Subject:
|
New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Dec 1999 19:15:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
867 times
|
| |
|
|
Fellow Lugnuts:
I just had the good fortune/misfortune to receive 6095, 6094, and 6032 as Xmas
gifts. I am not going to review these sets except in a cursory way. The gist
of this post is to complain on behalf of new castle buyers -- that new castle
sucks!
I was talking just the other with one of my lego pals about how sad it was
that the new buyers (i.e. youngsters -- LEGO's target market) were going to be
introduced to castle through this rebaked (to a crisp harder than biscotti!)
Royal Knights/Fright Knights II thing. For you long-time castle fans out
there, think 6094 v 6077, or 6095 v 6054 -- which would you prefer? Now
consider that a new buyer doesn't have this choice...
Basically I have this to say: the new buyers of castle are getting crap and
don't even know what they are missing!
Its not the chunky pieces that make a cool set, its the overall design,
cleverness of that design, and bricks -- baby -- bricks!!! I love lots of old
lego, but there is nothing there that actually compares with old castle -- or
more particularly, old forest sets. These sets were very clever, indeed! Old
forest had hinged sections that popped together with technic plugs, hinged
doors made of several elements and swinging doors made of many bricks. 6077
is cool in ways you cannot imagine given the new junk line of castle. And all
without large puffy preformed and painted baseplates!
The best things about the new castle sets are the following: the new king
minifigure (great face!), the return of steep corner slopes, the black maiden
hat, the female knight, ballistas, and the the stained glass element -- even
though it shouldn't have been made as a revolving piece (naughty, naughty).
That stated, I must hurry on to more complaining...
My biggest complaints have to be the lion heads element in tan and the new
castle curved wall. The lion should certainly have been one of the grey tones
and NOT tan! If they were going to make it tan, could we at least have a tan
castle to go with it? This new jousting set (6095) has too many colors where
the king is seated -- there is nothing coherent about the color choices being
made -- its just slapping pieces together as a novice might do. Feels a bit
like time twisters...
And it must be stated VERY firmly, that the new castle wall is REALLY poorly
designed. I am calling for the immediate dismissal of the designer of this
element! This person hasn't a clue as to what LEGO is about. Truly the most
horrifying element to yet be seen by these lego-loving eyes...it must be
understood that the new blue spires are 4x4 at the base, but that the new
curved castle wall which supports this style of spire is itself 3x4, leaving
you without the possibility of making a full round/octagonal tower and with a
spire overhang of 1x4 studs worth of spire!!! You could have made a perfect
octagonal tower, if it had been designed right, but now you just can't...
And say goodbye to the plain old arch -- the new arch is 1x4x2. And this
terrible element has apparently replaced what used to be a 1x4 arch brick and
two 1x1 bricks.
Someone said this to me recently: "I think it must be made clear that lego has
changed
and is catering, just like before, to the child market. This does them credit
and is to be respected." I said, "Yeah, but then what was their mission
before? Why the change?" Does LEGO think children are even dumber now than
in my own youth? I hardly think this is a credible assumption...
Some chunkier parts are okay, some even fairly clever or interesting. But
replacing elements with chunkier alternatives at the expense of the original
elements is just not stepping in the right direction, in my view. It has to
stop -- it simply must stop!
Rumor has it that the new S@H catalog lists all parts packs as "limited
quantities available." Consequently, I have begun to think that Brad Justus is
just a pacifier while they do the REAL damage to us AFOL. The mere fact that
this bulk purchasing is a preview to be done in a "limited format" in late
summer is all becoming very suspicious to me. Why isn't the phasing out of
one service better coordinated with the phasing in of its replacement
service? What gives? Maybe I have enough post 1997 Lego after all...? LEGO
will decide for me with their actions. Where will it end? With me
voting "no" with my dollars, most likely...
The gauntlet has been flung down!
-- Richard (Lego Curmudgeon with a big chip on his shoulder called "new
castle")
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
| Sounds like they're trying discourage kids from making their own creations by making new pieces as useless and incompatible with previous Lego as possible. -- Paul Davidson Richard Marchetti <BlueOfNoon@aol.com> wrote in message (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
| | | Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
| On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Richard Marchetti (<FnEyty.98r@lugnet.com>) wrote at 19:15:34 (...) That depends. (...) This is a very AFOL oriented view. If you look at it as a toy for a young person, it has to be playable when finished. And by and large, the (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
