TF Views

The review and comment reads like a conversation. How did you guys set that up, and why did you choose that format? I like it. More personality and back and forth than the typical toy review.

I am 100% skip on this line. Knowing that the drones had robot modes that got "costed out" (which really just adds more fuel to my Rodimus question for the Q&A) makes it that much worse. I think JT hit it on the head as to why it really bothers me: If they're going to turn into limbs, they should LOOK like limbs and be able to function accordingly. The Bombshock I purchased could barely stand on his own in merged form and for four vehicles that have that as their only/primary function, that's just inexcusable.

Shockwave
-Is much happier with the knock off sixbuilder.

We actually emailed back and forth. JT set up an outline with talking points. We each talked about every point, and then added in rebuttals to each other's comments. In theory, we could tet up templates for this sort of thing.

Shockwave, I am glad you like that bootleg. But, geez man....


Dom
-looking forward to wave 2 actually.

It's a good format and seems to be working.

Dominic wrote:Well, uh, I would buy that kind of pack.

Then all you need to do is find around 49,999 other people exactly like you who would as well. Until then, it's an idea that will make only unselling product I think.

I tend to display the drones near a commander, if not always their own. Like I said, I look at them almost as gaming sets, "Autobot Commander w/ Minicon" or "Autobot Commander with air drones". The Commanders and Minicons are characters, the drones are equipment.

This comes back to that marketing thing of "well, what are these to their chief audiences?" question. Basically, you're describing liking them only for the idea of what they could be, no play pattern really, and not much of a display pattern. You're thinking of them based on the potential to create battles in your imagination alone. Attacktix failed for a good reason though, that stuff isn't mainstream for either audience.

For play value, use.....Searchlight and some drones.

Searchlight is, (as stated on his package), a rescue specialist. He and the Minicon focus on search/salvage and rescue. The AWACs plane circles the general area, increasing communications range and scanning for possible attackers. The non-armed copter would provide extra carrying/lifting power. (Remember, a little kid will just assume that the tow hook on the back can hang from a strong or something.) The armed copter guards the area immediately around Seachlight while the fighter jet patrols a larger area, and possibly interdicts attackers.

Is that really a play pattern you see as repeatable to a kid audience? I don't see it.

But, Hasbro could have gotten rid of the vehicle modes and kept the robot/limb conversion. Why did they go with vehicle/limb instread of robot/limb? Maybe we should ask them.

Ask them we will then. My guess though is that the mechanics of the limb conversion are more interesting when going from an "Earth vehicle" look to a limb, since robots already look like something technological and foreign.

andersonh1 wrote:The review and comment reads like a conversation. How did you guys set that up, and why did you choose that format? I like it. More personality and back and forth than the typical toy review.

Originally, I wanted to do a PCC overview since Hasbro sent me a cross-section of the line. However, since I had already purchased much of wave 1 and formed opinions about it, I figured I needed to deliver a line overview first that was unbiased, then give my personal opinions. But I also didn't want the only view of the line to be mine, especially since I am so frustrated with the engineering problems, design problems, and the lack of concept in the drones, so I asked Dom if he'd like to participate in a point-counterpoint discussion, we'd each make opening salvos and then 1 rebuttal each, in retrospect it's kind of like a voting mailer (at least, that's how they look in California). I chose Dom because I knew he liked the line, and he has a wildly different perspective on TF than I do, and we've had lots of discussions exactly like that in the past. If I had more time to plan it, I would have invited 2 more people to discuss it as well, a roundtable discussion, but I had a bunch of family stuff on my plate and not a lot of time.

Shockwave wrote:It's a good format and seems to be working.

Cool! Glad to hear you guys dig it. If you want to do something similar for the news, LMK and I'll help out.

Oh, yeah, I'd totally be into this kind of thing. Maybe if it was more topical, ShockTrek, me and 86 could BS about War for Cybertron.

Is that really a play pattern you see as repeatable to a kid audience? I don't see it.

Kids could set up and play out good skirmishes with PCC. C'mon now.....

Onslaught Six wrote:Oh, yeah, I'd totally be into this kind of thing. Maybe if it was more topical, ShockTrek, me and 86 could BS about War for Cybertron.

I'd be down for it.

Onslaught Six wrote:Oh, yeah, I'd totally be into this kind of thing. Maybe if it was more topical, ShockTrek, me and 86 could BS about War for Cybertron.

Ok, well LMK what you need. Email me.

Dominic wrote:Kids could set up and play out good skirmishes with PCC. C'mon now.....

They could also learn to juggle and take care of seniors, it doesn't mean it's likely to happen.

JediTricks wrote:

Onslaught Six wrote:Oh, yeah, I'd totally be into this kind of thing. Maybe if it was more topical, ShockTrek, me and 86 could BS about War for Cybertron.

Ok, well LMK what you need. Email me.

I need for WfC to be relevant anymore.