|
Post by Destro on Jun 7, 2006 17:38:40 GMT -5
shortpacked.com/d/20060607.htmlI like diecast for my reissues, but bc it costs too much, and bc of the reasons in this cartoon, I'm glad it isn't used anymore. I know some collectors think diecast is a godsend and plastic is an abomination, but I've never really understood their argument.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Jun 7, 2006 18:29:40 GMT -5
It's because die cast is so much cooler and actually looks like it is worth more when compared to plastic. You get what you pay for in all walks of life. I consider die cast part of the quality vs. quantity argument. Does a collector get more enjoyment out of being able to get a 10 piece set of toys for $3 or paying $30 for one item that really looks good? It's an opinion - just like MISB or open.
As with most of your points made in other discussions, Destro - I am confused. Are you saying you see no difference between die cast and plastic? Do you not see the quality that die cast brings to a toy?
Plastic comes in different flavors (degrees of quality), and many companies have continued to go the cost cutting route in order to increase profits. Sure - the cost of toys is going to increase in time...but a toy company cannot truly decide to up the cost of their toy by several dollars and expect them to sell. They have to be able to compete with other toylines as well as have people want to buy their toys (the price has to be realistic for the toy market as a whole) How do they find ways to increase profits without upping the cost of toys? Cheaper manufacturing/labor/supplies. G1 quickly cutout die cast metal and chrome weapons in order to make it cheaper. You can also feel the difference in plastic used between early days and later days of G1 / G2.
The reason die cast is more expensive than plastic is because it is a big quality jump. One really good example is if you compare a Binaltech to an Alternator. Both are Transformers that have the same mold, yet the BT will always blow the Alt out of the water in terms of looks. The sacrifice is the cost - do you want to pay more? Again - a judgement call. But you can't tell me if the only difference between BT and Alt was die cast metal (both in U.S., same price, same distribution, etc...) that you wouldn't take the die cast metal one every single time.
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Jun 7, 2006 18:45:39 GMT -5
As much as I enjoy Shortpacked (and all of David Willis's other webcomic offerings), his illustrated point is irrelevant. Yes, a 30-story skyscraper will break if it cannot bend to adjust to ground movement (and wind as well, fyi). HOWEVER, a 30-story building is a far cry from a 4-8 inch tall toy. That argument fails to factor scale and applied force to the physics debate, and so I pretty much disregard it as any kind of valid argument. As for the piece of chalk - chalk is NOT designed to need to resist any more bending force than is applied when being used to write or draw on a surface, which is the INTENDED USE for chalk. The comparison there is also pointless and irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Jun 7, 2006 19:45:10 GMT -5
Read Willis' comments further down the page.
My point was that for a toyline diecast is too expensive (the average parent isn't gonna shill out extra cash for metal) and it breaks too easily (plastic parts, at least most of them, can be snapped back together, and won't break apart if dropped). Also the paint chips off easier. How is that higher quality?
I like diecast for reissues bc they wouldn't be reissues w/o the diecast; they would just..feel wrong.
As for the bt/alt argument, I would say that bts often look better, but the problems I've heard of paint chipping make me wary.
I don't understand your point either ck; "quality" is a pretty vague term. How is a diecast toy inherently better than a plastic one? I like diecast, I just don't get why plastic is so horrible in some fans' opinions.
EDIT: I feel like a bit of a jerk bc of this topic; I started it by saying "hey, this is how it is!", instead of "here's my opinion, what do you think?". Sorry about that guys.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Jun 7, 2006 23:53:29 GMT -5
Plastic is horrible because it looks cheap - and that is because it is cheap. Why do you defend plastic? It is obviously the lowest on the totem pole when it comes to quality.
Paint can chip off metal, but plastic can actually break. Can't say I ever broke a 1984/1985 die cast metal part of a transformer....unless of course you count the plastic they used as part of those toys.
I guess I feel that the facts are obvious concerning which is better - metal or die cast. To me, it is kinda like when somebody says, "how do you move your arm?" Well....I guess you just....well...you just move it. For me, personally - it is the same way for die cast metal. I have never heard of anyone not really seeing how die cast is better (sorry, dude) - so I have never had to explain it because everyone has been in agreement. I will attempt to do so.
Metal gives an item a lot more of a solid/non-bendable feel to it. Quality is many times associated with durability. Metal is obviously a lot more durable than plastic, so there is one example. Another example is how it looks - take for instance three transformers - one is brand new with a metal body. The other two are made of plastic - both brand new - one is cast in its color and has no paint applied, the other is painted.
Now for the plastic cars - the painted one is going to look better than the unpainted one. The light is going to have a bit more of a glow to it. When light hits the unpainted one, you can see that it is somewhat reflected...however it is pretty diffuse. The light is mostly absorbed, and any reflected light is closer to a soft glare than any kind of gleam. That is kind of boring. There is no pizzaz - nothing that makes you say, "wow!"
Now take the metal one - Metal is going to refract light a lot more than the plastic. You are going to see more gleam across the paint on the whole, and sometimes you can almost see somewhat of a reflection of yourself in the paint. Obviously, this is a lot more likely if you are looking at a huge piece of metal that has not only been painted, but waxed as well.
Plastic can also appear transparent in areas where it is thin and there is a light source behind it. This is another signal of cheap & somewhat relates to the first point about durability. Nothing says cheap like toys on a shelf with a light behind them. It obviously depends on the type of toy - not all are going to have this trait. However when you do see it, it is a reminder. I can't say that I have experienced light shining through solid metal.
So -
Durability? Metal does not break as easily. You could counter this with paint chipping, however I think we would both agree that we would rather have a paint chipped metal toy than a broken plastic one if the weaknesses are put together.
Signs of lack of quality (lack of durabillity)? Difference being the durability issues mentioned above are "playing with toys durability." - Any transparent plastic is there and always will be there - straight out of the package. (Since this isn't too common - examples are accessories, wings of a figure, etc..for different toy lines)
Lighting effects? Metal is going to have more flashiness to it due to its elemental makeup. Plastic is going to have a dulled/diffuse look to it when light hits. A great example from my standpoint is Masterpiece Prime. I am viewing him from about 7 feet away and can easily see the detail in his metal parts (chest) a lot easier than I can his plastic parts (arms, torso, thighs).
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Jun 8, 2006 9:11:44 GMT -5
I see your point ck, but for me the issue is also about affordability and the fact that these are toys.
How much do you think the main tf line would cost if they were all diecast metal? Plastic is, yes, cheaper, and is used bc of that reason. Like I said earlier, parents aren't going to throw out extra cash bc a toy is metal instead of plastic, and toy companies know that.
These are toys, and plastic is much more kid-friendly. Drop cybertron hot shot on a kid's foot. Now drop g1 prime. See my point? I'm sure at least part of the issue is child safety (we can't have a reissue fort max in the US).
Also, I've never had a newer tf (armada to present) break on me. I don't have many g1 tfs, now or ever, but on boards I hear plenty of people complain about how they break too easily, another reason for plastic in a toy line.
If this wasn't a line meant for children, or if it was something other than toys, your point would be obvious and I would agree whole-heartedly. My point was that plastic is better for a kids' toyline for the reasons I've given here.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Jun 8, 2006 18:47:31 GMT -5
Ahh - well there you go.
For my standpoint as far as toys - I collect many toys that are not for children. They are designed for collectors. I have purchased things here and there that have packaging that says "Ages 14 and up." So I don't really weigh-in playability. For me, it is about collection. So kinda like the alt vs. bt (price vs. build), it is again - as you and I both said - a judgment call.
You contradicted yourself with this statement. You want plastic in a toyline & you don't want it to break - then in the quote above, you mention G1 tfs breaking and site it as a reason to have plastic in a toyline. I am confused. It appears as if you were saying it is better for plastic to break.
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Jun 8, 2006 23:39:44 GMT -5
its late and im tired so i will type more later, but for now i gotta agree with with destros points.
but for me i accually dont like di cast. its heavy, clunky, and transformations just dont seem to feel right with it. Plastic is lighter and it does have more playabilty(which is the accual purpose of 95% of transformer toys) and i nor any child i have ever know has broken a plastic transformer, alot of this to do with the wonderful additions of the ball joint.
If i were to choose between an Alt and a Bt i would choose an alt.
I guess im just a Dicast hater and i will talk more tomorrow when i am awake
|
|
|
Post by Devastator_2000 on Jun 9, 2006 0:03:22 GMT -5
I tend to prefer plastic myself because it makes the product cheaper, but I do want to know why you all are saying that plastic does not break? I seam to remember alot of my friends growing up breaking the plastic parts of the autobot cars all the time.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Jun 9, 2006 0:15:34 GMT -5
Wow. I was convinced the only reason some people don't like die cast is because they don't like the hype surrounding it whenever something new is released.
Again though - I am confused. I do not know of any die cast metal part of a transformer ever being broken. Only plastic has been broken - so you guys are going to have to clear that up.
If you are a die cast hater, then you probably are not going to have a very objective opinion on the matter. You'll have to elaborate a bit more and layout points as to why you believe plastic is actually better than die cast. Assuming that you made your decision regarding BT vs. Alt based upon my "all other things equal" scenario, then I see no logic behind your decision to take alt over BT. I mean realize...to me...that makes no sense because of how much I see metal as being far superior to plastic. Have you even seen a BT in person?
I never found die cast to be overly heavy or clunky. I had a huge red firetruck (Tonka) when I was younger that was metal & it was a blast to play with. Optimus Prime wouldn't have been nearly as cool had he been made of all plastic.
The only true point I have seen so far in plastics favor was Destro's point on child playability - although I disagree. I also consider the hotshot drop vs. prime drop a moot one. Here's an idea - don't drop the toy on your foot! Safety is so severly overrated in America, it is ridiculous. I think a big part of growing up as a child is learning from your mistakes, doing the wrong thing & then facing the consequences for it. As for me - I had a bunch of transformers metal or plastic both & never managed to injure myself while playing with them.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Jun 9, 2006 0:16:08 GMT -5
I seam to remember alot of my friends growing up breaking the plastic parts of the autobot cars all the time. Yeah. That is the main part that I am confused about.
|
|
|
Post by Destro on Jun 12, 2006 19:12:46 GMT -5
I think the plastic breaks bc the metal is too heavy and can't be supported by the plastic. If it were all plastic it wouldn't be a problem. And since you can't have metal ball joints (scrapes off the paint), it makes more sense for the entire toy to be plastic.
As for the metal g1 prime, I agree w/ mf; the transformation is clunky and I'm always worried I'll break him (or any other g1 tf for that matter..). Cybertron prime, on the other hand, has a much more fluid transformation and I don't worry nearly as much about breaking it bc the plastic pieces can be snapped back into place.
As for the "tf dropping" point, we all know that w/ our sue-happy society any toy co. would want to make their product as safe as possible. Remember, it's never your fault if you can get a huge cash settlement.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Jun 12, 2006 19:52:08 GMT -5
Destro - you are making things up to support your argument. The metal has nothing to do with the plastic breaking. If you carefully removed a windshield from a G1 Jazz, Bluestreak, etc... from the body, you could snap it quite easily.
Also - the metal in G1 prime is in the chest and the lower legs. The major fault in a G1 prime was the construction of the ratcheting teeth-marked legs and springs used in transformation. The thighs couldn't take the constant movement well, the teeth would hang, and the pressure would snap the legs at the top/front along the axle.
Comparing a cybertron prime to a G1 prime is apples to oranges. You are looking at 26 years of design changes and comparing two entirely different things.
You need some more facts to back up your argument. From a 3rd party standpoint, it looks like you said plastic is better than metal just to go against the masses. Dev said he goes the plastic route because of cost - which was an option I mentioned back on the BT vs. Alternator argument.
Ball joints (another thing that has ruined transformer design as it has been used too much in recent years) is of course, an entirely new discussion - but G1 didn't have ball joints, and those are the only transformers to have had die cast (in the main tf lines) that I know of. (Correct me if I am wrong)
I need concrete examples of plastic breaking due to the "weight" of metal in G1 transformers in order to accept that. I could list about every single typical plastic weakness (leading to a break) of each G1 transformer, and prove that it had absolutely nothing to do with the metal in the transformer. There *could* be an exception or two, but again - I would have to get an example from you. Do you have one?
|
|
|
Post by Jo'Roq on Jun 12, 2006 20:55:05 GMT -5
I think the plastic breaks bc the metal is too heavy and can't be supported by the plastic. If it were all plastic it wouldn't be a problem. That is not a problem with the metal, that is a problem with the engineering design's specifications for the plastic (or the executive override of the design). Don't confuse the material itself with the use of the material. Again, an issue of the use of material not the material itself. I personally think the ball joint has become overused, but that's neither here nor there. Still design issues, not material. Until the plastic breaks. Plastic is generally more fragile, more subject to sheering forces - for example, someone pushing up and down on a piece designed to move left and right. The more rigid structure of metal in general provides it with better resistance to the same sheer forces. Also, metal can with knowledge and skill be formed back into shape while plastic once deformed cannot be reformed.
|
|
|
Post by metafeather on Jun 12, 2006 21:43:39 GMT -5
It seems to me that niether side has any really good arguments that dont boil down to "i just like this one better"
this is the same old argument, G1 vs. New, Good vs. Evil, Republican vs. democrate, blah blah blah
i dont think this argument will ever be settled, because honestly each side has its strengths and weaknesses and neither is really better than the other(cough cough except plastic is the best, of course that is just my opinion).
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Jun 12, 2006 23:15:58 GMT -5
Umm...I have given great arguments for die cast, challenged the facts presented by people on the "plastic side" and have not gotten a response.
Dev said he wants plastic because it makes the product cheaper. That's fine. Destro mentions affordability too, and that is fine. If they want to stand on those reasons, it makes perfect sense.
I am willing to listen to the plastic side of the argument if the plastic people could back up their claims. First Destro says die cast stuff breaks and plastic doesn't (which was a misinformed and false statement concerning G1 figures). Then he says metal causes plastic to break. I asked him to back it up and he hasn't ....because he can't.
Metafeather said, "If i were to choose between an Alt and a Bt i would choose an alt. " which to me is a throw-out statement if a reason isn't given. You never gave a reason. Are you basing it transformation (heavy/clunky)? Have you transformed both an alt and bt? It's a collectors line, and both BT and Alts take a while to transform. There are people here that have an entire collection of alts made of plastic - ask them if they have had any trouble with them. They have.
Perhaps you were going with Alts because of how they look compared to BT? I would be extremely shocked if this were the case, but I am willing to listen to reasons. Do you have any?
I have given numerous reasons why I believe that die cast is superior. Many of the statements people are using to argue for plastic are either a: false or b: no reason is given as to why.
Does anyone want to actually challenge (counterpoint) some of the statements I made or give reasons to back up their opinion.
meta - you seem to be backing out of the argument because you know you can't win. Are you going to take that from me? Back up your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Gunman_sr5 on Jun 12, 2006 23:36:19 GMT -5
OK since I haven't gotten in on this. I am getting a sever headache reading through all the lengthy arguments.
Anyways I have worked with many alloys and composites while working in Aviation. Neither is relay superior to the other. Considering we are talking toys here. Cost wise Die cast metal toys are usually a pot-metal type alloy. This allows a manufacturer to cast the metal at low temp with quicker hardening time. These do tend to be very brittle in some circumstances. Metal can look better then plastic, but it requires paint. With cost in mind paint application is cheep. So it doesn't take much to cause the paint to come off of an alloy. Where plastic paint can adhere to is a mild abrasive is sprayed across and cleaned off before application. Counterpoint to that is. Plastics get molded with die to color them for cost effective means. Degrading the look in some occasions. Downfalls to some plastics is they can warp under low heat. As well as fade and discolor quickly. Durability for both depending on manufacturing process can be about equal.
Now for me to a a very big point. G1 every figure can have the metal replaced with plastic. They will all still have the same weak points and strong points. Same goes for later figures designed to give under high stress. This is why it seems the newer plastic toys are more durable.
Technically all figures then and now are still die cast. Be it Die -cast metal or die-cast plastic. They all still use the same manufacturing technique.
|
|
|
Post by Devastator_2000 on Jun 13, 2006 0:38:04 GMT -5
Ck, you are not saying that I cant back up my statement are you? I thought that my reason, cost, was self explanatory. For me it always comes down to cost. That is why I have Alternators, not BT. That is why I have 20th anniversary Prime and not the MP version. That is why I buy Hasbro over Takara when it comes everything other than reissues.
|
|
|
Post by CkRtech on Jun 13, 2006 0:43:58 GMT -5
Dev said he wants plastic because it makes the product cheaper. That's fine. Nope. Not saying you can't back it up. It was pretty self-explanatory.
|
|
|
Post by Devastator_2000 on Jun 13, 2006 1:08:08 GMT -5
Dev said he wants plastic because it makes the product cheaper. That's fine. Nope. Not saying you can't back it up. It was pretty self-explanatory. Cool. Because I like dicast, but my wallet does not. ;D
|
|