|
|
 | | Re: Arctic Adventurers
|
| (...) Ah, now I understand. (...) I see your point. I guess that it all goes back to the label on the boxes that says ages 5-12. I can't fault them for making the sets gimicky, but like you, I wish for a little more 'meat and potatoes' in the box. (...) (26 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.adventurers)
| | | | | Re: Arctic Adventurers
|
| Mark Lindsey: (...) That large sets apparently have to do lots of things to make people (not us) consider them worth the price. (...) It's hard (if not impossible). LEGO's current definition seems to be related to how many traps, cars, planes, and (...) (26 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.adventurers)
| | | | | Re: Arctic Adventurers
|
| (...) What do you mean by the above statement? How do you determine the play value of any set? I guess I am not understanding what you mean, please explain. (...) I have the crew from the ship the Dirty Whore, from the movie Cabin Boy in mind. You (...) (26 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.adventurers)
| | | | | Re: Arctic Adventurers
|
| [ XFUT lugnet.general ] Mark Lindsey: (...) [ Cut suggestions for a "Hunt for the lost treasure of Atlantis" series. ] (...) Interviews in various Danish newspapers. They are definitely aware of the existence of the on-line LEGO community, but it is (...) (26 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.adventurers, lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Arctic Adventurers
|
| Mark Lindsey: (...) Thanks. (...) Wouldn't make sense from a commercial point of view. The part count (price) of a set should be comparable to the "play value" of the set. (...) This sounds good. How are they equipped? Small freighter with a (...) (26 years ago, 11-Oct-99, to lugnet.adventurers)
|
|
