![[The Transformers Archive - an international fan site]](/common/skin/cardbackwide/tfarchive.png)
Shit, seriously? That's nearly as egregious as Scrapper's non-elbows at that size.Tantrum wrote:I thought I saw little wheels near Scavengers ankles in the pics Denyer linked to. But, I didn't see more in his upper legs, or any in Bonecrusher. I was hoping these guys would be like most tank bots, and be able to roll in vehicle mode. It also looks like Hook's crane can't swivel and Mixmaster's drum doesn't turn.
They're simple, sure. But they're simple in a good way. The transformations aren't complex but they're fully-articulated and they can pull off all four modes with reasonable success. The Constructicons are even simpler in spite of being bigger and only needing to pull off three configurations instead of four. Looking at, say, Scavenger or Mixmaster, I can't honestly say they'd be any fun on their own. Whereas Fireflight is fantastic in his own right and I'm perfectly happy even though I don't have anyone to combine him with.Tantrum wrote:I'm not too bothered by the simplicity. I don't want to spend half an hour going from combined mode to individuals because I've goy to do 6 intricate transformations. The CW limbs I've got so far (Alpha Bravo, Skydive, and Dragstrip) are simple, quick, and fun.
I guess? I just have a hard time divorcing value-for-money from the equation. I mean, if a terrible Devastator is worth $150 (actually, $180 for us), then surely an actually good Devastator would be worth more than that? I'm not a huge fan of the third-party Devastators either since they didn't even try to make the individual robots look like the Constructicons, but I'd certainly pay out for one of them way before I spent any money on the official one even though they cost double.Sades wrote:The way I see it, it's aimed at people who want something impressive that's not a recolour but who can't afford/justify the purchase of a 3rd party notDevastator.
I guess if I really really wanted something and couldn't afford to spend over $180 I might consider it, but I'd have a really hard time convincing myself I didn't just get ripped off. I mean, shit, I could buy the other four Aerialbots I haven't got yet and all the Protectobots for not much more than that. I'd have a heck of a lot more fun with them, too.
Actually, this brings up something that I've wondered about for a while. Over the past few years I've noticed that Hasbro's big-ticket items (MPs, Platinum releases, Metroplex) come in closed boxes that you can't actually see the toy in. And going by the convention pics it seems like Devastator will be the same. I wonder if that makes a difference to kids, not being able to see the actual toy when you're browsing the aisles.Sades wrote:And possibly kids who see if in the store and go "that thing is huge, I want it!"
Thank you! I was beginning to feel like a lone crazy.Knightdramon wrote:On the issue of the pricing of the new Devastator, I'm kind of saddened over how lenient a lot of fans have become.
It seems like "six Voyagers" is their target price for this set (both in US and Canada, the price works out to be exactly that), so it'll probably work out to more like £120 if a Voyager is £20 there now.Denyer wrote:Or to put it another way, leaving aside 3P comparisons they're reasonably articulated large versions of the originals for roughly the same cost as an Encore reissue set (and for the price of five individual figures of that size, assuming voyagers are twenty quid now and that $150 ~ £100).
Simple is okay -- the Aerialbots are simple but still cool. If the Constructicons were made to the same standards as Silverbolt or Alpha Bravo, I'd be sad because I don't have any room for the set. But they're closer to those upscaled Prime Cyberverse guys that came out a year or two ago.Clay wrote:Hmm. I think he may be conflating "simple" with "cheap". I like the simple design: big, blocky, uncomplicated, quick to transform, etc. I don't like the cheapness of it: hollow parts, inarticulate robots, the general sense of visible cost-cutting, etc.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just obtuse, but I don't like seeing a box set of six Voyager sized-toys, sold for the price of six Voyager-class toys, be so lacking in terms of design complexity and finish. I don't expect a Masterpiece-quality figure for that price, certainly, but my standards are certainly higher than this.Sades wrote:I think an argument could be made that it's not so much leniency as it is becoming more realistic in terms of what can be expected out of a big corporation, but I'm just a silly girl/don't really give a shit. Well, I might care a little, else I wouldn't be here. Not enough to expand on the thought, though.
I mean, I get that economies of scale are a thing, and a Titan is going to get a smaller production run than a Voyager. The costs of designing and making the molds will eat into their margins, since they're selling further units. And the mass of the thing in combined mode means that you can't just toss in ball joints everywhere and expect him to still be able to stand, so proper joints will raise the cost a bit too. But if those factors mean that your final product winds up being this shoddy, then it never should have made it off the drawing board. Do something else instead, something that you can do properly without blowing the budget. Maybe make a Devastator at the same scale as the other CW toys instead (with the added bonus of making the individual Constructicons compatible with the other figures) and fill the "big Christmas toy" slot with a giant $100+ Omega Supreme for him to fight (who, if Metroplex is any indication, would turn out much better than Devastator did).
