>>6073149Not a statement, but for the purpose it's just too vague.
Like, you can't tell if these pieces belong together or if they are just random ones put together in a frame because a reference (like a finished figure or a blueprint or a picture) is missing.
How does the figure look like in the end?
And I still think that keeping the pieces attached to each other just looks lazy, like they just removed the pieces from the box and nailed it into a frame.
If you want that "whole thing but in pieces" aesthetic it works better here
>>6072058It looks less like a toy in pieces and more like a miniature of the mentioned blueprint idea.
Or how it's sometimes shown in shows of that kind with 3D models of the figure and parts of it being pulled away so you can have a closer look at it.
It would also look great if you finish single pieces and then sort them vaguely like the finished figure in the frame, with those lines like on the blueprint explaining what every single piece is.
That way you still have that deconstructed look but it looks less lazy and like that person had a plan.
>>6073373I think combined it would look better, yes.
The ones in the wood frame just lacks something.
There's so much you can do with that idea, and all of them are better than the boring wood frame version.
