| |
Hey all,
It took some time, but I've finally come to a very sad decision: I will no
longer purchase any new Lego and I will no longer declare myself an advocate
for TLG. I might have been able to tolerate the color change, but the
click-hinge invasion/conversion has just completely destroyed my faith in
the company. I just can't get excited about buying new sets knowing that I'
m going to have to sort out half or more of the pieces and trade or sell
them because I don't want them. Granted, we've all done this for years, but
NOT for the same reasons.
This decision was also spurred by the arrival in my mailbox today of the
Summer 2004 catalog. Each turn of the page further confirmed to me that
Lego has ceased to be what I loved. Too many of the set pictures don't show
you what the whole set looks like and the pictures are blurred with action
graphics that distort what should be in focus. Also, the overall set design
has continued to worsen. The new Alpha Team sets are almost uniformly
hideous, and the new Castle sets are so filled with pre-fab it's just
painfully Playmobil. Basic bricks and plates seem to be in danger of
disappearing altogether. The real shame is that the new Designer sets look
spectacular, particularly the Titan XP mech set which is just gorgeous (an
obvious tribute to the original Gundam robot). It's so bittersweet because
the set is loaded with the new dark gray. Now some might say that this is
an opportunity to load up on new dark gray pieces, and that may well be
true, but who knows if TLG will decide to "retire" other colors that are far
older? To me, the very real possiblity of this just smacks too much of the
predetermined obsolence that dominates the PC industry (and other
industries). I'm not made of money, and if TLG thinks that they can get
collectors to buy more sets just so that they can have the parts they need
in the new colors, then I wish them luck.
I will still play with my Lego, I will still buy Lego from Bricklink and
other secondary sources, and I will still post new creations on my website.
However, I cannot continue to directly support a company that has repeatedly
demonstrated such a total lack of regard for the principles that I believe
once made TLG the best Toy Company in the world.
I'm sad. Really, really sad.
David Simmons
|
|
| |
| |
This decision was also spurred by the arrival in my mailbox today of the
Summer 2004 catalog. Each turn of the page further confirmed to me that
Lego has ceased to be what I loved. Too many of the set pictures don’t show
you what the whole set looks like and the pictures are blurred with action
graphics that distort what should be in focus. Also, the overall set design
has continued to worsen.
|
Oh yeah *that thing*. I recall getting a copy of that in the mail the other day,
but after two minutes of flipping through it, I put it into my not-so-coveted
‘shred pile’.
I admit there are a few interesting bits in there, (including a few of the HP
sets - good for those scarce latticed window components) but most of the new
stuff looks rather dull and mundane. For the knight figures/ sets, they’re
another castle travesty. Now, what about those set designers? They must be
taking really long coffee breaks...or the process is being overseen by evil
monkeys who conspire to take over the company...or ABS fumes are corrupting the
designers. The conspiracy theories go on and on...
Will the campaign of lameness end? Will future catalogues see the same fate as
this one? Tune in and see the next installment of this...epic saga : )
Osprey Rezkalla
http://www.lugnet.com/people/members/~1112/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Simmons wrote:
<snip>
>
> This decision was also spurred by the arrival in my mailbox today of the
> Summer 2004 catalog. Each turn of the page further confirmed to me that
> Lego has ceased to be what I loved.
I had very much the same reaction after looking at the Summer 2004 catalog. I
couldn't put my finger on exactly why I didn't like that catalog until I browsed
a catalog from 1987 that I had just won in an eBay auction yesterday.
Too many of the set pictures don't show
> you what the whole set looks like and the pictures are blurred with action
> graphics that distort what should be in focus. Also, the overall set design
> has continued to worsen.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with that observation. In contrast, the
1987 catalog showed each set in a seperate box with a neutral background image.
Showing the set - the actual Lego - was the selling point of the catalog. This
is not to say the catalog was boring. Dioramas were pictured throughout and the
catalog used vivid colors and had a nicely designed layout. I can't help but
think that the design philosophy of the current S@H catalog is to make them as
EXCITING as possible, as though watching a video or playing a videogame, at the
cost of obscuring the thing that the catalog is selling. I guess Lego just
isn't exciting enough by itself anymore.
The new Alpha Team sets are almost uniformly
> hideous, and the new Castle sets are so filled with pre-fab it's just
> painfully Playmobil.
Like others, I don't mind the prefab in Playmobil - that's part of it's system
and always has been. At least Playmobil has nicely designed playsets. And
their catalogs and box advertising are awesome (great blend of excitement with
the special effect lighting and no frills contents listing).
<snip>
> However, I cannot continue to directly support a company that has repeatedly
> demonstrated such a total lack of regard for the principles that I believe
> once made TLG the best Toy Company in the world.
They just have different priorities. They're a big company that has to focus on
being a multi-national profitable organization while still delivering the values
that we have come to expect from them. I too believe that they have let their
principles and vision slip. The cover of the summer catalog is a good example
of values slipping. While I like the artwork, it's theme is dark and violent.
It actually reminds me of the battle of Helm's Deep from LotR, which, ironically
TLC has stated as being too dark to consider licensing. As far as their vision
goes, I always wonder what GKC would think of Galidor, Bionicle, licensing,
getting away from the System, etc.
>
> I'm sad. Really, really sad.
Well, while I was disappointed in the Summer catalog, I really enjoyed paging
through the 1987 catalog (it was during my dark ages, so pretty new to me). I
thought it would be neat to use the models as an idea book of sorts, and see
what similar things one could build with today's selection of parts. If I had
the time and talent, I would even make a catalog out of the MOCs that resulted.
So, I hope your sadness doesn't last too long. I guess we have to take the good
with the bad, though.
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@myrealbox.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Simmons wrote:
> I will still play with my Lego, I will still buy Lego from Bricklink and
> other secondary sources, and I will still post new creations on my website.
> However, I cannot continue to directly support a company that has repeatedly
> demonstrated such a total lack of regard for the principles that I believe
> once made TLG the best Toy Company in the world.
You're not alone, David. I'm in the exact same boat. I don't like the new set
designs, and the parts come in the wrong colours, so there's not much point in
buying any of the new sets! Apart from buying the occasional "display piece"
that Lego Direct manages to wrangle, I'll stick with my existing collection, and
rely on the secondary market whenever necessary.
Sad that TLG has lost my faith, but happy that I can save my money,
-Bryan
|
|
| |
"Thomas Main" <thomasmain@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:I0JJwE.o1F@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, David Simmons wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > This decision was also spurred by the arrival in my mailbox today of the
> > Summer 2004 catalog. Each turn of the page further confirmed to me that
> > Lego has ceased to be what I loved.
>
> I had very much the same reaction after looking at the Summer 2004 • catalog. I
> couldn't put my finger on exactly why I didn't like that catalog until I • browsed
> a catalog from 1987 that I had just won in an eBay auction yesterday.
>
> Too many of the set pictures don't show
> > you what the whole set looks like and the pictures are blurred with • action
> > graphics that distort what should be in focus. Also, the overall set • design
> > has continued to worsen.
>
> I think you've hit the nail on the head with that observation. In • contrast, the
> 1987 catalog showed each set in a seperate box with a neutral background • image.
> Showing the set - the actual Lego - was the selling point of the catalog. • This
> is not to say the catalog was boring. Dioramas were pictured throughout • and the
> catalog used vivid colors and had a nicely designed layout. I can't help • but
> think that the design philosophy of the current S@H catalog is to make • them as
> EXCITING as possible, as though watching a video or playing a videogame, • at the
> cost of obscuring the thing that the catalog is selling. I guess Lego • just
> isn't exciting enough by itself anymore.
Now you've definitely hit the nail on the head with that last sentence!!
Therein lies the major problem in my opinion. TLG just doesn't seem to have
confidence in it's own product anymore. They try to jazz it up with flashy
graphics and crazy colors, but IMHO, it doesn't need all this
ricketarackata. Lego is (or was) the best building toy out there and has
always sold itself to me merely because it was Lego (and not Lego on
steroids and LSD). I believe that it's this lack of confidence which has
resulted in the color change, click-hinge conversion, and other unnecessary
changes to the product that we've seen.
The other problem I sense is that TLG doesn't seem to have any confidence in
the intelligence or imagination of their target market. Kids aren't stupid.
In fact, I think in general they're much smarter than people think. You
take your kid to a playground, give him/her a truck and a sandbox, and they
can stay happy for hours without any suggestions or direction from you.
Their imagination will ramp up and you'll have to drag them home after
they've been busy for hours making adventure after adventure. TLG doesn't
seem to believe that kids have this ability anymore, that they need to be
told what to do with their Lego, that they need to be dazzled and bombarded
with action-packed imagery in order to imagine what the creative
possibilities are. Gimme a break! Lego is not TV. Lego is not a freakin'
video game!! Stop trying to morph your product into something it isn't!
The 1987 catalog you mentioned is a perfect example of what I'm talking
about. The sets are presented simply and beautifully, and this simplicity
is what I found so attractive as a child. I'd look at these pictures and
the sets just seem poised for action. Like they were just calling out to
me: "Come on, Dave, let's blast off to adventure! All we need are your two
hands and imagination and we can go anywhere!" That sense of anticipation
is completely missing from the new catalogs. They've practically got the
sets playing by themselves now! What do they need kids for?!
I don't know what has caused this crisis of confidence, but I dearly hope
they can get it back because until they do, I'll have no confidence in them.
Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Simmons wrote:
> The other problem I sense is that TLG doesn't seem to have any confidence in
> the intelligence or imagination of their target market. Kids aren't stupid.
> In fact, I think in general they're much smarter than people think. ...
> ... TLG doesn't
> seem to believe that kids have this ability anymore, that they need to be
> told what to do with their Lego, that they need to be dazzled and bombarded
> with action-packed imagery in order to imagine what the creative
> possibilities are.
Well, I think the issue isn't that kids are any dumber or less creative than
they used to be-- it's just that Lego is aiming for a different market.
Back when I was a kid, there were a few other kids I knew that played with Lego.
A few. Almost everyone had *some*, but only a few really LOVED it. The rest of
them all wanted Transformers, M.A.S.K vehicles, GIJoe figures, Ninja Turtles,
Go-Bots, Voltron and Star Wars toys. And these are the kids who don't really
have the willingness and/or patience to imagine something on their own. It's not
that they can't, it's that they can't be bothered. Not when there's something
more interesting beating them over the head with its super-cool laser guns,
power swords, turbo hovercrafts, and transforming dino-zords. The call of less
imaginitive toys is too great for them to ignore, and so they're lulled to them.
Certainly if you put these kids in a room full of nothing but Lego, they'd build
and have a great time doing so (maybe even more of a great time than with other
toys). But if you put them in a room with Lego AND all these other fad toys,
they'd gravitate towards the fad stuff.
I'm not sure it's any different now. You've got these mainstream fads like Power
Rangers and YuGiOh, which do really well financially (although the toy market in
general *has* been fading in recent years), and then you've got all the niche
toys like Lego, Erector sets, model kits, Playmobil, and even other things like
Baseball Cards. Stuff that's been around for a long time, and probably will be
around a long time to come, but just doesn't make vast stinking wodges of money
like the fads.
Lego has just been slowly moving towards the fad-market. They've been
diversifying their products between the niche toys and fads. Certainly some of
the stuff they've got is really good, and isn't fad-driven (My Own Train,
Designer, Creator, MOC sets, bulk offerings, Mindstorms), and some of it is
moreso fad-driven (Knight's Kingdom, Alpha Team, Galidor, Bionicle, HP,
Spider-Man). But we AFOLs remember the days when almost NONE of it was fad
driven. We're more like spoiled children who remember how good it was when
almost all of Lego's product line catered to what we wanted.
It's a shame to see that certain themes appear to be destined to *always* be fad
driven, and that we may never see nice generic castle or space figures ever
again who aren't each given a specific character, name, and backstory. But that
just seems to be the way Lego is going. They want to diversify their audience
and target both the niche crowd *and* the fad crowd. And that means changing our
mindset as AFOLs to *expect* that dividing line-- to know that (hopefully) Lego
will always continue to produce great stuff that we love, even if at the same
time they produce things that really aren't our cup of tea.
DaveE
|
|
| |
My complaints don't really concern the "fad" aspects of the Lego themes. I
think licensing is an awesome way to diversify a product if it's done right.
I would buy some of the new Castle, Star Wars, and HP sets regardless
because there are some cool pieces and sets there. But now the pieces I
want are rapidly disappearing for reasons of the color change and
click-hinges and set design is just taking a killer nosedive overall. Those
are my main issues.
Dave
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
news:I0JyAC.1t2w@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, David Simmons wrote:
> > The other problem I sense is that TLG doesn't seem to have any • confidence in
> > the intelligence or imagination of their target market. Kids aren't • stupid.
> > In fact, I think in general they're much smarter than people think. ...
> > ... TLG doesn't
> > seem to believe that kids have this ability anymore, that they need to • be
> > told what to do with their Lego, that they need to be dazzled and • bombarded
> > with action-packed imagery in order to imagine what the creative
> > possibilities are.
>
> Well, I think the issue isn't that kids are any dumber or less creative • than
> they used to be-- it's just that Lego is aiming for a different market.
>
> Back when I was a kid, there were a few other kids I knew that played with • Lego.
> A few. Almost everyone had *some*, but only a few really LOVED it. The • rest of
> them all wanted Transformers, M.A.S.K vehicles, GIJoe figures, Ninja • Turtles,
> Go-Bots, Voltron and Star Wars toys. And these are the kids who don't • really
> have the willingness and/or patience to imagine something on their own. • It's not
> that they can't, it's that they can't be bothered. Not when there's • something
> more interesting beating them over the head with its super-cool laser • guns,
> power swords, turbo hovercrafts, and transforming dino-zords. The call of • less
> imaginitive toys is too great for them to ignore, and so they're lulled to • them.
>
> Certainly if you put these kids in a room full of nothing but Lego, they'd • build
> and have a great time doing so (maybe even more of a great time than with • other
> toys). But if you put them in a room with Lego AND all these other fad • toys,
> they'd gravitate towards the fad stuff.
>
> I'm not sure it's any different now. You've got these mainstream fads like • Power
> Rangers and YuGiOh, which do really well financially (although the toy • market in
> general *has* been fading in recent years), and then you've got all the • niche
> toys like Lego, Erector sets, model kits, Playmobil, and even other things • like
> Baseball Cards. Stuff that's been around for a long time, and probably • will be
> around a long time to come, but just doesn't make vast stinking wodges of • money
> like the fads.
>
> Lego has just been slowly moving towards the fad-market. They've been
> diversifying their products between the niche toys and fads. Certainly • some of
> the stuff they've got is really good, and isn't fad-driven (My Own Train,
> Designer, Creator, MOC sets, bulk offerings, Mindstorms), and some of it • is
> moreso fad-driven (Knight's Kingdom, Alpha Team, Galidor, Bionicle, HP,
> Spider-Man). But we AFOLs remember the days when almost NONE of it was fad
> driven. We're more like spoiled children who remember how good it was when
> almost all of Lego's product line catered to what we wanted.
>
> It's a shame to see that certain themes appear to be destined to *always* • be fad
> driven, and that we may never see nice generic castle or space figures • ever
> again who aren't each given a specific character, name, and backstory. But • that
> just seems to be the way Lego is going. They want to diversify their • audience
> and target both the niche crowd *and* the fad crowd. And that means • changing our
> mindset as AFOLs to *expect* that dividing line-- to know that (hopefully) • Lego
> will always continue to produce great stuff that we love, even if at the • same
> time they produce things that really aren't our cup of tea.
>
> DaveE
|
|
| |
IMO this all is summed up in the change from the slogan "Just Imagine . . . " to
"Play On!".
Bruce
|
|
| |
Can I have a HUGE round of applause for Dave here?
This sounds like someone who loves LEGO, but at the same time, also understands
that LEGO is trying to do what it can to get sales from a larger market--in
light of many companies who have grown over the years. It appears that there is
a "fad" and "non-fad" market approach, just as Dave has said...not into the
"fads"?, then go for the "non-fad" stuff (PLEASE, don't bring the color
discussion up...if you do, I'll direct you to the nearest dead horse...).
Kids today are different from us kids from 10,20, or even 30+ years ago. LEGO
has to change with the kids, as much as we may stay in our own "static"
childhood of many years ago. Sure, I had fisher-price Adventure People, a
Transformer or two, a bunch of G.I. Joe toys, (no power rangers--weren't around
as a kid), I even wanted a few of the Bandai Robotech toys, even had a HO train
set as a kid (even put my Lego town inside the HO layout), but the only toy
that's endured for 30 years...is LEGO.
as an aside...working at my LEGO store one day, I was stacking boxes of
product...when all of a sudden, I realized that I was stacking them in an
interlocking pattern...a pattern I learned about from playing with LEGO as a
child...talk about your "full circle"....
Scott Lyttle
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Simmons wrote:
> My complaints don't really concern the "fad" aspects of the Lego themes. I
> think licensing is an awesome way to diversify a product if it's done right.
> I would buy some of the new Castle, Star Wars, and HP sets regardless
> because there are some cool pieces and sets there. But now the pieces I
> want are rapidly disappearing for reasons of the color change and
> click-hinges and set design is just taking a killer nosedive overall. Those
> are my main issues.
Well, I was more or less responding to your bit on the fact that you thought
Lego seemed to think kids were stupid and needed to be spoon fed. However, I
suppose the color change and the set design issues are related to what I'm
talking about. I pointed out a bit a while ago:
http://news.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=4749
Basically, Lego themes are now created with less attention to the other themes
around them. A piece is designed with a specific theme/set in mind (like the new
KK walls, bionicle pieces, Rock Raider cockpits, etc), and not with the entire
*system* in mind. There's less consistancy across themes because Lego has chosen
to try and diversify their audience. And it's because of this loss of focus on
consistancy (for instance) that the color change happened. The focus was put on
"How do we make next year's product just a *little* bit better?" Nobody really
thought about the lack of consistancy from one year to the next (or if they did,
they didn't care much about it, and passed it off as inconsequential). Instead
it's more like how Hasbro or Mattel designs their toys. Barbies have nothing to
do with Hot Wheels, and next year's Power Ranger toy line has nothing to do with
last year's Ninja Turtles.
Juniorization in set design is similarly linked. Themes are desgined with a
particular age range in mind-- Star Wars may not have the same target age range
as Knight's Kingdom or Galidor or Jack Stone. Hence, you see varying degrees of
juniorization and design in those sets, with less attention to how they compare
with the rest of Lego's sets. Notice that "fad" themes like Knight's Kingdom and
Alpha Team are more juniorized than the Designer or My Own Train sets. The kids
these are intended for are more 'mainstream' kids who have less desire to build
creatively with Lego, and more desire to play with the finished toy. Hence, the
focus is on a quick build, lots of "cool looking" doodads, and playable features
(trap doors, etc). It's not that set design is worsening across ALL of Lego's
products. It's just juniorizing EXACTLY where they're trying to get a different
target market, which happens to be fad-ish themes.
Click hinges, I dunno. I doubt that's a change that's come about due to a change
in focus. My guess is that Lego feels that these click hinges will be better
over time than other hinges:
1) Other hinges can be pretty flimsy after even a little bit of wear (or
sometimes almost no wear). Click hinges (I'm guessing) will hold up better over
time
2) Click hinges are compatible with each other, whereas older style hinges
aren't. Bendy arms and 5-finger hinges don't go together, and neither do 1x5
bendy plates.
3) Click hinges are certainly more sturdy right from the start. They hold their
position REALLY well, and can take more friction.
Of course, on the downside, they only have a set number of positions, rather
than being fittable to any arbitrary angle, and they (in some cases) take up
more space than their normal counterpart hinges. Anyway, my guess is that Lego
decided to phase out the older hinges because they thought they were better--
sorta like how they phased out 4.5v motors and 12v trains for 9v ones. Ditto the
little teethity bits on technic half-bushings and technic connectors, replaced
with single-piece combos and smooth bushings. Lego just figured their new idea
was better.
DaveE
|
|
| |
Snip lots of good analysis
In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
> Lego just figured their new idea
> was better.
Or the patent protection on it would last longer than the older versions it
replaced.
|
|
| |
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
news:I0K9M9.1GG2@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, David Simmons wrote:
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> Click hinges, I dunno. I doubt that's a change that's come about due to a • change
> in focus. My guess is that Lego feels that these click hinges will be • better
> over time than other hinges:
>
> 1) Other hinges can be pretty flimsy after even a little bit of wear (or
> sometimes almost no wear). Click hinges (I'm guessing) will hold up better • over
> time
> 2) Click hinges are compatible with each other, whereas older style hinges
> aren't. Bendy arms and 5-finger hinges don't go together, and neither do • 1x5
> bendy plates.
> 3) Click hinges are certainly more sturdy right from the start. They hold • their
> position REALLY well, and can take more friction.
[ ... snipped ... ]
Have to disagree with your take on click hinges. They do wear out and they
wear out quickly IMNSHO. I built the green chameleon from the Wild
Collection when it first came out and set it on my desk at home. Over time
it began to sag. It wasn't played with, the hinges weren't opened and
closed numerous times. It simply started to sag from carrying the weight of
the model. I have some pretty old fingered hinges and they retain their
stiffness pretty well over time.
I have posted about it before, I am not a fan of the click hinges as a
replacemet for finger hinges. I think they are a far less elegant solution
and in many cases don't open or perform their hinge action nearly as well as
the comparable fingered hinge element (see small Fire Boat, Soccer Bus, and
several others) as the model is more apt to come apart than the hinge to
open correctly.
The fingered hinges also lie flatter than the click hinges do which means
they can fit within a one plate thick space, the click hinges can't do that.
My $0.02, YMMV.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
> Click hinges, I dunno. I doubt that's a change that's come about due to a change
> in focus. My guess is that Lego feels that these click hinges will be better
> over time than other hinges:[...]
Another advantage is that they are compatible with clips. For example a 1x1
plate with clip can interface with a 2-fingered click hinge.
I dislike the lack of "airtightness" of click hinges and the bulkiness of them,
but as a system they are a lot more versatile. I just think LEGO should keep
some fingered hinges around, rather than switching 100% to click hinges.
--Bill.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
> Another advantage is that they are compatible with clips. For example a 1x1
> plate with clip can interface with a 2-fingered click hinge.
While that is true, the flimsy connection very much suggests that this is pure
coincidence.
I also can't see any possibility that they switched to the click-hinge system
solely because of patent expiration. The looming expiration date was probably
involved in any conscious decision to create a new style of hinge, but you don't
abandon something that works just because the patent ran out. Cars still ride
on wheels, and TLC still makes the 2x4 brick. No, it's pretty clear that the
"universal hinge" idea holds some sort of merit in their eyes, or they wouldn't
be systematically redesigning every hinge.
> I dislike the lack of "airtightness" of click hinges and the bulkiness of
> them, but as a system they are a lot more versatile. I just think LEGO
> should keep some fingered hinges around, rather than switching 100% to click
> hinges.
I've gotten the impression that finger and barrel hinges are better for moving
parts, but the click hinges are better for holding poses. Well, depending on
which generation you got. My early-release Jedi Starfighter collapses every
time I bump it, and the hinge positions were sloppy from Day 1; but hinges
produced more recently are strong enough that they often pop other parts loose
when you try to adjust them, and they do a much better job of locking into a
single position.
|
|
| |
"Scott Lyttle" <datafx7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:I0K0uG.8Cr@lugnet.com...
> Can I have a HUGE round of applause for Dave here?
>
> This sounds like someone who loves LEGO, but at the same time, also • understands
> that LEGO is trying to do what it can to get sales from a larger • market--in
> light of many companies who have grown over the years. It appears that • there is
> a "fad" and "non-fad" market approach, just as Dave has said...not into • the
> "fads"?, then go for the "non-fad" stuff (PLEASE, don't bring the color
> discussion up...if you do, I'll direct you to the nearest dead horse...).
Scott, you're missing my point. I can understand that you feel it's a dead
issue from the perspective that's there's nothing we can do about it. But
it's far from beind dead in terms of the fact that it's the most monumental
change to the product short of changing it's physical dimensions. Telling
me to go for the "non-fad" stuff and NOT bring up the color issue is
insulting. That's like telling me to eat at fast food and shut up if I
don't like it.
> Kids today are different from us kids from 10,20, or even 30+ years ago. • LEGO
> has to change with the kids, as much as we may stay in our own "static"
> childhood of many years ago. Sure, I had fisher-price Adventure People, a
> Transformer or two, a bunch of G.I. Joe toys, (no power rangers--weren't • around
> as a kid), I even wanted a few of the Bandai Robotech toys, even had a HO • train
> set as a kid (even put my Lego town inside the HO layout), but the only • toy
> that's endured for 30 years...is LEGO.
Granted Lego may have endured and other toys have come and gone, but at what
cost? What I was trying to say (perhaps a bit too melodramtically in my
original post) is that I feel that the price Lego seems to believe they have
to pay in order to endure is too much for me. I don't believe that children
are any different today than they were 30 years. The only difference is in
their environment and the choices that are offered to them (too many choices
and many of them unappealing when seen from an adult perspective, IMHO). If
they wanna bash their little brothers or sisters over the head with Power
Rangers and GI Joe then that's fine. But these toys offer a completely
different pattern of play than Lego does. I believe that TLG's mistake is
in trying to appeal to a market that's simply not going to appreciate the
product for what makes it great. From my perspective, Lego is about
imagination, creativitiy, and contemplation, not CRASH, BANG, WHOOSH,
SMASH!! Kids can bring those aspects into the toy if they want (and of
course, they will) but I believe it's a mistake to make these aspects an
integral part of a toy that is far better of without them. Lego should not
have to be an ADD-approved product.
Dave
> as an aside...working at my LEGO store one day, I was stacking boxes of
> product...when all of a sudden, I realized that I was stacking them in an
> interlocking pattern...a pattern I learned about from playing with LEGO as • a
> child...talk about your "full circle"....
>
> Scott Lyttle
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Snip lots of good analysis
>
> In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
> > Lego just figured their new idea
> > was better.
>
> Or the patent protection on it would last longer than the older versions it
> replaced.
Perhaps this is why we're not seeing real technic any more. The new technic
sets put into question what defines Lego. They have none of the features of a
2x4 brick accept for the fact they're made of ABS. Technic has evolved into a
separate building system, rather than continuing to be compatable with Lego.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
<snip>
> Technic has evolved into a separate building system,
> rather than continuing to be compatable with Lego.
Whoa man, back up the bus!
The Technic system is still very much compatible with the LEGO system as a
whole. This is evidenced by the fact that Technic parts are found with
increasing frequency in non-Technic sets. If the above was meant to be a rant
about studless beams then say what you mean instead of making gross
generalizations.
-Orion
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Technic has evolved into a separate building system,
> > rather than continuing to be compatable with Lego.
>
> Whoa man, back up the bus!
>
> The Technic system is still very much compatible with the LEGO system as a
> whole. This is evidenced by the fact that Technic parts are found with
> increasing frequency in non-Technic sets. If the above was meant to be a rant
> about studless beams then say what you mean instead of making gross
> generalizations.
>
> -Orion
Point taken, sorry about that
|
|
| |
I agree 110% with everything you just said.
Not only I agree, but I think exactly as you do.
I got my 2004 summer catalog yesterday, and it's the worst they're ever been.
A shame, considering they looked like they were on the right track in 2003
sets... :-(
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Orion Pobursky wrote:
| |
The Technic system is still very much compatible with the LEGO system as a
whole.
|
Indeed. I used a 5-piece stud-free TECHNIC construct as a way to interface
between the standard LEGO bricks and a BIONICLE part in
these MOCs. There wasn’t
room to squeeze any studded TECHNIC parts in, and the handlebars/side flares are
actually connected to the base of the sled through the TECHNIC parts with no
direct System-to-System connection.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Orion Pobursky wrote:
| |
The Technic system is still very much compatible with the LEGO system as a
whole.
|
Indeed. I used a 5-piece stud-free TECHNIC construct as a way to interface
between the standard LEGO bricks and a BIONICLE part in
these MOCs. There
wasn’t room to squeeze any studded TECHNIC parts in, and the handlebars/side
flares are actually connected to the base of the sled through the TECHNIC
parts with no direct System-to-System connection.
|
It’s not that I’m bothered about so much. It’s the gratuitous use of liftarms
where standard technic bricks could be used to better effect. However, it’s no
use trying to dig myself out of a hole. I can hear the mention of 8466, 8455,
8448, 8458 etc. a mile off. I take your point. I guess I’d better shut up.
I’ve never been a particularly fantastic builder myself. See for yourself:
http://mocpages.com/moc.php/4275.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
| |
It’s not that I’m bothered about so much. It’s the gratuitous use of
liftarms where standard technic bricks could be used to better effect.
|
I’d be genuinely curious to see some specific uses where you feel this to be the
case. I’m one of those people who mostly just uses the old-style TECHNIC bricks
when I want TECHNIC features in a standard brick construction (like Moonbase
corridor flanges), but sually not at all in a full TECHNIC MOC, so I’m rarely
looking for ways to use them in their original capacity. I do a lot of
TECHNIC-sculpting, so the biggest problem I’ve usually faced is that the extra
height required for the stud interface would prevent me from packing pieces as
compactly as I need to do.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Snip lots of good analysis
> >
> > In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
> > > Lego just figured their new idea
> > > was better.
> >
> > Or the patent protection on it would last longer than the older versions it
> > replaced.
>
> Perhaps this is why we're not seeing real technic any more. The new technic
> sets put into question what defines Lego. They have none of the features of a
> 2x4 brick accept for the fact they're made of ABS. Technic has evolved into a
> separate building system, rather than continuing to be compatable with Lego.
You seem to be saying that today's technic is wholly incompatible with the rest
of the LEGO product line. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Do you have any evidence to back up this outlandish claim? Studded beams (that
are still available in technic sets) are extremely compatible with the rest of
the product line. They have studs. Sure you can't hook an axle to parts
without holes, but I suspect you are not talking about axles. 24T and 40T gears
have stud recepticles, and make wonderful "gender changers", as do studless
beams.
Studless parts really seem to be the parts that people have issues with.
Studless parts have stud holes and also make good gender changers. Ever need to
have a double female plate? Try joining two plates studs into a studless beam.
We've just seen a studded fan build a the new crane truck and start to
appreciate the studless beams. Yes, they are not as strong as studded beams,
because they don't have as much ABS. Then again, they can be used in geometries
not achievable with studded beams.
I wish that there were more studded sets and studless/studded mixed sets. Do I
think that the technic studded technology will go away? No.
Many people put down the studless parts, but have never really tried to use
them.
I came out of my dark ages when the RIS first came to market. It contained
studded and studless parts. I find both studded and studless parts equally
usable, but in different ways. I had the advantage of not having pre-conceived
ideas about building techniques. I would think an open minded builder would
embrace the new parts because they provide new possibilities. I have *more*
studded technic bricks than studless technic beams, but I tend to use studless
most of the time.
When we get down to the basics, there seem to be two big complaints about
studless parts:
- they are displacing studded parts, and therefore will be studded brick's
demise. I don't buy it.
- some people don't know how to build with the studless so they they are
unhappy. They try to use studless parts just like they would use studded, and
of course they are dissatisfied. I can only encourage these dissenters to get
out of the box and embrace the new possibilities. Just because you don't know
how to build with these parts does not make them bad.
Be happy! We have studded and studless technologies that are inter-compatible
with each other and the rest of the LEGO product line.
I'd be happy to analyze your case that new technic is incompatible with the rest
of the LEGO line. Do you have *any* facts to back this up?
Many of my designs are completely studless or a mix of studded and studless.
Have a peek.
Kevin
http://www.kclague.net
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=kclague
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Orion Pobursky wrote:
| |
The Technic system is still very much compatible with the LEGO system as a
whole.
|
Indeed. I used a 5-piece stud-free TECHNIC construct as a way to interface
between the standard LEGO bricks and a BIONICLE part in
these MOCs. There
wasn’t room to squeeze any studded TECHNIC parts in, and the handlebars/side
flares are actually connected to the base of the sled through the TECHNIC
parts with no direct System-to-System connection.
|
It’s not that I’m bothered about so much. It’s the gratuitous use of
liftarms where standard technic bricks could be used to better effect.
However, it’s no use trying to dig myself out of a hole. I can hear the
mention of 8466, 8455, 8448, 8458 etc. a mile off. I take your point. I
guess I’d better shut up. I’ve never been a particularly fantastic builder
myself. See for yourself: http://mocpages.com/moc.php/4275.
|
For me, building out of LEGO is theraputic. I have fun building things, and
appreciate the inventiveness that LEGO provides.
I like your ship. I particulary like your uses of pneumatic hoses for
non-pneumatic purposes.
Don’t worry about whether you are fantastic or not....... focus on the
enjoyment. I know I do.
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
| |
It’s not that I’m bothered about so much. It’s the gratuitous use of
liftarms where standard technic bricks could be used to better effect.
|
I’d be genuinely curious to see some specific uses where you feel this to be
the case. I’m one of those people who mostly just uses the old-style TECHNIC
bricks when I want TECHNIC features in a standard brick construction (like
Moonbase corridor flanges), but sually not at all in a full TECHNIC MOC, so
I’m rarely looking for ways to use them in their original capacity. I do a
lot of TECHNIC-sculpting, so the biggest problem I’ve usually faced is that
the extra height required for the stud interface would prevent me from
packing pieces as compactly as I need to do.
|
I think that when TECHNIC bricks are used, a more solid appearance is given to
the model. I personally quite like 8455. I think the previous technic
excavators had a too blocky appearance. There are a lot of pneumatics in a
small area and trying to use technic bricks for a small scale model can lead to
an clunky appearance. The newer one I feel looks better. However, when
building based on a subject that is naturally quite solid and substantial, I
feel that TECHNIC bricks are a better choice. For example, I feel that 8868 has
a more accurate truck look to it than 8436 (I may be wrong, I don’t own either).
When making streamlined models, I think that liftarms are a better choice.
Liftarms look naturally more streamlined and the panel farings are appropriate
as they give a more streamlined look. TLC use liftarms on every technic set
now, whereas I feel that making traditional TECHNIC models every now and again
could look better.
|
|
| |
| |
Don’t worry about whether you are fantastic or not....... focus on the
enjoyment. I know I do.
Kevin
|
Yeah, I suppose when you look at too many fantastic models you can start to feel
a bit pathetic. Thanks for the advice
|
|
| |
"Kevin L. Clague" wrote:
> Do you have any evidence to back up this outlandish claim? Studded beams (that
> are still available in technic sets)
Where exactly?
No studded beams in 8436, 8451, 8453, 8454, 8441, 8455, 8434, 8433,
8435. These are 'Technic' sets from last 2 years.
> Studless parts really seem to be the parts that people have issues with.
I don't think the people have issues with studless beams per se. I think
they have issues with replacement of all studded beams with studless
beams in all new Technic sets. And - this is _not_ just a part
replacement. This is a different building system. Everything I built
from LEGO in past 25 years (with more than few years of a 'pause') was
bottom-to-top building, including all the Technic sets I have. Except
the Backhoe, of course.
I don't simply like the inside-to-outside building style. Studless-only
doesn't bring anything positive in my eyes. Resulting constructions are
'wiggly' and the construction itself is unnecessary complex to be
enjoyable for me. Don't talk 'robots' or something. Take 8880 or 8480
and tell me it would be _better_ in studless. Don't forget to define
_better_.
I think that 8455 would be _better_ with studded parts. It would have
much stronger frame, could be _easily_ motorized or even styled with
standard bricks (new slopes/wedges are good examples for that). And it
would be bigger. I was _really_ disappointed by Bachhoe's size. Big is
beatiful ;-)
> Studless parts have stud holes and also make good gender changers. Ever need to
> have a double female plate? Try joining two plates studs into a studless beam.
I've read somewhere that putting the studs in Technic holes is not a
recommended technique. It does wear the parts too much. I can't find
that message now though.
> We've just seen a studded fan build a the new crane truck and start to
> appreciate the studless beams. Yes, they are not as strong as studded beams,
> because they don't have as much ABS. Then again, they can be used in geometries
> not achievable with studded beams.
I don't think that anybody argues on usefulness of studless beams.
> - they are displacing studded parts, and therefore will be studded brick's
> demise. I don't buy it.
Isn't this fact proven by the existence of the sets I named above? [I'm
still talking _only_ about the Technic line]. You don't name set Technic
because it contains some parts which were used in old Technic sets. My
childhood's favorite set 744 had studded beams, pins, gears but was not
Technic.
> I'd be happy to analyze your case that new technic is incompatible with the rest
> of the LEGO line. Do you have *any* facts to back this up?
Take 3033 and 8479. Build something.
Take 3033 and 8455. Build something.
I know this is an extreme example, but it doesn't make my points
invalid.
Right now I have reasonable amounts of 'old' Technic, and I'm going to
vote by my vallet. Ie. no more new Technic sets. I have 2 old on my
wishlist (Crane Truck, Airtech Claw Rig), after that I'm 'finished' with
Technic purchases. The money are going to Designer Sets which have now
more appeal for me.
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
http://www.kostky.org
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> I've read somewhere that putting the studs in Technic holes is not a
> recommended technique. It does wear the parts too much.
It's true that it's not recommended. The TECHNIC hole is smaller in diameter
than the inside of a 1x1 round brick, which is what allows TECHNIC pins to be
inserted into round bricks without damaging the split tip. That doesn't mean it
doesn't work. Many of the more interesting construction techniques aren't
exactly brick-friendly, but they work in situations where nothing else will.
Just don't stick a 1x1 round cone into any TECHNIC holes.
> I don't think that anybody argues on usefulness of studless beams.
I do. Orion does. Heck, Kevin's pretty much the poster-child for what can be
accomplished with stud-free construction.
|
|
| |
Purple Dave wrote:
> > I don't think that anybody argues on usefulness of studless beams.
>
> I do. Orion does. Heck, Kevin's pretty much the poster-child for what can be
> accomplished with stud-free construction.
Hey, this is a my clumsy pidgin, sorry, I'll try to reiterate ;-)
I just wanted to say that most people admit that studless beams may be
useful sometimes and that people are usually not against studless beams,
but against studless sets. For example I'm against studless sets = I
don't buy them (no matter if it's Znap, Bionicle or 'new' Technic).
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
http://www.kostky.org
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> Purple Dave wrote:
> > > I don't think that anybody argues on usefulness of studless beams.
> >
> > I do. Orion does. Heck, Kevin's pretty much the poster-child for what can be
> > accomplished with stud-free construction.
>
> Hey, this is a my clumsy pidgin, sorry, I'll try to reiterate ;-)
>
> I just wanted to say that most people admit that studless beams may be
> useful sometimes and that people are usually not against studless beams,
> but against studless sets. For example I'm against studless sets = I
> don't buy them (no matter if it's Znap, Bionicle or 'new' Technic).
Jindrich,
Just like you, I hope to see *more* studded/studless mixed sets in Technic's
future.
Last year at BrickfestDC, I asked Brad Justice what kind of training was
needed that would help me get hired by LEGO as a Technic builder. He responded
that set designers at LEGO do not just focus on one product line. So there is
no-one at LEGO that just does Technic. I don't think this bodes well for the
Technic line. While the new models are more aesthetically pleasing (IMNSHO)
because they lack studs, they are in fact less rigid and sturdy.
Also there have not been very many large innovations in steering or other
mechanisms in Technic sets in the last five years. Maybe I'm jaded though,
because I see so many wonderful models and innovations here and on brickshelf.
We as an AFOL community push the envelope on designs using technic parts much
harder than LEGO does.
Too bad they don't pay more attention to the innovations made available here
and fold them into new designs. Too bad that LEGO designers cannot focus on
particular product lines, making them better through successive refinement.
Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> Purple Dave wrote:
> > > I don't think that anybody argues on usefulness of studless beams.
> >
> > I do. Orion does. Heck, Kevin's pretty much the poster-child for what can be
> > accomplished with stud-free construction.
>
> Hey, this is a my clumsy pidgin, sorry, I'll try to reiterate ;-)
>
> I just wanted to say that most people admit that studless beams may be
> useful sometimes and that people are usually not against studless beams,
> but against studless sets. For example I'm against studless sets = I
> don't buy them (no matter if it's Znap, Bionicle or 'new' Technic).
And I don't buy Harry Potter or Spiderman sets ... oh wait ... I did buy a
Hogwarts Express ... but only to get a large supply of 2x2 spoked wheels for my
crane pulleys :)
Everyone has their preference, I think there are many technic builders that
don't buy a lot of that "subtheme of technic" called bionicle, I think it's just
as valid to not want to buy studless sets (could be considered a subtheme of
technic too?) if that is your preference. In fact I like the idea - all the more
for those of us that do buy them!!
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> "Kevin L. Clague" wrote:
> > Do you have any evidence to back up this outlandish claim? Studded beams (that
> > are still available in technic sets)
>
> Where exactly?
> No studded beams in 8436, 8451, 8453, 8454, 8441, 8455, 8434, 8433,
> 8435. These are 'Technic' sets from last 2 years.
>
> > Studless parts really seem to be the parts that people have issues with.
>
> I don't think the people have issues with studless beams per se. I think
> they have issues with replacement of all studded beams with studless
> beams in all new Technic sets. And - this is _not_ just a part
> replacement. This is a different building system. Everything I built
> from LEGO in past 25 years (with more than few years of a 'pause') was
> bottom-to-top building, including all the Technic sets I have. Except
> the Backhoe, of course.
>
> I don't simply like the inside-to-outside building style. Studless-only
> doesn't bring anything positive in my eyes. Resulting constructions are
> 'wiggly' and the construction itself is unnecessary complex to be
> enjoyable for me. Don't talk 'robots' or something. Take 8880 or 8480
> and tell me it would be _better_ in studless. Don't forget to define
> _better_.
>
> I think that 8455 would be _better_ with studded parts. It would have
> much stronger frame, could be _easily_ motorized or even styled with
> standard bricks (new slopes/wedges are good examples for that). And it
> would be bigger. I was _really_ disappointed by Bachhoe's size. Big is
> beatiful ;-)
>
> > Studless parts have stud holes and also make good gender changers. Ever need to
> > have a double female plate? Try joining two plates studs into a studless beam.
>
> I've read somewhere that putting the studs in Technic holes is not a
> recommended technique. It does wear the parts too much. I can't find
> that message now though.
>
> > We've just seen a studded fan build a the new crane truck and start to
> > appreciate the studless beams. Yes, they are not as strong as studded beams,
> > because they don't have as much ABS. Then again, they can be used in geometries
> > not achievable with studded beams.
>
> I don't think that anybody argues on usefulness of studless beams.
>
> > - they are displacing studded parts, and therefore will be studded brick's
> > demise. I don't buy it.
>
> Isn't this fact proven by the existence of the sets I named above? [I'm
> still talking _only_ about the Technic line]. You don't name set Technic
> because it contains some parts which were used in old Technic sets. My
> childhood's favorite set 744 had studded beams, pins, gears but was not
> Technic.
>
> > I'd be happy to analyze your case that new technic is incompatible with the rest
> > of the LEGO line. Do you have *any* facts to back this up?
>
> Take 3033 and 8479. Build something.
> Take 3033 and 8455. Build something.
>
> I know this is an extreme example, but it doesn't make my points
> invalid.
>
> Right now I have reasonable amounts of 'old' Technic, and I'm going to
> vote by my vallet. Ie. no more new Technic sets. I have 2 old on my
> wishlist (Crane Truck, Airtech Claw Rig), after that I'm 'finished' with
> Technic purchases. The money are going to Designer Sets which have now
> more appeal for me.
Thanks, I'm pretty sure that was what I was trying to say when I got everyone so
angry. You said it a lot better though. A lot of old technic models had
studdless beams, but they didn't go overboard. I was asking what now defines
Lego. Current lego doesn't have to have studs or tubes in entire models, and t
can still be called Lego. I did say later after everyone started complaining
about my viewpoint that 8455 is possibly best how it is, but I suppose you're
right, the reason I thought it wouldn't work was due to size, rather than
accepting the fact that bigger might be better. A bit off my current tangent,
who can honestly say the one on the left looks better?
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
bye for now,
Peter
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
| |
Thanks, I’m pretty sure that was what I was trying to say when I got
everyone so angry.
|
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I wasn’t angry. Every time this subject
comes up, I keep hoping to see some more specific instances where the old-style
TECHNIC works better, but all I ever see is “everything”. It’s clearly not
true, or there wouldn’t be any advocates for stud-free construction.
| |
You said it a lot better though.
|
Not really, but he did say it a lot “bigger”. It’s basically the same old rant
that pops up every few months, where the only thing that changes is the set
numbers. I want to see someone cite an instance where a single studded TECHNIC
brick would be more effective than a single stud-free TECHNIC liftarm. Kevin
has stated many times that liftarms work better for robotics because of weight
and clearance issues, and I’ve found them to be much more versatile for
sculpture, like Kiki from
Sluggy Freelance.
| |
I was asking what now defines Lego.
|
The experience, as has always been the case.
| |
Current lego doesn’t have to have studs or tubes in entire models, and t
can still be called Lego.
|
Look at all of the changes that have happened to the 2x4 brick over the years.
They changed the material from CA to ABS, they added tubes to the inside for
better grip, more recently they’ve added gussets for strength and vertical
ridges for even better grip, and now they’re adding horizontal ridges so TECHNIC
pin flanges can clip into the undersides. Older blocky shapes are making way
for lots of curved slopes and wedge shapes.
| |
I did say later after everyone started complaining about my viewpoint that
8455 is possibly best how it is, but I suppose you’re right, the reason I
thought it wouldn’t work was due to size, rather than accepting the fact
that bigger might be better.
|
“Better” is a very subjective term. Better for you doesn’t mean better for
everyone. Being able to make the same basic model in a smaller scale means it
can be sold at a lower price point, and that means it can sell more units.
Small sets are the money-makers, and larger sets are most useful as inspiration
for kids who can’t afford to buy them individually, but can build up a
collection large enough to emulate them over time. They still need to cover
their own development costs, though, and in today’s market that means they need
to be more affordable to warrant the shelf space to display them. Wal-Mart even
stopped stocking any sets that cost over $50 because they’ve got such slow
turnaround that they might as well be display items instead of salable product.
| |
A bit off my current tangent, who can honestly say the one on the left looks
better?
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
|
It looks a lot less chunky, and the TECHNIC panels do a good job of emulating
the curvy front ends of many older dune buggies, and the liftarms more
accurately represent the round tubestock used for frames than TECHNIC bricks do.
I don’t really see myself buying either as a set just because I don’t have a
huge interest in building dune buggies, but I’d be much more likely to buy the
one on the left for spare parts.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
| |
Not really, but he did say it a lot “bigger”. It’s basically the same old
rant that pops up every few months, where the only thing that changes is the
set numbers. I want to see someone cite an instance where a single studded
TECHNIC brick would be more effective than a single stud-free TECHNIC
liftarm.parts.
|
How about whenever you try to use Technic parts in a “non Technic” model?
Something like my
theatre, for example?
Stud-free is great for some things like
Dan Siskind’s bascule
bridge (on the right), but for most stuff I’d prefer Technic bricks with studs.
Besides it’s all supposed to be part of a “system”, right? Without some studded
Technic bricks it’s hard to connect to regular bricks!
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
Purple Dave wrote:
> Not really, but he did say it a lot "bigger". It's basically the same old rant
> that pops up every few months, where the only thing that changes is the set
> numbers.
I'm biased basic brick user. You're biased Bionicle user.
> I want to see someone cite an instance where a single studded TECHNIC
> brick would be more effective than a single stud-free TECHNIC liftarm.
Stud free Technic liftarm is {almost} useless when you want to use other
(non-Technic) studded parts.
Technic bricks with plates make better frames for stuff like cars.
Usage of Technic bricks has almost flat learning curve. You just use
them as another brick, and learn few tricks like inserting 2 plates and
cross-strenghtening with other beam (even studless, you know).
Usage of studless beams in studless-only creation is anything but
intuitive. You've got to use _complete_ different way of building
(instead of bottom-to-top you must use inside-to-outside) and master
tens of funny new elements just to achieve something what would take you
1 minute of playing with plates and bricks.
Simply put, I really don't know what would make me build something like
the new Tow Truck (using studless bricks) when I can easily build
something like 8479 (using studded bricks).
Tell me why do you think that the studless bricks in the Tow Truck are
more effective then the studded bricks in the 8479. For me they clearly
aren't.
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
http://www.kostky.org
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
| |
I keep hoping to see some more specific instances where the
old-style TECHNIC works better,
|
| |
| |
A bit off my current tangent, who can honestly say the one on the left looks
better?
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
|
|
Personally I prefer the stud-free version of this model, but I prefer the
studded beams from the standpoint of a non-Technic builder. Studded technic
beams are a great SNOT element in normal bricks-and-plates construction, either
by sticking the studs of a brick into the holes of the beam to get a 90 degree
orientation, by using half pins to get 90 degrees pointing the other way, by
sticking two studded beams side by side with pins but with the studs pointing in
opposite directions to get 180 degree orientation, or by using a pin to pivot 2
beams 1 against another to get about any angle orientation, or to make something
that can swing (e.g. a drawbridge etc). Studless beams are fine for some
applications, but for me they get tossed in my bin of very-rarely-used parts.
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
How about whenever you try to use Technic parts in a “non Technic” model?
|
I guess I should have been more specific and restricted my request to just
TECHNIC models. As I’ve said before, I use TECHNIC bricks quite a bit when I
want TECHNIC functions in a non-TECHNIC MOC, but I rarely use them instead of
liftarms in a fully TECHNIC MOC. TLC’s official products seem to be following
the same pattern these days, with TECHNIC bricks found in sets like the Inventor
and Designer series, and even in the 4+ series, but not in the more advanced
TECHNIC line.
| |
Besides it’s all supposed to be part of a “system”, right? Without some
studded Technic bricks it’s hard to connect to regular bricks!
|
Hard, but not impossible. If you look at a transparent 1x brick, you’ll notice
little ridges formed into the interior to provide gripping surfaces for the
flange of a TECHNIC pin, round 2x2 and 4x4 bricks and cones have axle holes, and
there’s always the stud-pin.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, John Gerlach wrote:
| |
Besides it’s all supposed to be part of a “system”, right? Without some
studded Technic bricks it’s hard to connect to regular bricks!
|
Bam! There’s my objection, I think. Lego used to be more of a system, and it’s
gradually turning into several different systems. It’s not that they’re not
compaitable, it’s that they’re LESS compatible, or less related. Studded beams,
while less useful in practical technical applications (due to being off-center
top to bottom, having a non-smooth surface on the top, allowing less clearance,
having square corners), are less like the rest of Lego toys. It’s hard to see
nowadays that a technic set has much in common whatsoever with, say, a Harry
Potter set, besides the little red logo in the corner.
Technic sets nowadays are more based on the peg/axle-and-hole system, rather
than the stud-and-tube system of yesteryear. It’s not that you can’t cross over,
and it’s not that each system isn’t valuable in its own right, but it’s changed.
And modern technic sets allow for less crossover, being without studs.
Personally, not being much of a technic builder myself, technic still appealed
to me back when it had studded beams (not as much as ‘System’ sets, mind you,
but still appealed). There were pieces I could use, and even lots of non-technic
pieces included. Now it’s diverged so that I view most technic sets as nearly
completely uninteresting. My guess is, however, that for people who’ve always
been technic builders, they’re likely indifferent, or if anything, prefer the
new system, since it’s more practical. To each his own, I suppose, though I will
still lament the loss of studded-beam-intensive sets...
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
> A bit off my current tangent,
> who can honestly say the one on the left looks better?
>
> http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
I can. I think it looks a lot better without all the studs.
The advantage of Technic bricks over liftarms comes when you want to add some
Technic features (gears, etc.) to a mostly-non-Technic model. But for a purely
Technic model like these dune buggies, the studless liftarms provide a much
cleaner look.
The only advantage to the one on the right is that it's obviously LEGO to the
novice eye. The lack of studs on the left one may fool the casual observer into
thinking it's some other brand of construction toy. But you asked which looks
better, not which looks more like classic LEGO.
--Bill.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
| |
I’m biased basic brick user. You’re biased Bionicle user.
|
Not true. I’ve been collecting since the days of the maxifigs and
non-articulated minifigs. Yes, I’ve found a new degree of freedom in the
BIONICLE series that wasn’t present before, but I do still build with basic
bricks. I’ve just never done been a big fan of building old-style TECHNIC
models, which is why my earliest TECHNIC set got mixed in with my Yellow Castle
parts.
| |
Stud free Technic liftarm is almost useless when you want to use other
(non-Technic) studded parts.
|
The newer TECHNIC sets get around that problem by not using non-TECHNIC parts.
If there aren’t any basic bricks in the set, there’s no reason to include
TECHNIC bricks to interface with them for that set. And while a few sets are
released with the specific intent of directly interacting with one or more other
assembled sets (the three Jabba sets, the various Hogwarts sets, and the
Exo-Toa/Tahu), they’re still designed as stand-alone sets. If a specific part
isn’t included in the set, the set isn’t designed with that specific piece in
mind. In general the TECHNIC system is compatible with the basic System bricks,
just like in general the basic bricks are compatible with the DUPLO system.
| |
Technic bricks with plates make better frames for stuff like cars.
|
They make great square frames, but very few cars these days are made in such a
box-like style. There’s the Hummer (which was designed as a very utilitarian
military vehicle), the Landrover, and a few other SUV-wannabes, but even pickup
trucks and police cars are getting more curvy.
| |
Usage of Technic bricks has almost flat learning curve. You just use
them as another brick, and learn few tricks like inserting 2 plates and
cross-strenghtening with other beam (even studless, you know).
|
So, to turn your argument on its ear, you’re complaining that the modern TECHNIC
system is too advanced compared to the old-style TECHNIC/System meld, in spite
of the fact that kids have made BIONICLE the top selling theme, and the Racers
theme is another one of the biggest sellers with the younger crowd, while the
Inventor series hasn’t seen any new sets in 2004.
| |
Usage of studless beams in studless-only creation is anything but
intuitive. You’ve got to use complete different way of building
(instead of bottom-to-top you must use inside-to-outside) and master
tens of funny new elements just to achieve something what would take you
1 minute of playing with plates and bricks.
|
As someone who often builds in weird patterns like both-ends-to-middle (which I
did with my
SpeeToa Bike), I find the stud-free design to be less restrictive, as I can
change orientations many times in a very small space. I also find myself
wanting certain parts only to see them released later on (specifically, I
desperately wanted 1x2 flat liftarms two months before they first shipped, and
the new +oo perpendicular axle joiner offers functionality that I’ve been
wanting for a very long time). To me, the sheer variety of parts is what makes
it worth using. The biggest limitation of stud-free TECHNIC is that they’re
still in the middle of building up the basic part catalog, but the more they use
those parts, the more quickly they’ll end up seeing a need to fill it out.
| |
Simply put, I really don’t know what would make me build something like
the new Tow Truck (using studless bricks) when I can easily build
something like 8479 (using studded bricks).
|
I’m noticing quite a few stud-free liftarms and such in that 8479, especially
for the moving parts. Are you sure you want to use that as your example?
| |
Tell me why do you think that the studless bricks in the Tow Truck are
more effective then the studded bricks in the 8479. For me they clearly
aren’t.
|
The blue tow truck? Have you actually tried it out, or are you just going by
visual impression? I got to play around with it at Toy Fair, and I didn’t
notice any wobbliness. It’s also 1/4 of the price, and slips under the $50
hurdle that seems to heavily influence which sets can be found in many stores.
If stores won’t buy them, they can’t afford to dump as much money into producing
them. The Rebel Blockade Runner and ISD models were released as S@H exclusives
because they honestly didn’t think they’d sell well enough to be worth
marketting to stores. In this day and age, if they did make old-style TECHNIC
sets, the medium/large ones would probably all have to be S@H exclusives, which
really cuts into how much value there is in producing an old-style sub-group in
the first place.
|
|
| |
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 10:49:35PM +0000, Bill Ward wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Peter Roberts wrote:
> > A bit off my current tangent,
> > who can honestly say the one on the left looks better?
> >
> > http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=798618
>
> I can. I think it looks a lot better without all the studs.
>
> The advantage of Technic bricks over liftarms comes when you want to add some
> Technic features (gears, etc.) to a mostly-non-Technic model. But for a purely
> Technic model like these dune buggies, the studless liftarms provide a much
> cleaner look.
>
> The only advantage to the one on the right is that it's obviously LEGO to the
> novice eye. The lack of studs on the left one may fool the casual observer into
> thinking it's some other brand of construction toy. But you asked which looks
> better, not which looks more like classic LEGO.
You expressed several good points including some I had. I think a lot of
the rants are coming from people who remember the first technic models and
how easily they could mix basic parts in technic models and vice versa.
Today it is a bit harder for old-timers to build using pieces from both
systems primarily because of a lack of pieces with both studs and holes
(beams) that we are used to using. Instead, we are given plenty of 2x2
bricks with pin and axlehole and 2x4 brick with 2 pins. Several of the
Studios sets did this quite effectively.
For an example of using Basic, Technic, Znap, Castle and Mindstorms
simultaneously (I need to add space and pirate somehow) check this out:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=666233
It's not easy but then again, I build for the challenge and enjoy tying
different technologies together.
Doug
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Doug Eaton wrote:
> You expressed several good points including some I had. I think a lot of
> the rants are coming from people who remember the first technic models and
> how easily they could mix basic parts in technic models and vice versa.
You know, even though you probably weren't trying to, I think you just answered
my biggest question. I've always been looking at the old TECHNIC parts in terms
of combining TECHNIC aspects into System constructions, which is a big advantage
that they have over the stud-free parts. I hadn't really been thinking in terms
of getting a TECHNIC collection off the ground as a standalone system vs. being
dependant upon that big pile of basic LEGO bricks that you've already got
sitting in front of you. That's probably the deciding factor between AFOLs who
have no desire for stud-free construction, and the very young crowd who are
skipping over System bricks and diving straight into TECHNIC in its modern form.
Without a pile of System bricks to give you a big advantage for going with the
studded parts, it basically boils down to the merits of the system on its own.
Kids go for the stud-free stuff because it can give you the same functionality
at a more affordable price (and when you're not pulling down a five-figure
allowance each year...), but many AFOLs have considerably more building
resources available when they can use basic bricks as filler material.
> For an example of using Basic, Technic, Znap, Castle and Mindstorms
> simultaneously
You're missing DUPLO.
> (I need to add space and pirate somehow)
You could add some wings so it can fly in space, and give it a crow's nest so it
can have a spotter looking for land masses in its path. ;P
> It's not easy but then again, I build for the challenge and enjoy tying
> different technologies together.
I find that I often work from the other direction, tying different systems
together when necessary to achieve the look that I want.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
> The only advantage to the one on the right is that it's obviously LEGO to the
> novice eye. The lack of studs on the left one may fool the casual observer
> into thinking it's some other brand of construction toy.
The ironic thing is that there is no TECHNIC clone on the market (making the one
on the left more distinctly "LEGO"), and parents often get confused about what
is truly LEGO product vs. what is a clone product.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Eaton wrote:
| |
My guess is, however, that for people who’ve always been technic builders,
they’re likely indifferent, or if anything, prefer the new system, since
it’s more practical.
|
I think the general view expressed so far suggests that many long-term TECHNIC
builders are still firmly married to the studded system, that many people who
have gone heavily into Mindstorms have found reasons to cross over, and kids are
skipping over System and going straight into stud-free TECHNIC.
|
|
| |
Purple Dave wrote:
> > Stud free Technic liftarm is {almost} useless when you want to use other
> > (non-Technic) studded parts.
>
> The newer TECHNIC sets get around that problem by not using non-TECHNIC parts.
> If there aren't any basic bricks in the set, there's no reason to include
> TECHNIC bricks to interface with them for that set. And while a few sets are
> released with the specific intent of directly interacting with one or more other
> assembled sets (the three Jabba sets, the various Hogwarts sets, and the
> Exo-Toa/Tahu), they're still designed as stand-alone sets. If a specific part
> isn't included in the set, the set isn't designed with that specific piece in
> mind. In general the TECHNIC system is compatible with the basic System bricks,
> just like in general the basic bricks are compatible with the DUPLO system.
Yes, and that's my whole point. Technic _was_ part of the System and
it's not anymore. It's more Znap than System and that's what I (and
probably some others) don't like.
> So, to turn your argument on its ear, you're complaining that the modern TECHNIC
> system is too advanced compared to the old-style TECHNIC/System meld
You misread what I wrote. Modern Technic is cumbersome, not advanced in
my eyes.
> in spite
> of the fact that kids have made BIONICLE the top selling theme, and the Racers
> theme is another one of the biggest sellers with the younger crowd, while the
> Inventor series hasn't seen any new sets in 2004.
Don't you want to pretend that primitive Bionicle / Racers sets have
something in common with advanced Technic build? Except for 3 large
formulas (at least 2 of them use studded) there's nothing that backs
your arguments here.
Bionicle is simply stuff for masses. Questioning the quality by quantity
is stupid.
> I'm noticing quite a few stud-free liftarms and such in that 8479, especially
> for the moving parts. Are you sure you want to use that as your example?
Yes. I wrote that multiple times - I have nothing against studless
beams, but I don't like studless sets. Look at its chassis. Look at all
the functionality. You're simply not going to mimic that in studless
(not to mention there are not yet the studless motors).
> The blue tow truck? Have you actually tried it out, or are you just going by
> visual impression?
I'm not going to buy it or even try it, it's ugly. Technic fairings are
pathetic and completely unusable parts.
> If stores won't buy them, they can't afford to dump as much money into producing
> them. The Rebel Blockade Runner and ISD models were released as S@H exclusives
> because they honestly didn't think they'd sell well enough to be worth
> marketting to stores. In this day and age, if they did make old-style TECHNIC
> sets, the medium/large ones would probably all have to be S@H exclusives, which
> really cuts into how much value there is in producing an old-style sub-group in
> the first place.
I'm not getting your argument here. There are giving us worse models
with less functionality. It's no wonder they're cheaper. If they wanted
even cheaper models, they shouldn't switch the Technic->Znap2 (ie New
Technic) system at all.
8479 was $164 in 1997 (1263 parts, large, lots of functions). 8455 was
$100 in 2003 (703 parts, small, wiggly, less functions)
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
http://www.kostky.org
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.general, William R. Ward wrote:
> > The only advantage to the one on the right is that it's obviously LEGO to the
> > novice eye. The lack of studs on the left one may fool the casual observer
> > into thinking it's some other brand of construction toy.
>
> The ironic thing is that there is no TECHNIC clone on the market (making the one
> on the left more distinctly "LEGO"), and parents often get confused about what
> is truly LEGO product vs. what is a clone product.
I wasn't talking about clones; I was talking about other types of toys like
K'Nex. But you're right, it's an interesting irony that the one on the right
might be closer to say MegaBlocks than the one on the left.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> > Purple Dave wrote:
> > > > I don't think that anybody argues on usefulness of studless beams.
> > >
> > > I do. Orion does. Heck, Kevin's pretty much the poster-child for what can be
> > > accomplished with stud-free construction.
> >
> > Hey, this is a my clumsy pidgin, sorry, I'll try to reiterate ;-)
Hi Jindrich,
For me, your statement read as you meant it. Everyone can see usefulness of
studdless beams.
I've been pondering this studded/studless discussion for a while now, and I
think I understand my handicap. There are two technic domains: sets and parts.
I see pleny of sets that contain studded technic parts, but the sets are not in
the technic theme. I see plenty of technic sets, but few if any that contain
technic studded parts. This second domain is the domain you are concerned
about. I support you and all others who complain that technic sets do not seem
to have studded technic parts, especially beams.
I've only ever built a few models from the sets I own. Early in the
Mindstorms days, I built a few models from the Dark Side Developer kit, and a
few models with the RIS 1.5 kit. Since then I've only built one model, the 8455
technic backhoe that was a gift from a dear friend. In honor of the gift, I
built the set.
I typically build my own creations using the parts I have from lots of sets,
and lots of purchases from bricklink. In all my purchasing, I have many more
technic studded bricks, than technic studless beams. I have a modest collection
of about 50 gallons of LEGO. I use far more studless beams than bricks. I
wonder how it is that I have more studded beams than studless, since I prefer
studless? I don't know. I do know that I do not have enough plates to match
the studded bricks in inventory.
As soon as I start to use motors I start building with studded bricks and
plates. Given the way Mindstorms motor mounts work, studded is required.
Lately I've been building totally pneumatic models, and tend to gravitate
towards studless designs then. As you said, each technology, studded and
studless have their advantages and their usage.
Often the people who complain about the studded technic brick famine in
technic sets, do so in the form of complaining about studless beams and their
dislike for them. This tends to get me going, because I love studless designs
as well as studded designs. It is often presented as all or nothing. All
studded and no studless. Also complaints are of the form "I can't build
studless things using the studded techniques I know, so studless is bad" tend to
get me vocal as well.
But, looking at the big picture, the lack of *any* studded bricks (longer than
4 at least), in any technic sets is a big concern that I think LEGO should
address. Like I said, LEGO does not have builders that are just Technic, they
get moved from theme to theme. I think this may be an advantage to the other
themes, but a big disadvantage to the technic theme. Over time, the AFOL
community has eclipsed the LEGO group in their ability to create interesting
mechanical designs using the classic and new technic parts.
Most people here have played with LEGO much longer than I have. They have a
much stronger attachment to the stud than I do. I need to sit down, shut up and
respect that perspective. I apologize to you and anyone else that was offended
by my tone in previous posts on this topic.
LEGO, Jake, why is it that the technic sets for 2004 have no technic studded
bricks?
Kevin
> >
> > I just wanted to say that most people admit that studless beams may be
> > useful sometimes and that people are usually not against studless beams,
> > but against studless sets. For example I'm against studless sets = I
> > don't buy them (no matter if it's Znap, Bionicle or 'new' Technic).
>
> Jindrich,
>
> Just like you, I hope to see *more* studded/studless mixed sets in Technic's
> future.
>
> Last year at BrickfestDC, I asked Brad Justice what kind of training was
> needed that would help me get hired by LEGO as a Technic builder. He responded
> that set designers at LEGO do not just focus on one product line. So there is
> no-one at LEGO that just does Technic. I don't think this bodes well for the
> Technic line. While the new models are more aesthetically pleasing (IMNSHO)
> because they lack studs, they are in fact less rigid and sturdy.
>
> Also there have not been very many large innovations in steering or other
> mechanisms in Technic sets in the last five years. Maybe I'm jaded though,
> because I see so many wonderful models and innovations here and on brickshelf.
> We as an AFOL community push the envelope on designs using technic parts much
> harder than LEGO does.
>
> Too bad they don't pay more attention to the innovations made available here
> and fold them into new designs. Too bad that LEGO designers cannot focus on
> particular product lines, making them better through successive refinement.
>
> Kevin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Simmons wrote:
> I'm sad. Really, really sad.
I blame TLC for this man's sadness. 2003 just raised everyone's expectations too
high. Along with some truly inspired set designs, I think 2003 saw a genuine
change in direction closer to the "true" Lego values as I see them, and I
haven't seen any evidence of any backsliding in 2004.
But David - click hinges? Suggest you discuss your concern about click hinges
with someone you can trust who is outside the Lego community.
Take my wife. (resists temptation to make obvious joke here).
When I show her how poorly the newly manufactured bricks bind together, she can
understand my concern. But if I tried to explain the click hinges issue to her,
she'd probably shrug. She'd say "You let a little thing like that ruin all the
fun you have with Lego? Why don't you go and get started building your new
Maersk container ship? It looks very sexy. [remainder of imaginary conversation
censored]"
You have a spaceship whose canopy you'd like to make "airtight". TLC has a huge
loss-making toy company to keep in business. They are trying a few different
things.
For AFOLs, some of them will be a little disappointing ("Knights Kingdom is
ugly") or initially confusing ("I get it now. Jack Stone is meant for FOUR YEAR
OLDS") or infuriating ("darn those Bionicles are turning the kids off REAL
Lego"). Some of them will be incorrect ("Is it really a good idea to drop Duplo
branding?").
Give TLC some more benefit of the doubt, and try not to let the little things
get you down.
|
|
| |
> But David - click hinges? Suggest you discuss your concern about click • hinges
> with someone you can trust who is outside the Lego community.
> Take my wife. (resists temptation to make obvious joke here).
(further resists temptation)
> When I show her how poorly the newly manufactured bricks bind together, • she can
> understand my concern. But if I tried to explain the click hinges issue to • her,
> she'd probably shrug.
Funny you should mention that, Mark. I did show my wife the difference
between fingered hinges and click-hinges (especially in the case of the
click-hinge replacement of the roof piece in that new Water Plane set) and
she got it immediately. That's why I love her. *sniff*
> She'd say "You let a little thing like that ruin all the
> fun you have with Lego? Why don't you go and get started building your new
> Maersk container ship? It looks very sexy. [remainder of imaginary • conversation
> censored]"
>
> You have a spaceship whose canopy you'd like to make "airtight". TLC has a • huge
> loss-making toy company to keep in business. They are trying a few • different
> things.
Trying and failing, IMHO.
> For AFOLs, some of them will be a little disappointing ("Knights Kingdom • is
> ugly") or initially confusing ("I get it now. Jack Stone is meant for FOUR • YEAR
> OLDS") or infuriating ("darn those Bionicles are turning the kids off REAL
> Lego"). Some of them will be incorrect ("Is it really a good idea to drop • Duplo
> branding?").
I never liked Jack Stone and I'm ambivalent about Bionicle. If Bionicle
ultimately gets more kids into Lego (and hopefully building with bricks as
well as building action figures) then that's great, but whether or not
Bionicle will accomplish this remains to be seen.
However, it seems to me that Lego is going more strongly than ever in the
direction of morphing their product into and marketing their product as an
"action" toy and not a "building" toy. Granted "action" has always been a
PART of the Lego product philosophy, but it disturbs me to see more and more
evidence that "action" is becoming the MAIN component of the toy. They seem
to be emphasizing "playing" over "building THEN playing" with the majority
of the product line (Designer sets being the exception). That's what
bothers me most. Look for my letter to the company in .color in the next
few days, I've tried to explain it more clearly there.
> Give TLC some more benefit of the doubt, and try not to let the little • things
> get you down.
I'm tryin' man, I really am! However, I gotta disagree with you about the
click-hinge conversion being a "little thing." Think about all the ways you
use fingered hinges. Now replace them (which is happening as we speak) with
a click-hinge version. Is it still going to work the way you intended in
all those scenarios? I know it wouldn't because I've tried.
This is not to say that I dislike click-hinges. I think they're really
cool. However, I only like them as additions, not replacements. I've seen
no indication that TLG is going to continue to produce both, and I don't
appreciate not having a choice in the matter.
DinosaurDave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Simmons wrote:
> > Take my wife. (resists temptation to make obvious joke here).
>
> (further resists temptation)
LOL
> I did show my wife the difference
> between fingered hinges and click-hinges (especially in the case of the
> click-hinge replacement of the roof piece in that new Water Plane set) and
> she got it immediately. That's why I love her. *sniff*
She gets the "building" problem. But does she agree with you on handing in your
Lego Fan badge because of it? Does she think it should make you very sad? Ask
her.
> > They are trying a few different things.
>
> Trying and failing, IMHO.
Some are succeeding, some are failing. Some that are failing I wish would
succeed, and some that a succeeding I wish weren't necessary.
That's what makes it interesting and fun to watch.
> I never liked Jack Stone and I'm ambivalent about Bionicle. If Bionicle
> ultimately gets more kids into Lego (and hopefully building with bricks as
> well as building action figures) then that's great, but whether or not
> Bionicle will accomplish this remains to be seen.
I bought a Bionicle about 3 years ago and have never even been tempted to use
any of its special parts in my own MOCs. But if it helps keep TLC in business
for a few more years, it works for me.
> However, it seems to me that Lego is going more strongly than ever in the
> direction of morphing their product into and marketing their product as an
> "action" toy and not a "building" toy. Granted "action" has always been a
> PART of the Lego product philosophy, but it disturbs me to see more and more
> evidence that "action" is becoming the MAIN component of the toy. They seem
> to be emphasizing "playing" over "building THEN playing" with the majority
> of the product line (Designer sets being the exception). That's what
> bothers me most. Look for my letter to the company in .color in the next
> few days, I've tried to explain it more clearly there.
I see what you mean. But I don't think you can treat the Designer sets as a
minor exception. I don't want to sound like a cringing apologist for TLC, but
have a look at the website:
Baby and Toddler: Designed for babies and toddlers. Including baby toys, DUPLO
building sets and the new larger Quatro bricks
Young Builders: Introduce your child to the world of building with Lego bricks.
Trains, trucks, Spiderman 2, Bellville and more!
Stories and Themes: Enjoy your favourite play sets - including Star Wars,
Bionicle, Harry Potter, and other classic Lego themes
Action and Competition: Get into the action with Lego NHL and NBA Sports, racers
and video games. Build, play and win!
Building Sets: Building sets for Children with big imagination. Including the
new girl's line clickits, Technic and Robotics
Lego's efforts in the Young Builder space have been perennially misunderstood by
AFOLS. (I would be disappointed if I was a big Pirates fan and it was MY
favourite theme that had been Juniorised! But I wouldn't let it make me sad.
Especially since the big ship is still on the shelf as a Legend)
The "building" value (I think I get what you mean) is woeful in Action and
Competition. If you define "building" even more narrowly to be associated only
with bricks, that cuts out Bionicle and Technic (if you have ever built some
larger Bionicles sets they are actually quite interesting to build).
But for hard core builders, future's so bright I have to wear shades. Just look
at what's there these days compared to the pathetic basic sets and parts packs
of yesteryear! Buckets galore, Designer, Inventor etc etc etc.
> I'm tryin' man, I really am! However, I gotta disagree with you about the
> click-hinge conversion being a "little thing." Think about all the ways you
> use fingered hinges. Now replace them (which is happening as we speak) with
> a click-hinge version. Is it still going to work the way you intended in
> all those scenarios? I know it wouldn't because I've tried.
Did you throw out all your old fingered hinges? Will the absence of fingered
hinges really stop people from starting the hobby? I hope not and I doubt it.
> This is not to say that I dislike click-hinges. I think they're really
> cool. However, I only like them as additions, not replacements. I've seen
> no indication that TLG is going to continue to produce both, and I don't
> appreciate not having a choice in the matter.
Two points:
1. They aren't taking away your choice! All the old parts still exist! And ABS
lasts virtually forever if look after it! And Bricklink is your friend if you
need more.
2. PLEASE don't take the change as a some kind of sign that TLC is changing for
the worse. Its just a kind of neutral change.
|
|
|
