| |
Long post.. you've been warned.
In lugnet.dear-lego, Jeff Thompson writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Deidre Rushton Brumby writes:
>
> [her terrifically awesome message snipped]
Agreed.. good post!
> > Where do I see him in 2 years (Age 7)? Well, unless Lego get their act
> > together and bring back some more advanced models, we'll be relying on that
> > freestyle while the town collects dust in a corner, until one day I put it
> > away and he doesn't even notice (just like the Duplo).
>
> Well ........ (a long, drawn "well ...")
>
> The reason you put the Duplo away was, largely, because it
> is not compatible with LEGO, at least in the kid's mind.
At least two reasons exist for this, and both can apply to varying degrees.
The first reason is "I'm a big boy now". Primo and Duplo have a stigma that
even toddlers can understand without any help from mom or dad: "That toy is
for babies, and I'm not a baby anymore".
Second: while teens and AFOLs might insist that "everything is compatible" in
the Lego world, this concept simply doesn't exist in the mind of most little
kids, who are being taught boundaries and to discern differences and
uniqueness.
For those that still insist otherwise, here's another reason why..
Teens and AFOLs: When was the last time you went out and bought mounds of
Duplo for yourself to play with and make truly stunning MOCs?
(insert mantle clock ticking here.. fly buzzing at the window.. police siren
far off..)
The truth is, in all likelihood, you haven't. While you might have bought some
to give as a gift, or have played with it cuz you're playing with a little
kid, you yourself don't use it for all your really cool stuff. And I'm not
blaming you either. With 99% of Duplo pieces it's not achievable unless you're
making a mountain. But even then, Duplo pieces do not lock as tight as Lego
and are not structurally fit to use in many models. For some experience in
this, ask someone in the GMLTC about making train layout mountains and tunnels
with Duplo :-) And it doesn't lock as tight because it's made for little kids
who don't have the grip to pull apart regular Lego.
> I've seen this happen, too. The five year old in my life loved
> his Duplo trains, but once he had a chance to play with proper LEGO
> pieces, he had no interest in the Duplo elements.
There are at least two reasons for this:
1) Clear and simple, kids copy adults. Why do people insist on ignoring this
fact? And why shouldn't they? Kids grow into adults. (sorry for the truism but
like I said, it gets ignored regularly)
2) He can build better-looking MOCs and sets.
> Pretty much, kids are smart, and once they are given the better
> alternative, they aren't so interested in the big bulky "baby blocks"
> any more, any more than we Adult Fans are.
Yep. Try and picture this: it might be very hard to imagine something better
than Lego, but how many of us AFOLs would switch to something better and more
complex, once we "grew out of Lego" if it were made by TLC?
> Now, I can imagine LEGO coming up with a reason to mix Duplo
> and LEGO -- giant castle walls built from gray Duplo elements
> would be pretty cool. But LEGO doesn't really give us much reason
> to mix and match Duplo with LEGO.
But TLC didn't imagine this great idea.. you did :) Gray Duplo for castles
would especially rock. I'd buy Duplo for big stuff like this if I could get it
in bulk in the color I wanted. Duplo tiles would rock too.
> There were a few Duplo
> elements I was glad to have mixed in with my LEGO pieces as a
> kid - yellow domelike pieces, not the plain old bricks - but
> by and large the pieces are simply of the wrong scale.
I'll bet that's because you found multiple uses for them, or that they best
served you in an awesome special purpose.
> Kids are
> pretty big on catagorization, and aren't very interested in mixing
> toys that aren't on the same scale. So while the compatibility
> of Duplo with LEGO is a cool feature, it's really only a physical
> compatibility, not a functional one, at least in our minds and
> playing habits.
Nobody I know mixes Duplo figures with minifigs. Why? They don't "match": they
differ in size, appearance, and what they can do. Many of the "regular" pieces
are the same way. For example, the Duplo white and pink roofing pieces don't
look like they'd match anything in Lego, Scala, Belville or Paradisa. Another
imporant appearance factor is that Duplo piece edging isn't as sharp either.
I lately used two Duplo pieces on a Lego MOC because they offered me the
rounded edge in a radius that Lego doesn't offer, and they worked great. But
that's definitely a small exception to the norm. And I didn't use them in a
structural capacity either, only decorative.
> Now, why did I ramble about this?
Because you care.. you see the reasons supplied to you by corporation are not
entirely correct, and that there are clearly evident ways to fix the problems.
Corporate research and development can claim certain results all they want,
but what happens at home is what really matters. Yet somehow, somebody doesn't
want to really know.
> Well, the Town Junior stuff is not incompatible with the rest
> of the LEGO line. I would suggest that in two years, you won't
> be putting the Town Junior sets away. Instead, they will be all
> mixed up in a large bin full of other LEGO elements from whatever
> line is continuing to maintain your child's interest. In other
> words, I would expect (and LEGO expects) your kid to move on
> Space sets, Castle sets, and the like.
But wouldn't that be pretty much due to the scale of the pieces? Yet whether
or not the Jr pieces continue to get used (even years later) is dependent upon
the variable usefulness of the piece. Of course, you know that is the heart of
the argument against Jr pieces: single useage.
> Now, I do wish that LEGO would produce town sets aimed at, say,
> 10 year olds rather than 4 year olds. It's a shame to see a
> wonderful theme relegated to, essentially, the post-toddler
> children. But LEGO expects children to get bored with one
> theme but to move on to others. Since they turn over their
> product line every year or two, there'll always be something
> new to try.
That's a lot of different sets, probably too many to handle unless they hire a
bunch more set designers and perhaps expand the Futura team. BTW, where do I
send my resume? :)
> Those town junior pieces should mix in just fine
> with a larger LEGO collection, even if some of them are so
> specialized they won't get used very much.
Well, given a larger Lego collection, I prefer the term "disappear"
over "mix" :)
> I dunno. Maybe I missed the point, but I don't see why you
> would need to put perfectly good pieces away in a closet. The
> junior pieces just go into the collective after a while, to
> be joined by pieces from the non-juniorized aimed-at-a-slightly-older-
> audience sets.
It's a psychological difference. "Those toys are for babies, and I'm not a
baby anymore" are what many children think when growing out of a toy, and
they're right, because adults and older kids don't use them. Even my own 3 yr
old daughter likes to play with my Lego collection more than her own Duplo
even though she can't tightly stack Lego bricks and plates.
> Now, if the entire LEGO line gets juniorized, I agree - that will
> just encourage kids to outgrow LEGO more quickly than they already
> do. LEGO is courting disaster by catering to that trend, in
> my opinion. To some extent, it makes sense - "kids outgrow LEGO
> more quickly than they used to, so what should we do? Let's try
> to sell more sets to the younger kids to make up for lost sales." Okay -
> do that, but if you aren't careful you just reinforce the idea that
> LEGO is for younger kids and that encourages children to grow out
> of LEGO more quickly.
Unfortunately, that indeed is the path to Ruin, because parents (Mom) won't
usually buy stuff "too hard" for her kids. Plus, the "quick buildability /
quick playability" factor adds into this. It's a self-defeating mechanism with
little sign of reversal. It's not much better with Dad, but sometimes he'll
splurge and get something complicated.
> However, the fact that their most popular sets, the Star Wars sets,
> are very non-juniorized, should serve to get them on the right path
> for a few years more.
We can only hope! I'll differ on the MF because IMO those saucer pieces are
inexcusable.
> LEGO follows the money.
*ding*ding*ding*ding*ding* We have a winner!! :-)
> One lesson is probably "do more tie-ins with pop-culture properties" -
> and the success of the Star Wars models will be difficult to reproduce,
> as there simply is no other pop-culture phenomenon that has
> cross-generational appeal as Star Wars.
Not yet. But there will be something new eventually.. count on it! Maybe in
your opinion it'll be better or not as good as Star Wars, but something new
will happen to capture the mind of youth.
> But, LEGO seemed to deliberately
> steer away from making the sets too juniorized, and the sets sold
> like gangbusters. LEGO will see a lesson in that, too.
As apples and oranges (and yet both are edible fruit), this is a point that is
less provable.
The unprecedented factor here in Legoland that can't be compared against
anything, juniorization withstanding, is the "Star Wars" factor which has a
wide appeal to Lego fans and non-Lego fans alike. It has no equal against
which it can be measured, unless another similar cultural phenomenon takes
place. Against such, juniorization, which is not a similar cultural
phenomenon, cannot be compared. Even if you introduced another very popular
theme of space Lego such as Star Trek into the picture, you couldn't compare
them and obtain accurate results because of the many variables involved.
AFAIK, the only way to measure juniorization preference / rejection is for TLC
to make two versions of each set, juniorized and non-juniorized, and makes
each kind the same price, and all other factors (except obviously piece count,
and even that should be similar) remain the same between both kinds. Then,
should more of one kind be purchased than the other, you'd have to find why on
a sale by sale basis. Even then, some could argue that they would be two
completely different sets due to design, and they would be correct.
Another factor is that every new juniorized piece costs new money to design.
It also needs multiple applications for it to be deemed cost-effective to
implement. IMO, there aren't really that many common juniorized pieces amongst
the sets, because of the many wonderfully varied designs in the SW world. The
Gungan sub canopy / Sith infiltrator hatch / TIE fighter canopy / ATT hatch is
the one junior piece that stands out in my mind as the one "successful" new
junior piece in the line. Who knows where it'll turn up next? ;-) And when an
existing junior piece does fit, rarely does it function in other ways than
we've previously seen.
Note that I'm not arguing against you.. I'm just saying it's more complicated
than it looks, and TLC can take the numbers anyway they want.
> I expect to see at least temporary refuge from LEGO's formerly irrevocable
> slide towards juniorization in the next few years.
On the whole, I tend to agree with you. Just the same, are you a praying
man? ;-)[1]
-Tom McD.
[1] a praying man tis the one who tries not to lose his head
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
45 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
