Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:I don't think a more complicated transformation would be beneficial. What could be gained from making it complicated just for the sake of making it complicated? The tail HAS to form the legs, the front dino legs HAVE to form the robot arms ... sometimes a look defined what can be done with a transformation.

I'm not asking for a more complicated transformation. I'm asking for a more "satisfying?" Transformation? Not sure what or if anything can be done but it felt meh, Dino tail could have been articulated. Something about this reminds me of the Igear upsize minibots.

Could the dino tail have been articulated? Really? I honestly don't see how it could have been, and I'm not sure it would have been worth whatever the added cost was.

I can sorta see what you mean. It's straight forward and very close to the G1 transformation. But, as opposed to what? And to what effect? The proportions are all there and it has the right look (no need for cheats). Unless there's a point a complicated transformation can become a detriment.

Delta Magnus wrote:From what I've seen, the weapon mini-con isn't amazing, but he's passable. More weapons is always good, and mini-cons don't really need to do much.

The toy looks amazing, but I'll reserve judgement until I see more reviews. Vangelus and Peaugh did pretty good reviews (and neither of their samples seemed to have loose joints- it's not like they could fake that **** after all, especially not with Vangelus's legendary "Tetra-Jet Test") but they had the Diaclone figures with metallic paint and chrome. The reason I bring this up is because paint and chrome, even very thin amounts, can heavily change joint tolerances, often resulting in a much too tight figure (see the KO chromed Seekers). Thus FP might have adjusted the mold with the chrome and paint in mind, then when it came to the "normal" figure the adjustments resulted in a floppy figure.

But hey, that's just a theory- a toy theory!

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:I don't think a more complicated transformation would be beneficial. What could be gained from making it complicated just for the sake of making it complicated? The tail HAS to form the legs, the front dino legs HAVE to form the robot arms ... sometimes a look defined what can be done with a transformation.

I'm not asking for a more complicated transformation. I'm asking for a more "satisfying?" Transformation? Not sure what or if anything can be done but it felt meh, Dino tail could have been articulated. Something about this reminds me of the Igear upsize minibots.

Could the dino tail have been articulated? Really? I honestly don't see how it could have been, and I'm not sure it would have been worth whatever the added cost was.

I can sorta see what you mean. It's straight forward and very close to the G1 transformation. But, as opposed to what? And to what effect? The proportions are all there and it has the right look (no need for cheats). Unless there's a point a complicated transformation can become a detriment.

Yea it could, why not? just because you don't see how (I don't either) doesn't mean it can't be done. That's what they do right? designers and engineers they should figure it out and if they managed to do it it would wow us would it not? I mean half of the function X transformation has that wow effect that we couldn't see how it's done until we see it so why not this? I know it's a different line but I guess I'm just expecting too much. as for Added cost.... why should it add cost? I don't see how every little extra thing should add cost to the end consumer. I'm sure from the quality of the plastic and simplistic engineering that there is plenty of margin for selling this at $105 that they can eat that cost. but than again I'm just expecting too much... mehhh

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:I don't think a more complicated transformation would be beneficial. What could be gained from making it complicated just for the sake of making it complicated? The tail HAS to form the legs, the front dino legs HAVE to form the robot arms ... sometimes a look defined what can be done with a transformation.

I'm not asking for a more complicated transformation. I'm asking for a more "satisfying?" Transformation? Not sure what or if anything can be done but it felt meh, Dino tail could have been articulated. Something about this reminds me of the Igear upsize minibots.

Could the dino tail have been articulated? Really? I honestly don't see how it could have been, and I'm not sure it would have been worth whatever the added cost was.

I can sorta see what you mean. It's straight forward and very close to the G1 transformation. But, as opposed to what? And to what effect? The proportions are all there and it has the right look (no need for cheats). Unless there's a point a complicated transformation can become a detriment.

Yea it could, why not? just because you don't see how (I don't either) doesn't mean it can't be done. That's what they do right? designers and engineers they should figure it out and if they managed to do it it would wow us would it not? I mean half of the function X transformation has that wow effect that we couldn't see how it's done until we see it so why not this? I know it's a different line but I guess I'm just expecting too much. as for Added cost.... why should it add cost? I don't see how every little extra thing should add cost to the end consumer. I'm sure from the quality of the plastic and simplistic engineering that there is plenty of margin for selling this at $105 that they can eat that cost. but than again I'm just expecting too much... mehhh

No, no. No "of course it could have been somehow." Can you see how they could have retained their transformation while also making the tail articulated? Because I can't; it has upper legs in there and it becomes lower legs. We're all TF fans here, with a lot of figures under our belt. We may not be designers, but I think we can all kinda see how things can be done in an abstract way. How can he have an articulated tail while retaining the G1 look?

Citing the Fx line is all well and good, but which one gives you an articulated tail that becomes a passable set of legs?

An articulated tail would, by definition, need more parts. More parts = higher cost. I don't even think it'd be worth it.

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:I don't think a more complicated transformation would be beneficial. What could be gained from making it complicated just for the sake of making it complicated? The tail HAS to form the legs, the front dino legs HAVE to form the robot arms ... sometimes a look defined what can be done with a transformation.

I'm not asking for a more complicated transformation. I'm asking for a more "satisfying?" Transformation? Not sure what or if anything can be done but it felt meh, Dino tail could have been articulated. Something about this reminds me of the Igear upsize minibots.

Could the dino tail have been articulated? Really? I honestly don't see how it could have been, and I'm not sure it would have been worth whatever the added cost was.

I can sorta see what you mean. It's straight forward and very close to the G1 transformation. But, as opposed to what? And to what effect? The proportions are all there and it has the right look (no need for cheats). Unless there's a point a complicated transformation can become a detriment.

Yea it could, why not? just because you don't see how (I don't either) doesn't mean it can't be done. That's what they do right? designers and engineers they should figure it out and if they managed to do it it would wow us would it not? I mean half of the function X transformation has that wow effect that we couldn't see how it's done until we see it so why not this? I know it's a different line but I guess I'm just expecting too much. as for Added cost.... why should it add cost? I don't see how every little extra thing should add cost to the end consumer. I'm sure from the quality of the plastic and simplistic engineering that there is plenty of margin for selling this at $105 that they can eat that cost. but than again I'm just expecting too much... mehhh

No, no. No "of course it could have been somehow." Can you see how they could have retained their transformation while also making the tail articulated? Because I can't; it has upper legs in there and it becomes lower legs. We're all TF fans here, with a lot of figures under our belt. We may not be designers, but I think we can all kinda see how things can be done in an abstract way. How can he have an articulated tail while retaining the G1 look?

Citing the Fx line is all well and good, but which one gives you an articulated tail that becomes a passable set of legs?

An articulated tail would, by definition, need more parts. More parts = higher cost. I don't even think it'd be worth it.

ok fine how about wrist swivels?

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:I don't think a more complicated transformation would be beneficial. What could be gained from making it complicated just for the sake of making it complicated? The tail HAS to form the legs, the front dino legs HAVE to form the robot arms ... sometimes a look defined what can be done with a transformation.

I'm not asking for a more complicated transformation. I'm asking for a more "satisfying?" Transformation? Not sure what or if anything can be done but it felt meh, Dino tail could have been articulated. Something about this reminds me of the Igear upsize minibots.

Could the dino tail have been articulated? Really? I honestly don't see how it could have been, and I'm not sure it would have been worth whatever the added cost was.

I can sorta see what you mean. It's straight forward and very close to the G1 transformation. But, as opposed to what? And to what effect? The proportions are all there and it has the right look (no need for cheats). Unless there's a point a complicated transformation can become a detriment.

Yea it could, why not? just because you don't see how (I don't either) doesn't mean it can't be done. That's what they do right? designers and engineers they should figure it out and if they managed to do it it would wow us would it not? I mean half of the function X transformation has that wow effect that we couldn't see how it's done until we see it so why not this? I know it's a different line but I guess I'm just expecting too much. as for Added cost.... why should it add cost? I don't see how every little extra thing should add cost to the end consumer. I'm sure from the quality of the plastic and simplistic engineering that there is plenty of margin for selling this at $105 that they can eat that cost. but than again I'm just expecting too much... mehhh

No, no. No "of course it could have been somehow." Can you see how they could have retained their transformation while also making the tail articulated? Because I can't; it has upper legs in there and it becomes lower legs. We're all TF fans here, with a lot of figures under our belt. We may not be designers, but I think we can all kinda see how things can be done in an abstract way. How can he have an articulated tail while retaining the G1 look?

Citing the Fx line is all well and good, but which one gives you an articulated tail that becomes a passable set of legs?

An articulated tail would, by definition, need more parts. More parts = higher cost. I don't even think it'd be worth it.

ok fine how about wrist swivels?

Wouldn't work. The tail splits into legs. Nice try.

Rated X wrote:For me, the simplicity of columpios transformation is what makes it so satisfying. I can actually transform it without having to refer to the instructions or a review. I love this. I could care less about the puzzle aspect of transformation and I dont need complex. Not all tf fans are brainiacs that are up for the challenge. I can be the only tf fan out there who nust likes to pose them on a shelf and admire their pure awesomeness over a beer. As for the tail, it would have been nice if it were articulated. But its not a must have. Its not like I plan on giving my dinos rear ends exposure in my displays.

shajaki wrote:all this talk of articulated tails... isnt the articulated neck enough? i was wowed by it. and PX's sludge doesnt even do that.

mooncake623 wrote:

Rated X wrote:For me, the simplicity of columpios transformation is what makes it so satisfying. I can actually transform it without having to refer to the instructions or a review. I love this. I could care less about the puzzle aspect of transformation and I dont need complex. Not all tf fans are brainiacs that are up for the challenge. I can be the only tf fan out there who nust likes to pose them on a shelf and admire their pure awesomeness over a beer. As for the tail, it would have been nice if it were articulated. But its not a must have. Its not like I plan on giving my dinos rear ends exposure in my displays.

no but would be nice for pictures no? I know you just look at it on display, but I like to pose them and take pictures of it. Just something that adds to the hobby for me.

Also for transformation don't you love Maniaking's transformation so much more? I opened both of these up this weekend and Maniaking's transformation blows this out of the water. This is coming from someone that also hates complex transformations. Like FP diesel and that lot. hate those transformations.

Rated X wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:

Rated X wrote:For me, the simplicity of columpios transformation is what makes it so satisfying. I can actually transform it without having to refer to the instructions or a review. I love this. I could care less about the puzzle aspect of transformation and I dont need complex. Not all tf fans are brainiacs that are up for the challenge. I can be the only tf fan out there who nust likes to pose them on a shelf and admire their pure awesomeness over a beer. As for the tail, it would have been nice if it were articulated. But its not a must have. Its not like I plan on giving my dinos rear ends exposure in my displays.

no but would be nice for pictures no? I know you just look at it on display, but I like to pose them and take pictures of it. Just something that adds to the hobby for me.

Also for transformation don't you love Maniaking's transformation so much more? I opened both of these up this weekend and Maniaking's transformation blows this out of the water. This is coming from someone that also hates complex transformations. Like FP diesel and that lot. hate those transformations.

Well I do like Mania Kings transformation. It is a bit tedious, but not too bad. But I really don't mind the tail not being articulated. With the exception of classics grimlock (which they cheated) no Dinobot's tail has ever been posable that I can recall. Not G1, FOC, MP, AOE, etc. The neck is awesome though. I dont mind the tail the same way I don't mind Mania kings lack of wrist swivel.

mooncake623 wrote:Also for transformation don't you love Maniaking's transformation so much more? I opened both of these up this weekend and Maniaking's transformation blows this out of the water. This is coming from someone that also hates complex transformations. Like FP diesel and that lot. hate those transformations.

shajaki wrote:

mooncake623 wrote:Also for transformation don't you love Maniaking's transformation so much more? I opened both of these up this weekend and Maniaking's transformation blows this out of the water. This is coming from someone that also hates complex transformations. Like FP diesel and that lot. hate those transformations.

i really have no love for MK's transformation. intuitive yes, but irritating. the way his wrists transform (allowing no wrist swivel) and his head hanging out on the bottom of the cannon are glaring design flaws. flaws that shouldnt be there on a 100 dollar figure. all criticism aside, i do love my MK.

just comparing the two, i see no flaws in columpio as uspetting as MK's. maybe ive got my rose colored glasses on, but i feel columpio is an outstanding figure.

Delta Magnus wrote:Does he come with a "normal" sword as well or is Drepan his only melee weapon?

megatronus wrote:I'm surprised people are surprised at FP's QC issues.

I've heard complaints about awful joints on Defender, the plastic quality of Explorer & Munitioner, cracking joints & plastic on their Insecticons. Even M3 has had issues with cracking windows & chipped corners due to lack of clearance in some of the figures' transformations. Truly, I think Function X is the only line that has been almost universally praised.

Maybe because they were the first to really make their mark, we assume the quality is top notch... at this point Fansproject has been surpassed in certain aspects by certain companies, and that they're no longer quantitatively or qualitatively the best at everything.

Not to say they don't churn out great product, but, you know... they're subject to the same QC issues as everyone else, I suppose.

MOONCAKE, GET THAT SUCKER REPLACED!!!

Delta Magnus wrote:FUnny thing is I had no problems with the plastic quality on my Bruticus (in fact it was so solid that the first few transformations hurt my fingers). It's the looseness of the joints and overall construction that bothered me. Still wondering if I have a knockoff...