Transforming robot toys sometimes use "substitute parts" to assist in transforming. For example, the feet of the robot are to be turned into cars, but the technology or cost cannot support the direct conversion of the soles of the feet into the cockpit, so another part is used instead. I'm guessing most people are like me and would rather choose "true deformation" than this "alternative part deformation" if you can.
Wouldn't it be even better if I could just twist the angle of the sole of my foot and turn it into a cockpit? The question is, why do we industry email list have this preference? You can think of many practical answers, such as true morphing that doesn't leave you with extra parts under both modes that need to be specially saved, lost, or eaten by children. But here I would like to introduce a philosophical answer: Robot toys have a metaphysical quality, so "replacement part deformation" can easily make us play when we play.
representation and identity Imagine you take out a robotic toy and a set of bells and put it on the table. They are all toys, but they are not the same. The bell is designed to be what you see it because it's a bell, not because it's going to be anything else. However, the robot toy is designed to look like you see it because it is meant to represent the robot, or in philosophical terms, it is meant to represent the robot.