>>10019947And has it been meticulously modelled after a real-world subject (in this case, a firearm) with painstaking accuracy?
Has it been engineered such that any competent hobbyist without access to specialist tools can assemble it?
Has it been made from harder plastic, which gives much better results at smaller scale (no risk of those bipods warping) at the cost of durability, necessitating more precise extraction to avoid breakage?
Is it 100% unique with no shared engineering between it or any other toy from the same range?
Is it a premium product made in lesser quantities than a mass-produced children's toy?
You clearly know very little about what makes cheap things cheap and expensive things expensive.
>And of course, it's just as detailed as modern toys,It has a similar amount of visual noise (if not more) but the actual quality of that detail is lesser. That's a ToyBiz ML right? Because I've handled a fair few of those things and none of them have aged well.
>because molding technology has not changed since the 90s, if not sooner.You repeating this does not make it any less false.
Again, look at RG frames, which are molded on the sprue with fully functional joints. The closest I can think of to that from the 90s was the LMHG Eva arms, which (like the kits they came with) were incredibly simple compared to today's kits, even if they were ahead of their time. Compare those 1998(?) offerings to even the first RG from 2010, and especially to the engineering porn that are modern kits.
Though ironically, even with their rubber-coated arms? Those Bandai Eva kits were still much more poseable than anything the West was putting out. A shame the colour breakup is so, well, late 90s because they're pretty advanced for their time.
