>>9856080>Wouldn't this alone make McFarlanes blow Marvel Legends out of the water in sculpt?Not necessarily, no. I'm speaking about a lack of fidelity, not texturing every surface. For example, if a design is supposed to have a sharp, boxy backpack and we get a soft, formless one that vaguely resembles a bar of soap. A figure or design does not inherently need to be complex, but I do want a toy to at least have enough detail to stay true to its inspiration.
>Some companies are just far more focused on some things.Yes, and that's ok. Because in a facts-based review like I am proposing, people will see all of these things laid out before them like a map. They can see that MLs excel in posing, McFarlane in details, and NECA in paint, and they can then take those facts and draw their own conclusions from them.
>Also, some people like a clean, less detailed sculptYes, so they would see that a McFarlane figure has "high detail sculpt" in its review, and know that they probably would not like it.
It's kinda funny, your points are written like you're contradicting or correcting me, but nothing you're saying really goes against what I said. We are technically in agreement, yes, certain companies excel in some places and fall flat in others, and yes, some people prefer one thing over another. A flat, no-opinion review serves all these things well.
