| |
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...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
