-Kanrabat- wrote:Rated X wrote:I would be inclined to think that when a figure is as intricate as these 5 you picked, theyre not considered a "shellformer". To me personally a "shellformer" is more of a derogatory term for a robot that wears 80% of his alt mode on his back as a backpack. These figures you picked dont fit that definition. If we go by the logic youre using virtually all CHUG autobot cars would be shellformers because the hood, roof, and doors form a sort of "shell" over robot parts. Actually shell forming in the 90s was the nail in the coffin for "bricks" which is a good thing. It just takes a good engineer to incorporate the right amount of shell-forming and brick-forming into one figure so that it isnt too much of either extreme. I would call these figures you picked "complex" rather than calling them shellformers. Thats just my opinion.
For once, I agree with you. Not at 100%, but you got a serious point here about the cars.
Panels hanging off the arms. Panels hanging off the arms everywhere.
To me it all depends on how the shell is used, really. The traditional "Hood-for-a-chest-and-doors-for-wings" is a perfect example because the shell is used as decoration for the Robot Mode without getting in the way. Another example would G1 Scourge's Hull-for-Wings and to a lesser extent, Cybertron Thunderblast. Some figures can completely fold up the shell, with Vehicon even integrating it into the legs.
When kibble is assigned to a place just for the sake of putting it somewhere, that's when something is wrong. Beast Wars Neo and the RiD Cars are especially guilty of that, though figuress with symmetric kibble are easier on the eye, like BW Neo Saberback and RiD Prowl.
)
