Subject:
|
Re: Action Toys
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 08:20:09 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
bbourn@mail1.nai.net=stopspam=
|
Viewed:
|
917 times
|
| |
|
|
blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> Dear LEGO:
>
> I buy LEGO toys for my children because they are construction toys. I
> do not buy them for their action/play potential. When I want to buy my
> children a 'play' toy, I try to avoid toys that fall apart during
> moderately active play.
>
> If you want to produce action toys, please do so. I would be happy to
> see action toys with the high quality demonstrated by LEGO products.
> But please let building toys be building toys.
Have they not started this with the difference between Tech Build
and Tech Play lines? The tech build models all have much more solid
construction, presumably to withstand the playing following building.
Billb.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Action Toys
|
| (...) Yes, and doesn't that seem backwards? I'd design a model for play to be very rugged, and compromise appearance to achieve that. Conversely, I'd design a model for display to get appearance right as long as it wasn't TOO fragile. (explorien (...) (26 years ago, 13-Jan-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Action Toys
|
| Dear LEGO: I buy LEGO toys for my children because they are construction toys. I do not buy them for their action/play potential. When I want to buy my children a 'play' toy, I try to avoid toys that fall apart during moderately active play. If you (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
3 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
|
|
|
|
