Support NeoGAF

[NotLiquid]

At least they got DK right as you showed in that pic. They better not screw up DK.

I'm still very pissed they made Peach derpy. Why the hell did they change her? She was perfect before!

What about Peach is "derpy"? The only difference in the new iteration as far as expression goes is that her smile is a bit more pronounced and that the glossy iris shine is gone.

 

[Yado]

Some of these look like crude art projects.

 

[Leafhopper]

What about Peach is "derpy"? The only difference in the new iteration as far as expression goes is that her smile is a bit more pronounced and that the glossy iris shine is gone.

And her hand is now a mitten/undefined blob that has a thumb and dulled hair ( that one I kinda get if kids are handling them)

 

[Lord Phol]

Except for Peach and Link they look pretty spot on. There's a slight difference in color but I suspect that has to do with the different lighting in the photos.

Seems like a bit of overreaction to me.

 

[NotLiquid]

And her hand is now a mitten and dulled hair ( that one I kinda get.)

Well, I was talking mostly about the face. I can tell the differences as far as her other features go, but the post implied that her facial expression got ruined when the change is hardly that big.

 

[Aostia]

I dunno, Samus looks pretty good to me. (Source)

yesterday's pics were ugly way more than the actual figures LOL
but a downgrade happened, as it was obvious, from prototyping to mass production
the figures most affected are the human realistc ones, such as peach and marth, Link partially less, while the other are still good to me
I'm still looking forward for Mario in the Smash bundle, Link becase of its use in Hyrule Warriors (still to be detailed) and Samus because to me she is really good looking
But I'l buy them in store, without any preorders, because for mass production toys it's better to go and look at each and everyone before to pick them up, because there will be for example some Link with bended sword, and other with perfect sword, so I can choose mine.

 

[Leafhopper]

Well, I was talking mostly about the face. I can tell the differences as far as her other features go, but the post implied that her facial expression got ruined when the change is hardly that big.

Oh *smack* you were just talking about the face. That totally zoomed passed me, my bad.

 

[Grunkle]

What about Peach is "derpy"? The only difference in the new iteration as far as expression goes is that her smile is a bit more pronounced and that the glossy iris shine is gone.

Her hair looks like they put a glob of clay on her head and her hands now have short and stubby fingers for starters and her eyes are kinda dull now, where they had a sparkle to them in the "prototype". Even the "upskirt", all perviness aside, made people believe that these figures would have some nice details to them and made us want to buy them.

But then they had to do a complete change of the figure, and it now looks like crap.

 

[RumblingRosco]

Samus, Villager and Fox.

Still hyped for Villager, but why is the stand eating his left foot? I guess I'm surprised they even need a stand in that location given that his left foot seems to be flat on the surface of the base.

 

[Chaos17]

I'm not suprised by the downgrade.
How could we expect to have high quality amiibo just for 15$ or 12$ ?

 

[Dr. Buni]

Except for Peach and Link they look pretty spot on. There's a slight difference in color but I suspect that has to do with the different lighting in the photos.

Seems like a bit of overreaction to me.

No, they don't. People are really defending this? lol

 

[Glitchesarecool]

I'm not suprised by the downgrade.
How could we expect to have high quality amiibo just for 15$ or 12$ ?

Who was expecting it to be high quality at $15? Figmas cost $50 minimum, usually, and those are what's considered decent for the figure world.

I'll hold out my opinion for when I can see it with my own eyes.

 

[StreetsAhead]

No, they don't. People are really defending this? lol

Which ones besides Peach and Link don't look 'pretty spot on'?

Marth, in my opinion is pretty bad too, but other than that there's nothing really different about them except the dumb coloured plastic supports.

 

[Tom_Cody]

How does WFT look compared to the prototype?

Essentially exactly the same:

And this is relevant to me since I am maining WFT at the moment.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I might hand pick a Peach one, but I am saddened by the downgrade. That was part of the hype for me -- some half decent Nintendo figures for cheap. I've had some nice $20 figures, I was expecting closer to that.

 

[LeleSocho]

Oh wow those look terribad how can people defend them?

 

[BGBW]

I might hand pick a Peach one, but I am saddened by the downgrade. That was part of the hype for me -- some half decent Nintendo figures for cheap. I've had some nice $20 figures, I was expecting closer to that.

It was only going to go the other way since you have to take into account the NFC and memory aspect to these. Remember how much they charged for memory cards? The figurines may be £10 but the figs on their own will have a lesser value if one subtracts that NFC cost. Probably should see them as £5-£7 figs.

I expect future NFC figurines to look better since they'll likely consider using poses that are better balanced. I'm sure the Smash renders were designed before the idea of using NFC figurines came about.

 

[Green Yoshi]

If there is a 9,99$ offer, I will buy them. 15$ is a little bit too expensive.

 

[Astral/H3X]

It was only going to go the other way since you have to take into account the NFC and memory aspect to these. Remember how much they charged for memory cards? The figurines may be £10 but the figs on their own will have a lesser value if one subtracts that NFC cost. Probably should see them as £5-£7 figs.

I expect future NFC figurines to look better since they'll likely consider using poses that are better balanced. I'm sure the Smash renders were designed before the idea of using NFC figurines came about.

I suppose I should have used th word hope. The prototype ones were really nice looking, and I suppose it was a bit unrealistic.

 

[Aostia]

Oh wow those look terribad how can people defend them?

LOL
what a good behiaviour to steal the meaning of other people's opinion, wow.
congrats.

the human realistic ones (but not WFT, imho) clearly are not so good looking, but I really think (poor me, right?) that others are very good for being 12/15$ figures.

but if this is ugly for you, I respect your opinion. I just wonder if you took a look just to yesterday's pics, or also to the other ones, way better, posted today.

http://instagram.com/ashpaulsen

About me, this could easily be mine:

 

[Kings fan]

Kirby and Link specifically look more closer to their videogame models than the prototypes in my opinion. This is assuming that the top pics are the retail versions which if so I am pleasantly suprised that they look more like they do in the games.

Of course they could look even more different in person but I'm glad link doesn't havevthay generic pale face from the prototype version.

Edit: after seeing the samus redesign I'm a little bummed for that one that they didn't keep the original design and that it looks a little more plastic based. Still stoked for Link and Kirby but not as much for Samus now. As another user mentioned the round wide type characters look like they are replicated well so I am also looking forward to Ness. Mario is another one that actually looks a lot better than the prototype model.

 

[NotLiquid]

The Ness Amiibo ought to look great. The rounded/wider characters look the best and he's among those. His updated pose for the game also is also the best one he's had in the series.

To think there will be actual cool figure merch of Earthbound stuff is awesome.

 

[Koppai]

My Walmart had this display up for them yesterday: http://i.imgur.com/o0XjQ9T.jpg

And yes, they look extremely cheap in person and this display doesn't explain shit about them. I clicked on the Zelda one, dragged a link figure on the screen to the upad, and... Got a Zelda history slideshow.

Is that just a pic of the amiibos because that Peach hasnthe detailed skirt with engravings while what we saw in the pics was just painted on.

 

[Einbroch]

Holy crap they're tiny. Samus is as tall as the width of your hand.

Maybe that's how big all these NFC-game figures are, but wow.

 

[Aurongel]

The amount of traffic this is generating is ridiculous and I feel compelled to set the record straight on a lot of what people think is going on here.

I've done product photography for a few years now to help pay my way through college so I can definitely say that most of the differences I see between these have to do with the lighting used in combination with the lens used to take these.

I've seen a few posters complain about the spacing of certain facial features on some of these and from what I gather that's actually a result of the photos being taken with a wider angle lens (smartphone cameras in this case) which are infamous for exaggerating proportions from the center of the frame outward.

Second, the official company released images might actually not be photos at all. Many toy companies and retailers like IKEA actually use 3D rendered images for their catalogues and promotional material because it's cheaper to do so. If they were shot conventionally (and there's no real way to tell...) then any differences in color can be explained by the diffused lighting they use. These shots used high key lighting which is intentional as it gives the colors a more pastel look which in this case looks the most appealing.

---------------------------------------------

EDIT: After snooping through the EXIF data attached to the image files, it appears that they were in fact taken with a 35mm camera and a macro lens. This combination is commonly used for beauty portraits and product shots because it's known to slim down the subject. Once again, there isn't anything more heinous going on here than in literally any other professional product shot.

EDIT 2: There are a few actual oddities though that I can't defend, like thin pieces (Marth's sword) warping so severely.

 

[Tom_Cody]

LOL
what a good behiaviour to steal the meaning of other people's opinion, wow.
congrats.

the human realistic ones (but not WFT, imho) clearly are not so good looking, but I really think (poor me, right?) that others are very good for being 12/15$ figures.

but if this is ugly for you, I respect your opinion. I just wonder if you took a look just to yesterday's pics, or also to the other ones, way better, posted today.

http://instagram.com/ashpaulsen

About me, this could easily be mine:

Those all look fantastic.

 

[Koppai]

Wow after seeing that guys pics im keeping the amiibos

 

[Pennywise83]

The downgrade is real.

The main problem, imo, is the fact that those stands are ugly. Wii Fit Trainer's foot is stucked in a block of ice and is really unaesthetic.

 

[Glitchesarecool]

I've done product photography for a few years now to help pay my way through college so I can definitely say that most of the differences I see between these have to do with the lighting used in combination with the lens used to take these.

I've seen a few posters complain about the spacing of certain facial features on some of these and from what I gather that's actually a result of the photos being taken with a wider angle lens (smartphone cameras in this case) which are infamous for exaggerating proportions from the center of the frame outward.

Second, the official company released images might actually not be photos at all. Many toy companies and retailers like IKEA actually use 3D rendered images for their catalogues and promotional material because it's cheaper to do so. If they were shot conventionally (and there's no real way to tell...) then any differences in color can be explained by the diffused lighting they use. These shots used high key lighting which is intentional as it gives the colors a more pastel look which in this case looks the most appealing.

---------------------------------------------

EDIT: After snooping through the EXIF data attached to the image files, it appears that they were in fact taken with a 35mm camera and a macro lens. This combination is commonly used for beauty portraits and product shots because it's known to slim down the subject. Once again, there isn't anything more heinous going on here than in literally any other professional product shot.

EDIT 2: There are a few actual oddities though that I can't defend, like thin pieces (Marth's sword) warping so severely.

This really should be in the first post.

 

[jaxpunk]

I've done product photography for a few years now to help pay my way through college so I can definitely say that most of the differences I see between these have to do with the lighting used in combination with the lens used to take these.

I've seen a few posters complain about the spacing of certain facial features on some of these and from what I gather that's actually a result of the photos being taken with a wider angle lens (smartphone cameras in this case) which are infamous for exaggerating proportions from the center of the frame outward.

Second, the official company released images might actually not be photos at all. Many toy companies and retailers like IKEA actually use 3D rendered images for their catalogues and promotional material because it's cheaper to do so. If they were shot conventionally (and there's no real way to tell...) then any differences in color can be explained by the diffused lighting they use. These shots used high key lighting which is intentional as it gives the colors a more pastel look which in this case looks the most appealing.

---------------------------------------------

EDIT: After snooping through the EXIF data attached to the image files, it appears that they were in fact taken with a 35mm camera and a macro lens. This combination is commonly used for beauty portraits and product shots because it's known to slim down the subject. Once again, there isn't anything more heinous going on here than in literally any other professional product shot.

EDIT 2: There are a few actual oddities though that I can't defend, like thin pieces (Marth's sword) warping so severely.

There can't be any sense allowed in this thread, only internet rage over a perceived slight that no one has seen in person. You with all your facts and sense is crazy talk.

 

[piccolo85]

The most obvious difference is that ones are photographes by a professional and the others are from someone who doesn't know how to use his/her camera...

 

[ShinRPGamer]

Of the ones I've seen, Marth, Link, Peach, Villager and to a lesser extent the Wii Fit Trainer look the worst. Meanwhile, DK, Yoshi and Pikachu look the best. I think it's fair to say that the more human-like you are, the more likely you will look like crap. I hope Robin, Lucina, Palentina and Dark Pit will look decent.

 

[big_erk]

I bet Marth's sword would stay rigid if Peach still had her panties.

Seriously though, while I understand why they would go with softer plastice for the pokey pieces, it's still a little disappointing. But it also makes for a safer more durable product.

Could you imagine the uproar if Marth's sword was snapping off left and right or kids were poking each other in the eyes. It would be the top story on CNN "Nintendo's Amiibos are unsafe!!!"

 

[Ansatz]

I think they look good (except Link), what tips me over the fence is the fact that they're based on official artwork from the games. Their pose and design matters to me more than the quality of the toy.

 

[Rocky]

I've done product photography for a few years now to help pay my way through college so I can definitely say that most of the differences I see between these have to do with the lighting used in combination with the lens used to take these.

I've seen a few posters complain about the spacing of certain facial features on some of these and from what I gather that's actually a result of the photos being taken with a wider angle lens (smartphone cameras in this case) which are infamous for exaggerating proportions from the center of the frame outward.

Second, the official company released images might actually not be photos at all. Many toy companies and retailers like IKEA actually use 3D rendered images for their catalogues and promotional material because it's cheaper to do so. If they were shot conventionally (and there's no real way to tell...) then any differences in color can be explained by the diffused lighting they use. These shots used high key lighting which is intentional as it gives the colors a more pastel look which in this case looks the most appealing.

---------------------------------------------

EDIT: After snooping through the EXIF data attached to the image files, it appears that they were in fact taken with a 35mm camera and a macro lens. This combination is commonly used for beauty portraits and product shots because it's known to slim down the subject. Once again, there isn't anything more heinous going on here than in literally any other professional product shot.

EDIT 2: There are a few actual oddities though that I can't defend, like thin pieces (Marth's sword) warping so severely.

Seems to me that the images are of the actual figures that were shown at E3. And those sure weren't renders.

I was actually very excited about these, a good set of Nintendo figures, with finally a decent looking Peach, AND an actual Princess Zelda figure instead of just a Link figure like we always seem to get.

I had 6 figures preordered on Amazon, but cancelled them all, even though Mario, Luigi and DK look ok. I really wanted to have a nice set, that includes Mario and Peach and Link and Zelda.

I wasn't even planning to use them in Smash, I just like nice looking figures and wanted some decent looking Nintendo ones for my collection.

 

[big_erk]

I think they look good (except Link), what tips me over the fence is the fact that they're based on official artwork from the games. Their pose and design matters to me more than the quality of the toy.

And those poses are the reason for some of the ugly supports. I bet they try to pick poses in the future that will minimize the need for the larger plastic support pieces.

 

[Marcus]

really not seeing how this is such a big deal. yes peach, marth, and villager look terrible but its $20 figure folks

 

[Trojita]

http://instagram.com/ashpaulsen

About me, this could easily be mine:

That looks really ugly.

 

[Kitoro]

Someone get Link a new catheter, stat!

 

[Kouichi]

http://instagram.com/ashpaulsen

About me, this could easily be mine:

Damn these look great! Glad to see the Fox amiibo looking so good since it's the first amiibo I'm buying. Now I know Falco and Greninja will also look good. Though I'm a bit worried about Palutena given how the other "human" characters turned out.

 

[Placktor]

http://instagram.com/ashpaulsen
About me, this could easily be mine:

All of those look fantastic except Peach and Marth (Marth looked weird from the start to me).
Something is off about Villagers eyes though. :/

 

[BodiesWithoutOrgans]

All of those look fantastic except Peach and Marth (Marth looked weird from the start to me).
Something is off about Villagers eyes though. :/

yeah its the human amiibo I think people are having a hard time with

 

[Maedhros]

They all look a lot worse.

But wghen I entered the thread and read the OP, I already knew someone would defend this. Oh well...

 

[Aostia]

This really should be in the first post.

together with those instagram pics.
But, Oh, hey, let's shit on people who like them! (lilke the last post above mine)

 

[Pennywise83]

together with those instagram pics.
But, Oh, hey, let's shit on people who like them! (lilke the last post above mine)

You can't avoid that, though.

If Nintendo shows the product in a certain way to ADVERTISE it, the general public will believe that will be the product they will buy. Those pictures are in preorders website, so no wonder that people are legitimately angry about the downgrade.

Then you can argue that one shouldn't be that angry over these things, that Nintendo awares people about the prototype nature of the products (though not stores websites), and that the downgrade is not that terrible.

But people complaining have a point.

 

[Squishy3]

Where are the pictures of the Little Mac Amiibo

 

[Stulaw]

I may get a Samus and Kirby one, Kirby's one of my main characters and Samus looks nice. There's no instagram picture of Link though... I'll go have a look in town for myself.

 

[Exile20]

The amount of traffic this is generating is ridiculous and I feel compelled to set the record straight on a lot of what people think is going on here.

I've done product photography for a few years now to help pay my way through college so I can definitely say that most of the differences I see between these have to do with the lighting used in combination with the lens used to take these.

I've seen a few posters complain about the spacing of certain facial features on some of these and from what I gather that's actually a result of the photos being taken with a wider angle lens (smartphone cameras in this case) which are infamous for exaggerating proportions from the center of the frame outward.

Second, the official company released images might actually not be photos at all. Many toy companies and retailers like IKEA actually use 3D rendered images for their catalogues and promotional material because it's cheaper to do so. If they were shot conventionally (and there's no real way to tell...) then any differences in color can be explained by the diffused lighting they use. These shots used high key lighting which is intentional as it gives the colors a more pastel look which in this case looks the most appealing.

---------------------------------------------

EDIT: After snooping through the EXIF data attached to the image files, it appears that they were in fact taken with a 35mm camera and a macro lens. This combination is commonly used for beauty portraits and product shots because it's known to slim down the subject. Once again, there isn't anything more heinous going on here than in literally any other professional product shot.

EDIT 2: There are a few actual oddities though that I can't defend, like thin pieces (Marth's sword) warping so severely.

We dont know if it warped or if people handling them bent the sword. There are screen shots with the sword straight and only one with it bent.

 

[Maedhros]

together with those instagram pics.
But, Oh, hey, let's shit on people who like them! (lilke the last post above mine)

Yeah, it's my favourite hobby.

Seriously though, I can't understand how people can defend this level of downgrade, specially on Peach. She looks A LOT worse than the initial preview. If I had these pre-ordered and received these instead of the ones advertised, you can be sure I would be pissed.

Good thing I always let the others see first if something is crap before I buy.

 

[Snkfanatic]

LOL
what a good behiaviour to steal the meaning of other people's opinion, wow.
congrats.

together with those instagram pics.
But, Oh, hey, let's shit on people who like them! (lilke the last post above mine)

Why are you getting personally offended about other people's opinions?