| |
This is my word for TLG's recent penchant for inserting random color bricks
SW sets. Here's the excerpt from the FBTB site interview:
> What exactly is behind LEGO randomly inserting colored bricks into models? • I'm referring to things like the green brick in >the Shuttle.
>
> For all LEGO models, we are hoping to provide kids with a great building
experience. We have learned over the years that it >is difficult for kids to
build certain models in which there is a large number of one colored bricks.
To help make the >experience better for kids of all ages, we have inserted
certain color changes into the sets to make this easier.
I just want to say that I think this explanation is poo. If there's one
thing I've observed from looking at all the MOC's that young kids build,
it's they don't care as much about color the way adults do. Kids use
whatever brick fits the purpose. At all the Baylug meetings I've attended
(and I'm sure you guys'll agree), when the kids get down on the floor to
make stuff with all of Uncle Dan's bricks, they just grab bricks at random,
no matter what color they are.
Remember the photos of all the alternate models on the back of Classic Space
set boxes? There weren't any green or red bricks tossed in to make the
experience "easier." It's called imagination TLG, and we're pretty good at
using it!
Dave (happier now to have vented that)
|
|
| |
David:
> This is my word for TLG's recent penchant for inserting
> random color bricks SW sets.
It is done in all kinds of sets. And it has happened for
quite some time.
While you are right that kids generally don't care much
about the colours (neither do I for first generation
models), they certainly grow more experienced and try to
include more details in their models. At that point it
is useful for them to have a slightly wider variety of
colours at hand.
Play well,
Jacob
--
http://hugin.ldraw.org/LEGO/Transport/Broer/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> David:
>
> > This is my word for TLG's recent penchant for inserting
> > random color bricks SW sets.
>
> It is done in all kinds of sets. And it has happened for
> quite some time.
>
> While you are right that kids generally don't care much
> about the colours (neither do I for first generation
> models), they certainly grow more experienced and try to
> include more details in their models. At that point it
> is useful for them to have a slightly wider variety of
> colours at hand.
I really don't believe, given the specific wording of the interview answer,
that the extraneous colours are inserted to add variety. I'd wager that they're
put into sets where they are as 'placeholders', so as to make it easier to
assemble the sets as per their instructions. I quote specifically:
> "We have learned over the years that it is difficult for kids to
> build certain models in which there is a large number of one colored bricks.
> To help make the experience better for kids of all ages, we have inserted
> certain color changes into the sets to make this easier."
An individual with a developing sense of spatial reasoning (think target
market/children, i.e. lower age ranges) can be greatly assisted with, say, a
bright red 2x2 brick as a reference marker in a great big field of grey studs.
I think that explanation makes perfect sense. I'd even suspected it for some
time now.
Cheers,
KevinM
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Simmons writes:
> when the kids get down on the floor to
> make stuff with all of Uncle Dan's bricks, they just grab bricks at random,
> no matter what color they are.
But the discussion was not about MOCs...it was about building instructions
for a specific design. Personally, I am inclined to trust that the thousands
of hours of research that the TLG has done over the many years has given
them a solid understanding of the best way to create the instructions (and
thus random colored bricks) for kids of the appropriate target age to use.
> Remember the photos of all the alternate models on the back of Classic Space
> set boxes? There weren't any green or red bricks tossed in to make the
> experience "easier." It's called imagination TLG, and we're pretty good at
> using it!
I remember them very well. I also remember that the models in the box and
showcased on the back of the box weren't as sophisticated as they are today.
Not only because of a wider range of pieces, but an improved sense of design
and realism has made the models more detailed, better looking and somewhat
more complicated. I was actually looking through an old idea book last night
and was chuckling about how far LEGO design has come. (But really, aren't
today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
As far as I see it, I don't really see ease of building instructions and
creativity as the same thing. There are many elements of creativity in
building instructions, but one is direction, one is free form. I don't
really think that the instructions being easer to read and understand takes
away, reduces, or limits creativity in the slightest.
Am I just not following your thinking?
Jake
---
The views expressed here don't necessarily represent those of my employer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee writes:
> As far as I see it, I don't really see ease of building instructions and
> creativity as the same thing. There are many elements of creativity in
> building instructions, but one is direction, one is free form. I don't
> really think that the instructions being easer to read and understand takes
> away, reduces, or limits creativity in the slightest.
I agree with this completely. Clear, detailed, and simple instructions
provide only a single path for one's building to follow; in no way do they
curtail creative exploration of other possibilities.
If anyone finds that current instructions make building too easy, I
recommend either tearing out every other page, or else working from a black
and white photocopy of the instructions, or perhaps merely building in the
dark. These simple steps will no doubt increase the difficulty of model
construction and provide an avenue for more creative building! 8^)
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee writes:
> I remember them very well. I also remember that the models in the box and
> showcased on the back of the box weren't as sophisticated as they are today.
> Not only because of a wider range of pieces, but an improved sense of design
> and realism has made the models more detailed, better looking and somewhat
> more complicated. I was actually looking through an old idea book last night
> and was chuckling about how far LEGO design has come. (But really, aren't
> today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The models of 10,
15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism, details, and
attractiveness.
Yesteryear: Garage Doors
Today: No garage doors
Yesteryear: Cars with doors and chasis you could build
Today: No doors, and one-piece chasis pieces
Yesteryear: Buildings made primarily from basic bricks
Today: Buildigns made primarily from POOPs
IMHO, by every parameter, Town, Castle, and Space sets of yesteryear were
designed with greater detail, attractiveness, and *care*. I'd wager that almost
every AFOL here would agree that set quality has dropped precipitously since the
early 90's. There has not been any System model between 97-01 that can compare
to the best sets of any year between 1978 and 1996. What has changed for the
better in the past few years is that Lego is offering a more versatile range of
elements, especially the old parts in new colors. However, the irony here is
that Lego chooses not to enhance set design and playability with this great
expanded range of parts; instead, however, models are dumbed down and diluted by
careless set design and over-dependence of POOPs and BURPs.
I'd also wager that kids are more sophisticated these days. Does Lego mean to
suggest that, while I did just fine with un-seeded instructions back in the
early 80's (I'm 26), kids these days just can't handle the same concept, the
same task? Does Lego think that kids these days are less inteligent than the
old guard?
In regards to the old idea books, most of the models therein were great examples
of construction possible with existing elements. I'm afraid to say that current
System sets are for the most part uninspiring - they are the kind of slapdash
nonsense that wouldn't suprise me from a lesser company. And the real irony,
the real tragedy, is that Lego is eroding its future customer base. Lego of
yesteryear captured the imagination - set design, alternate-model-box-designs,
and Idea books captivated our imaginations; there really was a sense of wonder
about it that made us fall in love with the Brick. Do curent System sets have
that same effect today? I doubt it. Not because kids these days can't be
inspired by non-media entertainment, but at least in this case, because Lego has
lost its way.
respectfully,
james
|
|
| |
Somone at LEGO apparently wrote:
> For all LEGO models, we are hoping to provide kids with a great building
> experience. We have learned over the years that it is difficult for kids to
> build certain models in which there is a large number of one colored bricks.
My experience as a child was just the opposite. I always had too many
colors and not enough of the same colors. That made me want to buy more
sets, of course...and it still does.
Marketing, marketing, marketing.
> To help make the experience better for kids of all ages, we have inserted
> certain color changes into the sets to make this easier.
LOL...Yeah, right. Who do they think they're fooling? Why feed us garbage
answers like this? Does TLC think we're all a bunch of idiots? We're not
good enough for a completely candid answer? :-/ :-/ :-/ sigh...
David Simmons wrote:
> I just want to say that I think this explanation is poo. If there's one
> thing I've observed from looking at all the MOC's that young kids build,
> it's they don't care as much about color the way adults do. Kids use
> whatever brick fits the purpose.
Maybe that's the evidence they saw, and drew the wrong conclusion. :-)
> At all the Baylug meetings I've attended
> (and I'm sure you guys'll agree), when the kids get down on the floor to
> make stuff with all of Uncle Dan's bricks, they just grab bricks at random,
> no matter what color they are.
I'm curious what age range of kids that was. I would think the older the
kid, the more important color consistency is.
> Remember the photos of all the alternate models on the back of Classic Space
> set boxes? There weren't any green or red bricks tossed in to make the
> experience "easier." It's called imagination TLG, and we're pretty good at
> using it!
We all know that they put the boring old colors in because it makes it just
that much harder for people to have lots of the good new colors. Simple
bottom-line marketing. They're a toy company out to make a buck like any
other sometimes. :-(
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, "Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> writes:
> But the discussion was not about MOCs...it was about building instructions
> for a specific design. Personally, I am inclined to trust that the thousands
> of hours of research that the TLG has done over the many years has given
> them a solid understanding of the best way to create the instructions (and
> thus random colored bricks) for kids of the appropriate target age to use.
I'm willing to trust that the thousands of hours of Market Research that TLC
has done over the many years has given them a solid understanding of the
best way to create demand for more pieces and more sets.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee writes:
>
> > I remember them very well. I also remember that the models in the box and
> > showcased on the back of the box weren't as sophisticated as they are today.
> > Not only because of a wider range of pieces, but an improved sense of design
> > and realism has made the models more detailed, better looking and somewhat
> > more complicated. I was actually looking through an old idea book last night
> > and was chuckling about how far LEGO design has come. (But really, aren't
> > today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
>
> Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The models of
> 10, 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism, details, and
> attractiveness.
I have to agree with James wholeheartedly, on pretty much every point he makes.
Were some of the alternate models on old sets difficult to make? Yes, but that
was part of their appeal! It was a challenge! It felt great to show the
picture and the model to my parents and say, "Look! I built this just by
looking at the picture!" When you make the alternate models too easy, you
remove much of what the accomplishment of building it give to the child.
Jeff
P.S. I still want to do my Comparison Survey at various toy stores to find out
which set kids would want more, 6390 Main Street or 6464 Super Rescue
Complex...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee writes:
>
> > I remember them very well. I also remember that the models in the box and
> > showcased on the back of the box weren't as sophisticated as they are today.
> > Not only because of a wider range of pieces, but an improved sense of design
> > and realism has made the models more detailed, better looking and somewhat
> > more complicated. I was actually looking through an old idea book last night
> > and was chuckling about how far LEGO design has come. (But really, aren't
> > today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
>
> Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The models of 10,
> 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism, details, and
> attractiveness.
**snip**
> IMHO, by every parameter, Town, Castle, and Space sets of yesteryear were
> designed with greater detail, attractiveness, and *care*. I'd wager that
> almost every AFOL here would agree that set quality has dropped precipitously
> since the early 90's.
James has identified a fundamental problem facing LEGO in the current and
future market. We're all aware (and some of us are great fans) of
competitors in the construction toy market, at least one of which has made
great strides in providing huge quantities of basic bricks at considerably
lower cost than LEGO. No, the quality isn't yet the same. No, many AFOLs
will never buy clone brands. No, clones aren't the "same" as LEGO. But the
fact remains that the retail presence of clone brands has increased
dramatically over the last few years.
Aside from ABS quality, the only things LEGO has going for it are customer
loyalty and brand name recognition, and these are diminishing slowly but
surely. Every so often someone here posts an "I bought a clone set and it
didn't suck" message, or observes that one can acquire over 650 grey 2x4
bricks in a single $50 clone set, along with a horde of other grey pieces,
rather than spending more than twice that amount at S@H. Many people here
even refer to "legos" in the same way people elsewhere refer to kleenex's
and xerox's. At most retail outlets I find clone brands occupying the very
same shelf as--and in some cases interspersed with--true LEGO sets. At some
point there will be nothing to distinguish LEGO from a clone except the fact
that the clone charges $20.00 for a 700-piece kit while LEGO charges $89.99.
That will be rather an ultimate moment for the market, I should think, and
it should give LEGO considerable pause now, while efforts can still be made
to reverse this trend.
Dave!
|
|
| |
I have often criticized the past several years of set designs
in vague terms such as "poor design values". I think I've
finally found the words to clarify exactly what I don't like.
Current set designs, with the notable exception of the Star Wars
line are "sparse" and "thin". They use pars you wouldn't normally
use to build structures and vehicles. Designs are "open" but lacking
any substance. It's like fat free food. At first it looks appetizing
but as you take a closer look or dig in you are very dissatisfied.
I love the new colors but hate the unnecessary mixing of colors in a set.
If the thing is gray, then make it gray, not light gray, white, dark gray
and blue.
When was the last time LEGO released a set where you have to build
a wall out of bricks?
KL
In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee writes:
>
> > I remember them very well. I also remember that the models in the box and
> > showcased on the back of the box weren't as sophisticated as they are today.
> > Not only because of a wider range of pieces, but an improved sense of design
> > and realism has made the models more detailed, better looking and somewhat
> > more complicated. I was actually looking through an old idea book last night
> > and was chuckling about how far LEGO design has come. (But really, aren't
> > today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
>
> Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The models of • 10,
> 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism, details, and
> attractiveness.
>
> Yesteryear: Garage Doors
> Today: No garage doors
>
> Yesteryear: Cars with doors and chasis you could build
> Today: No doors, and one-piece chasis pieces
>
> Yesteryear: Buildings made primarily from basic bricks
> Today: Buildigns made primarily from POOPs
>
> IMHO, by every parameter, Town, Castle, and Space sets of yesteryear were
> designed with greater detail, attractiveness, and *care*. I'd wager that • almost
> every AFOL here would agree that set quality has dropped precipitously since • the
> early 90's. There has not been any System model between 97-01 that can • compare
> to the best sets of any year between 1978 and 1996. What has changed for the
> better in the past few years is that Lego is offering a more versatile range • of
> elements, especially the old parts in new colors. However, the irony here is
> that Lego chooses not to enhance set design and playability with this great
> expanded range of parts; instead, however, models are dumbed down and diluted • by
> careless set design and over-dependence of POOPs and BURPs.
>
> I'd also wager that kids are more sophisticated these days. Does Lego mean to
> suggest that, while I did just fine with un-seeded instructions back in the
> early 80's (I'm 26), kids these days just can't handle the same concept, the
> same task? Does Lego think that kids these days are less inteligent than the
> old guard?
>
> In regards to the old idea books, most of the models therein were great • examples
> of construction possible with existing elements. I'm afraid to say that • current
> System sets are for the most part uninspiring - they are the kind of slapdash
> nonsense that wouldn't suprise me from a lesser company. And the real irony,
> the real tragedy, is that Lego is eroding its future customer base. Lego of
> yesteryear captured the imagination - set design, alternate-model-box-designs,
> and Idea books captivated our imaginations; there really was a sense of wonder
> about it that made us fall in love with the Brick. Do curent System sets have
> that same effect today? I doubt it. Not because kids these days can't be
> inspired by non-media entertainment, but at least in this case, because Lego • has
> lost its way.
>
> respectfully,
>
> james
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.general, "Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> writes:
> > But the discussion was not about MOCs...it was about building instructions
> > for a specific design. Personally, I am inclined to trust that the thousands
> > of hours of research that the TLG has done over the many years has given
> > them a solid understanding of the best way to create the instructions (and
> > thus random colored bricks) for kids of the appropriate target age to use.
>
> I'm willing to trust that the thousands of hours of Market Research that TLC
> has done over the many years has given them a solid understanding of the
> best way to create demand for more pieces and more sets.
Point taken, but I will also trust the time I've spent observing my kids
build sets by the instructions. The other color parts HELP that process.
Personally I'd rather that they used wilder colors (why, in a grey model,
use a blue 2x2 spotter when you could have used a Maersk Light Blue 2x2
spotter instead) but different colors help the build process. Any different
colors.
That is a true statement based on my experience. Whether there are reasons
why that truth is being piggybacked for other purposes or not is a different
question, but don't deride it as false unless you have the data to back it up.
The spotter pieces in boring colors *inhibit* the single set MOC process,
(which is what we like to do) but *help* the "follow the instructions"
process (which is what a lot of kids do... many kids never get beyond it,
unfortunately). Remember, TLC used to print white dots on some baseplates
for very similar (although not identical) reasons. Those white dots hindered
the MOC process too.
++Lar
|
|
| |
I think the marketing department needs some help.
Every time I hear "our market testing shows that kids and parents
want juniorization" I am amazed at how large the gap between
marketing and reality is.
Parents and kids want the exact same things that adults do from LEGO.
They want sets with many pieces, interesting pieces and most of all
designs of substance. Current set designs (except technic and SW) are all
sizzle and no steak.
What's the difference between parents, kids and adult fans? Adult fans
express their ideas and suggestions here, kids and parents at the stores.
I would suggest having store employees and managers write down specific
types of customer comments and periodically forward them up the chain.
Things like "this set costs too much" or "Do you have any girl sets
that are like the boy sets?" or "do you have <really old set>?" or
"do you have any building sets?" could provide valuable insight.
KL
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> I'm willing to trust that the thousands of hours of Market Research that TLC
> has done over the many years has given them a solid understanding of the
> best way to create demand for more pieces and more sets.
>
> --Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> (But really, aren't
> today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
What alternative images? Other than Star Wars and Technic, it doesn't seem
like any sets have alternate models any more. And the Star Wars alternates
seem invariably ... umm ... goofy.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
>
> > (But really, aren't
> > today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
>
> What alternative images? Other than Star Wars and Technic, it doesn't seem
> like any sets have alternate models any more. And the Star Wars alternates
> seem invariably ... umm ... goofy.
Old alternate images used to suggest ways to build other things with the set
pieces; Star Wars "alternates" only show ways to deconstuct the set. I will
say, however, that the alternate models at the end of some of the larger set
instructions (such as the gray service pack or the Tie/Y-Wing) are a really good
idea (would be better, though, sans those stupid cartoons.)
Lego is really doing themselves a disservice by not putting decent alternate
models on the back of boxes. Alternate modesl used to say, "Hey, look at all
the possibilites that this set offers!). Just putting more images of the set on
the back of the box only says "Gee, bet you didn't know what the set looks like
from this angle!"
james
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> I think the marketing department needs some help.
I have been an assistant Mangager at a KB Toy store for about a month and a
half now. I can tell everyone first hand that TLC's market reasearch is
totally incorect. (I have been memorizing customers interested in Lego since I
started. I was going to post this seperately but this discussion seems to be a
perfect leader.)
> Every time I hear "our market testing shows that kids and parents
> want juniorization" I am amazed at how large the gap between
> marketing and reality is.
>
> Parents and kids want the exact same things that adults do from LEGO.
> They want sets with many pieces, interesting pieces and most of all
> designs of substance. Current set designs (except technic and SW) are all
> sizzle and no steak.
Of the 23 adults who had a passing interest in their childs hobby. 17 of them
told me that Lego has gone down hill over the past 5 to 10 years. (I did not
suggest this is was spoken of their free will) The remaining 6 (2 mothers, 3
fathers, 1 couple) did not know that Mega Blocks were a different brand. 5
(2 mothers, 2 fathers, 1 couple) of them thought they were the "oldschool" lego
designs. Back to the 17 whom belive lego has gone down hill only 8 (3 mothers,
2 grandmothers 1 father, 2 couples) insisted on Lego brand anyway. The other 9
(3 mothers, 2 fathers , and 4 couples) said they bought Mega blocks despite the
lower quality materials because the designs were so much better and they are so
much cheaper. There were dozens of other people who didn't volunteer
information and I did not want to "lead" them to any conclusions. I saw many
kids chosing sets with the most peices and some angered at the current trend
toward more large pieces and less small pieces. Very few kids picked a set
just for the model on the box. Most kids (and I do mean 6-12 here) scruitinzed
sets just as much as AFOLs do. It was really only kids debating on what kind
of toy (i.e. Lego set or Action figure) to buy who even considered buying some
of the Juniorized sets.
> What's the difference between parents, kids and adult fans? Adult fans
> express their ideas and suggestions here, kids and parents at the stores.
I can verify that with experience.
>
> I would suggest having store employees and managers write down specific
> types of customer comments and periodically forward them up the chain.
> Things like "this set costs too much" or "Do you have any girl sets
> that are like the boy sets?" or "do you have <really old set>?" or
> "do you have any building sets?" could provide valuable insight.
>
> KL
Done.
-Mike Petrucelli
>
> In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> >
> > I'm willing to trust that the thousands of hours of Market Research that TLC
> > has done over the many years has given them a solid understanding of the
> > best way to create demand for more pieces and more sets.
> >
> > --Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
>
> > (But really, aren't
> > today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
>
> What alternative images? Other than Star Wars and Technic, it doesn't seem
> like any sets have alternate models any more. And the Star Wars alternates
> seem invariably ... umm ... goofy.
>
> Steve
For goofy... Jake, has Tomas showed you his desktop wallpaper? :) The old
Fabuland set with an elephant and a wheelbarrow, and the alternate model is
the elephant holding the wheelbarrow while the wheelbarrow is standing on
end - the elephant is horizontal in midair. Now that's goofy. ;-)
-Tim
|
|
| |
Posting this again, I wrote it before but for some reason it didn't show up.
James, I agree 100% with what you said here. I think this is pretty sad. I
believe in the LEGO system of play strongly, I just wish LEGO believed in it
too.
-Tim
In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee writes:
>
> > I remember them very well. I also remember that the models in the box and
> > showcased on the back of the box weren't as sophisticated as they are today.
> > Not only because of a wider range of pieces, but an improved sense of design
> > and realism has made the models more detailed, better looking and somewhat
> > more complicated. I was actually looking through an old idea book last night
> > and was chuckling about how far LEGO design has come. (But really, aren't
> > today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
>
> Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The models of 10,
> 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism, details, and
> attractiveness.
>
> Yesteryear: Garage Doors
> Today: No garage doors
>
> Yesteryear: Cars with doors and chasis you could build
> Today: No doors, and one-piece chasis pieces
>
> Yesteryear: Buildings made primarily from basic bricks
> Today: Buildigns made primarily from POOPs
>
> IMHO, by every parameter, Town, Castle, and Space sets of yesteryear were
> designed with greater detail, attractiveness, and *care*. I'd wager that almost
> every AFOL here would agree that set quality has dropped precipitously since the
> early 90's. There has not been any System model between 97-01 that can compare
> to the best sets of any year between 1978 and 1996. What has changed for the
> better in the past few years is that Lego is offering a more versatile range of
> elements, especially the old parts in new colors. However, the irony here is
> that Lego chooses not to enhance set design and playability with this great
> expanded range of parts; instead, however, models are dumbed down and diluted by
> careless set design and over-dependence of POOPs and BURPs.
>
> I'd also wager that kids are more sophisticated these days. Does Lego mean to
> suggest that, while I did just fine with un-seeded instructions back in the
> early 80's (I'm 26), kids these days just can't handle the same concept, the
> same task? Does Lego think that kids these days are less inteligent than the
> old guard?
>
> In regards to the old idea books, most of the models therein were great examples
> of construction possible with existing elements. I'm afraid to say that current
> System sets are for the most part uninspiring - they are the kind of slapdash
> nonsense that wouldn't suprise me from a lesser company. And the real irony,
> the real tragedy, is that Lego is eroding its future customer base. Lego of
> yesteryear captured the imagination - set design, alternate-model-box-designs,
> and Idea books captivated our imaginations; there really was a sense of wonder
> about it that made us fall in love with the Brick. Do curent System sets have
> that same effect today? I doubt it. Not because kids these days can't be
> inspired by non-media entertainment, but at least in this case, because Lego has
> lost its way.
>
> respectfully,
>
> james
|
|
| |
Thank you James, for bringing out this point. I couldn't have summed it up
better.
Dave
James Simpson <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message
news:G9H1y8.M06@lugnet.com...
> Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The models • of 10,
> 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism, details, and
> attractiveness.
>
> Yesteryear: Garage Doors
> Today: No garage doors
>
> Yesteryear: Cars with doors and chasis you could build
> Today: No doors, and one-piece chasis pieces
>
> Yesteryear: Buildings made primarily from basic bricks
> Today: Buildigns made primarily from POOPs
>
> IMHO, by every parameter, Town, Castle, and Space sets of yesteryear were
> designed with greater detail, attractiveness, and *care*. I'd wager that • almost
> every AFOL here would agree that set quality has dropped precipitously • since the
> early 90's. There has not been any System model between 97-01 that can • compare
> to the best sets of any year between 1978 and 1996. What has changed for • the
> better in the past few years is that Lego is offering a more versatile • range of
> elements, especially the old parts in new colors. However, the irony here • is
> that Lego chooses not to enhance set design and playability with this • great
> expanded range of parts; instead, however, models are dumbed down and • diluted by
> careless set design and over-dependence of POOPs and BURPs.
>
> I'd also wager that kids are more sophisticated these days. Does Lego • mean to
> suggest that, while I did just fine with un-seeded instructions back in • the
> early 80's (I'm 26), kids these days just can't handle the same concept, • the
> same task? Does Lego think that kids these days are less inteligent than • the
> old guard?
>
> In regards to the old idea books, most of the models therein were great • examples
> of construction possible with existing elements. I'm afraid to say that • current
> System sets are for the most part uninspiring - they are the kind of • slapdash
> nonsense that wouldn't suprise me from a lesser company. And the real • irony,
> the real tragedy, is that Lego is eroding its future customer base. Lego • of
> yesteryear captured the imagination - set design, • alternate-model-box-designs,
> and Idea books captivated our imaginations; there really was a sense of • wonder
> about it that made us fall in love with the Brick. Do curent System sets • have
> that same effect today? I doubt it. Not because kids these days can't be
> inspired by non-media entertainment, but at least in this case, because • Lego has
> lost its way.
>
> respectfully,
>
> james
|
|
| |
"James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> writes:
> Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The
> models of 10, 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of
> realism, details, and attractiveness.
Are you sure about that? Since this thread goes on .starwars, lets
take the X-Wing as an example. Could such a realistic looking X-Wing
be constructed with the part selection as of 15 or 20 year ago? I
would say probably not. The fairly new selection of various slopes
are quite important to achieve the shape of the X-Wing.
I think a lot of people have a too nostalgic view of yeasteryear's
LEGO selection. Sure, the Town selection of the early 90's was better
than today's. But then, it looks like Town has been made into the
"entry point" for the youngest children, aka Town Jr. In the early
90's, the Town sets did not have this function.
This set, from 1978, was my fav set as a child:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/673
Ok, so it is slightly more than 20 years old, but I will still say
that LEGO sets have evolved into being better and more realistic
looking.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee writes:
> But the discussion was not about MOCs...it was about building instructions
> for a specific design. Personally, I am inclined to trust that the thousands
> of hours of research that the TLG has done over the many years has given
> them a solid understanding of the best way to create the instructions (and
> thus random colored bricks) for kids of the appropriate target age to use.
>
> > Remember the photos of all the alternate models on the back of Classic Space
> > set boxes? There weren't any green or red bricks tossed in to make the
> > experience "easier." It's called imagination TLG, and we're pretty good at
> > using it!
>
> I remember them very well. I also remember that the models in the box and
> showcased on the back of the box weren't as sophisticated as they are today.
> Not only because of a wider range of pieces, but an improved sense of design
> and realism has made the models more detailed, better looking and somewhat
> more complicated. I was actually looking through an old idea book last night
> and was chuckling about how far LEGO design has come. (But really, aren't
> today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
I don't want to sound too personally critical, but are you being serious? Sets
like King Leo's Castle are more sophisticated than things like King's Castle?
Or how about the 1998 Cargo Center compared to the 1984 model? And as for idea
books, there can be no comparison because LEGO doesn't even make them anymore!
Maybe that's the reason for the new slogan, "Just Imagine...": because LEGO
isn't going to give you any ideas. I understand you have to defend your
employer, but the above statement is an insult to our intelligence.
> As far as I see it, I don't really see ease of building instructions and
> creativity as the same thing. There are many elements of creativity in
> building instructions, but one is direction, one is free form. I don't
> really think that the instructions being easer to read and understand takes
> away, reduces, or limits creativity in the slightest.
It shouldn't. What reduces creativity is the declining quality of set design.
There are ways to make instructions easier to read without dumbing down sets.
Painting studs on the instructions to show distance or including a little box
on each page which shows the new pieces in that step are good ideas which LEGO
has put to use. Quality and ease of construction are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Am I just not following your thinking?
>
> Jake
> ---
> The views expressed here don't necessarily represent those of my employer
Either they do, or you are being dishonest. Please defend your statement that
today's models are more complicated and well-designed than those of the past.
Jake, I have always thought you had a lot of credibility in your dealings with
us, but this statement puts that in jeopardy.
-Marc Nelson Jr.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> writes:
>
> > Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The
> > models of 10, 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of
> > realism, details, and attractiveness.
>
> I think a lot of people have a too nostalgic view of yeasteryear's
> LEGO selection. Sure, the Town selection of the early 90's was better
> than today's. But then, it looks like Town has been made into the
> "entry point" for the youngest children, aka Town Jr. In the early
> 90's, the Town sets did not have this function.
>
> This set, from 1978, was my fav set as a child:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/673
>
> Ok, so it is slightly more than 20 years old, but I will still say
> that LEGO sets have evolved into being better and more realistic
> looking.
In this discussion the Star Wars sets have been generally regarded as
exceptions to the rule. Your 673 example is more on target but still
overlooks the dreadful state of design in more recent Lego sets. Compare,
for example, set
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/672
also from 1978 (that Margaret Keys indicates to contain 58 pieces)
with
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6407_1
that LUGNET identifies as a 24-piece set.
Is this an improvement? Some may disagree, but I think 6407 is among the
worst offerings in LEGO's history, especially at $.23 per piece! 6407 has
only the hose reel and the trans-blue slopes to recommended it. In contrast,
672 had two opening doors, a windshield, a trailer hitch, and an extending
ladder!
One (admittedly self-centered) rule I use in assessing the quality of a
new set is the MOC value of it. That is, if I had designed it, how would I
feel in presenting it to LUGNET as a MOC? If I'd created the 6407, LUGNET
would never have known about it, since I'd have dismantled that sorry model
in shame. For that matter, the alleged C-3PO and Stormtrooper kits are also
terrible, and I would never have felt proud to share them with the community.
You're correct to point out the bright points in an otherwise gloomy
downward spiral in the LEGO product lines, but the overall trend now is to
produce less interesting, less aesthetically pleasing, and less valuable
sets than in years past.
Dave!
|
|
| |
> I agree with your points here, but I would still say that
> the 6407,
> being a Town Jr set, is aimed at a different crowd than
> the 672. That
> makes them difficult to compare. It's a bit like
> comparing a Duplo
> set with a System set. Not quite, but you get the
> general idea.
>
> Besides, I don't think it makes sense to compare the 6407
> with the
> more expensive 672. Compare 6407 in stead with 602,
> which is
> probably in the same price range:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/602_1
>
> Now, which set is better or more playable?
Indeed. Outside of the minifig, it it not that great. Both
of them really lack the entusiasm as the 1980's early sets.
> Of course I agree with people that the Town Jr line is
> bad as a Town
> line. But I think that people should take into
> consideration that
> they are not designe with the same crown in mind as the
> earlier Town
> sets. If people don't like juniorized sets, they should
> simply don't
> buy them. I feel pretty confident that one can build
> nice town MOCs
> from the parts selection available from other sets.
Town Junior has some good parts, which can make for better
MOC's, Chris Leach does a good job, among others. I think
most of us feel that the Town line died in 1997, when City
Center came about. I feel that TLC did substitute Town
Junior / City Ceneter in for Town. That Town Junior / City
Center naming still bug me. I think that is where most of
the disagrements and bitterness comes from. I think if they
had two different lines would have been better, for the
younger and older crowd. Now that both of them are gone,
hopefully TLC can turn it around. I share most of the
feelings of people posting on this earlier.
Did TLC ever say anything about the advent of a Town
advanced line perhaps?
it is a sad thing to see, but I hope they can turn it
around, and make something better than their previous
attempts. the train sets, the SW sets, and the bulk packs
are a great direction, and I hope to see more in this lines
in the future.
Scott S.
--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin Loch writes:
> I think the marketing department needs some help.
>
> Every time I hear "our market testing shows that kids and parents
> want juniorization" I am amazed at how large the gap between
> marketing and reality is.
Heh! That's along the same lines as "change is good," as espoused by
those in the corporate world who decide to implement changes but who will
not themselves be affected by them in any way.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler writes:
> For that matter, the alleged C-3PO and Stormtrooper kits are also
> terrible,
Ugh! I have been forced to buy them because I wanted to get the
ball-and-socket joint where the ball has an axle hole instead of a
throwbot/bionicle leg attached to it. I was complaining loudly about how
foetid the sets were and how I felt bad because every copy of the sets I bought
was sending a message to TLC that the set was good- and one of my friends
suggested that I take out the ball and sockets, box the rest up and mail it to
TLC with a note explaining that I hate the set SO MUCH, and find it SO
OFFENSIVE, that they can have the rest of it back.
To this day I am seriously considering that course of action.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> writes:
>
> > Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The
> > models of 10, 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of
> > realism, details, and attractiveness.
>
> Are you sure about that? Since this thread goes on .starwars, lets
> take the X-Wing as an example. Could such a realistic looking X-Wing
> be constructed with the part selection as of 15 or 20 year ago? I
> would say probably not. The fairly new selection of various slopes
> are quite important to achieve the shape of the X-Wing.
Granted, SW is a bird of a different feather. We're all well aware that it's by
and large a return to old-school construction. Two points on this matter:
1) The X-Wing pretty much required new elements (engines, canopy, perhaps
wings). Had it been done in 78, it would have required new elements then as
well.
2) Set design: What really attracts me to the X-Wing is its quality
construction, not its new pieces. The X-Wing is done very well. I gave it 9
out of 10 studs. No arguments with its quality. However, just for the sake of
argument: Assume that Lego could have made this ship at any time without a
license. Had they done it in the late 70's, I think it would have been spiffy.
Had they done it in the 80's, fantastic! Early 90's? Very good. While
accuracy, playability, attractiveness, etc. wouldn't necessarily have been
guaranteed if it was produced in any of those 3 eras, what would have been a
sure-bet is that Lego would have put heart and soul into it. It wouldn't have
smacked of quality. Now, imagine TLC had put decided to release an X-Wing back
in '98, with absolutely no say-so or accountability to Lucas? Do you think it
would have been as good as the one that we have now? Personally, I don't.
Lucas' reputation - the reputation of SW is in some small measure at stake in
this licensing agreement, and while Lucas has his thumb in the pie, I don't
think that we'll ever get essentially juniorized SW sets.
>
> I think a lot of people have a too nostalgic view of yeasteryear's
> LEGO selection. Sure, the Town selection of the early 90's was better
> than today's. But then, it looks like Town has been made into the
> "entry point" for the youngest children, aka Town Jr. In the early
> 90's, the Town sets did not have this function.
>
> This set, from 1978, was my fav set as a child:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/673
>
> Ok, so it is slightly more than 20 years old, but I will still say
> that LEGO sets have evolved into being better and more realistic
> looking.
For what its worth, I find that an attractive set. Would I give it a 10-stud
rating? No. The car is of the mid-70's design - no doors, slope window, and an
imaginary driver. However, I'd take that set in a NY-Minute over *any* town
vehicle that I've seen since at least 1998. Lego did a relatively good job on
673 considering the company's stage of development when that set was produced.
There would be no excuse to produce that set today - not while a higher standard
has already been set. Similarly, I'd also say that Lego has no excuse in 2001
of returning to the style of construction worse than that of 1978. Heck, a
person could do other things with that motorcycle's pieces. What else am I
going to build with that lame 3-wheeler that is so common today?
|
|
| |
> > "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> writes:
> It wouldn't have smacked of quality.
Er, make that it *would* have smacked of quality.
(that's what I get for feverishly typing a message before my boss returns)
james
|
|
| |
"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> writes:
> Is this an improvement? Some may disagree, but I think 6407 is
> among the worst offerings in LEGO's history, especially at $.23 per
> piece! 6407 has only the hose reel and the trans-blue slopes to
> recommended it. In contrast, 672 had two opening doors, a
> windshield, a trailer hitch, and an extending ladder!
I agree with your points here, but I would still say that the 6407,
being a Town Jr set, is aimed at a different crowd than the 672. That
makes them difficult to compare. It's a bit like comparing a Duplo
set with a System set. Not quite, but you get the general idea.
Besides, I don't think it makes sense to compare the 6407 with the
more expensive 672. Compare 6407 in stead with 602, which is
probably in the same price range:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/602_1
Now, which set is better or more playable?
> One (admittedly self-centered) rule I use in assessing the
> quality of a new set is the MOC value of it. That is, if I had
> designed it, how would I feel in presenting it to LUGNET as a MOC?
> If I'd created the 6407, LUGNET would never have known about it,
> since I'd have dismantled that sorry model in shame.
Yes, I would never have even started on an MOC like the 6407. But
still, I have seen MOCs presented on lugnet.cad.models which bear
resemblance to the 6407, so some probably disagree with us.
> For that matter, the alleged C-3PO and Stormtrooper kits are also
> terrible, and I would never have felt proud to share them with the
> community.
That's a point where we disagree. I think the said sets look just
great. I think they are a result from a very creative and imaginative
use of parts, and I believe they probably took a lot of time to
design. In fact, they have encouraged me to look into designing
characters using the same kind of parts selection, but I haven't got
too far yet, unfortunately.
Of course I agree with people that the Town Jr line is bad as a Town
line. But I think that people should take into consideration that
they are not designe with the same crown in mind as the earlier Town
sets. If people don't like juniorized sets, they should simply don't
buy them. I feel pretty confident that one can build nice town MOCs
from the parts selection available from other sets.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> I agree with your points here, but I would still say that the 6407,
> being a Town Jr set, is aimed at a different crowd than the 672. That
> makes them difficult to compare. It's a bit like comparing a Duplo
> set with a System set. Not quite, but you get the general idea.
I'd say that comparing 6407 to 672 is comparing 2 sets that were marketed to the
same demographic group a generation apart. All things being equal, the newer
set is less satisfactory because it does not make good use of two-decades worth
of development and craft in designing a model.
> If people don't like juniorized sets, they should simply don't
> buy them. I feel pretty confident that one can build nice town MOCs
> from the parts selection available from other sets.
So where do I go if I want to build in Town? Lego gives me two options: Junior
or back to Duplo. Fact is, today there is no intermediate stage between Duplo
and Town System. There is no Duplo-Junior-System range. All we have is Duplo
and Duplo Sr., or, if you like, Town Junior and Town Infant. I don't like
juniorized sets, and I don't buy them. My beef is that I can't buy non-
juniorized Town sets.
james
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> Of course I agree with people that the Town Jr line is bad as a Town
> line. But I think that people should take into consideration that
> they are not designe with the same crown in mind as the earlier Town
> sets. If people don't like juniorized sets, they should simply don't
> buy them. I feel pretty confident that one can build nice town MOCs
> from the parts selection available from other sets.
Well said.
Let's review:
Someone asked about seeding or using "spotter" parts, questioning the
accuracy and or legitimacy of the explanation given by TLC (which
explanation, I reiterate, I agree with as being accurate and legitimate. I
have observed kids in the target age range and the spotter parts help. Heck,
they help ME(1). This isn't about creativity, it isn't about what MOCs you
can make, it isn't about product quality, it's about helping follow
directions) and we seem to have veered off into Standard Product Rant #1. As
per usual.
As much fun as that is, (nobody likes a good rant as much as I do) it isn't
what the original post was about.
Does anyone have better data (mine is anecdotal, based on observation of a
non scientific small sample of children, some of them mine) to confirm or
refute that spotter parts help the build process?
Or does everyone just want to bash away at TLC as per usual? If so, carry
on, I guess, but don't expect much useful stuff to come out of the thread
other than feeling good that we bashed TLC again. As per usual.
Personally, I'm interested in ways to improve the quality of model
instructions. And that includes using spotter parts. The problem matters to
me for more than purely curiousity reasons, and it's a very interesting problem.
I am in the middle of developing a set of instructions that have to work for
multiple model color schemes, because I will be allowing customers to select
the colors for 6 different portions of a model and have to provide
instructions that make sense and that are easy to follow no matter what
colors were chosen. It will be quite a bit more complex (of an instruction
problem) than what TLC has done so far with their steamer, I think. (spotter
parts are only tangentially related, of course)
But if y'all would rather bash, feel free, don't let me stop you.
1 - with the process of following instructions. I don't need any help being
creative, c.f. www.miltontrainworks.com, thank you very much.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> I agree with your points here, but I would still say that the 6407,
> being a Town Jr set, is aimed at a different crowd than the 672. That
> makes them difficult to compare. It's a bit like comparing a Duplo
> set with a System set. Not quite, but you get the general idea.
>
> Besides, I don't think it makes sense to compare the 6407 with the
> more expensive 672. Compare 6407 in stead with 602, which is
> probably in the same price range:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/602_1
>
> Now, which set is better or more playable?
Good point, but the 602 would probably retail for $2.99, vs. $4.95 for the
6407. At the same time, using the "standard" of about a dime per piece, the
672 would come in at about six bucks, even with the ladder, and that's
essentially the same price range as the 6407.
Your observation about the differing target markets is valid, but I'm
concerned that there is no marketing to the 672 crowd, or at best too little
marketing.
> > One (admittedly self-centered) rule I use in assessing the
> > quality of a new set is the MOC value of it. That is, if I had
> > designed it, how would I feel in presenting it to LUGNET as a MOC?
> > If I'd created the 6407, LUGNET would never have known about it,
> > since I'd have dismantled that sorry model in shame.
>
> Yes, I would never have even started on an MOC like the 6407. But
> still, I have seen MOCs presented on lugnet.cad.models which bear
> resemblance to the 6407, so some probably disagree with us.
>
> > For that matter, the alleged C-3PO and Stormtrooper kits are also
> > terrible, and I would never have felt proud to share them with the
> > community.
>
> That's a point where we disagree. I think the said sets look just great.
Perhaps, though they don't look like what they're supposed to represent.
I should come clean and state that I'm not a great fan of those techic
panels, but that's just me. Even if the designs are cool, the functionality
is lousy; the hips, knees, and ankles don't move on 3PO. The ball/sockets
and hands are cool, but not $35 cool (though the overall piece:price ratio
is about right!)
Dave!
|
|
| |
"James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> writes:
> I'd say that comparing 6407 to 672 is comparing 2 sets that were
> marketed to the same demographic group a generation apart.
I would be a fool to say I know this for sure, but I would say that
Town Jr is marketed to kids younger than the 672 was, while some of
the other playthemes (such as Req-Q and Ninjas and what not) are
marketed towards roughly the same age bracket as 672.
> All things being equal, the newer set is less satisfactory because
> it does not make good use of two-decades worth of development and
> craft in designing a model.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. But I'd say that all things are not
equal in this case.
> So where do I go if I want to build in Town?
With the parts selection available from other themes and the bulk and
service packs, can you not build some town MOCs? I don't know, as I'm
not into town myself. But after all, LEGO is a pretty versatile toy,
so I would find it plausible that it is possible to build some town
MOCs from this source.
> My beef is that I can't buy non- juniorized Town sets.
Yes, this seems to be correct. There does not appear to be any
non-juniorized Town sets to buy at the moment.
Fredrik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Someone asked about seeding or using "spotter" parts, questioning the
> accuracy and or legitimacy of the explanation given by TLC (which
> explanation, I reiterate, I agree with as being accurate and legitimate. I
> have observed kids in the target age range and the spotter parts help. Heck,
> they help ME(1). This isn't about creativity, it isn't about what MOCs you
> can make, it isn't about product quality, it's about helping follow
> directions) and we seem to have veered off into Standard Product Rant #1. As
> per usual.
>
> As much fun as that is, (nobody likes a good rant as much as I do) it isn't
> what the original post was about.
>
> Does anyone have better data (mine is anecdotal, based on observation of a
> non scientific small sample of children, some of them mine) to confirm or
> refute that spotter parts help the build process?
>
> Or does everyone just want to bash away at TLC as per usual? If so, carry
> on, I guess, but don't expect much useful stuff to come out of the thread
> other than feeling good that we bashed TLC again. As per usual.
>
> Personally, I'm interested in ways to improve the quality of model
> instructions. And that includes using spotter parts. The problem matters to
> me for more than purely curiousity reasons, and it's a very interesting problem.
>
> I am in the middle of developing a set of instructions that have to work for
> multiple model color schemes, because I will be allowing customers to select
> the colors for 6 different portions of a model and have to provide
> instructions that make sense and that are easy to follow no matter what
> colors were chosen. It will be quite a bit more complex (of an instruction
> problem) than what TLC has done so far with their steamer, I think. (spotter
> parts are only tangentially related, of course)
>
> But if y'all would rather bash, feel free, don't let me stop you.
I for one have no problem getting spotter parts if they are tactfully concealed
within the model and don't detract from the design. No bashing from these
quarter. That said, Jake voiced opinions (that were not limited to spotting)
which I heartily disagree with in principle. That's all it is. On Lugnet it
sometimes seems that one risks being branded an insensitive blow-hard for mere
criticism of the company. I appreciate what the company has done with SW and
bulk bricks. I love the company, I spend money on the company's product, but
I'm not going to sing the company fight-song just yet.
james (Larry, these comments weren't directed at you - just leaves in the wind,
so to speak)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
> On Lugnet it
> sometimes seems that one risks being branded an insensitive blow-hard for mere
> criticism of the company. I appreciate what the company has done with SW and
> bulk bricks. I love the company, I spend money on the company's product, but
> I'm not going to sing the company fight-song just yet.
Well spoken, James.
Clearly I support LEGO in that I buy their product. If I *truly* wanted to
bash TLC, I would simply cease to buy any modern LEGO set... an option that I
would find frighteningly easy to excercise. My LEGO budget can easily be spent
buying secondhand sets online, and LEGO would cease to see any money coming
from me.
Quite on the contrary, I buy their products and wish them well. If I have a
negative thing to say here and there about their policies and practices, I
will. If that means some folks feel like I'm "bashing" them, well, that's not
going to phase me or deter me from expressing my opinion.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
<snipped well taken points>
> On Lugnet it
> sometimes seems that one risks being branded an insensitive blow-hard for mere
> criticism of the company.
Or for sticking up for it when it's unfairly maligned, for that matter.
OK, here's a question to the audience, then... which group is a good one for
discussing the theory of instruction creation?
possible fits include general, build, publish, and some CAD group or another
but probably not all of them at once. :-) I really *do* have a bit of a
problem, as I related before, that I think would be interesting to thrash
out in the proper group.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> OK, here's a question to the audience, then... which group is a good one for
> discussing the theory of instruction creation?
>
> possible fits include general, build, publish, and some CAD group or another
> but probably not all of them at once. :-) I really *do* have a bit of a
> problem, as I related before, that I think would be interesting to thrash
> out in the proper group.
Let's duke it out in the .primo group--it doesn't see a lot of traffic. 8^)
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> Quite on the contrary, I buy their products and wish them well. If I have a
> negative thing to say here and there about their policies and practices, I
> will.
And so you should.
As should we all, and as *do* we all, or most of us. I just don't see the
value in Standard Product Rants like this particular Town Jr. one, at least
not on the 99th repetition. (granted, the retail anecdotes are new info...)
Moreover, I re-read Jake's comments and I didn't think he was saying much
more than this: "modeling has advanced". He's right, it has. Compare the
ideas in the first train book with what is doable now. A lot of it is due to
special purpose parts, parts which came about because they were developed
for one line or another. Some people like blocky cars and ships, which is
fine, but I like to use all the shapes the palette offers me. Are we very
far ahead (in the palette) now from where we were in 1995? Probably not. But
we are way way way ahead (in the palette) from where we were in 1980.
> If that means some folks feel like I'm "bashing" them, well, that's not
> going to phase me or deter me from expressing my opinion.
Nor should it.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> As should we all, and as *do* we all, or most of us. I just don't see the
> value in Standard Product Rants like this particular Town Jr. one, at least
> not on the 99th repetition.
There will always be new users who have not participated in the rant before.
Gived that it is something of an Accepted Truth that older models had better
parts selection, better design qualities, etc- especially in the area of Town-
its a rant that is going to come up a lot. If you find it a waste of your time,
it's probably better to ignore it that to counter-rant.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I re-read Jake's comments and I didn't think he was saying much
> more than this: "modeling has advanced". He's right, it has. Compare the
> ideas in the first train book with what is doable now. A lot of it is due to
> special purpose parts, parts which came about because they were developed
> for one line or another. Some people like blocky cars and ships, which is
> fine, but I like to use all the shapes the palette offers me. Are we very
> far ahead (in the palette) now from where we were in 1995? Probably not. But
> we are way way way ahead (in the palette) from where we were in 1980.
True, though part of his assertion was that the alternate models have
become more sophisticated, which I take to mean that the designs have become
more elaborate, which in general they have not. Your point about the
broader palette is correct, and I (among many others) love new,
non-juniorized parts. Several in this thread, however, have rightly taken
Jake to task for on one hand selling the company line ("we're better than
ever and we always will be") while simultaneously divorcing his views from
TLC's.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> Somone at LEGO apparently wrote:
> > For all LEGO models, we are hoping to provide kids with a great building
> > experience. We have learned over the years that it is difficult for kids to
> > build certain models in which there is a large number of one colored bricks.
>
> My experience as a child was just the opposite. I always had too many
> colors and not enough of the same colors. That made me want to buy more
> sets, of course...and it still does.
>
> Marketing, marketing, marketing.
>
>
> > To help make the experience better for kids of all ages, we have inserted
> > certain color changes into the sets to make this easier.
>
> LOL...Yeah, right. Who do they think they're fooling? Why feed us garbage
> answers like this? Does TLC think we're all a bunch of idiots? We're not
> good enough for a completely candid answer? :-/ :-/ :-/ sigh...
>
>
> David Simmons wrote:
> > I just want to say that I think this explanation is poo. If there's one
> > thing I've observed from looking at all the MOC's that young kids build,
> > it's they don't care as much about color the way adults do. Kids use
> > whatever brick fits the purpose.
>
> Maybe that's the evidence they saw, and drew the wrong conclusion. :-)
>
>
> > At all the Baylug meetings I've attended
> > (and I'm sure you guys'll agree), when the kids get down on the floor to
> > make stuff with all of Uncle Dan's bricks, they just grab bricks at random,
> > no matter what color they are.
>
> I'm curious what age range of kids that was. I would think the older the
> kid, the more important color consistency is.
>
>
> > Remember the photos of all the alternate models on the back of Classic Space
> > set boxes? There weren't any green or red bricks tossed in to make the
> > experience "easier." It's called imagination TLG, and we're pretty good at
> > using it!
>
> We all know that they put the boring old colors in because it makes it just
> that much harder for people to have lots of the good new colors. Simple
> bottom-line marketing. They're a toy company out to make a buck like any
> other sometimes. :-(
>
> --Todd
I was just going to let this thread pass on by like so many other
TLC-bashing threads, but your comments here rang the proverbial bell in my mind.
As a kid (somewhere between 9 and 12 years old) I used to have a friend that
would come over and build models with me. I always wondered how we could
build models similar in thought and similar in theme, yet his were always
"cooler" than mine. I took some time and thought about the differences in
our models. What I came up with at the time (and still follow today) was
color scheme.
My models, up to that point were the multicolored rainbow warriors that
typify the building habits of children of that age. Since then though, I
have changed my style to include color as well as form and function. I would
say that since that day, my models have been on a completely different level.
As far as spotter parts go, I don't mind them so long as they are tactfully
buried in the model. I especially have trouble distiguishing between grey,
dark grey and black in set instructions so spotter parts really help me out.
What I really dislike though, are rainbow warrior models from TLC. I'm
paying good money for good sets. I want sets with a good color scheme (think
Blacktron I, Futron, Res-Q, etc) If I want bad sets with a bad color scheme,
I'll wait until they are in the discount bid. Where is TLC's profit there?
-Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Duane Hess writes:
> If I want bad sets with a bad color scheme,
> I'll wait until they are in the discount bid. Where is TLC's profit there?
TLC makes the same amount of money on a set you buy from the discount bin as
they do on a set you buy off the shelves of the same store the day it first
comes in.
What buying from the discount bins *does* do, on the other hand, is send the
store a message that this particular item was not very popular (well, assuming
there are lots of them that get the discount) and over time that can lead to
the store buying less and less from TLC, or stopping altogether.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, "Kevin Loch" <kloch@opnsys.com> writes:
> I think the marketing department needs some help.
Agreed!
> Every time I hear "our market testing shows that kids and parents
> want juniorization" I am amazed at how large the gap between
> marketing and reality is.
Ya, I meant it in juxtaposition with the comment to which it was
replying...i.e., that I belive the reason for the off-color elements is more
driven by marketing/costs/etc. than by ease of building. I've seen 2x2 red
plates stuck needlessly in the middle of a cockpit brick, for example --
that didn't help make the model easier to build -- it just made fewer cool
color elements in the model.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> For goofy... Jake, has Tomas showed you his desktop wallpaper? :) The old
> Fabuland set with an elephant and a wheelbarrow, and the alternate model is
> the elephant holding the wheelbarrow while the wheelbarrow is standing on
> end - the elephant is horizontal in midair. Now that's goofy. ;-)
No no, it's the monkey that's up in midair on the wheelbarrow:
http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/3000/3604/3604-01.html
The elephant is taking a bath in his umbrella:
http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/3000/3601/3601-02.html
To be fair to Fabuland, those aren't really alternate models, more like
"possible story/play scenarios." Very goofy scenarios.
Just stopping in to make that very important correction about the monkey and
the elephant. I'm not even going to comment on the main topic of this thread. =)
FUT off-topic.fun, fabuland
Tomas Clark
Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tomas Clark writes:
> No no, it's the monkey that's up in midair on the wheelbarrow:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/3000/3604/3604-01.html
>
> The elephant is taking a bath in his umbrella:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/3000/3601/3601-02.html
>
> To be fair to Fabuland, those aren't really alternate models, more like
> "possible story/play scenarios." Very goofy scenarios.
>
> Just stopping in to make that very important correction about the monkey and
> the elephant. I'm not even going to comment on the main topic of this thread. =)
>
> FUT off-topic.fun, fabuland
>
> Tomas Clark
> Producer, LEGO Direct
Ohh...you got me there. Thanks for clarifying and making that very
important correction. ;-) Those are funny pictures!
-Tim
|
|
| |
Wow, quite a thread from my original post. Aaaah, intelligent mature
discussion, I love this group! I think what I was trying to get at was that
TLG claims that the sets are easier to assemble since many of the pieces
which are not the same color as the vehicle/object/whatever often seem to be
the kind of pieces that hold the model together, ie the 2x8 white bricks in
the Falcon.
Like Kevin Maynes suggested, TLG asserts that the non-set color makes them
easier to identify in the instruction booklet. The insidous part of this is
that I think that behind this feel-good response (it's easier for the kids
to put the set together) is the real reason, that TLG uses this method as a
way to cut costs in part production. I believe you mentioned this Todd, and
I totally agree! As many of you have noticed, these different colored
pieces have shown up in multiple sets, ie the 1x2 green plate with the side
ridge that's in the Shuttle and several other SW sets. This is a way for
TLG to produce this piece in only one color and use it ALL the sets
regardless on the overall color scheme. That's how we end up with a Falcon
with red and blue highlights and an interior of black, tan, white, red, and
blue. While I'm not averse to some color accents, they should fit the
overall color scheme of the model. I don't want a rainbow colored Falcon.
I want a gray one with a few dark gray highlights.
Besides, IMHO, TLG solved this problem in a much better way in the older
instruction booklets. They simply placed a white border around the pieces
that had been added in that step. Or they would put the piece in a window
with an arrow pointing to where it should go. I think both James Simpson
and Mark Nelson Jr. mentioned this in their posts. Both methods are
graphic, non-verbal cues that are very easy to interpret. Why change this?
It worked great for years.
Besides, if the kids want bricks in more colors, there are always Basic
tubs.
Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> What buying from the discount bins *does* do, on the other hand, is send the
> store a message that this particular item was not very popular (well, assuming
> there are lots of them that get the discount) and over time that can lead to
> the store buying less and less from TLC, or stopping altogether.
Yes and No. I'm not sure how much the store's Corporate office watches a
particular set (unless it proves to be extremely unpopular). I'm of the opinion
that the corporate buyers are watching the overall performance of: 1) Lego
products, 2) a play theme and 3) Lego at a given store (or geographic region or
MSA). The only set (which I've seen) that seems to have been uniformly
overstocked is the 4930 Rock Raider's Crew. Wonder if that has anything to do
with no new minifig collections from TLC.
Whenever I'm in a store buying, and happen to run into management, I always try
to chat with them, introduce myself, see if they know why they had so much left
to clearance at the end of a season. One manager told me that the corporation
(WM in this case) was going to give the stores more control to 'fine tune' the
quantities that they order. In the case of Lego, I suppose that this would have
to happen in case lots multiples.
That particular store still had 10 of the big 7190 Millineum Falcon sets still
on the shelf. I wonder if that was the original drop ship from the warehouse.
That store was one of two that was still trying to get rid of some King Leo's
Castles.
Also keep in mind the timing of the orders. The corporate buyers get to go to
the toy fairs, the local store managers do not. At some point, the corporation
has to place a general buy order with TLC. That order has to be far enough in
advance for TLC to ramp production to get product in the supply chain in time
for rollouts. Right now, we are seeing Alpha Team making initial store drops.
When did TRU place those buy orders ? When will it show up at WM, KM, et al ? My
guess is May. WM, KM should have already placed those orders for Alpha Team,
possibly before the christmas season had finished. Even if the stores get local
'fine tuning', thats only going to be for drops from the warehouse to the store,
not from TLC. Eventually, if the local stores don't 'pull' enough product,
corporate may have to dump product to the various liquidators.
Ray
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Moreover, I re-read Jake's comments and I didn't think he was saying much
> more than this: "modeling has advanced". He's right, it has. Compare the
> ideas in the first train book with what is doable now. A lot of it is due to
> special purpose parts, parts which came about because they were developed
> for one line or another. Some people like blocky cars and ships, which is
> fine, but I like to use all the shapes the palette offers me. Are we very
> far ahead (in the palette) now from where we were in 1995? Probably not. But
> we are way way way ahead (in the palette) from where we were in 1980.
Larry (et. al), sorry to take so long to get back to this thread. I have
been in all day meetings.
Yes, that was exactly my point. I truly apologize for kicking off Standard
Rant #1 (Town Jr. discussion). I really would like to discuss this more in
depth, but will take the course I should have taken this morning and just
not bring up something that I know would kick off a juniorization discussion.
I also want to make sure that it is understood that I am two things:
- an AFOL
- an employee of LEGO Direct
When I post my own personal opinions, I do so as an AFOL. (Thus the
seperation of Jake and TLC footer)
When I post company news, updates, etc, I do so as an employee of LEGO
Direct. (Thus the official footer)
If my views happen to run in line with something that TLC has said before, I
ask that no one automatically assume that I am "hand selling the company
line". Please understand if I just drop this before we go any further,
despite being told to defend myself or else.
And thanks for helping me out in my absence Larry!
Jake
LUGNET Member #211
(Just another AFOL on the search for more and more parts and ideas)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Simmons writes:
>
> Besides, IMHO, TLG solved this problem in a much better way in the older
> instruction booklets. They simply placed a white border around the pieces
> that had been added in that step. Or they would put the piece in a window
> with an arrow pointing to where it should go. I think both James Simpson
> and Mark Nelson Jr. mentioned this in their posts. Both methods are
> graphic, non-verbal cues that are very easy to interpret. Why change this?
> It worked great for years.
They still use this technique in big technic sets (not that there's many new
ones of those) like the 8448. It helps a lot in these models.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.general, David Simmons writes:
> >
> > Besides, IMHO, TLG solved this problem in a much better way in the older
> > instruction booklets. They simply placed a white border around the pieces
> > that had been added in that step. Or they would put the piece in a window
> > with an arrow pointing to where it should go. I think both James Simpson
> > and Mark Nelson Jr. mentioned this in their posts. Both methods are
> > graphic, non-verbal cues that are very easy to interpret. Why change this?
> > It worked great for years.
>
> They still use this technique in big technic sets
AND Model Team... the latter uses both the individual parts illustrations
and spotter bricks where needed, as well as subassembly drawings.
> (not that there's many new
> ones of those) like the 8448. It helps a lot in these models.
>
> ROSCO
|
|
| |
Actually, that's not always true. I've always attempted to make my
models both colour coordinated and colour symmetric. Back to when I was
playing with Duplo. I've been talking to a friend about this recently
and he also did this and, like me, gotr mad at the kids who didn't use
the colour properly.
My two australian pesos
Tim
|
|
| |
well,
i usually let this theme slide on by as it shows up so often
and is always the same old debate, however...
this time,
i would like to say for the record
can you really look @ some of the MOCs out there and
complain about the pieces TLC is providing for us
these days? We've got more options for how to build
something these days than we ever had before, and
despite feelings of nostalgia (i've been collecting
lego since the first apollo astronaut set in the
mid 1970s) you couldn't build crap w/ a bunch of
2x2x2 blue cubes back then.
nowadays, when i need a hinge, i have so many ways
of hinging parts that often i can't even decide which
way to use. heck, often it's totally arbitrary.
yes, some sets have POOPs. don't buy them. that's how
we tell TLC those sets suck. If you want bulk bricks,
then buy bulk bricks and stop expecting TLC to provide
you w/ plenty of bulk bricks in sets that are designed
to have some custom look-and-feel to them.
if you prefer the older stuff, and believe me I DO TOO
on a lot of sets, then hunt around for them on brickbay,
or just figure out what parts you want and scrounge around
for those. As always, persistence often pays off.
as for seeding and extra colors, some of my 'best' pieces
came as seed pieces in other kits. For example, the
star wars tie fighter (minifig version) comes w/ a green
1x2 w/ a single stud in the center on top... haven't seen
one of those before. Now i got one.
On the whole,
I'd have to say that I have more fun w/ lego now than I
ever did BEFORE my dark ages. And it says a lot that
lego captured my interest so intensely that I actually
RETURNED from my dark ages.
lego rulz. As long as TLC
doesn't completely abandon bricks for POOPs then I'm in.
:-)
-paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> > To help make the experience better for kids of all ages, we have inserted
> > certain color changes into the sets to make this easier.
>
> LOL...Yeah, right. Who do they think they're fooling? Why feed us garbage
> answers like this? Does TLC think we're all a bunch of idiots? We're not
> good enough for a completely candid answer? :-/ :-/ :-/ sigh...
Actually, what I meant was... Who does this particular quoted marketing
and/or PR person think they're fooling? Does this particular LEGO employee
think LEGO fans are idiots? Why else the stock answer?
--Todd (not implying that spotter bricks don't make building easier)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.general, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> > > To help make the experience better for kids of all ages, we have inserted
> > > certain color changes into the sets to make this easier.
> >
> > LOL...Yeah, right. Who do they think they're fooling? Why feed us garbage
> > answers like this? Does TLC think we're all a bunch of idiots? We're not
> > good enough for a completely candid answer? :-/ :-/ :-/ sigh...
>
> Actually, what I meant was... Who does this particular quoted marketing
> and/or PR person think they're fooling? Does this particular LEGO employee
> think LEGO fans are idiots? Why else the stock answer?
>
> --Todd (not implying that spotter bricks don't make building easier)
Thanks for clearing this up.
I would tend to agree that using the spotter brick explanation to explain
the wacky color changes on the *outside* of a lot of recent sets (e.g. the
Imperial Shuttle(tm), what's wrong with either white or gray??? why some of
each??) is a bit of an evasion.
++Lar
|
|
| |
I've rearranged some of the remarks by Dave and James to separate the topics
that they cover. I've tried to preserve context and not misrepresent their
positions.
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
> > The models of 10, 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism,
> > details, and attractiveness.
>
> **snip**
**unsnipping to deliver more context**
> > Yesteryear: Garage Doors
> > Today: No garage doors
> > Yesteryear: Cars with doors and chasis you could build
> > Today: No doors, and one-piece chasis pieces
> > Yesteryear: Buildings made primarily from basic bricks
> > Today: Buildigns made primarily from POOPs
> > IMHO, by every parameter, Town, Castle, and Space sets of yesteryear were
> > designed with greater detail, attractiveness, and *care*. I'd wager that
> > almost every AFOL here would agree that set quality has dropped
> > precipitously since the early 90's. There has not been any System model
> > between 97-01 that can compare to the best sets of any year between 1978 and
> > 1996. What has changed for the better in the past few years is that Lego is
> > offering a more versatile range of elements, especially the old parts in new
> > colors. However, the irony here is that Lego chooses not to enhance set
> > design and playability with this great expanded range of parts; instead,
> > however, models are dumbed down and diluted by careless set design and over-
> > dependence of POOPs and BURPs.
>
> James has identified a fundamental problem facing LEGO in the current and
> future market. We're all aware (and some of us are great fans) of
> competitors in the construction toy market,
**snip**
> Every so often someone here posts an "I bought a clone set and it
> didn't suck" message,
Dave, I'm glad you raised this, but the clone brand experience cuts both ways.
SETS AND PARTS
It is only in the last year or 2 that one can say that the quality of the
clone sets and parts has improved. Anyone familiar with the older MegaBlock
sets (Western, Castle, Viking, Space Alien, Creature Seeker) would have to
say that they were the *ultimate* in POOPs, BURPs, SPUDs, and every other
kind of molded part one could think of. Buildings and vessels were one or
two enormous POOP/SPUDs tacked together.
MB seems to have changed its strategy to hit LEGO where it ain't: sets with
lots of pieces, very unjuniorized, marketed for an older audience than
before. The pre-2000 MB sets were not like that at all. And I doubt that
there are many people buying MB sets to keep as sets - they won't stick
together over time (more on this later). They are buying them as boxes of
bulk-bricks.
LEGO has been expanding its range of offerings in terms of sets. There are
more 2000 and 2001 lines than before, they are varied, and I think they are
more realistic. IMO the Star Wars sets are a big improvement in terms of
juniorization and realism over the past few years of space sets (Insectiod,
UFO, and Roboforce). And even some of those late 90s silly space sets were
unfairly maligned. Certainly some of them were great for parts packs. Also,
look at the UCS, Model Team, Technic, Robotic, Statue of Liberty-type sets.
Those compete well with the MB offerings in terms of set design, realism,
playability and attractiveness.
Boxes of MB and BestLock do have different and unique parts, but they are
often difficult to use in contexts other than the model that they came with
or very similar applications.
LEGO has also been expanding its range of parts not just in terms of color
but also unique items. The number of new parts available is staggering (the
big complaint of some LEGO "purists" is that LEGO is making too many new
pieces and not forcing people to make things out of red or white 1x2s). Yes,
they haven't yet replaced the parts that they lost in the late 90s as listed
by James. But I think replacements will be coming.
QUALITY OF PLASTIC AND FIT
> at least one of which has made
> great strides in providing huge quantities of basic bricks at considerably
> lower cost than LEGO. No, the quality isn't yet the same.
One can get lots of cheap basic bricks from the MB sets now on the market.
But IMO the quality of those bricks is so far below LEGO and the degree of
variance in molding, color, finish and fit is so significant that it is
difficult to use these for more than filling in around LEGO so that the MOC
will hold together. And I have not seen *any* improvement in the quality of
the plastic or the precision of production in MB over time.
My children taught *themselves* to discern a MB brick from a LEGO brick
because they were frustrated by trying to build with bricks that didn't hold
together and where the color shade changes significantly from one to the
next. Except for castle walls, noticeable color variations are unattractive
and that's what you get from MB. I tried to discourage them and tried to
defend the clones, because they are so much cheaper. But I finally had to
admit that the poor quality of clone bricks often turned out to be
infuriating and discouraging. I wonder how many repeat sales to children MB
has? I gave a MB set to a child as a birthday gift, and he was totally
turned off by the poorness of fit.
I would also say what I have not seen stated on LUGNET before, LEGO quality
has improved *dramatically* since my first set in the late 60s. Back then I
had many problems with plates warping and not fitting tightly, bricks
discoloring in a short period of time, etc. That is a very rare occurence today.
PRICE
> or observes that one can acquire over 650 grey 2x4
> bricks in a single $50 clone set, along with a horde of other grey pieces,
> rather than spending more than twice that amount at S@H. • *snip*
> At some point there will be nothing to distinguish LEGO from a clone except
> the fact that the clone charges $20.00 for a 700-piece kit while LEGO charges
> $89.99.
Let's face it, this is where LEGO takes the biggest beating. But I really
believe that if LEGO could deliver their product at a lower price they
would. This is not a stupid company. They know that their competitors have a
huge price advantage.
But, let's also face this, some silly books from the late 70s to the
contrary, *quality is **not** free*. If you need/want quality for your sets
or MOCs, you bite the bullet and buy LEGO. So when I want cheap bricks, I
buy LEGO on discount, not MB. Where you are filling in spaces, etc. you can
afford to use clone bricks as long as you use a sturdy LEGO frame to hold it
all together. But I very seriously doubt that clone brands will ever provide
the same quality at a significantly lower price than LEGO. Certainly they
have not done so thus far.
> That will be rather an ultimate moment for the market, I should think, and
> it should give LEGO considerable pause now, while efforts can still be made
> to reverse this trend.
LEGO is reversing trends in terms of set design. Maybe not as fast as we'd
like and maybe not in all of the themes we'd like. But it is happening.
Thankfully, they are not significantly reducing part quality and that is
going to keep prices higher than the clones.
Thanks for reading this far.
David Zorn
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee writes:
> If my views happen to run in line with something that TLC has said before, I
> ask that no one automatically assume that I am "hand selling the company
> line".
Since I was the one who leveled that accusation, I'll step up to the
plate. The problem comes not from your expression of your own ideas, nor
from your professional expression of TLC's ideas, but rather from an
apparent inconsistency in expressing one while claiming the other. You've
read the overwhelming majority opinion here that the sophistication of set
design has in general declined over the past several years, and this has
been bolstered by citing examples of similarly-themed and similarly-priced
sets from "now" and "then." The "now" sets are almost universally
dumbed-down by comparison. To claim, then, that you as an individual
personally, regardless of your employer, feel that LEGO sets are more
sophisticated simply sounds absurd, especially when you pair that with your
sig-line disclaimer.
Obviously you're entitled to your opinions, and obviously we can't expect
you to spill your employer's beans for us, but many among us can identify
corporate spin when we read it, and it is apparent that we have read
something very much like it here.
> Please understand if I just drop this before we go any further,
> despite being told to defend myself or else.
Understood. At the same time, we must ask you to understand that we're
not simply ranting; we have deep concerns about deteriorating product value.
For many of us, LEGO has achieved critical mass, in that our love of the
brick will persist on its own, and often in spite of the course followed by
TLC itself.
> And thanks for helping me out in my absence Larry!
Hmm. Now that we've established that the various Erics are all one
person, do we have any evidence that Larry and Jake are two different people?
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Zorn writes:
> Dave, I'm glad you raised this, but the clone brand experience cuts both ways.
>
> SETS AND PARTS
>
> It is only in the last year or 2 that one can say that the quality of the
> clone sets and parts has improved. Anyone familiar with the older MegaBlock
> sets (Western, Castle, Viking, Space Alien, Creature Seeker) would have to
> say that they were the *ultimate* in POOPs, BURPs, SPUDs, and every other
> kind of molded part one could think of. Buildings and vessels were one or
> two enormous POOP/SPUDs tacked together.
You're telling me that you can use a 16x8x8 western-style shack in your
space model? You're crazy! And that huge octagonal dome can be used in all
sorts of huge octagonal dome structures!
> Boxes of MB and BestLock do have different and unique parts, but they are
> often difficult to use in contexts other than the model that they came with
> or very similar applications.
This is generally true, but the same can be said of LEGO's juniorized
helicopter strut, car bases, and a host of others. That doesn't validate
MB's error, of course, but neither can MB be exclusively faulted (which
you're not doing, I know).
> QUALITY OF PLASTIC AND FIT
>
> > at least one of which has made
> > great strides in providing huge quantities of basic bricks at considerably
> > lower cost than LEGO. No, the quality isn't yet the same.
>
> One can get lots of cheap basic bricks from the MB sets now on the market.
> But IMO the quality of those bricks is so far below LEGO and the degree of
> variance in molding, color, finish and fit is so significant that it is
> difficult to use these for more than filling in around LEGO so that the MOC
> will hold together. And I have not seen *any* improvement in the quality of
> the plastic or the precision of production in MB over time.
This appears to be something of a litmus test for clone-lovers! I've been
buying MegaBloks since '94, and I can see marked improvement in this area,
as well as in color consistency. Not across themes, necessarily, but the
roughly 3000 grey 2x4 bricks culled from Battleships and Aircraft Carriers
have almost no discernable color variance.
For a long time I simply denied the clone quality issue, but I admit now
that I was not being objective. For me, and for other fans-of-the-clone,
the quality, while inferior, is good enough. I have had minimal trouble
with the strength of connection, and even if in the very long run clone
plastic won't hold up as well as LEGO ABS, it does just fine for me.
Richard Parsons' stupendous Carrier featured at
http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/yar/welcome.htm
is the greatest example of what can be done with bricks of inferior quality.
To produce such a ship out of canonical LEGO would have run well into the
thousands of dollars. Apparently Richard (for whom I can't actually speak,
of course) has accepted the price/quality exchange as equitable.
> My children taught *themselves* to discern a MB brick from a LEGO brick
> because they were frustrated by trying to build with bricks that didn't hold
> together and where the color shade changes significantly from one to the
> next. Except for castle walls, noticeable color variations are unattractive
> and that's what you get from MB.
I'd like to pursue this particular point further. Are you seeing variance
between two like-colored bricks from the same set? That's unfortunate and
in direct contrast to my experience. I have seen difference between bricks
from different themes, but even among thousands of bricks from multiple
copies of the same set I find almost no variance. For me, if there's
variance among several themes, I'm not too upset, since I view it as an
opportunity to acquire a new hue of red.
> I gave a MB set to a child as a birthday gift, and he was totally
> turned off by the poorness of fit.
8^) I suggest you get that child some Ultra-Blox to show him what a truly
poor clone is!
> But, let's also face this, some silly books from the late 70s to the
> contrary, *quality is **not** free*. If you need/want quality for your sets
> or MOCs, you bite the bullet and buy LEGO.
True, but again it's not a question of perfect quality but of sufficient
quality as compared with price. MegaBloks is a favorable value IMHO since
the gap between LEGO price and MB price is larger than the gap in quality
between the two products.
> Thanks for reading this far.
Oh, I stopped reading several paragraphs ago! 8^)
Dave!
FUT only to OT.clone-brands
|
|
| |
Tomas Clark wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> > For goofy... Jake, has Tomas showed you his desktop wallpaper? :) The old
> > Fabuland set with an elephant and a wheelbarrow, and the alternate model is
> > the elephant holding the wheelbarrow while the wheelbarrow is standing on
> > end - the elephant is horizontal in midair. Now that's goofy. ;-)
>
> No no, it's the monkey that's up in midair on the wheelbarrow:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/3000/3604/3604-01.html
>
> The elephant is taking a bath in his umbrella:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/3000/3601/3601-02.html
>
> To be fair to Fabuland, those aren't really alternate models, more like
> "possible story/play scenarios." Very goofy scenarios.
I looked at the picture and thought it was a "monkey bars" alternate
model that the monkey was using for some excercise/play. Considering
the number of pieces, I think it's a legitimate alternate :)
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
>
> Just stopping in to make that very important correction about the monkey and
> the elephant. I'm not even going to comment on the main topic of this thread. =)
>
> FUT off-topic.fun, fabuland
>
> Tomas Clark
> Producer, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Zorn writes:
>
> Dave, I'm glad you raised this, but the clone brand experience cuts both ways.
>
> SETS AND PARTS
>
> It is only in the last year or 2 that one can say that the quality of the
> clone sets and parts has improved. Anyone familiar with the older MegaBlock
> sets (Western, Castle, Viking, Space Alien, Creature Seeker) would have to
> say that they were the *ultimate* in POOPs, BURPs, SPUDs, and every other
> kind of molded part one could think of. Buildings and vessels were one or
> two enormous POOP/SPUDs tacked together.
I must disagree with you here... though I don't use clone brands currently,
the highest quality clones I've seen date back to the 80s...
I received a bucket of Tyco Superblocks as a birthday present when I was a
kid. The quality of those pieces were (and still are) as high as Lego.
After I came out of my dark ages I sorted out all of the non-Lego bricks I
had in my collection, which were very few. Of the ones I pulled out the
Tyco ones had held up the best. Some of the colors were identical to their
Lego counterparts (specifially black and yellow.) Other colors were
different that their Lego counterparts, but actually blend in with some of
the older, faded Lego bricks that I have. The Tyco bricks also grip as well
as Lego bricks and were so similar that to this day I still find some mixed
in with my Legos.
To the best of my knowledge there is no discernable change in the color,
shape, or functionality of the Tyco bricks, and though seperated from my
Lego collection I still have most of them. I hold them as a shining example
that it is possible for a company to produce bricks of the same calibur as Lego.
<snip>
>
> LEGO has been expanding its range of offerings in terms of sets. There are
> more 2000 and 2001 lines than before, they are varied, and I think they are
> more realistic. IMO the Star Wars sets are a big improvement in terms of
> juniorization and realism over the past few years of space sets (Insectiod,
> UFO, and Roboforce). And even some of those late 90s silly space sets were
> unfairly maligned. Certainly some of them were great for parts packs. Also,
> look at the UCS, Model Team, Technic, Robotic, Statue of Liberty-type sets.
> Those compete well with the MB offerings in terms of set design, realism,
> playability and attractiveness.
I agree, the SW sets are the best that TLG has produced in almost a decade.
I personally think this is a great time to be an AFOL... Some of the
current Lego offerings may be a bit juniorized, but they are made for kids
after all. Lego is starting to cater to AFOLs, and the sets that are
targetted toward AFOLs show no sign of juniorization. The UCS sets are
marvelous, and though there are some specialty pieces it cannot be said that
they are spotted with contrasting colored parts or padded with SPUDs. The
sculptures certainly don't have any SPUDs or contrasting colors either. In
fact it seems that the only sets that TLG is spotting or padding are the
ones that are specifically made with children in mind, which IMO proves they
are being honest when stating why they put SPUDs and contrasting colors into
their sets.
<snip>
> PRICE
>
> Let's face it, this is where LEGO takes the biggest beating. But I really
> believe that if LEGO could deliver their product at a lower price they
> would. This is not a stupid company. They know that their competitors have a
> huge price advantage.
>
> But, let's also face this, some silly books from the late 70s to the
> contrary, *quality is **not** free*. If you need/want quality for your sets
> or MOCs, you bite the bullet and buy LEGO. So when I want cheap bricks, I
> buy LEGO on discount, not MB. Where you are filling in spaces, etc. you can
> afford to use clone bricks as long as you use a sturdy LEGO frame to hold it
> all together. But I very seriously doubt that clone brands will ever provide
> the same quality at a significantly lower price than LEGO. Certainly they
> have not done so thus far.
It's true that the cost of Lego is quite high... but in terms of quality,
customer service, set selection, and piece selection Lego has the
competition beat hands down. IMO (and the "O" of many others apparently)
the extra cost of buying Lego is justifiable in light of the added benefits.
It has been shown time and time again that people are willing to pay more
for a higher quality product, more responsive and positive customer service,
and more variety in their selection... so until one of the clone brands can
provide the benefits of Lego at a lower price, TLG will maintain the
significantly higher share of the market.
> LEGO is reversing trends in terms of set design. Maybe not as fast as we'd
> like and maybe not in all of the themes we'd like. But it is happening.
> Thankfully, they are not significantly reducing part quality and that is
> going to keep prices higher than the clones.
>
> Thanks for reading this far.
>
> David Zorn
The best trend I see from Lego is targeting AFOLs. The bulk offerings, the
sculptures, and the high quality models such as UCS and model team. After
all, AFOLs have a whole lot more money to spend than KFOLS (kid fans of Lego?)
However, it is important to remember that TLC is first and foremost a toy
company, and they will always view children as their main consumer... I
think Lego would lose it's appeal if they didn't.
-Bryan
hobartrus@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/hobartrus/index.html
http://brickshelf.com/gallery/hobartrus
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Zorn writes a worthy exposition of things clone
related.
As Dave Shuler commented (see other also worthy reply) its a trade-off - for
less money I can do more stuff I enjoy. I'm sold.
I can't speak to clones other than Blockmen and Mega Blocks, but I'm
surprised about the 'not sticking together' thing. I have been working Mega
Blocks for about six months - they don't seem to be going off, and if
anything, they seem to me to stick more ferociously than Lego. This is no
doubt partly to do with poor/inconsistent molding, but I'm cool with that.
They're definitely harder on the fingertips.
Lego has a much nicer and more consistent finish, but for me, for castle
walls and ship hulls, this is actually a drawback. The more textured finish
of a large wall of Mega Blocks has an extra dimension of realism.
I haven't seen the colour mismatch thingie either. Out of 5 carriers, 7
battleships (from at least three different production batches), and three
tanks (from three different batches), the colours have been entirely consistent.
Bear in mind that I am speaking only of the ProBuilder line (is that important?)
I guess I no longer rail about Lego's focus being unhelpful to me
personally. I like their stuff, I really do. I just find that I also
derive great fun from other company's stuff too. For US$15, you can pick up
an interesting tank, for a little more, other larger also interesting sets.
My advice is not to talk about it so much as to try it out.
If you don't like it, you can always send it to me ;-)
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > In lugnet.general, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> > > > To help make the experience better for kids of all ages, we have inserted
> > > > certain color changes into the sets to make this easier.
> > >
> > > LOL...Yeah, right. Who do they think they're fooling? Why feed us garbage
> > > answers like this? Does TLC think we're all a bunch of idiots? We're not
> > > good enough for a completely candid answer? :-/ :-/ :-/ sigh...
> >
> > Actually, what I meant was... Who does this particular quoted marketing
> > and/or PR person think they're fooling? Does this particular LEGO employee
> > think LEGO fans are idiots? Why else the stock answer?
> >
> > --Todd (not implying that spotter bricks don't make building easier)
>
> Thanks for clearing this up.
Help me out: was that last bit straight or ironic?
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > > --Todd (not implying that spotter bricks don't make building easier)
> >
> > Thanks for clearing this up.
>
> Help me out: was that last bit straight or ironic?
Were those my only two choices? :-) I didn't find it all that hard to parse,
it is only at [not level]2.. I've seen Todd do 5 or 6 without breaking a
sweat, and he's wasn't even BORN in Boston.
FUT o-t.fun unless you weren't being funny, in which case set them back.
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > > In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > > > --Todd (not implying that spotter bricks don't make building easier)
> > >
> > > Thanks for clearing this up.
> >
> > Help me out: was that last bit straight or ironic?
>
> Were those my only two choices? :-) I didn't find it all that hard to parse,
> it is only at [not level]2.. I've seen Todd do 5 or 6 without breaking a
> sweat, and he's wasn't even BORN in Boston.
Hey! I resemble that remark!
Eric Kingsley (Boston, born and raised)
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > > In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > > > --Todd (not implying that spotter bricks don't make building easier)
> > >
> > > Thanks for clearing this up.
> >
> > Help me out: was that last bit straight or ironic?
>
> Were those my only two choices? :-) I didn't find it all that hard to parse,
> it is only at [not level]2.. I've seen Todd do 5 or 6 without breaking a
> sweat, and he's wasn't even BORN in Boston.
Yea, Todd's done a pretty good job of adapting and learning to "speak
the language very well" (1)
(1) Extremely obscure Boston (well, actually Cambridge, got to get your
cities straight, can't have hoity toity folks from certain universities
getting mad because you've over generalized their location) related
reference there...
For a slight hint, there's a song which makes fun of the fact that US
English isn't necessarily understandable from one part of the US to
another...
Interestingly, the other day, out local (Raleigh NC) newspaper had a
comment by someone which reminds one of another thing by the same
author. The person was complaining that for all the representation one
of our senators was giving us, Massachusetts might as well have three
senators... (quote from above author "After all, Massachusetts is the
only state with three senators." - partial credit for knowing what this
is in reference to even if you have no clue who I'm quoting).
Another clue since my birthday is tomorrow is that all of these
performances are technically "before my time", though the author did do
stuff in "my time" (extra extra credit if you know what the stuff in "my
time" was). You should be able to determine how old I will be tomorrow
from Lugnet posts, in fact, it should be determinable from this post and
one of my posts to a lugnet.year newsgroup.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
In article <3A9FD68F.7DE1@mindspring.com>,
Frank Filz <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote:
> For a slight hint, there's a song which makes fun of the fact that US
> English isn't necessarily understandable from one part of the US to
> another...
In fact, I've been known to comment that we drawl our Rs around here to
make up for the fact that y'all don't say yours. :)
-JDF
--
J.D. Forinash ,-.
foxtrot@cc.gatech.edu ( <
The more you learn, the better your luck gets. `-'
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Simmons writes:
> This is my word for TLG's recent penchant for inserting random color bricks
> SW sets. Here's the excerpt from the FBTB site interview:
>
> > What exactly is behind LEGO randomly inserting colored bricks into models? • I'm referring to things like the green brick in the Shuttle.
> >
> > For all LEGO models, we are hoping to provide kids with a great building
> > experience. We have learned over the years that it is difficult for kids to
> > build certain models in which there is a large number of one colored bricks.
> > To help make the experience better for kids of all ages, we have inserted
> > certain color changes into the sets to make this easier.
>
> I just want to say that I think this explanation is poo...
Actually, this explanation makes a lot of sense. I was recently looking at
the instructions for the Millenium Falcon, which inexplicably uses a few
odd-colored bricks at various points, pondering this very issue. Then I
remembered building the 1300-piece Technic Space Shuttle, and squinting at
the instructions trying to figure out what had changed between step N and
step N+1, knowing that I had three more 1x2 plates to put SOMEWHERE..! This
took several minutes in a few cases.
Using a few choice odd-colored pieces can make things much easier to see in
the printed instructions, and provides a visual reference for placement of
nearby pieces. Maybe you or I wouldn't build an MOC that way, but if you're
holding stock LEGO models to that standard, you'd better get used to
disappointment.
Having now actually spent some time trying to draw up some building
instructions for some of my own models, I have a new-found appreciation for
how hard it can be to clearly illustrate how a model should be built.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Frank Filz writes:
>
> Interestingly, the other day, out local (Raleigh NC) newspaper had a
> comment by someone which reminds one of another thing by the same
> author. The person was complaining that for all the representation one
> of our senators was giving us, Massachusetts might as well have three
> senators... (quote from above author "After all, Massachusetts is the
> only state with three senators." - partial credit for knowing what this
> is in reference to even if you have no clue who I'm quoting).
>
> Another clue since my birthday is tomorrow is that all of these
> performances are technically "before my time", though the author did do
> stuff in "my time" (extra extra credit if you know what the stuff in "my
> time" was). You should be able to determine how old I will be tomorrow
> from Lugnet posts, in fact, it should be determinable from this post and
> one of my posts to a lugnet.year newsgroup.
I'm guessing you turn 38 tomorrow (based on when you got your first degree from
RPI). As for the quote I don't have a clue what you are talking about. If the
quote stood alone I would think it was a Bushism!
Happy Birthday,
Maggie C.
|
|
| |
> SETS AND PARTS
>
> It is only in the last year or 2 that one can say that the quality of the
> clone sets and parts has improved. Anyone familiar with the older MegaBlock
> sets (Western, Castle, Viking, Space Alien, Creature Seeker) would have to
> say that they were the *ultimate* in POOPs, BURPs, SPUDs, and every other
> kind of molded part one could think of. Buildings and vessels were one or
> two enormous POOP/SPUDs tacked together.
>
> MB seems to have changed its strategy to hit LEGO where it ain't: sets with
> lots of pieces, very unjuniorized, marketed for an older audience than
> before. The pre-2000 MB sets were not like that at all. And I doubt that
> there are many people buying MB sets to keep as sets - they won't stick
> together over time (more on this later). They are buying them as boxes of
> bulk-bricks.
I've been noticing a lot of MegaBlock sets that actually look pretty good,
and I find myself saying to myself, "I wish that was Lego". MB has
battleships and helicopters and other IMO fun sets while Lego puts out
obscure themes such as "Life on Mars", etc. (Not saying LoM is bad ...)
~ Michael
|
|
| |
My first observation of seeding was in the Roboforce 2152 Robo Raptor.
It had, I believe, a red or yellow 2x4 brick in the middle, not
visible from the outside. After building it, I remember feeling that
is was so cool that I knew there was that brick in there, but no
one else could know. I figured it was a cybernetic organ inside
the robo creature, and I could see how it could help someone
increase their 3-D awareness of models.
OTOH, I dislike the mottled coor schemes of some of the
Star Wars sets, like the MTT. Although I'm not sure a solid
brown MTT would be any more attractive.
-gyug
In lugnet.general, David Simmons writes:
> This is my word for TLG's recent penchant for inserting random color bricks
> SW sets. Here's the excerpt from the FBTB site interview:
>
> > What exactly is behind LEGO randomly inserting colored bricks into models? • I'm referring to things like the green brick in >the Shuttle.
> >
|
|
| |
> Then I
> remembered building the 1300-piece Technic Space Shuttle, and squinting at
> the instructions trying to figure out what had changed between step N and
> step N+1, knowing that I had three more 1x2 plates to put SOMEWHERE..! • This
> took several minutes in a few cases.
I had the exact same experience myself, and actually had to tear mine down a
bit to correct some mistakes. It was a little frustrating, but still part
of the challenge. My issue is that this problem could be easily remedied by
simply highlighting the pieces in the individual steps. It wouldn't be that
hard since they tend to only add a few pieces in each step. Besides, would
you want a Space Shuttle with little bits of green, blue, and red sprinkled
in it? Ack! No rainbow warriors for me!
Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Paul Gyugyi wrote:
> My first observation of seeding was in the Roboforce 2152 Robo Raptor.
> It had, I believe, a red or yellow 2x4 brick in the middle, not
> visible from the outside. After building it, I remember feeling that
> is was so cool that I knew there was that brick in there, but no
> one else could know. I figured it was a cybernetic organ inside
> the robo creature, and I could see how it could help someone
> increase their 3-D awareness of models.
Kinda like the "black box" in set 4561, the Railway Express?
Except the black box is only sort of hidden -- it's meant to be exposable,
but if one didn't know it was there, one wouldn't look for it.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > > In lugnet.general, Todd Lehman writes:
>
> > > > --Todd (not implying that spotter bricks don't make building easier)
> > >
> > > Thanks for clearing this up.
> >
> > Help me out: was that last bit straight or ironic?
>
> Were those my only two choices? :-) I didn't find it all that hard to parse,
> it is only at [not level]2.. I've seen Todd do 5 or 6 without breaking a
> sweat, and he's wasn't even BORN in Boston.
>
> FUT o-t.fun unless you weren't being funny, in which case set them back.
Ah, thanks. That explains it.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.general, Paul Gyugyi wrote:
>
> > My first observation of seeding was in the Roboforce 2152 Robo Raptor.
> > It had, I believe, a red or yellow 2x4 brick in the middle, not
> > visible from the outside. After building it, I remember feeling that
> > is was so cool that I knew there was that brick in there, but no
> > one else could know. I figured it was a cybernetic organ inside
> > the robo creature, and I could see how it could help someone
> > increase their 3-D awareness of models.
>
> Kinda like the "black box" in set 4561, the Railway Express?
>
> Except the black box is only sort of hidden -- it's meant to be exposable,
> but if one didn't know it was there, one wouldn't look for it.
>
> Steve
Run the 4561 off a 3' high table, and you'll expose the "black box" then :)
jt
|
|
| |
> I have been working Mega
> Blocks for about six months - they don't seem to be going off, and if
> anything, they seem to me to stick more ferociously than Lego. This is no
> doubt partly to do with poor/inconsistent molding, but I'm cool with that.
> They're definitely harder on the fingertips.
I'll second that. It takes a little bit more pressure to put two MBs
together and a little bit more effort to pull them apart. I notice that my
thumbs are always a little tender after a long MB session.
I notice that although I keep my MBs mixed in with my Lego, I still tend to
preferentially select the Lego when building because it is a better brick.
However, if I know I will run out using Lego alone, then the MBs are used.
If I'm really organised, I think in advance where I'd like to use the Lego
and MBs (either in separate areas) or all mixed-up. Some MB colours match
those of Lego; some don't (see the mini-reviews below for more details).
> I haven't seen the colour mismatch thingie either. Out of 5 carriers, 7
> battleships (from at least three different production batches), and three
> tanks (from three different batches), the colours have been entirely
consistent.
I haven't seen a colour mismatch as such within an MB set, but what I have
seen is a kind of marbling effect, usually a line or swirl of a lighter
shade through the brick, as if the colour wasn't mixed through properly when
still in liquid form. In my MB aircraft carrier, this occurs in a number of
the big black tiles that are used for the flight deck and I found myself
noticing these lines in what should be a large flat black surface. However,
once I put all the stickers onto the deck, I find I don't tend to notice the
marbling lines any more.
> Bear in mind that I am speaking only of the ProBuilder line (is that
important?)
I've only bought MB Probuilder, but have looked at some of the other MB
products in the shop. The quality seems to vary between the product lines.
Certainly those large bags of large (about 2 inch high, almost Primo-sized)
MB bricks seem to be made of very "cheap and nasty" plastic, and certainly
look much poorer quality than the Probuilder bricks.
I haven't been tempted by any of the other MB product lines apart from
Probuilder range, which IMHO have MB's best quality bricks and best set
designs. Some of the other lines seem to have the same quality bricks as
Probuilder, but I do not like the designs.
Here are a few quick mini-reviews on some of the Probuilder series:
My two favourite MB Probuilders are the little jungle-green tank and the
larger red-white-blue Wave Breaker speed boat.
Little jungle-green tank. A very neat design with caterpillar tracks. I like
the jungle-green colour; it's nice to have more muted colours than the
standard Lego bright leaf green. The only thing it lacks is a minifig to
look out the hatch of the turret (but a Lego one works nicely). This is one
of the cheaper ProBuilder sets, and I would recommend this as a good set if
you are contemplating taking that first bite of the "forbidden fruit" :-)
Wave Breaker. This is a medium-large speed boat in attractive white, red,
and navy blue colours. The white is a much more arctic white than Lego white
which is creamy by comparison. The MB red looks the same colour as Lego red.
I don't have any navy blue Lego (I don't know if it exists) but the MB navy
blue is so dark that at night I have trouble distinguishing it from black.
Again, this is a nice design but could use a few people on board. A good
starter set if you don't like military themes.
Aircraft Carrier. This is the largest of the Probuilder sets (about 1700
pieces). The size of the aircraft carrier is impressive (3 feet long) and
it's a wonderful source of grey bricks, but I think the design could be
improved. I found the elevators up to the flight deck tend to get stuck, and
I found the gun enclosures very fiddly to make (bits tended to fall off into
places too small for adult fingers to easily repair). There is some
pixelation effect in the bow, given the very purist approach of building a
curved structure from 2x4 bricks. But the sheer size of the vessel tends to
make this pixelation less noticeable. Being almost entirely grey and black,
I feel the model could use a bit more colour to brighten it up, but I guess
the colours are pretty realistic as is. I think real navy ships could use a
bit more colour to brighten them up too! :-) This set also features lots of
"gender benders" (plates with 2x2 studs on both sides); these appear in some
of the smaller sets too. I know some people just buy this set as a "grey
parts pack" but I think the model is well worth building in its own right.
It is also interesting to see how MB's "engineering" differs from Lego's;
they seem to have a different approach.
Desert Patrol. This is a medium-sized sand-beige-coloured armoured vehicle.
Another good design. It is let down by the very large black wheels being
"one-sided" (i.e. must be oriented so you only see them from the "outside"
as they are hollow). The wheels also seem to be made of a cheaper grade of
plastic. Living in a part of the world with a lot of natural sandstone, I
look forward to using these bricks in building some local sandstone
buildings (city hall, etc). I think the colour would also be useful to
castle builders.
Blue Thunder. This is a large plane in bright blue (same colour as Lego
blue) and lemon yellow (Lego yellow is more egg-yolk yellow or sun yellow).
It also features a trans-lime cockpit cover. Overall the colour combination
is pretty lurid, but it might appeal to kids. I assume it's intended to be
an acrobatic plane (Blue Thunder = Blue Angels?). The tail wings are too
flimsy; fortunately MB sets have loads of extra parts so you can build
yourself a stronger set of tail wings with the extra parts. The overall
design is OK rather than good. Treat this set as a "blue parts pack", choose
some better accent colours and experiment with some design variations.
I am particularly impressed with the MB instructions. They clearly show
which bricks are already in place and which are being added at this step.
Each step usually adds a lot of bricks, and they also manage to squeeze a
large number of steps onto each page without any loss of clarity. So the
whole MB instruction booklet uses a lot less paper than Lego's massive
volumes. On a similar note, MB pack their sets quite densely, unlike Lego's
big empty boxes with a few polybags sloshing about inside.
So, comparing MB Probuilder with Lego:
* there is a different style to Probuilder (more realistic, less whimsical)
* Probuilder is more purist in its extensive use of standard pieces
* some Probuilder designs are as good as Lego, but Lego designs are better
overall
* Probuilder has a number of pieces I've never seen in Lego
* Probuilder brick quality is not as good as Lego, but "acceptable"
* Probuilder instructions are generally better than Lego's
* Probuilder is a lot cheaper (in Australia, I'd estimate Probuilder is 1/3
of the price of Lego for sets of similar piece count -- in USA, the price
difference is probably smaller due to the extensive discounts available on
Lego -- judging from Brickwise)
Kerry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Kerry Raymond writes:
> * there is a different style to Probuilder (more realistic, less whimsical)
> * Probuilder is more purist in its extensive use of standard pieces
> * some Probuilder designs are as good as Lego, but Lego designs are better
> overall
> * Probuilder has a number of pieces I've never seen in Lego
> * Probuilder brick quality is not as good as Lego, but "acceptable"
> * Probuilder instructions are generally better than Lego's
> * Probuilder is a lot cheaper (in Australia, I'd estimate Probuilder is 1/3
> of the price of Lego for sets of similar piece count -- in USA, the price
> difference is probably smaller due to the extensive discounts available on
> Lego -- judging from Brickwise)
Wow, that was all very well stated and quite accurate to my mind. The price
differences at full retail are about the same in the U.S. BTW, and not all
of us have access to the same level of sale prices as do some Lugnuts. Most
of the time a BOGO 50% is the best we can hope for -- and at only 25% off
the full retail price of Lego bricks, MB bricks are still very much the bargain.
Also, MB sets tend to be heavy in the direction of 2x? bricks, rather than
1x? bricks which I prefer for building. But if 2x? would satisfy one's
needs, I can't see why one wouldn't purchase MB sets in quantity.
My biggest complaint about some non-Probuilder MB sets is the tendency for
the odd brick or two to actually crack a little along the wall where it is
being pressured by a stud on the inside when being pressed into place. Did
that make sense? Anyway, I think people will understand what I mean. This
very thing happened to me with the Blok-Bot sets, and I particularly like
those sets despite this flaw. I especially like the new 4x4 turntable
element with friction/clicking action.
-- Richard
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Kerry Raymond writes a wonderfully rich
review of the MB ProBuilder line:
> I'll second that. It takes a little bit more pressure to put two MBs
> together and a little bit more effort to pull them apart. I notice that my
> thumbs are always a little tender after a long MB session.
Interesting. This has to be a new phenomenon. The last MB set I bought
Creature Seekers Naval Command had numerous parts that kept falling apart
almost on their own.
> I notice that although I keep my MBs mixed in with my Lego, I still tend to
> preferentially select the Lego when building because it is a better brick.
> However, if I know I will run out using Lego alone, then the MBs are used.
> If I'm really organised, I think in advance where I'd like to use the Lego
> and MBs (either in separate areas) or all mixed-up. Some MB colours match
> those of Lego; some don't (see the mini-reviews below for more details).
This is how I do mine, too.
> I haven't seen a colour mismatch as such within an MB set, but what I have
> seen is a kind of marbling effect, usually a line or swirl of a lighter
> shade through the brick, as if the colour wasn't mixed through properly when
> still in liquid form. In my MB aircraft carrier, this occurs in a number of
> the big black tiles that are used for the flight deck and I found myself
> noticing these lines in what should be a large flat black surface. However,
> once I put all the stickers onto the deck, I find I don't tend to notice the
> marbling lines any more.
Again maybe MB has really improved. My viking ship had noticable variation
in the beiges, browns and blacks. It is not a problem on such a vessel but
when you're building some things...
> > Bear in mind that I am speaking only of the ProBuilder line (is that
> important?)
>
> I've only bought MB Probuilder, but have looked at some of the other MB
> products in the shop. The quality seems to vary between the product lines.
> Certainly those large bags of large (about 2 inch high, almost Primo-sized)
> MB bricks seem to be made of very "cheap and nasty" plastic, and certainly
> look much poorer quality than the Probuilder bricks.
After my last experience I didn't try the ProBuilder line.
> I haven't been tempted by any of the other MB product lines apart from
> Probuilder range, which IMHO have MB's best quality bricks and best set
> designs. Some of the other lines seem to have the same quality bricks as
> Probuilder, but I do not like the designs.
Alright - alright! When a carrier goes on sale I'll try one. Y'all are
persuasive.
> Here are a few quick mini-reviews on some of the Probuilder series:
>
> Aircraft Carrier. This is the largest of the Probuilder sets (about 1700
> pieces). The size of the aircraft carrier is impressive (3 feet long) and
> it's a wonderful source of grey bricks, but I think the design could be
> improved. I found the elevators up to the flight deck tend to get stuck, and
> I found the gun enclosures very fiddly to make (bits tended to fall off into
> places too small for adult fingers to easily repair). There is some
> pixelation effect in the bow, given the very purist approach of building a
> curved structure from 2x4 bricks. But the sheer size of the vessel tends to
> make this pixelation less noticeable. Being almost entirely grey and black,
> I feel the model could use a bit more colour to brighten it up, but I guess
> the colours are pretty realistic as is. I think real navy ships could use a
> bit more colour to brighten them up too! :-) This set also features lots of
> "gender benders" (plates with 2x2 studs on both sides); these appear in some
> of the smaller sets too. I know some people just buy this set as a "grey
> parts pack" but I think the model is well worth building in its own right.
> It is also interesting to see how MB's "engineering" differs from Lego's;
> they seem to have a different approach.
This sounds great. The genderchangers are really needed in detailed
building. Plus 3' of grey bricks!!!!!!!!!! I had no idea it was that big.
> I am particularly impressed with the MB instructions. They clearly show
> which bricks are already in place and which are being added at this step.
> Each step usually adds a lot of bricks, and they also manage to squeeze a
> large number of steps onto each page without any loss of clarity. So the
> whole MB instruction booklet uses a lot less paper than Lego's massive
> volumes. On a similar note, MB pack their sets quite densely, unlike Lego's
> big empty boxes with a few polybags sloshing about inside.
I agree that I like the shading on the instructions. Instructions on the
older sets had frequent mistakes though. The "slack fill" (trade term for
empty box) of the Lego boxes is often disappointing. Plus for those of us
who stock up on sale and then open slowly over time, it is a space killer.
> So, comparing MB Probuilder with Lego:
>
> * there is a different style to Probuilder (more realistic, less whimsical)
> * Probuilder is more purist in its extensive use of standard pieces
That means alot to some people, not to me. I just don't like huge SPUDs.
> * some Probuilder designs are as good as Lego, but Lego designs are better
> overall
Agreed.
> * Probuilder has a number of pieces I've never seen in Lego
Cool.
> * Probuilder brick quality is not as good as Lego, but "acceptable"
This is a big deal for me.
> * Probuilder instructions are generally better than Lego's
Not a big deal to me.
> * Probuilder is a lot cheaper
This is a big deal to me.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Chris Phillips writes:
> In lugnet.general, David Simmons writes:
> > This is my word for TLG's recent penchant for inserting random color bricks
> > SW sets. Here's the excerpt from the FBTB site interview:
> >
> > > What exactly is behind LEGO randomly inserting colored bricks into models? • I'm referring to things like the green brick in the Shuttle.
> > >
> > > For all LEGO models, we are hoping to provide kids with a great building
> > > experience. We have learned over the years that it is difficult for kids to
> > > build certain models in which there is a large number of one colored bricks.
> > > To help make the experience better for kids of all ages, we have inserted
> > > certain color changes into the sets to make this easier.
> >
> > I just want to say that I think this explanation is poo...
>
> Actually, this explanation makes a lot of sense. I was recently looking at
> the instructions for the Millenium Falcon, which inexplicably uses a few
> odd-colored bricks at various points, pondering this very issue. Then I
> remembered building the 1300-piece Technic Space Shuttle, and squinting at
> the instructions trying to figure out what had changed between step N and
> step N+1, knowing that I had three more 1x2 plates to put SOMEWHERE..! This
> took several minutes in a few cases.
>
> Using a few choice odd-colored pieces can make things much easier to see in
> the printed instructions, and provides a visual reference for placement of
> nearby pieces. Maybe you or I wouldn't build an MOC that way, but if you're
> holding stock LEGO models to that standard, you'd better get used to
> disappointment.
>
> Having now actually spent some time trying to draw up some building
> instructions for some of my own models, I have a new-found appreciation for
> how hard it can be to clearly illustrate how a model should be built.
I agree with the explanation too. Have you noticed how a lot of kids jumped
on the K'nex system, but not Lego's own Znap? The big difference was that
K'nex colour-coded the function of each element. There were no duplications
of the same piece in a different colour. This made the instructions easier
to follow, and the function of the pieces easy to learn. Kids don't mind
that the resulting models have odd colours all over them - look at a MOC
from any seven-year old if you don't believe me.
My next point, is have you noticed that Lego are starting to do this with
individual sets? Look at any current minifig theme set, and you'll find
little duplication of elements in different colours. It's rare you'll find
bricks or plates of the same size in two different colours. This again
makes it less likely for a young builder to make mistakes. It must be
pretty hard to design a set that can have an inventory like this.
As for outward colours, would the imperial shuttle look as interesting if it
was all one colour? Or the Tie Fighters? The Tie Fighters in the film were
subject to all sorts of spot lighting to get reflections - but this doesn't
happen with Lego. So, they go for blues and greys as part of the design.
I'll admit the latest Tie takes this a bit far, but Darth's was a good
example of added colours.
Jason J Railton
|
|
| |
On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Jason J. Railton (<GA16vs.2CB@lugnet.com>) wrote at
11:35:52
> My next point, is have you noticed that Lego are starting to do this with
> individual sets? Look at any current minifig theme set, and you'll find
> little duplication of elements in different colours. It's rare you'll find
> bricks or plates of the same size in two different colours. This again
> makes it less likely for a young builder to make mistakes. It must be
> pretty hard to design a set that can have an inventory like this.
This is quite an interesting point, and perhaps another explanation for
the proliferation of POOPs. If you've already used a black 2x4, and you
need a stack of yellow ones, make the yellow stack into a different
part.
Dunno if this stacks up (!) in practice, as I don't own any of these
sets. Nice theory, though.
--
Tony Priestman
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> I agree with the explanation too. Have you noticed how a lot of kids jumped
> on the K'nex system, but not Lego's own Znap? The big difference was that
> K'nex colour-coded the function of each element. There were no duplications
> of the same piece in a different colour. This made the instructions easier
> to follow, and the function of the pieces easy to learn. Kids don't mind
> that the resulting models have odd colours all over them - look at a MOC
> from any seven-year old if you don't believe me.
Perhaps its time for a 'random surprise bucket', you get 2 lbs of parts, no two
buckets the same. No instructions. The 'Jackson Pollock'[1] style of set/MOC
layout.
> My next point, is have you noticed that Lego are starting to do this with
> individual sets? Look at any current minifig theme set, and you'll find
> little duplication of elements in different colours. It's rare you'll find
> bricks or plates of the same size in two different colours. This again
> makes it less likely for a young builder to make mistakes. It must be
> pretty hard to design a set that can have an inventory like this.
Same concept, taken differently: large sets that do have the same parts in
different colors are being made with sub-packs. I just looked thru 6600 Highway
Construction. I don't think the 'same part / different color' was in any of the
sub-bags. I found it curious that they even made 3 identical packs for the
support pieces, rather than 1 pack with 3x pieces.
Ray
1. Jackson Pollock (1912-56). American painter, the commanding figure of the
Abstract Expressionist movement.
|
|
| |
Ray Sanders wrote:
> I found it curious that they even made 3 identical packs for the
> support pieces, rather than 1 pack with 3x pieces.
I suspect that this was a packaging idea which was developed with the
possibility of other highway sets. If they come out with other sets,
then they can just include the appropriate number of support tower bags.
The other possibility is that there was a production advantage to making
a smaller bag with 3x the quantity.
Frank
|
|
| |
> > > What exactly is behind LEGO randomly inserting colored bricks into models?
> Using a few choice odd-colored pieces can make things much easier to see in
> the printed instructions, and provides a visual reference for placement of
> nearby pieces. Maybe you or I wouldn't build an MOC that way, but if you're
> holding stock LEGO models to that standard, you'd better get used to
> disappointment.
I 'seeded' the interior of the _Radiant VII_ I built today with blue and yellow
so I wouldn't run out of red for the exterior! Not really a bad strategy for
large creations.
> Having now actually spent some time trying to draw up some building
> instructions for some of my own models, I have a new-found appreciation for
> how hard it can be to clearly illustrate how a model should be built.
The MegaBlocks Tyrannosaurus sculpture (and all their other sets, I think) have
the new parts for each step in their true bright colours, and previously added
parts noticably faded. That set was still hard to build (for a kid, anyway),
but the instructions were brilliant. Do you think TLC would be allowed to
introduce that system?
NOTE: I'm not a clone brand buyer! I haven't gotten any MegaBlocks for many
years, and I'm almost done sorting them out of my collection.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Bradley Dale writes:
> The MegaBlocks Tyrannosaurus sculpture (and all their other sets, I think)
> have the new parts for each step in their true bright colours, and previously
> added parts noticably faded. That set was still hard to build (for a kid,
> anyway), but the instructions were brilliant. Do you think TLC would be
> allowed to introduce that system?
They used to use such a system. See, for example,
http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/6000/6074/6074-04.html
The new pieces are noticeably darker than the old pieces.
TWS Garrison
|
|
|
