>>6316980He was saying he's judging the figure based on modern standards and suddenly he NOPES right from the start when he realizes modern toys have the same issues.
He's trying to move the goalpost everywhere, constantly shifting his argument, because he doesn't really have a complaint against the figure itself. He just doesn't like it because it's not based on whatever random art he likes, so he's making shit up to find another reason why it's bad.
>>6317009>too thickly and sloppily.None of the paint is too thick. The gold bans are sorta sloppy, sure, but it's on par with anything made by Hasbro. Almost everything else is applied perfectly though.
The shading, the eyes, the hair, the zipper paint, it's something you'll only find as neatly done on higher end figures. They also aren't perfect, but that's just how it and you're just nitpicking.
> modern toy companies have improved claws that aren't a floppy messJust shows you haven't bought these figures to compare. I can't comment on Old Man Logan, but straight out of the package the claws aren't any more or less floppy. If yours came bent, it's an easy fix and they won't "flop" over time. Warped things stay warped because that's how they're positioned for a long time. Gravity doesn't affect them.
>So why aren't those types of joints still being used today? Because Hasbro is cheap and adding a ball joint with a cut at the hip is cheaper. These are features Hasbro cut from their own toys when they started lowering the budget on their figures across the board.
It has nothing to do with the joints being better or worse. It's purely a budget choice.
>an objective standpoint,Says the guy moving the goalpost.
