The Soapbox V: What makes a good Transformer?

[SilverDragon]

Interesting.

I'd like to add to 'transformation' that a really good transformation can be one which results in two modes which you would have no idea transformed.

Example: TFA Blackarachnia. Also, Prowl, from the same series, but I haven't played with him, so I'll elaborate on BA instead.

Well, the visual features of the spider mode are a dead giveaway as to showing that it's a Transformer, but the transformation itself works so well and results in a startlingly show-accurate robot mode. It also doesn't leave anything just hanging around uselessly-the spider legs on the back look like they belong there (instead of, say, sticking them all on the arms) and the spider pedipalps (little purple fangs) form the robot waist.

[lcz128]

yep, love reading these everytime it comes out

Personlly I think Nostalgia and Newness shold be balanced as GP said New is as important as there is nostalgic characters - like how I'm really looking forward to drift!

[dirge]

I agree with most of your points, STL. I'm not quite so sure about the last one - I don't disagree with you, but I think it's beyond the scope of good/crap, more a case of having to sift through to find the best quality paintjob. It does have an impact on satisfaction, though.

One thing I'd add to the transformation: cleverness/elegance. Originality & complexity are important, but as SilverDragon pointed out, a simple transformation that's _clever_, and makes good use of something you might otherwise to expect to end up as kibble has a big impact. Blackarachnia & Prowl (the two toys he mentioned) remain the two Animated toys which impress me (and are amongst my small Animated collection) because both have very elegant transformations.

I agree with the "buyers remorse" thing. There are so many overly positive reviews out there (and not just of TFs), and reading between the lines you can see the reviewer is afraid to admit the subject matter probably wasn't worth what they paid for it.

[jaydisc]

A. Price
I don't think this affects my ratings.

B. Nostalgia
Yes, this can be a benefit, but as GP & LCZ said, change/variety/newness is at least of equal standing.

C. Character Appeal
Fiction-imposed criteria. I'm not really into fiction (a bit too child targeted for my taste), so this bears no weight for me.

D. Weapons/Gimmicks
This is pretty far-ranging. While well executed gimmicks can enhance a toy, an ill-conceived or unnecessary gimmick (most electronics), especially when provided at something else's sacrifice (weight/balance), can really annoy.

E. Scale
Another fiction-imposed criteria that has little to no bearing on me.

F. Transformation
F. Transformation
F. Transformation
This is what it's all about. And I was waiting for someone to mention "elegance". I'm a huge fan of all three aforementioned angles: Complexity, Originality and Elegance. I'm here to transform. Everything else is WAAAAAAYYYYY secondary.

G. Realism
As I've said in other places, I don't mind a futuristic or alien alt mode, and I don't think those two styles conflict with realism. What annoys me is when we're given an alt mode that is a badly executed attempt to be something we know. For lack of a better example, Cybertron Soundwave / Universe Blaster.

H. Articulation
This is something I care about, but way behind F.

I. Durability and J. Paint Applications.
While both of these do contribute to my greater enjoyment of a toy, I think it would take a substantial failing of both for it to lessen my enjoyment.

[STL]

Three words: value for money.

Give me a well designed Mini-Con over a poorly designed Supreme Class TF any day.

Well that's kinda the whole point of this Soapbox. To try and help us figure out what is value for money to us.

I would add "uniqueness". Sometimes a Transformer toy is good because it transforms into something so different to everything else or transforms in a unique way.

I agree that it's definitely of benefit but I couldn't see where to put this and feel that its somewhat unfair as how do you compare one car is unique compared to another? Its a very hard relative measure b/c BB08 is very different to RiD Prowl but I find both to be unique.

A. Price
I don't think this affects my ratings.

Liar! Or do u need your GPS to find the truth?

I. Durability and J. Paint Applications.
While both of these do contribute to my greater enjoyment of a toy, I think it would take a substantial failing of both for it to lessen my enjoyment.

Come on, you know you love durability.

I'm a huge fan of all three aforementioned angles: Complexity, Originality and Elegance. I'm here to transform.

I agree with most of your points, STL. I'm not quite so sure about the last one - I don't disagree with you, but I think it's beyond the scope of good/crap, more a case of having to sift through to find the best quality paintjob. It does have an impact on satisfaction, though.

One thing I'd add to the transformation: cleverness/elegance. Originality & complexity are important, but as SilverDragon pointed out, a simple transformation that's _clever_, and makes good use of something you might otherwise to expect to end up as kibble has a big impact. Blackarachnia & Prowl (the two toys he mentioned) remain the two Animated toys which impress me (and are amongst my small Animated collection) because both have very elegant transformations.

So with elegance, how exactly would you guys define it? I'm with it and like the idea of it completely but am not sure which character fits the bill. With TFA Blackarachnia, I find her transformation to be terribly simplistic and not elegant at all.

And which toys would you say are elegant?

[jaydisc]

Liar! Or do u need your GPS to find the truth?

I have TF that I've paid ridiculous amounts for that I love (anything from Botcon '07, some Henkei exclusives) and similar toys that I got for a steal that I also love (Universe Springer, much of Animated). So I don't think price affects enjoyment in my eyes.

Come on, you know you love durability.

Absolutely! But I'm not as inversely affected if it's not present.

So with elegance, how exactly would you guys define it? I'm with it and like the idea of it completely but am not sure which character fits the bill. With TFA Blackarachnia, I find her transformation to be terribly simplistic and not elegant at all.

And which toys would you say are elegant?

This is a great question, as already there are differences. To me, Animated BA is as elegant as Movie Scorponok.

On a quick perusal of my cabinet, here are a few:

Animated Bulkhead Voyager - If transformed in the right sequence, it's quick, mostly automatic and everything locks into place.
Cybertron/Movie Mudflap
Classics Mirage/Prime/Megatron/Seekers - all simple and effective.

After writing that, I might migrate my term from Elegant to Effective. The figures I'd refer to as Elegant/Effective have always been on the simpler, but clever side. Thus, I'm more down with effective now.

EDIT:

Actually, this is perfect:

There's also elegance, which is the ability to move from form A to form B with exactly the required amount of complexity and not one bit more. Elegance is an art and one of the joys of good design.

[Geminii]

Price - not really a factor. It might affect whether I'd _buy_ a given toy, but not my assessment of how good the toy itself is.

Nostalgia - not a huge biggie for me. I'm cool with new names and characters. Homages are pleasant to see, but I'll buy a good engineering design over a cruddy one no matter what the color scheme or head mold.

Character appeal - only right down at the cheap end. It's only worth a couple of dollars each way to me, and then only if I _really_ like the character.

Gimmicks/Weapons - don't like 'em, generally. I take the batteries out of my toys, hate 98% of auto-transformations or "unlock using another piece" designs, and in general anything which deliberately makes it hard to manually access some aspect of the toy. I prefer built-in weapons purely because of the logic of it, and am not a fan of most detachable (and therefore losable) accessories, although I'll grudgingly accept missiles and handheld weapons as they don't detract too heavily from the toy when they go missing.

Scale - doesn't bug me, but then again I don't tend to play with multiple toys together, pose them, do photocomics etc.

Transformation - here's the meat of it. A transformation has to feel _satisfying_, and exactly what that means can vary from toy to toy and person to person. Too simple and there's no feeling of accomplishment. Too complex and there's no joy from the arduous task. Too cosmetic and it feels more like a Sentai figure (magical transform!) than a Transformer. Not cosmetic enough and you get GoBots. There's also elegance, which is the ability to move from form A to form B with exactly the required amount of complexity and not one bit more. Elegance is an art and one of the joys of good design.

Realism - not so much regarding whether an altmode looks like a currently available real-life vehicle, but whether it looks like it _could_ be real. Detailing and color is a part of this, but there are also macrodesign issues. Is a flying altmode a smooth sweep of aerodynamic lines or a brick with winglets and a nosecone? Does a ground mode have a capable set of wheels or three rollerskates and a pegleg? Could the altmode be easily imagined to be able to do certain jobs better than the robot mode, or is it something like a wheelbarrow or Rubik's Cube?

Articulation - not absolutely necessary (hey, I collected G1), but a welcome addition if it's there. Excellent articulation is worth a couple of extra dollars - look at how many people were happy with Classics Mirage.

Durability - for me, not a factor above "Will it stand on a shelf for ten years and maybe be transformed a couple dozen times without spontaneously disintegrating or parts falling off?", as I don't buy for kids and I don't smash my Transformers together while going "pew! pew! pew!" That said, I appreciate slightly heavier/thicker plastic, especially on moving parts.

Paint apps - I'm not bugged by them. As long as the character aspects are recognisable and it doesn't look like they lost a paintball tournament, I'm OK with it.

[STL]

There's also elegance, which is the ability to move from form A to form B with exactly the required amount of complexity and not one bit more. Elegance is an art and one of the joys of good design.
t.

That's a great nailing of elegance that I can completely follow. I'd been thinking about it but little had come to mind.

And a very insightful post too. Lots of good stuff in there

[Geminii]

I'd been thinking about it a bit more since the advent of the Alternators. For where the car panels end up in robot mode, there's just far, far too many moving parts on some of the designs.

This isn't to say that minimalism equals perfection per se: toys like Throttlebots and Firecons (and some Minicons) have very few parts but their modes suffer for it.

Perhaps the definition should be that elegance is the minimal number of parts or movements required to achieve a given effect, and is more of a factor as the effect in question becomes more awesome.

Perhaps there's some kind of awesomeness-to-item ratio...

[kurdt_the_goat]

I think a transformation is most clever when you have to move X piece here *while* moving Y there. It's more common and comparatively simple to just move X piece here, before you can move Y piece there.