>>8085706I've noticed this kind of thing with a lot of people who only get into the hobby at a surface level. They snap a few HGs, maybe a MG or two, and post about it on places like Facebook or r/gunpla to show off their #epic #gunpla. Usually the kits they go for are from whatever the newest show is at the time (Build Divers, previously IBO or Build Fighters, etc.) or it'll be the current meme MG like the Sinanju was for a while. Basically whatever is currently in production at the time. It's almost like they just want a hobby to show off to their normie friends ("Bro they're not action figures, they're MODELS that you BUILD"), but in most cases they shortly fuck off back to their usual hobbies of capeshit/Star Wars/etc.
I guess that describes normalfags more than people blindly following Youtube personalities, but I believe the two groups have a large intersection. \rant
>>8085900Not who you're replying to, but I'm definitely gonna disagree with you here. The 3.0's engineering is based very closely on the 2.0, with parts like the torso articulation around the Core Block being directly copied from it. Hell, the weapons are almost exactly the same and the Core Fighter uses the same sculpt. The only things the 3.0 has over the 2.0 are the fully posable hands, a seperate Core Block, the space for the LED unit in the chest, and some additional articulation for the shoulders. It doesn't even come with the Gundam Hammer and the Beam Javelin, which the 2.0 does. IMO, the 2.0 is the better kit since it has more accessories and the inner frame detail is superior, complete with moving pistons on the ankles, knees, and elbows that the 3.0 doesn't have.
None of this is to say the 3.0 is a bad kit, far from it in fact. My point is that despite its age, the 2.0 is an excellent kit that still holds up really well to this day. To say it's been "overshadowed" by the 3.0 when the 2.0 does everything it can do seems pretty foolish. It's just personal taste at that point.
