Subject:
|
Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Dec 1999 22:36:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
703 times
|
| |
|
|
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
news:FnEyty.98r@lugnet.com...
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 27-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
