>>11251141I'm sorry, but you're completely coping if you think McFarlane's stuff from their golden age looks worse than modern stuff, muchless the implication of using a hundred year old cars to modern cars analogy.
If we're using a car analogy, it's more like how Toyota cars from the 90s hold up better than Volkswagens and Chevys from the 00s.
Sucks that you're so massively butthurt with the fact that 20 year old toys outdoes nearly everything modern.
Remember when you guys tried to pretend toys are better and used actual examples to denote they're even comparable, and when pointed out how modern toys have 100x less painted, you started to pretend you could see a texture on low res images (despite close ups showing they're not there)?
How fast you guys moved from trying to provide any facts and just going into denial mode, because you know your proof doesn't hold up.
>b-b-bb-but the paint apps aren't exact, thus they're trash!you realize that applies to 100% of modern toys too, right?
You're basically saying "never try" and are actually championing the cheap glossy plastic look 99% of modern toys suffer from that is 100x more noticeable than bleeding or not being exact that can only be noticed at extreme clse ups (if it even exists).
>>11251144I'm repeating 2+2=4, because retards are trying to argue 2+2=rock and are resentful they're not being believed. Reeks of Generation Y and Z faggotry, whose parents praised all the dumb shit they ever said while spoonfeeding them baby food all their lives.
