>>5917571>And looking at the picture you posted, I don't see a problem.Did you miss the part where I personally took that photograph? Seems like you did, probably not on purpose, because you have a hard time believing someone can think ill of your amazing best brand of all time.
Nevermind the fact that stores and convention booths display these toys outside of their boxes and sometimes hold hte figure before buying them.
>I can't see the dots.That's some serious denial you got going there, considering guys like this believe i added extra dots to it
>>5917041You may not see the individual dots when you're not viewing him closely, but it sure looks grainy as fuck.
>>5917373>you're not allowed to criticize Figuarts unless you're shitting on other brands, proving Figuarts is superiorYou're clearly nuts.
But i do say things about other brands all the time, but since you don't know who I am on an anonymous message board, your little hang up won't be satisfied... just because i don't say it while criticizing specific figures.
Plus, why would i even lie in cases like this?
Also, what's wrong with just talking about a figure all by itself? Do I always need to say something bad about another brand when criticizing a Figuarts?
Is it really wrong to just saying
>$60 and they can't even get the likeness for Luke right?or
>$60 and they can't even use real paint apps for the face?or
>Why is the face done with a low resolution dot matrix printer? 