrote:Sacrificing articulation is what led to the BAD TOYS of the Armada and Energon lines. Remember those?

What? Articulation was brought back by Energon. Those were some really good if not great toys.

News Credits: 1 · by **RhA** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:30 am

Sabrblade wrote:
fenrir72 wrote:In others words, Saberblade is right Emerje. Unless you want to refer to MP or Encore or any pre 2007 Optimus Primes/Convoy, he is now and forever Optimus Prime.
I did forget to mention that MP and Encore are the sole exceptions.

Well, now we have to ban you.

News Credits: 60 · by **fenrir72** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:46 am

by **hinomars19** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:16 am

Sabrblade wrote:Or maybe as "Optimus Exprime" as a portmanteau pun on "Express" and "Prime".

Most likely that's what the Japanese name is intended to be. How it gets westernized however will remain to be seen (depends what fans take to, I guess)

All aboard the Optimus Exprime *whoot whooooooooooot*
C'mon who doesn't wanna ride that?

News Credits: 438 · by **Sabrblade** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:48 am

Or maybe "Optimus ExPrime" with a capital P.

We'll need to see the packaging to figure this one out.

Same with "Go Prime"/"GoPrime".

News Credits: 241 · by **Jelze Bunnycat** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:55 am

Sabrblade wrote:Or maybe "Optimus ExPrime" with a capital P.

The name on the packaging will be all capital letters. >:oP

Sabrblade wrote:Same with "Go Prime"/"GoPrime".

Or maybe "Gouprime", or even "Gohprime" :lol:

News Credits: 3 · by **Manterax Prime** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 5:03 pm

Sabrblade wrote:
Manterax Prime wrote:Sacrificing articulation is what led to the BAD TOYS of the Armada and Energon lines. Remember those?
What? Articulation was brought back by Energon. Those were some really good if not great toys.

I was not talking about all the figures in those lines.

by **Ultra Markus** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:02 pm

Manterax Prime wrote:
Ultra Markus wrote:its called common sense, having legs that go clear up to the head of the figure looks horrible

i would rather have a cool looking robot than one that looks weird

anyone with sense would have a figure that looks good in robot and alt and combined form

1. That's when it's shown with it's back facing you, which does not make it horrible and is a stupid way to judge a figure. Anyone with common sense would know that the appearance from the front is more important on a toy. Issues with the back are merely nitpick worthy, not complaint worthy.

2. They don't really look that weird. In fact, they look rather cool!

3. Based on the reviews I've seen from those who have these guys in hand, they look good in all modes. They're not perfect, no, but so far, everyone I know of who owns these figures does recommend them. Again, nitpicks.

i disagree with everything you said, but hey beauty is in the eye of the beholder. so have fun with yourself

News Credits: 438 · by **Sabrblade** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:29 pm

Think about it, without an official spelling yet made known, this toy's name could potentially be written in English in any of the following ways:

Optimus X Prime
Optimus X-Prime
Optimus XPrime
Optimus Xprime
Optimus X-prime
Optimus EX Prime
Optimus EX-Prime
Optimus EXPrime
Optimus EXprime
Optimus EX-prime
Optimus Ex Prime
Optimus Ex-Prime
Optimus ExPrime
Optimus Exprime
Optimus Ex-prime

And more.

News Credits: 60 · by **fenrir72** » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:30 pm

Sometimes, costs also factor in subliminally when one starts wanting a particular figure.

Given that I don't expect hasbro to release this domestically, this might cost a little more.

News Credits: 1 · by **RhA** » Tue Oct 22, 2013 2:49 am

Manterax Prime wrote: Anyone with common sense would know that the appearance from the front is more important on a toy. Issues with the back are merely nitpick worthy, not complaint worthy.

My common sense works differently when I look at women instead of toys.

I'm sorry, I just had to say that. Carry on.

by **noctorro** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:07 am

Manterax Prime wrote:
Ultra Markus wrote:i would rather sacrifice posability and have all the figures look better than what we have going on here

What kind of reasoning is that? Anyone with sense would rather have posability over a brick! You'd rather have a brick?

I think he meant, over articulation sucks.

Just like the Marvel Legends women, they all look horrible with the double joints and ball joints.

Posability level Transformers Cybertron is enough.
And a combiner needs to be made out of 5 dudes, not 3, not 2, not 4. All those were weak combiners. Build King was kind of acceptable.

I think the whole combination thing ruins the Transformers GO figures. My gawd do they look horrible with their head sized torsos.

by **noctorro** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:10 am

RhA wrote:
Manterax Prime wrote: Anyone with common sense would know that the appearance from the front is more important on a toy. Issues with the back are merely nitpick worthy, not complaint worthy.

My common sense works differently when I look at women instead of toys.

I'm sorry, I just had to say that. Carry on.

Yeah!

News Credits: 438 · by **Sabrblade** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:19 am

noctorro wrote:And a combiner needs to be made out of 5 dudes, not 3, not 2, not 4. All those were weak combiners. Build King was kind of acceptable.

News Credits: 1 · by **RhA** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:26 am

He never said there are NO OTHER combiners, just that he didn't like any with another number of members than 5.

News Credits: 438 · by **Sabrblade** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:05 am

RhA wrote:He never said there are NO OTHER combiners,

Never claimed he did.

News Credits: 1 · by **RhA** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:09 am

Sabrblade wrote:
RhA wrote:He never said there are NO OTHER combiners,
Never claimed he did.

Then what's the use of posting that buttload of combiners?

News Credits: 438 · by **Sabrblade** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:13 am

RhA wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
RhA wrote:He never said there are NO OTHER combiners,
Never claimed he did.

Then what's the use of posting that buttload of combiners?

In response to his claim of "combiners formed by a number of components that's different from 5 are weak".

News Credits: 1 · by **RhA** » Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:20 am

Sabrblade wrote:
RhA wrote:
Sabrblade wrote:
RhA wrote:He never said there are NO OTHER combiners,
Never claimed he did.

Then what's the use of posting that buttload of combiners?
In response to his claim of "combiners formed by a number of components that's different from 5 are weak".

That's an opinion, one I disagree with. He didn't claim there weren't any others, just that he didn't think the others are very good.