| |
Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Frank Filz wrote:
>
> > There is a difference between those older sets and the current sets
> > though. The older sets LOOK like a construction toy. The newer sets
> > look like a plastic model, with a few studs thrown in. I'd also like
> > to add that back then when I looked at those sets, I had not yet
> > been exposed to the way Megabloks dramatically changes their minifig
> > style every few years, and even year to year, there are far more
> > changes than LEGO has year to year.
>
> Ah--now I get it. And I guess it's true; a bunch of people in
> ot.clones have lamented the over-specialization of elements in the
> Dragons line. Heck(1), I myself have griped about the difficulty of
> LDraw-rendering all of those faux wood-grain elements.
I'm not necessarily bothered by specialized elements (and I have long argued
that anyone interested in LEGO trains CAN NOT be bothered by specialized
elements), but mostly I'm bothered that the Megabloks elements don't fit
stylistically with bricks. LEGO BURPs look horrid in one way, on the other
hand, they are stylistically compatible with LEGO bricks. Now the Megabloks
2x4 "stone" is kind of neat, and if an array of brick sizes were available,
it might be nice, BUT still, there would be constructions that would need to
mix parts that don't conform to that style and the resulting constructions
would look awful (and this actually is a complaint I have to an extent with
the "log" bricks and panels LEGO has).
> > So yes, I stand by my comments that the Megabloks of today totally
> > disinterest me from a stylistic standpoint, and I think they are more
> > juniorized than before (though granted, the sets back then did
> > feature things like one piece buildings, so perhaps those were worse
> > than today's sets).
>
> I wasn't disagreeing with your reviews, by the way!
>
> I maintain an odd fondness for the old 16x8x8 house-shell from the
> Western sets, even though they're not widely useful for anything
> other than simple houses.
I never ended up picking up any of the western sets. If I was really into
Wild West, it would have been neat to get a bunch of these for some of the
neat parts (like vultures and such).
> On the whole, I suppose that MegaBloks juniorization doesn't bother
> me as much as LEGO's because MegaBloks has (to date, at least)
> continued to put out sets that rely heavily on large numbers of basic
> bricks, whereas these types of bricks became kind of rare in LEGO
> sets for a few years.
Yea, I guess in some ways Megabloks has kept more "brick" sets out. On the
other hand, I'm always struck by the number of folks who dissed the yellow
castle as a Legend because it was "just bricks"... But I think Megabloks is
starting to drift away from the just bricks sets themselves (for example,
the model locomotive is not a brick sculpture).
I think Megabloks spends a lot less time making a "system" than LEGO does.
How many hinge styles do they have? (ok, so LEGO has added a new hinge
style, and it's annoying, on the other hand, it has unified brick, plate,
and flexible arm hinges into one system).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: 2005 Toy Fair pics for Megabloks
|
| (...) Ah--now I get it. And I guess it's true; a bunch of people in ot.clones have lamented the over-specialization of elements in the Dragons line. Heck(1), I myself have griped about the difficulty of LDraw-rendering all of those faux wood-grain (...) (20 years ago, 8-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
