[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/toy/ - Toys

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)17:24 UTC+1 No.4235492 Report

Let's see what /toy/ values in figures.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)17:26 UTC+1 No.4235494 Report

Everything is awesome
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)17:29 UTC+1 No.4235496 Report

>>4235494
Everything is awesome.

Part of why I collect small amounts from multiple different lines instead of committing.

I just like the way these threads on /v/ tend to go, so I figured they could be applied here.
>>
Wond 06/18/14(Wed)17:38 UTC+1 No.4235500 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)17:43 UTC+1 No.4235507 Report

You forgot the most important one, durability. What good is Hot Toys if they rot away? What good is SAS if they just fall apart?
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)17:48 UTC+1 No.4235516 Report

>>4235507
What good are toys if you're hamhands.
>>
Mars 06/18/14(Wed)17:53 UTC+1 No.4235525 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)17:54 UTC+1 No.4235528 Report

This seems interesting,

I collect a wide range of stuff.

Sculpt, while important, rarely stands out to me and is almost never a defining feature.

Paint apps are truely 50% 50% they can make or break a figure, but as long as they're used in a smart thought out manner, theres almost never a need for a 5 point paintjob.

Quality is very vague. as long as the plastic is solid enough, and the engineering is good enough to hold together then everything should be fine.
but it definitely should rest just Over the average mark instead of under it.


Is much as i absolutely love accessories, they certainly aren't mandatory to make a character recognizable. As long as they have their signature item or two, there doesn't need to be a huge pile of them. Asside from that, My steadily growing pile of 3rdparty accessories keeps me content.

Posability is awesome.
You could give me a super shitty low quality toy that had super articulation and id have a ton of fun posing it and doing crazy stuff with it until it broke.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:03 UTC+1 No.4235540 Report

>>4235507
I knew I was forgetting something.

If I ever make this thread again it'll be like 15 points with "Build Quality" as a category.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:04 UTC+1 No.4235542 Report

>>4235528
>Quality is very vague

Another quick addendum, quality as in paint quality.

Sometimes paint can be cheap or flake off easily.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:09 UTC+1 No.4235549 Report

>>4235492
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:24 UTC+1 No.4235568 Report

Sculpt is of utmost importance. You could slather paint and load a figure up with joints all you want, it doesn't matter to me if it looks ugly. Most of the time these figures will be on display, and I don't want them to look bad.

I'm lumping paint and material quality based on how I interpreted it. I hope for good QC and a decently sturdy figure.I don't expect a collector's figure to be able to bashed around, but joints shouldn't be going slack due to frequent use, for example.

Accessories are more of a bonus than anything. They enhance a figure, but are pointless if the figure itself can't stand alone.

Posability: this is where I differ a lot from the average /toy/ poster, I'm guessing. Ugly joints kill a figure for me. I'd rather have a static figure than one that poses but looks off.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:35 UTC+1 No.4235587 Report

Your game is stupid.
You're stupid.
Why the fuck do i have to settle?

MAX OUT on paint, sculpt, and articulation right here.
Gets like a 2 or 1 in accessories... or is it MAXED OUT for getting an entire vehicle with it!? Fuck your stupid vague value points. What does a 1 or a 5 even get?
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:45 UTC+1 No.4235603 Report

>>4235587
lol...not even a huge ML fan, but getting an entire motorcycle with a character that rides a motorcycle is fucking awesome.
modern toy companies a shit
>b...but muh profit margins and m..muh scumbag tactics to remain competitive!
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:50 UTC+1 No.4235609 Report

>>4235603
The ghost rider transformer is better. The Hasbro one, not that mega morphs one.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:53 UTC+1 No.4235615 Report

>>4235587
>>4235603

Toy biz Marvel Legends was a fucking golden line at an amazing price. I have no idea why they're seemingly so hated here. Maybe they're not up to Figuarts/figma standards(but I'd argue that ), but for a toyline from 2001/2001, it was way ahead of the curve.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:54 UTC+1 No.4235619 Report

>>4235615
Too bad it sold out to Hasbro.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:55 UTC+1 No.4235622 Report

>>4235587
>why do I have to settle?

Toy biz shouldn't taken your advice and raise the price point.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)18:58 UTC+1 No.4235623 Report

>>4235568
I would assume that i high posability score would also factor into well designed joints though!
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)19:03 UTC+1 No.4235633 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)19:20 UTC+1 No.4235671 Report

>>4235492
See your rules? Fuck them. Sculpt, quality and poseability to the max and at least some accessories or no buy.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)19:22 UTC+1 No.4235674 Report

>>4235671
Tg frowns upon your unappreciativeness of the rules.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)19:24 UTC+1 No.4235680 Report

I think for overall scale, I'd put your average figma at all 3's, since the majority are decently sculpted, good QC, tends to have some accessories and decent posability.

Some variances here and there of course.

So in other words... I like a standard figure, with a little less accessories ( too many that you don't use), but extra posability ( display purposes)

I'd say a 3 in Sculpt would be "Looks like character, but takes some liberties". Like a lot of Marvel Legends.

A 3 in Paint Apps/Quality is "Looks accurate, but may be some slight inconsistencies"

A 2 in accessories probably would be "main weapon/equipment or 2. Maybe an extra hand specific to a pose or weapon"

4 in posability would be some of the better figma, revoltech or Marvel legends. Double elbow and knees are a must,
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)19:26 UTC+1 No.4235683 Report

Is the twelve points a reference to dollars? Alright! The less points used, the less it'll cost to make per unit. When sold at retail one unit will cost twice the amount of points used.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)19:27 UTC+1 No.4235690 Report

>>4235615
>I have no idea why they're seemingly so hated here.
This is why
>not up to Figuarts/figma standards(but I'd argue that )
>(but I'd argue that )
You're not allowed to argue against those people and those toylines.

Anyway, most people use Toy Biz's MLs as the apex standard for what a toyline should be like. It's only a certain group that feels cheated and inferior to this caliber awesomeness.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)19:29 UTC+1 No.4235695 Report

>>4235690
It's a shame toybiz went brokebiz. Otherwise they'd still be relevant. Also their females are ugly.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)19:30 UTC+1 No.4235697 Report

They're all equally important to me but if I really had to choose then the most important thing is how the figure looks, if it has crazy poseability but looks like shit I won't buy it.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)19:34 UTC+1 No.4235710 Report

>>4235695
>It's a shame toybiz went brokebiz
Oh, wow. The retards are out in force today, I see.

>>4235697
Mine would be this.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)19:35 UTC+1 No.4235713 Report

>>4235710
Shame toybiz was full of retards who didn't raise the prices to help with their debt.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)20:48 UTC+1 No.4235827 Report

>>4235587
Will clarify on accessories.

No points is literally nothing.

One is a one accesory, say a sword or gun, with hands adjusted to work with it.

2 Is that plus one set of extra hands.

3 is a standard figuart or figma setup.

4 is stuff like the Sentai Figuarts or old movie masters setups, or those Ultra Acts that are loaded in pieces and effect parts.

5 is whole sale vehicles, or stuff like the Hot Toys T2 Arnie with the Liquid T1000, along with everything else mentioned.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)20:49 UTC+1 No.4235829 Report

Like z-bots but like this other toy thats like z-bots, forgot the name, where they could be taken apart to make different looking z-bot things but better because they can open up like those tenkai knight bricks and not just be a brick.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)21:16 UTC+1 No.4235880 Report

I like a high level of pose-ability that looks decent with at least one accessory.

Most basic of this I can think of is like the Figuarts Shocker Combatman
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)22:35 UTC+1 No.4236008 Report

As long as it can pull off some decent poses and the joints aren't flimzy or brittle I'm fine. I care mostly about paint apps and sculpt.
As long as it was these things one or two character specific accessories would be fine.
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)22:36 UTC+1 No.4236011 Report

>>4236008
forgot my pic
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)23:32 UTC+1 No.4236081 Report

>>4235633
Modified
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)23:54 UTC+1 No.4236109 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)23:55 UTC+1 No.4236111 Report

I just want something amazing...!
>>
Anonymous 06/18/14(Wed)23:56 UTC+1 No.4236113 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)00:04 UTC+1 No.4236129 Report

Are we talking everything in the spectrum of "figures" or just action figures specifically?

My expectations and values for a statue are going to be different than for a Figma, the template can't fit both of them.
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)00:11 UTC+1 No.4236142 Report

Sculpt - Should look like what its suppose to be. I don't need hyper detailed, but enough that I can look at it and say it looks exactly like the source material. (5/5 should look better IMO)

Quality - More quality than paint apps, but should be well engineered and painted. Parts should not pop off and there should be no fear of breaking through casual movement.

Accessories - So long as it has the required/iconic accessories its fine. I don't need that one weapon used once in one episode or battle damaged parts.

Poseability - Should be able to make any normal pose as well as iconic ones from source material. Is there some hyper dynamic pose from the series that would require funky engineering tricks to pull off? Yeah I can reasonably live without that.
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)00:11 UTC+1 No.4236143 Report

>>4236129
I figured to get the broadest stroke of /toy/ collectors we would be talking about 5 to 6 inch stuff.

Marvel Legends, Figuarts, MAFEX, etc.
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)00:12 UTC+1 No.4236144 Report

>>4236129
This is /toy/ we don't give a shit about statues.
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)00:22 UTC+1 No.4236157 Report

>>4235494
Everything is cool when you're part of a team.
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)00:25 UTC+1 No.4236161 Report

>>4236081
So fuck everyone else. Is that your plan? What do you expect from all those accessory points?
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)00:30 UTC+1 No.4236168 Report

Sculpt - 4/5
Paint Apps - 4/5
Accessories - 2/5
Posability - 2/5
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)00:43 UTC+1 No.4236189 Report

>>4235492
I seriously don't understand how this graph is supposed to work.

Plus it's kind of pointless to not take the character into account. A Dalek doesn't need POA and Snake Eyes doesn't need paint apps.
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)01:21 UTC+1 No.4236229 Report

Gimmick: Unlimited poseability.
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)01:49 UTC+1 No.4236268 Report

>>4236229
In the form of bendy wires like the twist action kamen riders.
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)03:07 UTC+1 No.4236419 Report

>>4236229
Pretty sure that's cheating.
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)09:16 UTC+1 No.4236989 Report

>>4235827
>2 Is that plus one set of extra hands.
>3 is a standard figuart or figma setup.
>4 is stuff like the Sentai Figuarts or old movie masters setups, or those Ultra Acts that are loaded in pieces and effect parts.
>5 is whole sale vehicles, or stuff like the Hot Toys T2 Arnie with the Liquid T1000, along with everything else mentioned.
Your game is SHIT SHHIT SHIIIT!
What does a BAF piece count for then, since its like 1/5th of a figure!?
Who the fuck even wants extra hands?! a 2 sucks!
Using Japanese lines as the measurement for values sucks shit because they'd never come with this much awesome armory! Shit, some of them even came with bomb disposal robots and jetpacks, ONTOP of an awesome armory.

The GI Joe line is MAXED OUT on sculpt, gets like a 3 or 4 on paint, MAXED OUT on accessories, and like a 3 or 4 on articulation. More than your shitty 12 point allocation even at the lowest rating!
NEVERMIND THAT WHO FUCKING KNOWS WHAT YOUR POINT VALUES COUNT FOR IN TERMS OF ARTICULATION, PAINT, AND SCULPT.
AND QC?!?!? SHIT, WHATS THAT. I DONT FUCKING KNOW.

capt: discusses cevctic
>>
Anonymous 06/19/14(Thu)10:17 UTC+1 No.4237034 Report

>>4236419
IT was considered a gimmick in the 90s.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)02:18 UTC+1 No.4238155 Report

>>4236989
Not OP, but each of these point values is subjective to the user. To me, since GI Joes are my main toy line, they become the average for me. So they're about a 3 all the way down. That's not to say that they get a C grade, or a 1 can be bad. I actually give Joes a 2-2.5 in the Paint category.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)02:28 UTC+1 No.4238178 Report

>>4238155
>USS Flagg as an accessory to Keel Haul

10/10 scale,there.

I'd like to see more of what people consider each degree to be and figures that represent that.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)02:30 UTC+1 No.4238180 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)08:01 UTC+1 No.4238789 Report

>>4238155
I wouldn't put Hot Toy dolls so high up, since they usually only do the head sculpt fabulously. The rest is just a blank body and the clothes is always a disappointment compared to the dynamic stuff we see with sculpted plastic... not to mention detailed better for its scale.
So Hot Toys would actually rank around 1 or 2 for me, unless its' something that's fully sculpted like Iron Man.
For its scale, GI Joe is pretty much the premier 1:18 line, since even Hot Toys 1:17 kits aren't any better detailed but in paint (which GI Joe does lack).

As for accessories, you're cheating a lot there. I'm pretty sure OP is talking about accessories that comes with the "standard" priced figures. So using deluxe sets and vehicles sold with a figure shouldnt count, since you're paying for that. It doesn't give you the giddiness of getting a mountain of accessories or that extra figure/BAF/vehicle for the price of a normal action figure.

All in all, this stupid game is shit. Like you, i consider the GI Joe my base standard, so if it can get higher point values than this ranking system allows, the game is flawed as fuck.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)08:32 UTC+1 No.4238842 Report

Accessories aren't all that important to me, and I'll gladly give up a bit of poseability for a better sculpt.

>>4235507
>sas falling apart

Only if you have hamhands. Maybe you should collect american toys if you don't know how to be gentle.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)08:34 UTC+1 No.4238846 Report

>>4238842
>look i used my favorite buzzword again!

Some of us aren't Japanese manlets.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)08:39 UTC+1 No.4238852 Report

>>4238846
I have normal sized hands for a 6ft tall male, and I've never had a problem with SAS breaking.

You should probably stick with transformers or some shit. Japanese toys aren't for you.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)09:10 UTC+1 No.4238876 Report

I really can't fill this out. Or, at the very least, I can't fill one version of this. I honestly want different things out of different toys. I like small, simple things and large, super-complex display pieces.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)09:13 UTC+1 No.4238879 Report

>>4238852
So you admit they are fragile things prone to crumbling apart?
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)09:18 UTC+1 No.4238883 Report

>>4235587
The point of his chart challenges was to put people in a limited situation that gets people to ask themselves what they really want in the end.

Like how some polls will let you only choose one option when you could potentially want more. Or like hypothetical moments when a person has to choose between saving one person or another even though if the person could they'd save both.

Not a unique type of question that hasn't been tossed around amongst humans for centuries for either fun or to actually figure a real situation out.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)09:23 UTC+1 No.4238890 Report

>>4238879
Yeah they're fragile, if you're beating them together or throwing them off the shelf.

Most people don't have problems with them.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)09:29 UTC+1 No.4238897 Report

>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)10:20 UTC+1 No.4238943 Report

>>4238897
>when a toy uses more than one type of plastic and the colors are slightly different
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)10:24 UTC+1 No.4238945 Report

>>4238943
>Painted and solid plastics don't match

I mean, I give it some leeway as it's pretty impossible to get them literally identical, but some toys are really, really bad for poor matching.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)10:32 UTC+1 No.4238951 Report

>>4238883
>like hypothetical moments when a person has to choose between saving one person or another even though if the person could they'd save both.
>implying that's not retarded too

This fucking game only leads to statueshit and ugly shit toys! Mediocrity everywhere!
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)10:35 UTC+1 No.4238953 Report

>>4238945
The flaw is something only the severely autistic care about.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)10:38 UTC+1 No.4238956 Report

>>4238953
I'm talking about shit where it just plain looks horrible. Not minor stuff that you would only be able to notice up-close. Stuff like clear blue being painted yellow but the paint is shit and so it ends up looking greenish and just looks horrible, let alone doesn't match the yellow plastics.

But sure, just throw autism around.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)10:41 UTC+1 No.4238957 Report

>>4238956
Its just toys.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)10:53 UTC+1 No.4238962 Report

>>4238957
Yeah, it is. Did I give the impression that I lost my shit over minor color differences? I just said I dislike it.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)10:55 UTC+1 No.4238964 Report

>>4238962
The previous comment sure did. Who cares if its horribly miscolored? Don't buy it.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)11:00 UTC+1 No.4238967 Report

>>4238962
I've never heard of anyone getting so fixated on such a minor error.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)11:02 UTC+1 No.4238973 Report

>>4238890
>Most people don't have problems with them.
Are you new here? SAS are infamous around here for being the most delicate toy line around.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)11:32 UTC+1 No.4239003 Report

>>4238964
>>4238967
Maybe it's a lack of sleep, but I've come off totally wrong here. I just find that to be a bit crummy when it happens. It looks bad to me and I find it a bummer. Does it stop me from being able to enjoy the toy for it's other points? Nope. Do I post in threads about that toy complaining about it? Nope.

I find it a bit odd my little pet peeve seems to be standing out when /toy/ is full of so many folks complaining about everything left and right.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)11:34 UTC+1 No.4239005 Report

>>4239003
I hate how neca focuses on making their toys look accurate and not making them fun and posable with a fucking ab crunch.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)13:46 UTC+1 No.4239144 Report

\
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)17:32 UTC+1 No.4239472 Report

>>4238951
The hypothetical situations don't have to happen, spaz. Granted that particular situation's not impossible.

It's not as much about actually "solving" a situation getting/ dealing with someome actually thrown in that situation as much as it is all about discovering and testing where one's values lie when it comes down to the wire in which one is not allowed everything.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)17:51 UTC+1 No.4239503 Report

>>4235492
I was gonna put zero on accesories but then i remembered gordon freeman and the gravity gun / headcrab / crowbar / etc
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)18:02 UTC+1 No.4239523 Report

>>4239472
>discovering and testing where one's values lie
AND YOU CALL ME A SPAZ???
SHEEET, who fucking isn't aware of what they're buying? Fucking tards, that's who!

It doesn't take a person with average intelligence to know what type of things they look for when buying a toy!

Of course, OP is a tard who has value points that are meaningless, where one assumes what each point stands for, so people aren't really clear on what they're actually polling for, thus they aren't as introspective as you or OP believe this exercise is.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)18:06 UTC+1 No.4239534 Report

Only accessories I need are a pair of grabbing-things hands.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)18:28 UTC+1 No.4239572 Report

>>4239523
...The whole point is to share them with each other, like what the whole board is for.

I don't think OP's metric is perfect, but people can obviously understand the idea of what you'd value more and how much more under these circumstances. Again not perfect, but nothing to foam at the mouth and bang your head against the wall screaming, anon. At this point the "spaz" comment's just getting justified.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)20:26 UTC+1 No.4239822 Report

>>4238897
>>4238897
>>4238897
>>4238897
>>4238897
BUMP PLS RESPOND
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)20:30 UTC+1 No.4239841 Report

>>4239005
I love that.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)20:32 UTC+1 No.4239844 Report

>>4239822
No.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)20:45 UTC+1 No.4239885 Report

Fuck the system
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)22:12 UTC+1 No.4240094 Report

>>4238789
>I wouldn't put Hot Toy dolls so high up, since they usually only do the head sculpt fabulously
Pictures are not indicative of the entire toy line, just what I think of an individual toy, or aspect of that toy(comparing the head only for Sculpture). Even then, I still don't know how I should consider the parameters for a category. For sculpture, should I go by accuracy to source material, or amount of detail/complexity?

>As for accessories, you're cheating a lot there.
What're you talking about? Adm. Keel Haul was a standard figure that came with an aircraft carrier, all for $4.
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)22:17 UTC+1 No.4240101 Report

>>4240094
Where does RID Scourge fit in?
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)22:23 UTC+1 No.4240107 Report

>>4235500
how is it you like mewtwo with such a high preference for sculpt?
>>
Anonymous 06/20/14(Fri)22:42 UTC+1 No.4240134 Report

>>4240101
Don't own the figure, but looking at pics...
S:3
P:2
A:4
P:3

Like I said above, a 2 isn't bad. The paint is good, but simple(no shadows/highlights).

Anyways, the figure looks cool, I like it a lot.
>>
MAX PAINT AND SCULPT 06/21/14(Sat)08:47 UTC+1 No.4240977 Report

>>4239572
But how can anyone know what they're actually sharing if there is no value to the values, since it becomes completely subjective on what the values signify?
It's SHIT and OP did not think it through.

Talking it through like me and this guy, puts some significance to the value, but i don't see many others doing it. POOR THREAD.
>>4240094
>Pictures are not indicative of the entire toy line
Ofcourse not, which is why i wouldn't really put Hot Toys all that high up, since they're mostly reused Ken doll bodies with doll clothes over em.
>For sculpture, should I go by accuracy to source material, or amount of detail/complexity?
Well, take that Mego Hulk for instance. The face is right out of the comic books (of the time) but the body is just a cheapo generic ken body. No one really considers Mego to be high up in terms of sculpt because of the rest of it. So you have to consider the entire thing, not just the face/head.
Same with GI Joes. Some of them have a lot of complex detailed painted bodies, but the guns, web gear and other accessories are just plain plastic black. I wouldn't rank GI Joe high up in paint because of that. I'd rank them maybe a 3, or 4 when they do paint the web gear and vests. Never a 5, even when they paint the guns, they're mostly just two-tone.
So the value for 5 is that everything is fully high tier. Complexly detailed/accurate sculpt, complexly detailed/accurate paint, fully articulated figure that can do iconic poses (so many spiderman figures fail this), and a shit load of accessories/vehicles. 5s are fives throughout. IT's that extra lair of detail that seperates them from everything else.
>Keel Haul was a standard figure that came with an aircraft carrier, all for $4.
hurrhurrhurr
GI Joes were only $1.99 back them, btw.

>>4240107
Some people are desperate and overlook badnessm. Or aren't anal; it's "good enough."
Like me loving Toy Biz's MAXED OUT IN EVERY CATEGORY, i still like GI Joes and Hasbro's Marvel figures.
>>
Anonymous 06/21/14(Sat)13:25 UTC+1 No.4241235 Report

>>4240977
Because you can still deduce and share what value is most important and how much more important it is relative to the others.

It's not rocket surgery to find out this guy who filled all 5 squares in a category cares about it much more than the categories he gave one square. Not knowing the details of what he views as a 1/5 or a 5/5 in importance doesn't make it impossible to see 5 always > 1 regardless of what 5 and 1 might actually entail to the individual person who made it.

So it's definitely shareable amongst people.
>>
Anonymous 06/21/14(Sat)13:33 UTC+1 No.4241240 Report

I couldn't care less about accessories, for me they're just a nice bonus.
I do however think that if I'm buying a figure instead of a figurine, that the posability is a big deal. It still has to look good though obviously
>>
Anonymous 06/21/14(Sat)13:42 UTC+1 No.4241248 Report

>>4241235
except under/overestimating the value... of the value makes for a poor measurements.

Yeah, the 5s, 1s, 0s, are an indication of likes, but what's the point of those that don't have extreme ratings to show what they really like?
It makes the points system moot or very vague.
Thus, ITS SHIT AND OP IS SHIT.
>>
Anonymous 06/21/14(Sat)13:51 UTC+1 No.4241258 Report

Depends, sometimes I'll buy a figure just because it comes with great accessories I can use with my other unrelated figures.

I was thinking about buying this so I can stick Duke on that throne. Only problem is I don't think he'll fit, so probably won't go through with it.
>>
Anonymous 06/21/14(Sat)14:02 UTC+1 No.4241266 Report

>>4241258
You mean NECA Duke Nukem?

Considering he's like 1/10 scale and Doom is 1/12 at most...
>>
Anonymous 06/21/14(Sat)20:53 UTC+1 No.4241878 Report

>>4241248
That's why the people who post theirs can talk about it.

The thing with value is that it's a personal scale to begin with. Forming your personal description of the metric and trying to pass it of as a universal not everyone is going to agree with or use isn't going to do anything but... make a personal value system. It certainly helps explain yourself if you want to go into detail, but one anon can't speak for all in this case. For example what you think is good enough for 3/5 paint may not cut or be above the cut for a 3/5 by another anon.

And using extremes was just an example. Other combinations work follow the same rule. 3>2, 4>1, 5>3, etc. You may want to open the books if you want to learn more, so to say, but the system does what it is supposed to do in showing what thing an anon cares about over an other and by how many "units".

The best solution would be for others to explain their metrics. Next best is for OP to make his own value system and challenged people what they're willing to take. Though that kills it being a "what do you value" system and more of just a challenge because in not everyone's going to agree that what he puts for 3/5, 5/5, etc. of a quality is right.
>>
Anonymous 06/21/14(Sat)23:15 UTC+1 No.4242190 Report

>>4236157
Everything is awesooome
>>
Anonymous 06/21/14(Sat)23:34 UTC+1 No.4242208 Report

>>4241258
Duke should have no problems sitting in that throne, I own both that and Marvel Select Doom. MS Doom is considerably larger than NECA Duke.
>>
Anonymous 06/21/14(Sat)23:47 UTC+1 No.4242222 Report

This is more like "my ideal type of figure has:"

3 in sculpt. The figure should look servicable. I am okay with certain areas not having excruciating detail, as long as they are areas that are using form over function--e.g., I do not need the bottom of a figure's feet or the areas around certain joints to be completely detailed.

3 in paintapps & quality. I'm assuming this is QA, as in, the figure won't fall apart. I think a 3 is decent enough; the figure shouldn't break irrevocably but if the figure has ball joints (like some TFs) or removable parts, it's okay if those parts occasionally come off while I'm handling it.
Paintapps do not need to be hugely done, but should be servicable and work. For example, if it's a superhero costume that has details on the back of the costume (like Spiderman's spider symbol) then the figure should include that. Any time details start on the front but aren't finished on the back (painted belts, etc.) is a dealbreaker, that shit is inexcusable. I don't need every detail to be painted, as long as the plastic is done is a shade realistic for that detail--for example, I don't need every grenade, pin or buckle on a GI Joe's vest or webgear to be painted, if the vest is moulded in black or grey.

2 in accessories. If a figure comes with a lot of accessories, that's great! The more the better. However, if a figure doesn't have a lot of only has a few, it's not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it depends on the figure. For example, Spider-Man doesn't really need any accessories, because Spider-Man himself doesn't have any. Thor should have his hammer and a removable cape is nice. Iron Man can have some laser blasts. Cap should have his shield, and ideally, a way to store it.
In fact, I would say more important than just having accessories is having a place for the figure to realistically store everything.

4 in articulation. Should be great, but certain special joints like ankle rockers or even wrists can be excluded, depending on the toy.
>>
Anonymous 06/21/14(Sat)23:49 UTC+1 No.4242228 Report

>>4242222
Overall, I would say that a figure does not need to be exceptional in any particular area for me to like it; it merely has to be acceptable in all areas. A GI Joe with a nice, but basic, camo pattern, face painting that doesn't look like ass, a pair of unique guns and maybe a backpack, and not gimped articulation is pretty much all I can ask for.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)00:45 UTC+1 No.4242274 Report

>>4240977
I was using the head for a point of sculpting that would be used through the entire figure. In Hot Toys Joker's case, the likeness is uncanny to me, so in that respect the head gets a 5. An average figma might get a 4-5 in likeness, but a 2 in complexity of sculpt, a mini beach ball a 5 in likeness but 1 in complexity. GI Joes are getting great at sculpts, I'd give most of 25th a 3, and the recent stuff a 4+, With the Bruce Willis and Rock head sculpts verging on a 5.

For paint, I think a 1 is the most minimal paint apps. 2 can be fully painted with details. But when I get to 3, I want to see some paint effects, highlights, shadowing. 4 gets you closer to reality and 5 has massive effects like weathering and blood spatter. For Joes, the only one I'd give a 3 off the top of my head is the Zombie Viper, even the painted gear still looks like plastic/rubber. BUT, while I give Joes a 2-3 in paint, I'd give them a B to A- in the same category. I hope that makes sense, I think I wanted to think of this as if I were budgeting these figures for production.

So for accessories, Low Light gets an A+ to me, that bullet case and single bullet wow me more than all of Retaliation Duke's guns combined.

>GI Joes were only $1.99 back them, btw.
Uh.. must have bought them at JC Penney, they always charged more than Target. Yup.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)00:58 UTC+1 No.4242290 Report

come at me fags
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)02:59 UTC+1 No.4242492 Report

>>4241878
>That's why the people who post theirs can talk about it.
But that's my point. It was like me and only one other guy talking about the metrics for those values, and I don't even agree with the guy!.. or maybe this is a new guy. >>4242222
>The thing with value is that it's a personal scale to begin with.
But it shouldn't, otherwise everyone has a different views on what the values mean. Again, it makes the comparisons moot or vague.
A proper system is more direct and specific. It's how it's done with everything else, when not done by an 11 year old like OP.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)03:23 UTC+1 No.4242535 Report

>>4242492
#subjectanon
#anythread
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)03:49 UTC+1 No.4242577 Report

>>4242535
were you also the one that thought a thread would turn into a shitstorm because i shat on doll clothing?
Strange how non-weeb threads don't overreact, huh?
Nice of you to notice me in other threads though!
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)05:03 UTC+1 No.4242731 Report

>>4235492
5 in sculpt
4 in paint apps
3 in poseability
Just like early SAS. I assume they get a few accessories even with zero points in.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)05:09 UTC+1 No.4242736 Report

>>4242577
What are you talking about?
Your whole post.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)05:31 UTC+1 No.4242755 Report

>>4240977
>OP did not think it through

This is actually pretty true. I didn't give this enough thought before making it, which has lead to more than a few flaws for the thread.

But I did get a better idea of expectations from /toy/ soldiers as far as figures, certain likes, and that some of my expectations for certain lines (i.e. Figuarts) accessories counts were overblown and unfair.

Like I said, if I ever get around to doing this again, I'll update the metric and give better info on what the points dictate.

I don't think the thread was a failure though, some good discussion came out of it.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)05:38 UTC+1 No.4242766 Report

>>4242492
>personal value shouldn't be personal

>everyone has a different views on what the values mean
in context of personal value... yeah, that's how it works.

Again OP could set his own details about what each additional square would entail, but then it won't be about personal value for the reasons previously stated. Your issues with that other anon goes to show as much. Trying to add detail to each square only helps oneself trying make their own sense of the chart, which others can find completely nonsensical or not sensible enough.

Sure some people would play along with OP's stricter graph, but it won't convey what they actually feel. Case in point, the expected greentext about implying that's a 0/5, 3/5, 5/5, etc. in such a thread. More specific case in point, again your problems with other anon right now.

In a, I'm supposing, unintentional way, this chart also makes for an interesting look into -how- people value and the dynamism of personal value.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)09:36 UTC+1 No.4243079 Report

>>4242766
>in context of personal value... that's how it works.
No, how it works is you give context, a measurable value, so someone to give their opinion on what they like more. That's how these surveys work.
Take this guy for instance, whom i disagree with. Our personal values are 1/2 a scale off.
>>4242274
>GI Joes are getting great at sculpts, I'd give most of 25th a 3, and the recent stuff a 4+
>[about paint apps] 4 gets you closer to reality and 5 has massive effects like weathering and blood spatter.
GI Joe has always had great sculpts. There's more 5s & 4s than there are anything else, even with the Frankenstein retoolings. Their sculpts have always been based on real life people, look like actual people, & this Tunnel Rat is a fantastic likeness of Larry Hama.
What holds GI Joe back are their paint apps. You get all the objects in their base colors. The ammo is silver, the belt is black, the holster is brown, the canister is green, the shirt is green, the hair is black, bandana is blue. You have tampographs for the eyes, camo, and badge.
I'd give this a value of 3. A 1 would just have the entire holster being brown or black. A 2 would color the ammo and just paint the eyes the same color as the hair. A 3 adds tampos.
To make the paint 4+, you paint the face. This is what gives that matte skin texture, which see on McFarlane, Hot Toys kits, and some GI Joes. You also get those extra details, like the handle on the canister being painted, the ammo being in multicolors, the buttons on the shirt get painted, & other fine details.

No every figure needs weathering & splattering, not even McFarlane does this. If you were to make Dusty, a desert specialist, weathering to look like he came from a sandstorm, he doesn't fit into urban combat like Iraq or Syria. It becomes far too specific.
Even superheroes with clean paint apps i would still consider their paint apps to be 5s just for being comic accurate, if they have all those fine details painted.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)20:15 UTC+1 No.4243666 Report

>>4243079
#subjectanon
#everythread
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)21:21 UTC+1 No.4243772 Report

>>4243079
>1/2 a scale off
Except that being the case means... you have different views on what those values mean. Hence personal value.

Like all the rest of your post comes from how -you- internalize the meaning of the squares, each individual #/5. While counters made by the other guy (or anyone else) against you comes from his personal value.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)22:38 UTC+1 No.4243848 Report

>>4242492
>>4243079
why's this guy such a crybaby like holy shit
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)22:59 UTC+1 No.4243874 Report

>>4243848
His name is Subjectanon and his entire life is crying on /toy/.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)23:11 UTC+1 No.4243886 Report

>>4243848
>pointing out facts is crying

Hm, sure you're not the one in tears?
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)23:36 UTC+1 No.4243918 Report

>>4243886
>trying to make a rating system based on individual tastes
>>pointing out facts
Someone needs to see Binky after class.
>>
Anonymous 06/22/14(Sun)23:41 UTC+1 No.4243922 Report

>>4235525
That was my thought too. I have the iGear Ironhide (original run) and what irks me is that 25% of the price was probably the hundred useless accessories it came with.

When I make my own figure (non-TF), I won't be wasting money on accessories. They'll get _a_ sword or _a_ gun. If you want more, petition for an accessory pack or go buy some on Shapeways.
>>
Anonymous 06/23/14(Mon)00:16 UTC+1 No.4243967 Report

>>4243886
I dont have to read your "facts" to see how much you're crying, captain wall-o-text.
>>
Anonymous 06/23/14(Mon)03:20 UTC+1 No.4244256 Report

>>4243886
Yes, I'm crying.
I cry in disbelief that such a whiny manchild can exist
My tears are tears of lost hope for people who share this hobby with me
What a disgrace
>opinions are facts
>>
Anonymous 06/23/14(Mon)09:59 UTC+1 No.4244832 Report

>>4243772
you're stupid.
The whole reason for OP was to measure how each of us compare to each other and the entire board, but without having proper metrics, it goes out of whack and very hard to compare with one another.
Again, note how that one guy considers what i consider a five to be a three. IT throws the scale off kilter and makes it uncomparable, because there is no standard value.

It's why PROPER surveys are more specific and offer better metrics, so that every opinion works on the same understanding of what each point means.
Even OP admits that he should have thought it through.
>>
Anonymous 06/23/14(Mon)12:50 UTC+1 No.4244987 Report

Again, it's been addressed. Simply more defined squares won't solve or cease issues like the one between you and anon2. Example: OP uses a chart you don't like. To go further, it's the other anon's chart. Worsening it for you, it's so bad to you that you feel you're losing regardless of rating something a 1/5 or 5/5.

If OP wants more indepth info on what people value, simply "painting" this chart's just stupid. At it's core this a simple chart that's made for simple comparison (even if unintended). It's basically just a slightly more complex version of 1st>2nd>3rd>4th priority ranking system.

A new approach is needed if OP wants a serious look into what people value. Something as dynamic as values needs something as dynamic to properly catch it. He either needs a new chart, or to simply ditch charts and just make & ask questions. Want something quantifiable? Make multiple choice questions. Hell friggin survey monkey or whatever gives options for both preselected and written answers.

The only time when just painting the chart works is if OP was an actual toy company, with an actual limited budget, limited resources, and a limited talent pool. The squares show the minimum to maximums of what they can/want to do. However then it just becomes a game of options, in which results are -affected- personal values but aren't the values themselves. For that it's completely fine, but just for that. Just not for "Let's see what /toy/ values in figures".
>>
Anonymous 06/23/14(Mon)22:36 UTC+1 No.4245610 Report

>>4244987
You really don't get it.

By having no real defined metrics, it not only makes it so we don't really understand what the other person means about the values they use, but it also skews how they "vote" too.
Because someone thinks that a 5 for a paint job only gets them a weathered, dry brushed toy, they're not going to put as many points toward paint and toward something else.
Overestimating and underestimating what each point skews the survey for their own personal view point.

Something like this is a 5 in paint, IMO, because of how many paint applications there are, even on tiny details, and the use of blending. Using another guy's personal metric, it's a 3. That frees up two extra points to use for something else I'd want to see. Suddenly, articulation might seem like a better place to use those extra points, because if something looks this good at a middling rating, i can give something like poseability more points, even though i don't really care much about it. So instead of voting for GI Joe quality poseability (a 3) i could give it Marvel Legends poseability, a 4 value.
Or i can just get a gimmick.

So my chart would have 4 sculpt, 3 for paint/QC, 1 for accessories and 4 for poseabilty, even though i care more for paint than poseability.
Of, the survey is just stupid, because the toylines i buy offer more values than the survey allows. Based on my survey, i'd get something below my standards: a toyline i wouldn't consider buying.
>>
Anonymous 06/24/14(Tue)01:04 UTC+1 No.4245836 Report

>>4245610
>the other person means about the values they use
>values they use
That's my point. It's not actual answering what /toy/ values in figures.

It just turns into last example of the limited company which, again in that context, a detailed version of this chart works just fine and is actually useful. But for that context.

You even admit that the limitations of a simply detailed version of this won't properly speak of your values (amongst a myriad of others and their values for possibly different reasons) which makes simply doing that to the chart a bad idea.
>>
Anonymous 06/24/14(Tue)08:39 UTC+1 No.4246534 Report

>>4245836
headphones to orange peels.
that's pretty much what the values are.

We're just talking above each others heads now, same way when trying to compare each other's charts, because my values ? your values, because the chart is vagaries.

Sure, we know what someone likes more, but only if the value points is higher than the other categories and that's about all we'll know.

Shit survey and not really what OP wanted in the first place, which he admits.
>>
Anonymous 06/24/14(Tue)09:08 UTC+1 No.4246558 Report

>>4246534
I didn't make a chart. I just used your little debate with that guy for examples.

And correct about the value points. Stated before, it's slightly more complex 1st-2nd-3rd ranking system though now looking at it changing the given points to a number that doesn't give the opportunity to make it all even like 13 would be a better idea.

I understand OP understands this chart won't give him what he wants at the level he wants. However I am just saying that to answer what OP wants, he needs to do something different than what was suggested.
>>
Anonymous 06/24/14(Tue)23:59 UTC+1 No.4247648 Report

>>4243079
>this Tunnel Rat is a fantastic likeness of Larry Hama
That's clearly Robin Williams. :-P

>Not every figure needs weathering & splattering
True. If you have a chromed Silver Surfer(maybe the eyes painted white), that would be an A+, but a 2 in paint. I admit, my scale is weird, and may contradict itself.
>>
Anonymous 06/25/14(Wed)12:52 UTC+1 No.4248699 Report

>>4242190
when we're living our dream
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.