Subject:
|
Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Dec 1999 17:12:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
443 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, Tony Priestman writes:
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999, Richard Marchetti (<FnEyty.98r@lugnet.com>) wrote
> at 19:15:34
>
> > The gist of this post is to complain on behalf of new castle buyers -- that
> > new castle sucks!
> That depends.
True enough... everyone's opinion differs (as obviated by the frequent posts on
the issue :) )
> > Its not the chunky pieces that make a cool set, its the overall design,
> > cleverness of that design, and bricks -- baby -- bricks!!!
> 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
> new Castle sets have lots of play opportunities.
Actually, I'd disagree... Lego's niche is not in playability-- it's in
creativity. There are PLENTY of toys that do cool things with trapdoors and
things that shoot and change color in the sun and have spring loaded whatevers,
etc, etc, etc. But the thing that those other toys CAN'T offer is the
interchangability of Lego. Lego has the ability to become a different toy each
time you re-visit it. You MAKE it have playability. And unfortunately, Lego's
trend has been to turn their product into more of an action figure line with
playsets than a creative building toy. I'd guess that the logic behind it is to
get their feet on both markets-- hence they're both very playable like an
action figure-ish line, but they still retain their modularity insofar as they
are still constructed out of smaller pieces. The problem being that for every
step they're taking towards playability, they've been loosing modularity... and
they DON'T HAVE TO.
Basic point- yes, the new sets don't suck because they do have playability, but
yes, they do suck because they're not as modular as they COULD be. They could
easily make the same sets with far more pieces allowing for an entirely better
set. You do have a point though-- from an AFOL's viewpoint, the new sets are
worse simply because we have a larger frame of reference. We can remember sets
that were EXTREMELY modular in comparison to the new ones. Hence, yes, it's
AFOL oriented. But it doesn't have to be. You can be any age and realize that
the SAME castle sets COULD be made of a greater number of bricks, and hence do
not encourage us to the full extent that they could in terms of our creativity.
> > The best things about the new castle sets are the following: the new king
> > minifigure (great face!),
> Disagree. Bring back smileys, instead of these juniorised faces with
> *pre formed* expressions.
Agree and disagree-- I like having the standard smileys... but I also like
having pre formed expressions... I find standard smileys helpful in vast
quantities, but for greater detail and hints of character, I find that pre
formed heads work really well... I just wish that smileys were still as widely
available as the detailed heads.
> > the return of steep corner slopes, the black maiden hat,
> Who cares what colour a hat is?
I do! I don't want my knights running around in trans-orange helmets! But
moreover, I think I'd prefer a brighter colored maiden hat (not that I'm
complaining about the return of the piece!)... black just seems so wrong...
Seems like a widow's color...
> > the female knight, ballistas, and the the stained glass element -- even
> > though it shouldn't have been made as a revolving piece (naughty, naughty).
> Agreed.
Hear hear!
> > 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!
> Wrong.
Well.... I can understand the WANT for a grey one... I certainly would have
prefered it, just so it would fit in a bit better in my other castles... but it
works fine color-wise with the new ones...
> > If they were going to make it tan, could we at least have a tan
> > castle to go with it?
> No. Having visited a *substantial* number of castles here in England,
> and in Wales, I can see nothing wrong with the contrasting colour. If
> you think of it as sand instead of tan, it's the right colour for
> sandstone.
>
> Sandstone is a nice soft rock which is easy to carve. So the high status
> details, like doorways and decorative corbels, are often fashioned from
> this sort of stone, while the bulk of the walls are made from rougher
> stones which happen to be available locally.
>
> Actually, as most castles were whitewashed, most castle elements should
> be white :-)
YES! I'd love more tan/white castles! Seems such a more obvious choice than
black... I don't think I've ever really seen a BLACK castle before...
> > 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.
> I agree with you here. If they'd used sand instead of grey, it would
> look fine :-)
Yeah, the structure looks so silly... I liked the older jousting sets where it
actually looked like something plausible-- multicolored tents, etc... This one
looks... well... dumb.
> > 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...
> Agreed, it's an appalling piece.
Well... I'm both for it and against it... I don't think I'd ever really WANT a
4x4 tower... even a 6x6 tower is a little skimpy for what I'd REALLY want... I
think these might look nice as small outcroppings in an otherwise flat wall,
but as for towers... ick! Too small and not capable of being symmetrical!
Bleah!
> But given that TLC is a fairly sophisticated multinational company, I
> think you have to give them credit for knowing what they are doing.
>
> If you think of modern LEGO sets as visualisation aids for their
> software games, I don't think you will be far off the mark. The fun is
> no longer intended to be in the building, but in the playing.
And hence the downward spiral. I'd say they're trying to invade a market that's
already been cornered, and also are starting to leave their niche that has kept
them popular for so long... it's starting to loose focus on the building... :(
> > 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...
>
> No, they're not dumber, they just have different interests.
>
> Did you play with the same toys that your parents did?
>
> No. Because some of the things you played with hadn't been invented when
> your parents were children.
>
> TLC has to change its products to be able to sell them to its market -
> children. I think I read somewhere that children are the most fashion
> conscious group in society, so you've got to be on the ball when selling
> to them.
Well... that's the beauty of Lego. There are some toys that fit just about
every generation. Some toys don't die. Barbie, stuffed animals, the slinky, the
yo-yo, toy guns, etc. There are certain toys that every generation plays with.
Fads like Pokemon, Ninja Turtles, Transformers, even Star Wars come and go. The
one thing that Lego has cornered the market on, though, is building blocks.
There have been building blocks for YEARS... but Lego made a product that has
been proving that it has potential as a multigenerational toy. My parents DID
play with Lego (alright, only one of them) (and granted I'm only 23), and I
hope my children will play with Lego.
When you say kids have different interests, though, you're quite right. Kids
seem to have a lower attention span, etc, thanks to TV, computers, etc.... but
the great thing is that there are STILL kids that HAVE decent attention spans,
that ARE bright and creative, and that DO want to have something like Lego to
play with. In that respect, I think Lego has the potential to be close to
timeless. And this makes the problem that the more that Lego caters to these
OTHER low attentioned-kids, the more they'll lose the market that the toy was
originally intended for.
> > 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!
> It won't stop.
>
> TLC didn't start out making plastic bricks, and it probably won't end up
> making them either.
Nope, it probably won't. Lego has chosen to follow a path that leads away from
a creative toy towards a path that could lead to more money for them. I don't
blame them. But I do hope that they return to the path they were once on. For
my own sake, I hope that they don't make more money with the newer
less-creative sets... perhaps that would encourage them back "our" way... and
perhaps not...
> > 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...
>
> Bulk ordering was only *one* of the areas that Brad mentioned. As
> service packs are just the small end of part ordering, I imagine LEGO
> Direct will start taking orders for those as well. (Fingers crossed)
Yep! That's what I'd guess...
> > The gauntlet has been flung down!
>
> Chill out, man!
>
> Remember, this is the season of good will to *all* men (which in this
> sense applies to women and children as well - doncha *love* the king
> James II authorised version :-)
Darn! Guess that means I have to be nice to my boss... oh well :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
| On Tue, 28 Dec 1999, David Eaton (<FnGns0.IFH@lugnet.com>) wrote at 17:12:00 (...) <snipped on the one hand, on the other hand discourse> You're right, and later on as well. I was playing devil's advocate up to a point, just to counter Richard's (...) (25 years ago, 28-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
| | | Re: New Castle Sucks (so far...)
|
| (...) Maybe it's appropriate for the queen to be wearing black. King Leo's got an awful lot of axes hanging around in precarious positions, and accidents do happen... --Mike (25 years ago, 29-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
