Transformers questions by newbies, and not-so-newbies

[nalops]

No, that's a seperate thing.

[DELTAprime]

Does anyone else really not like the parts formers that HasTak has been doing in the last couple of Generations lines?

I feel they are pretty damn lazy.

[Thurmus]

I don't like all of the empty holes/sections in limbs that have a couple of bars across for strength.

[JJJ]

Does anyone else really not like the parts formers that HasTak has been doing in the last couple of Generations lines?

I feel they are pretty damn lazy.

I don't care for it, but it doesn't piss me off, and I'm certainly not avoiding a toy because of it. And I can understand why they do it - in the last two lines Hasbro's designers have been more restricted in their design options than normal, because the whole War For Cybertron thing is "it looks kinda like the cartoon, but slightly modernised". This puts real limits on what they can design; couple that with their existing limits for budget and child safety requirements, and you start to see that rather than being the easy way out, parts-forming for some toys may well have been the only way out. Yes, Cliffjumper and Bumblebee quite obviously could have been done without parts-forming; we've had at least one 3d printed kit that proves it. But could those couple of extra parts have been incorporated whilst remaining within Hasbro's budget for a deluxe?

I have the same "really not an issue" approach to complaints about fake parts. Okay then, you don't like what they did with Earthrise Prime's midriff? Fine, you find another way to go from a wide and square truck front to a tapering abdominal section without going over budget. And that last part is why we get fake parts.

If you (the general you, not you you ) want it to look like it stepped off the screen, and have a near-magical transformation sequence that keeps everything together, then you'd better be prepared to pay a lot more for your toys. Right now, for the most part, Hasbro doesn't seem prepared to make that kind of toy (but are at least testing the waters, with SS86 Hot Rod). I would suggest investigating the work of Magic Square Toys.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

The Arcee/Elita-1 and upcoming Warpath ones definitely seem a little over the top on the partsforming, for sure. I don't mind it so much on the Cliffjumper/Bumblebee mold because at least it still stores in both modes and allows for different character models to be portrayed, but 'hey here's a shield/hoverboard' is a little bit overt, especially when the hoverboard doesn't really do anything to become the hoverboard. If it at least had a few panels that flipped out and made it look less like a bunch of alt-mode kibble then it wouldn't be so bad, but as it is...eh.

I'm glad they haven't tried it with the upcoming SS Scourge or Kingdom Blackarachnia, those character designs seem like they'd be ripe for shield-forming.

[JJJ]

Earthrise Arcee is a bad one, I'll grant that.

You could make the argument that they need to parts-form/shell-form in order to make it look like Arcee from the cartoon (the idiotic sexbot look), but having got my hands on an Animated Arcee I can no longer really accept that. Seeing how they did Cyberverse Wildwheel doesn't make it any better. It turns out that yes, you can incorporate the body and limbs of a slender bot into the actual substance of a vehicle if you want. I can't argue against budget issues (there would be a lot of parts and joints), but I think they could do it if they threw a bit more money at this one toy and less at a few others (which seems to be what they do in a line anyway; there's always at least one toy per line, sometimes per wave, that clearly got less attention and effort than the others).

[Tha_Phantom]

those character designs seem like they'd be ripe for shield-forming.

I really like this term.

[Tha_Phantom]

I don't care for it, but it doesn't piss me off, and I'm certainly not avoiding a toy because of it. And I can understand why they do it - in the last two lines Hasbro's designers have been more restricted in their design options than normal, because the whole War For Cybertron thing is "it looks kinda like the cartoon, but slightly modernised". This puts real limits on what they can design; couple that with their existing limits for budget and child safety requirements, and you start to see that rather than being the easy way out, parts-forming for some toys may well have been the only way out. Yes, Cliffjumper and Bumblebee quite obviously could have been done without parts-forming; we've had at least one 3d printed kit that proves it. But could those couple of extra parts have been incorporated whilst remaining within Hasbro's budget for a deluxe?

Yeah, all this. I did a parts count of ER Cliffjumper and as he is he has one of the highest parts counts for a deluxe, at least against what I compared it to. I suppose they could have ditched the weapon to give it the extra bits necessary to avoid shield-forming, but I feel like the weapon is a better choice in terms of giving people the perception of value, as not everyone understands how parts counts can affect the price of a toy. What I bet a lot of people don't realise is Siege Refraktor has a far lesser parts count than Cliffjumper, but nobody hesitated to buy three of those. Does being a head taller really make Refraktor a better figure in terms of value?

[High_Q]

My general rule is not to buy any parts-forming TF toy unless the original toy or animation model on which it's based partformed (e.g. Skytread, Omega Supreme). If it's not based on an existing toy/character, it just shouldn't parts-form.

[DELTAprime]

Do any of you have an easy way of remembering which of the two Decepticon cars is Runabout and which one is Runamuck? I always get them mixed up.