Subject:
|
Re: Attention Lego Group: Children don't like juniorization, either!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:42:06 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
crg0194@.ultra.ccp=saynotospam=.com
|
Viewed:
|
619 times
|
| |
|
|
Paul Baulch wrote:
>
> Colin R Gutierrez wrote in message <3885ED6A.2DD1@ultra.ccp.com>...
> > >
> > > Where I live you can't easily get the 6456 Spaceport set anymore, when
> > > compared to the rest of the 1999 line. It literally flew off the shelves. • I
> > > would say that the kids loved it.
> >
> > That's really odd. They are _literally_ collecting dust in my
> > area.
> > Where do you live? Perhaps it's a regional thing.
>
> Um, Australia?
Oops. I hadn't looked at your email address.
> >
> > That's interesting. My first reaction was "Whatta piece of
> > crap!"
> > (Please don't take offense at that.) :] I missed out on the original
> > space shuttle sets, and this was more disappointing than no NASA style
> > sets at all.
>
>
> I think you'd have to explain why you thought it was crap.
Okay, I should qualify that. First, and most obvious, is the fact that
those pieces are totally useless to me. See my website at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Saturn/5559 and you'll understand why.
Second,
I can't afford to pay $20 extra for a "light and sound" unit I'll never
use. (If I wanted such a device, I'd get one of those toy guns from the
"cheap toy aisle" at the store. Third, it hurts my brain to have such
an unrealistic vehicle represented as real 20th century technology. I
can accept wild looking futuristic vehicles if they are from
science-FICTION, but Space Port is supposed to be based on real space
exploration. The wing is too small for shuttle-style re-entry, there
are no boosters or fuel tanks, and it's got several corners and parts
sticking out, which is _not_ aerodynamic. I just have problems
suspending my disbelief.
Any misgivings I
> had about the juniorisation of the set have largely given over to 1) a new
> respect for some of the juniorised pieces (as we have discussed), 2) a
> liking for the various play features included in the set, and 3) just liking
> the way it looks in general.
> I mean, we could compare it to 6339..... 6456 is a lot less realistic, has a
> far worse brick selection (including a HORRIBLE L&S element), but has a lot
> more play features, and looks... cooler? Well, slicker, more glamorous. Oh,
> and 6456 doesn't have stickers that span multiple elements ;-) Oh, and 6456
> has a proper crawler with a driver, as opposed to some silly string
> contraption that pulls the shuttle towards the tower - is there something
> I'm missing here about how the real Shuttle crawler works?....
> All things considered, I'd prefer the 6456 to the 6339, because to me 6339
> is too aesthetically unappealing to be anything but a Red Space Strut Parts
> Pack. I'm a sucker for slick futuristic-looking things I guess. I always
> seem to end up building spacecraft :-)
I guess that's where the difference is. If I'm buying Lego, I want
_parts_ and lots of 'em. If I want slick cool futuristic-looking
things, I buy a one-piece plastic molded
CyberPowerMegaDemonPunisherZord. ;]
>
> >
> > I can see where you're coming from but YOC's must be totally
> > different
> > than mine. Not only would most of my creations actually be _less_
> > structurally sound with juniorized pieces, many simply could not be
> > built.
> > For structural integrity, think of a 5h wall. if it is built
> > with
> > 1x3x5 bricks, each panel will not be connected to adjacent ones except
> > through the bottom (baseplate) and the top (A row of bricks, plates, or
> > a roof. This wall would have several 5h "cracks" in it, not too
> > structurally sound. In wall of staggered bricks, however, each brick is
> > interlaced in a solid structure and the vertical "cracks" are limited to
> > one brick in height.
> > On the other hand, I can see how the problem can be minimalized
> > by
> > "locking in" the junior pieces within a strong framework of regular
> > pieces.
>
> Well, yes, IMO that is the only way one should ever use them. That way, they
> serve to supply stability in ways that regular bricks don't, rather than
> sacrifice stability that regular bricks provide in _their_ way. The
> challenge then, as I see it, is to gain aesthetic benefits as well - which I
> think can be done with some of these pieces.
> I think that my favourite juniorised piece from 6456 is the 4x8x1 brick with
> two corners cut out (6456 has 5 of them in the tower), it was one I
> originally hated but grew to like. It can be used as a (structurally useful)
> 2x8 brick in, say, a wall, that gives a nice octagonal 2-stud-wide ledge
> jutting out, upon which can be built whatever you like. It'd look nice in
> some Ancient Geek/Roman buildings, to make ledges that statues would stand
> on, for instance.
>
> > I can also except that some creations could benefit from the
> > weight-savings of juniorized pieces. I'd like to see some of your
> > stuff. Do you have a web site by any chance?
>
>
> I do, but the creations on there don't really use the newer juniorised
> pieces. They have been made from older collections (<1990) of bricks:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shuttle/5168/
Oh, duh! I had already seen those, just didn't make the connection.
Quite good!!!
>
> I'm currently working on a MOC that contains quite a few 6456 elements as
> well as some of the clunkier Exploriens bits. I'd like to put pictures up
> because I think that their use has turned out rather well, but I just can't
> bring myself to put up pictures of things that aren't finished. Sorry, it
> spoils the anticipation :-(
>
> > >
> > > Perhaps, in some cases, not so much "juniorised" as "prefabricated". • Hmmmm,
> > > still sounds a bit derogatory.
> >
> > Maybe we need more than one term. Parts like "juniorized" walls
> > could
> > be called prefabricated, but I think "over-specialized" is more acurate
> > for things like Insecturds legs and pre-printed Egyptian sloped walls.
>
>
> And don't forget the Exploriens wing/canopy/hideousness pieces. I really
> hate those pieces, those sloped sides are just plain useless. They stuffed
> up big time with that one, perhaps more than any other piece.
Ugh, yeah. There especially useless because I hate space canopies with
holes in them. What if the pilot wants to take off his helmet?!
--Colin
__ __ __ __ __ __
| |_| |_| |_| | | |_| |
| | Brick Engineer | |
| Colin R Gutierrez | __ __ __ __ | 2000 |
|___________________|| |_| |_| |_| ||_________|
|_________________________________________________|
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Saturn/5559
(Spam blocker in place. Remove "nospam." to reply)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
20 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
|
|
|
|
