>>11250288>pretend to see things that aren't there just to disagree and other bullshit>you can't refute my pointsno shit? You can't argue with an insane person.
>>11250294>Faggot N1 has a valid point, old 2000s McFarlane toys mog anything that we have nowadays regarding sculpt and paint, BUT THEY FUCKING SUCKED AS ACTION FIGURES, they worked more as statues.I've only been talking about McFarlane Toys to give some history on toy making. This absolutely butt blasted a couple of anons, who refuse to believe that toy makers used to produce better looking toys before and that molding technology hasn't changed since at least the 80s (if not 70s,60s, or 50s).
Why do they act like their anus got prolapsed by the father of modern toy making and are devastated he never got put in jail despite all evidence showing that he did? If you haven't noticed, this board has cultish-level behavior when it comes to certain brands, and if you praise other brands, well.. they overreact in the most extremist ways. They hate that other people like other brands.
So even amazing toys like this will get shat on and they'll pretend its the mushiest, paint mucked toy ever, because it's not /their/ brand. They don't want to even notice how excellent the paint is, how sharp the details are, and how the paint brings out the smallest of details, because /their/ brands don't come to this level of complexity and quality. 20+ years later, most toy makers can't even come to this level of excellence, despite toys costing up to 20x more and actually using shittier plastics (looking at you 4H and Joytoy).
