| |
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
|
|
Message has 6 Replies:
 | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
| | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) **snip** (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
| | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
| | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
| | | Exactly!
|
| 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... (...) of 10, (...) almost (...) since the (...) compare (...) the (...) range of (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
|
81 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
