Subject:
|
Re: 2000 castle sucks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:05:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1207 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, Jonathan Wilson writes:
> From what I know of it 2000 castle sucks overall.
> It has several poops like that arch piece. The new castle tower pieces
> are also crap. Castle has become juniorised.
My heart has sunk. The Bat Lord sets weren't toooo juniorized
(the largest set was nice in that it didn't even come with
a raised baseplate). The Ninja sets weren't too juniorized.
But it sounds as if the big castle is wayyy juniorized.
The minifigures sound cool and show evidence that LEGO
continues to migrate most of their minifig lines towards
a more Playmobil-esque toy - highly detailed and
individualized figures, with highly juniorized building
elements.
I had such hopes - the Star Wars sets are so good about
NOT being too juniorized.
I'll hold off further judgement until I can at least get
the box in my hands, but I groaned when I saw it in the
catalog.
I might like the castle tower pieces, though. Have
to wait and see and get some in my hands. The arch
piece sounds a bit abominable, though.
Well, we'll see. I usually have different opinions
than most castle fans about the castle sets. I liked
the fright knight line in many ways, for example.
Good source of different kinds of generic warrior torsos, at
the very least.
> --
> Jonathan Wilson
> wilsonj@xoommail.com
> http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
--
jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 2000 castle sucks
|
| From what I know of it 2000 castle sucks overall. It has several poops like that arch piece. The new castle tower pieces are also crap. Castle has become juniorised. -- Jonathan Wilson wilsonj@xoommail.com (URL) (26 years ago, 16-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
