>>11583017>What buzzwords?>fun>badassBut now you're trying to backtrack after being called out.
Whatever happened to
>the most worthless original figure (Crystal Ball) and turned it into a bad-ass that's actually worth getting.>The original guy was just a doofy looking old man with a random shield. Looked more like a cheap fortune teller at a carnival than a mystic/occult dude. Again, the new figure looks almost identical so when i pointed this out you then changed your goalpost about how chintzy accessories makes him "FUN".
You're just flipflopping, becasue you don't have a genuine opinion, making you sound like some marketer.
>>11583024They still use high quality paint apps, if you're willing to pay for it, but McFarlane wanted to introduce the line to general public again and that required a cheaper price. Like i said, shit's basically 8x more expensive now (technically 3x). Hasbro would never release something this (before and now), whereas McFarlane still does.
>You've done zero research on any of this shitI literally mentioned the missing paint apps ijn the post, which you're too illiterate to comprehend. ... or did you stop reading my post, because you got that mad?
Again, the level of paint to make clear plastic not look chintzy is above Hasbro's abilities.
Fucking fuck. I questioned a guy about what a middle aged occult dude from the 70s looks badass when the new figure still looks 95% identical and you guys go into ultra defensive mode.
If you actually think the eye shadow is truly badass, LOL!, but more power to you. If you like his Always Sunny in Philidelphia sleeveless look and think Mac is a badass, that's hilarious, but again, more power to you. No need to dig your hole further, shit the place up with a hundred other rationalizations, and get angry at me.
