PDA

View Full Version : Visual fidelity vs engineering


GoktimusPrime
8th June 2009, 04:09 PM
Which do you prefer? A toy that is more movie/show-like (or "accurate") but is not as well engineered, or a toy that is better engineered but is not as movie/show-like?

This poll was inspired by the Revenge of the Fallen Constructicons and Devastator. In this case, we're getting toys that are (supposedly) more movie-accurate, but at the expense of design/engineering because they're unable to produce one set of Constructicons who are able to transform and combine like every other Transformers gestalt can.

So do you actually prefer this, or would you prefer movie-accuracy being sacrificed for the sake of better designed/engineered toys? In this case, having one set of Constructicons who can transform and combine, but are not as visually movie accurate.

For me I prefer better engineered toys over movie-accuracy. For this reason I've decided to sell my Robot Replica Frenzy and keep my FAB Frenzy. FAB Frenzy is not as movie-accurate as RR Frenzy, but IMHO it's an infinitely better toy than RR Frenzy.

I suppose a significant factor for my taste in toys is the fact that I want to be able to enjoy playing with them. My toys are playthings first and display items second. If the toy's not as fun to play with, then I just don't like them as much.

So vote away! :)

MV75
8th June 2009, 04:21 PM
I dunno, I'd have to say both.

Cybertron nailed it. It freaking nailed it. Engineering and visual accuracy. It's the best cartoon:toy we've ever had, and it seems ever will.

jaydisc
8th June 2009, 04:26 PM
As with everything, it's all about the balance.

Tetsuwan Convoy
8th June 2009, 04:28 PM
I would say for the movie series, probably visual accuracy. Dunno why, its just the way I feel. Probably stems from me seeing the toys as "toys of the movie", not the movie being a "movie of the toys" if that makes any sense.

Any other series, engineering.

Doubledealer
8th June 2009, 04:30 PM
I voted for 'I prefer better visual likeness over engineering'.

The Transformers Animated line is my favourite by far and I'd be disappointed if the toys didn't match their on-screen counterparts as accurately as they do. Fortunately I don't think TFA sacrifices anything to achive this so you get the best of both worlds (great engineering & on-screen likeness). Furthermore, I don't 'play' with my TF'ers as such. Sure, I enjoy transforming them a few times but for the most part I have them on the shelf and admire them like the masterpieces they are. :p

I think Devastator is a bit of an unfair example as it's a rare case.
Obviously I'd love it if the deluxe/voyagers could combine into one megabot but we're not afforded that luxury for whatever reason. Despite this, I still enjoy the constructicons (well 2/3) for the play value that is there and also for their cool looks. Are they screen accurate? Judging from what I've seen of Demolishor in the trailer, they seem to be!

Deceptic_Optic
8th June 2009, 04:49 PM
I voted for 'I prefer better visual likeness over engineering'. As long as you can still transformed them. And beside I like my toys to be as accurate visually because it gives you the satisfaction that it actually looks like in the movies. Again as long as you can transform them it don't need to be well engineer

kurdt_the_goat
8th June 2009, 05:00 PM
I don't plan on getting all of the Constructicons myself... just the ones i'm fond of. I think you should consider that Demolisher would probably still be a sucky toy even if he combined - it's not like all combiner limbs are inherently great toys, usually the opposite :)

I think Hasbro just made the decision that will get them the most dollars - rabid fans of Devastator will likely buy the voyager/deluxes, legends set and the standalone beast.

You've commented in a lot of threads about your disappointment with Demolisher - did you read or watch reviews before buying? $50 a pop isn't cheap enough to buy without lengthy consideration IMO.

Personally, being a net freak, i gobble up info faster than i can find it.. video reviews certainly provide ample material to make an informed decision. There is the element of spoiling the toy of course, but in that case there are usually other, less spoilerific impressions of the toys on the web. And the enjoyment of a good toy lasts much longer than the initial impression that may be lost by watching a video review.

GoktimusPrime
8th June 2009, 05:24 PM
the only review i've seen of a rotf toy i dont have is your ha bumblebee review, otherwise i haven't exposed myself to any reviews of toys i dont have. the only other rotf i've seen is vid review on leader prime cos i wanted help w/ tforming the chest (was afraid 2 break it) :)

kurdt_the_goat
8th June 2009, 05:34 PM
After just having your baby (congrats btw!), i would've imagined you'd be even more concerned about spending money on toys you ultimately aren't happy with. Or your wife being concerned, i know mine would be :o

Paulbot
8th June 2009, 05:58 PM
Non-combining Constructicons toy is going to be the issue of the year isn't?! :rolleyes:

Lord_Zed
8th June 2009, 06:00 PM
I'd have to say both, though in the case of the movie though visual fidelity might just rate a little higher for me. Its not so much visual accuracy though as getting the movie asthetics right, the best toys do this while others fall short. I'm not a fan of the FAB Frenzy (though I don't have the Robot Replica either) While its nice how he transforms he just doesn't look like one of the movie bunch to me. I'm a big fan of the new Leader Prime and Voyager Starscream because I think they nailed the look and feel of the characters without compromising on engineering.

Ofcourse in no way does that mean I'm a fan of Movie Combiner Class Devestator. As stated before he is an extreme example. I don't think I will get him. That said I don't think I will get the TomyTakara Legends Combiner either. I'm not really all the compelled to get one of every character who appears in the movie, I'm more likely to get them if they complement the ones I already have.

Although if I get really excited........................................... ...

GoktimusPrime
8th June 2009, 06:11 PM
Thank you. :) Excuse my typing in my last post - I was holding baby in one hand and typing with the other, hence lack of capitalisations, some punctuation and use of some unconventional abbreviations. :p

I pre-budgeted for the movie toys and saved up for them months ago. So none of my RotF acquisitions are denting the budget, save for the Scouts which I hadn't accounted for (the problem with trying to avoid spoilers and plan far ahead for acquisitions has proven somewhat self-defeating :p). But they're relatively cheap enough that it won't effect me that much. :) I want to get all the characters who appear in the movie. I initially got Preview Bumblebee so I can have a copy of Bumblebee's modified car mode in RotF, but yesterday I got Legends RotF Bumblebee, so I'm gonna be selling my Preview Bumblebee.

As far as the Constructicons are concerned, I want to get the toys for each individual Constructicon so I can have proper Constructicons that can transform from robot to vehicle. For Devastator, I really can't justify forking out for Zordastator, especially with a new bub, so I'm just gonna get the Legends one.

As for what people are saying about balance - while I agree with this sentiment, I think the definition of a "good balance" possibly varies from fan to fan. What I think is a fair trade off might not be acceptable to someone else and vice versa. :)

Non-combining Constructicons toy is going to be the issue of the year isn't?!
It's almost like Action Masters all over again; a line of Transformers that didn't transform and proved unpopular. Now we have a team of combiners who don't combine - and the Transformers who can combine, can't transform! At the end of the day, sales figures will prove if Hasbro was right to make this decision or not. Either way, I'm not a fan of it.

I'm a big fan of the new Leader Prime and Voyager Starscream because I think they nailed the look and feel of the characters without compromising on engineering.
*nods* I'm waiting for the new Voyager Starscream to come out with a better paint scheme. I'd be all over that toy if they released it with the colours of Deep Space Starscream!

GoktimusPrime
8th June 2009, 06:41 PM
I know. Last time the movie came out I just let the toys hit the shelves and picked them up as I saw them and I eventually got them all. This time because I knew I had bub coming up, I didn't want to fall into the situation where I'd be strapped for cash and can't afford to buy the toys I want only to hunting for them later. Hunting sucks and even more so when you have less free time to do it! So I prepared myself by just slowly saving up for the RotF toys for the last few months. In order to do that I had to take peeks into threads and web pages about RotF toys - and yeah, along the way I hit a few spoilers... c'est la vie.

For the next movie I'd appreciate it if someone could just post a list of all the characters appearing in the movie and what toys will be available for those characters, lest I'll just have to go dancing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFvCdMfKiyo) through the minefield again! :D

snazzbot 101
8th June 2009, 06:42 PM
I do wish the bug up people about Devs would stop crawling and just DIE.

There's no doubt Hasbro could've engineered six (?) Deluxes and a Voyager to transform and merge into one mighty robot. Could they have done all that and sold them in a one box and sell him for an appropriate (read: profitable) price? No. Could they do the same but sell them individually (not just put them on shelves - physically sell them)? No.

To me much of what Hasbro does is about Balance and Sacrifice. ROTF Leader Prime is amazing. Engineering? Incredible. Likeness? Fantastic. Paint Apps? Hmmm... not so much. There's the sacrifice. Is it worth it. I reckon so.

(I also reckon alot of other movie toys needed to make some sacrifices to get that Prime on the shelf. He's all sorts of WOW)

For Devastator they wanted a big-box toy that would sell. Sure, he doesn't conform to what various online man-children believe a Transformer "Must Be." He is what he is - a robot who will dwarf most other movie figures a kid might own. The fact he also a number of toy cars is a bonus.

Personally I don't like the figure/s. I could live with the lack of third modes but the other sacrifices made to shoehorn him into one box/one pricepoint mean I'm... just... not... feeling it. He's big and he's got a sound chip and that's about it. That doesn't appeal to me (not with that Clone Wars Turbo Tank on the horizon). :)

Seraphim Prime
8th June 2009, 07:12 PM
Okay, it's a difficult question to answer.

With the lines at the moment where we have toys from a movie/cartoon rather than a movie/cartoon from toys, I prefer visual likeness.

Although I am disappointed if the engineering isn't that great, as it does become a bit of a let down.

However, the point is moot to a certain degree, as in order to get the desired visual likeness in both forms we have to have decent engineering. Sor far, in my opinion, the recent toys have had a good balance of both engineering and visual style. There is the Devastator (or is it Brawl? :P ) issue, but for me it more about the lack of engineering in the Devastator mould as opposed to the fact that it's not 6 toys that combine and transform.

SilverDragon
8th June 2009, 07:31 PM
While visual likeness is a plus, I understand that some sacrifices have to be made to achieve a good toy.

I'd say I like both, with no obvious bias in either direction.


Cybertron nailed it. It freaking nailed it. Engineering and visual accuracy. It's the best cartoon:toy we've ever had, and it seems ever will.

That's 'cause they scanned the toys in and made 3D models out of them without changing them. Hence why Evac's character model contains the button that spins his rotor blades, and why Optimus Prime's hands are visible in truck mode.

GoktimusPrime
8th June 2009, 10:01 PM
To me much of what Hasbro does is about Balance and Sacrifice.
I agree. And having said that, when I look at my Demolishor and Rampage, I'm just not seeing a balanced sacrifice being made. If these Constructicons aren't going to be able to combine, then they ought to be really good toys. But I don't think they are... so to me it feels like the sacrifice wasn't worthwhile. Where is the awesomesauce in these toys?

Your mention of RotF Leader Optimus Prime is a good example of a toy where balanced sacrifices were made ('cept for the blades; that bugs me. The toy is otherwise sweet as and I can forgive its other shortcomings). It has a good balance of engineering and visual fidelity.

Vector Sigma 13
8th June 2009, 10:15 PM
Hunting sucks and even more so when you have less free time to do it!

I really enjoy my hunting time now because i dont get much time to do it.:D

liegeprime
8th June 2009, 11:12 PM
always remember the factor whi8ch may be the biggest culprit for any toy you guys may think as shoddy --- TIME CONSTRAINT..... for all the tech they have its only 1 freakin year to get all these toys ready and as Griffin has already said - its BAY......who know how many changes he did before approving a final version the designers could use as a template... and even with that, could the designs be FEASIBLE to translate into toys and not look like bits of plastic stuck together ( which frankly a few of the bots look like so) So as much as we'd like there's really a slim chance Dev would get a better version unless they re-do him - just like how theyve redone Starscream - but Im still waiting on better paint apps on this version. Tats look messy for me.:rolleyes:

Lord_Zed
8th June 2009, 11:13 PM
*nods* I'm waiting for the new Voyager Starscream to come out with a better paint scheme. I'd be all over that toy if they released it with the colours of Deep Space Starscream!

I actualy like the tatoos, had he been released without them in dull grey colours then I would have passed on him at first glance, but the novelty of the markings interested me, and then he turned out to be a sweet mould to.

Plus they make him look mean in botform.

A deepspace metalic painted variant would be cool to though, the mould is good enough that I may well buy an inevitable seeker repaint.

kup
9th June 2009, 12:18 AM
I chose the Gobots because my answer is much more balanced than the two absolutes given in the poll.

Both engineering and character recognisability go hand in hand - The TF1 Movie toys nailed the balance pretty well - The Autobots were not very movie accurate (far from it) but the characters were still very much recognizable at the same time as being well engineered such as Ratchet, Bumblebee and Ironhide.

i_amtrunks
9th June 2009, 09:43 AM
As with everything, it's all about the balance.

Very true.

I like my toys to at least look somewhat similar to the character they are trying to be, but of course 100% accuracy is not possible. Even if a toy looked 100% like it's show's counterpart, if the toy was made horribly, then I would not pick it up, thus I vote for engineering over visual fidelity.

GoktimusPrime
9th June 2009, 10:01 AM
That's the problem we had with Beast Machines - the show models were so toy-inaccurate that it turned people off the franchise. Compare the first BM Optimus Primal toy (http://i1.ebayimg.com/07/i/000/89/45/c7bd_1_b.JPG) with his show appearance (http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/transformers/images/a/aa/Optimusprimalbm.jpg). They released more show (http://www.freewebs.com/ultraconvoy/DSC01656.JPG)-like (http://www.tfarchive.com/toys/techspecs/beast-era/2001__Tank_Drone.jpg) toys (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3610/3531416715_0757162e93.jpg) later on, but by that time it was too little too late.

Something that SilverDragon pointed out is the toy-accuracy of the show models on Cybertron/Galaxy Force because the animators created the show models based on 3D scans of the toys. Mainframe Entertainment also did the same thing when they created Beast Wars, although they took the liberty of making creative refinements of those scans (like giving Blackarachnia curves! ;)), but on the whole Beast Wars had pretty decent toy-accuracy too.

I wonder how well toys like movie Devastator/Constructicons would sell if they were just released as toys without a movie to help market it. A well designed toy will sell like hotcakes, even without a cartoon, comic or movie to help market it (although those things certainly do help!). Remember when RiD first hit shelves here? The cartoon hadn't aired yet, but the toys flew off shelves! Conversely Beast Machines toys continued to shelf-warm even after the cartoon came out (although only being on FoxTel probably didn't help). Transformers Animorphs shelfwarmed epically despite being part of a big book franchise with a TV show.

Sky Shadow
9th June 2009, 01:42 PM
So do you actually prefer this, or would you prefer movie-accuracy being sacrificed for the sake of better designed/engineered toys? In this case, having one set of Constructicons who can transform and combine, but are not as visually movie accurate.

Gok, I think what you want and what you say you want aren't exactly the same thing. On one hand, you say you'd prefer to have better engineered toys than having them like they are in the movie. On the other hand, you're saying you'd prefer that the toys combine like they do in the movie, even if combination sacrifices the quality of the individual toy. Having toys combine does generally diminish the other aspects of a toy. Scramble City limbs... Energon Autobots... Energon Dinobots... Safeguard... as soon as you add a combining aspect to toys, other facets of the toy (certain bits of articulation, not having excess floppy kibble, not being crap, etc.) disappear. Saying one wants the Constructicon toys to combine just because they do it in a movie is like saying the G1 Hot Rod toy's hand was meant to turn into a buzzsaw.

I believe entirely in the engineering of the toy over all else. I've never been one to care if a Transformers toy looks anything like its namesake in a cartoon, comic or movie. My favourite 1984 Autobot car is Ratchet. I don't care that my Carnivacs or Nightbeat have robot heads that look nothing like their comics namesakes - for me it doesn't mean for a moment that they're not the same characters. I find it droolingly insane when people call their G1 Frenzy toys 'Rumble'. I adore my e-Hobby Orion Pax (a recoloured G1 Kup) and I will praise Takara for the day when they release an eHobby Chromedome in Arcee colours. I cringe whenever people 'modify' their toys to make them more cartoon (or whatever) accurate - I feel like the toys are being defaced. For me, I would just want TakaraTomy to make the best toys they can, I don't give a hang how much or how little they look like their celluloid counterparts or if they combine just because they can do it in the movies.

GoktimusPrime
9th June 2009, 01:56 PM
hmm... I don't recall saying that I wanted the toys to combine 'like in the movie' - I just want them to be able to combine. Preferably with the 'correct' Transformer as the right body part (e.g.: Mixmaster as the head), but in terms of how they achieve this etc., I don't really care if it's movie accurate or not.

I believe entirely in the engineering of the toy over all else. I've never been one to care if a Transformers toy looks anything like its namesake in a cartoon, comic or movie.
That's what I meant, but better articulated. :)

snazzbot 101
9th June 2009, 07:56 PM
[To me much of what Hasbro does is about Balance and Sacrifice.

I agree. And having said that, when I look at my Demolishor and Rampage, I'm just not seeing a balanced sacrifice being made. If these Constructicons aren't going to be able to combine, then they ought to be really good toys. But I don't think they are... so to me it feels like the sacrifice wasn't worthwhile. Where is the awesomesauce in these toys?

It seems they don't even try sometimes doesn't it.

Demolisher is particularly disappointing to me because the design appeared innovative and compelling. But I can't help but think the toy was perhaps designed to be a Deluxe but was upsized and pushed into the first Wave. The trailers do point to him having some sort of feature role. And he's definitely distinctive. And that would explain many things, including his lack of action features. Working shovel? He's a tripod of ass.

Ironhide63
9th June 2009, 09:36 PM
Non-combining Constructicons toy is going to be the issue of the year isn't?! :rolleyes:

not for me...im still getting the Supreme Devastator, and Legends, and all of the available Constructicons. I see why the no-robot mode combiners is a problem but hey, you're really getting it for the Devastator mode aint ya?
Sure we'd all like to get them all in one but life sucks...
If you get lemons...make lemonade.

SilverDragon
9th June 2009, 10:03 PM
I wonder how well toys like movie Devastator/Constructicons would sell if they were just released as toys without a movie to help market it. A well designed toy will sell like hotcakes, even without a cartoon, comic or movie to help market it (although those things certainly do help!). Remember when RiD first hit shelves here? The cartoon hadn't aired yet, but the toys flew off shelves! Conversely Beast Machines toys continued to shelf-warm even after the cartoon came out (although only being on FoxTel probably didn't help). Transformers Animorphs shelfwarmed epically despite being part of a big book franchise with a TV show.

I think there would be other factors which caused Beast Machines to shelfwarm besides the toys not looking like their on-screen personas (e.g. the cartoon failed to really reach it's target audience, toys were pretty much 'stand up and switch heads' from what I've heard, etc), but that's a topic unto itself.

GoktimusPrime
9th June 2009, 10:43 PM
Oh yeah, it wasn't the only factor... but the lack of toy-accuracy in the show certainly didn't help! :)

Golden Phoenix
9th June 2009, 11:11 PM
I think looks are more important.
A toy can have weak engineering but if it looks decent enough then I'll still grab it. Universe Ultra Silverbolt is one of these. He looks pretty good in both modes, but he is a "oh I fell down" transformations. But he looks good enough so I think I'll still grab him for the right price.

On the other hand, no amount of engineering wonder will help me pick up some toys. The movie toys are like this for me. Some have great engineering but I ain't gonna have that sitting on my shelf

dirge
10th June 2009, 05:04 PM
Engineering for me always wins. I'd prefer some shortcomings in visual accuracy than a simple toy which looks like the film/cartoon but is ridiculously simple.

Of course balance is important - Cybertron & BW _did_ strike a good balance here. The ROTF Constructicons might provide visual accuracy in one sense but through failing to combine (or convert to robots, if you like), they end up sacrificing movie likeness in another way...

Engineering is linked to likeness in that respect. Another example - how many BW fans lamented that Rhinox's toy lacked a chain gun?

I can appreciate that there'll always be compromises, and ideally I'd like to see balance, but I'd still favour engineering over accuracy. In the case of Devastator, I don't see balance nor the level of engineering I'd like.

STL
16th June 2009, 12:09 AM
While not always true, I do prefer visual accuracy over engineering where it involves a character that should have a certain look in both modes and its necessary to sacrifice the transformation. Case in point, Classics 2.0 Silverbolt. I love the visual accuracy but hate the transformation (if you could call it that).

I think I get less picky about visual accuracy once it progresses to non-G1 toys. I don't really care although it does help.

Saintly
16th June 2009, 11:44 AM
it varies... sometimes i prefer accuracy, sometimes engineering

Hereticpoo
16th June 2009, 01:54 PM
Visual for me. And saying that its the toys look I go for. Show or Movie accuracy be is not so important for me. If I don't like the look in only one of the modes I won't buy it. I think the purpose of your collection determines peoples choices too. IE I'm a displayer, sometimes I won't touch my TF's for months except maybe to change a pose or to dust. Other people enjoy the play aspect more, which the classics line is perfect for. There's so many variables that determine a persons preferences. Visual vs Engineering is a very purist question Gok ;) But a good topic.

Examples,

ROTF will probably only buy HA BB and leader prime.

I love the Darkwing / Silverbolt repaint bot mode but the engineering of the alt mode and simplicity of the transformation make it a toy I don't need.

MP Megatron is very complex and has some mind numbing engineering, but it looks good in both modes. I need it!

MP Grimlock is simple engineering wise, but the bot and alt mode are nice. Another need to have!

GoktimusPrime
16th June 2009, 02:16 PM
HA BB
...sounds like you're hitting on me in Lebanese! :)

Fat Pizza'd! :p

shokwave2
30th June 2009, 02:24 PM
I prefer visual over engineering. I don't play with my collection, it's there to look cool. That's why i also collect G1 busts and trying to collect other TF statues. Personally, they display better than a 3-coloured toy.

I'd love for a company to start making movie replica statues or busts. So much detail could be shown. Although my kids do ask to play with my collection everynow and then, and i let them when i feel like re-arranging my shelves. Thay are just toys after all.

GoktimusPrime
30th June 2009, 02:31 PM
Thay are just toys after all.
And toys are meant to be played with! Wheeeeee!! :D

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/Transfan%20Meets/Sydney%20Meet%20February%202008/th_sydmeet0209_04.jpg (http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/goktimusprime/Transformers/Transfan%20Meets/Sydney%20Meet%20February%202008/sydmeet0209_04.jpg)
roller and Goki doing some serious TF toy playing! Pow-pow! BOOM!

shokwave2
30th June 2009, 05:27 PM
And that's why i let my kids and any kids that come to our house play with them. I don't understand why people get angry when kids see their collection and want to play with them. Fair enough with G1 MIB TF's, or rare items, but opened Transformers should be man handled.

kurdt_the_goat
30th June 2009, 05:32 PM
I would let kids play with my toys if I had any confidence that they wouldn't get broken... but i don't, so... :p

GoktimusPrime
30th June 2009, 08:15 PM
I agree with kurdt -- the breakage factor worries me. Even when I was a kid I hated letting most other kids play with my toys because they often broke them! Most of my broken G1 toys were busted by other kids! Grrr! :(

One of my former colleagues has two boys and her rule with them playing with other people's toys was that they could never play with a toy that was older than them! :)

Nowadays when kids come over I don't mind them playing with my TFs; but only kids I know, and even then I enforce certain rules - like only one toy at a time. One of my wife's friend's son likes to take out a Transformer that he fancies, try to transform them, then loses patience halfway before abandoning it before moving onto another one. He'd do this forever if I didn't put my foot down and enforce the "one toy at a time" rule with him, because if I didn't after he'd leave I would be stuck transforming and packing away like 50 toys or so. :( I find girls are pretty good though - I don't need to impose rules for girls, they just use common sense.

Robzy
30th June 2009, 10:57 PM
Such a tough one to answer... but I went with engineering. As a G1 fan, I'm always impressed by how they actually make these things transform. They are, IMO, the single best action figure ever invented.

Having said that, I still love it when they make them cartoon/comic/movie accurate... it's just not as important to me.