Visual fidelity vs engineering

[kup]

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]

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]

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 with his show appearance. They released more show-like toys 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]

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]

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]

[

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]

Non-combining Constructicons toy is going to be the issue of the year isn't?!

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]

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]

Oh yeah, it wasn't the only factor... but the lack of toy-accuracy in the show certainly didn't help!

[Golden Phoenix]

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