How do you prefer your figures?

spect_spidey · Post by **spect_spidey** » Wed Oct 19, 2005 8:45 pm

I know this is kind of lame, but I am curious to hear other forum members thoughts on this topic.

Post by **aferguson** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 1:45 am

while i think the names are kinda dumb it does make it very easy to identify the figure that you're talking about, especially when you want to buy a specific one out of the group..

eg i want 3 private Dustys and 2 colonel Killjoys..

Gunner · Post by **Gunner** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:29 am

I was going to vote "No Preference", but the idea that naming the figures makes them easier to identify makes sense to me...

tmanthegreat · Post by **tmanthegreat** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 3:34 pm

I don't really have a preference...

bluesparrow · Post by **bluesparrow** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:29 pm

I voted for the second option. I never remember which figure is which by name.

MG-42 · Post by **MG-42** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:31 pm

I think the name thing is kind'a goofy. I prefer the no classification thing cause you can call'em whatever name you choose.

immeww2 · Post by **immeww2** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:34 pm

I favor the "no-name" soldiers.

75th Ranger · Post by **75th Ranger** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:58 pm

i prefer no name for the 1:18 figures because the names, unit, ranks and role are usually not right!
A Capatain will not carry a bazooka, and a medic will not carry a mortar....if you know what i mean.
So no names, rank, or roles please!!
If you want to use those the at least ask me!!! and I will help you with the proper roles and unit positions!!
take care.
HOOAH!

kenhil2 · Post by **kenhil2** » Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:38 pm

codenames go for gi joes, not for actual figures that are made to represent historical images or replicas, i like having names for my joes, but for 21st and bbi which are generic type troops, i dont want them to have names or personal descriptions, not that it would matter if they did i dont use them.

Law · Post by **Law** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:29 am

I suppose I'm of several minds:

1. I don't really care. I don't keep the boxes, and I forget the names anyway.

2. I don't think the names are a good idea. These are historical figures, not fictional. What matters is the history, not some invented story. If they wanted to actually use someone's story, that might be neat -- but it hardly is needed.

3. Of course, the idea seems to be that kids don't care about history, and only by giving them names and tying them to GI Joe like that can the toys find a wider audience necessary to keep the line going. So since it doesn't really matter, sure, why not?

3a. OF course, that doesn't seem to work. 21CT started this, what, two years ago? Three? And, yeah, it worked like gangbusters. Three short years later and we have seven whole new figures. Star Wars has made, what, 150 figurs in that time? I don't know if the bbi WWII figs are going to sell better this way, the character names seem pretty irrelevant. They aren't in any big letters, and half the time the figs don't seem to be identified by the character name anyway.

So.... I guess I have no point.

Ah well.

Law

digger · Post by **digger** » Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:49 am

I'm with Aferg that it just makes it easier to id each guy, so I think you will ALWAYS have named figures. Maybe not after individuals, but there will always be Wilson, Cleary, Jaeger, Ekiguchi...etc...

My only other concern is that they are not boxed into roles - Army Builders always sell - Crimson Guard, German Infantry, Clones, etc...

But, we can't do the SW to XD comparison - just not fair. SW is why Hasbro exists today, and perhaps why they will get bought out. Hasbro knows a SW movie is better than Xmas for them, and soon is a DVD release so I bet you will see more figs.

For a small domestic company I think a set of modern, 2 sets of Marines, German BoB, US BoB and a set of Japanese plus pack-ins is not bad for the last 3 years. Certainly takes more onions than making a Series 73 Obi Wan.

Small Scale Military Headquarters