To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 25511
25510  |  25512
Subject: 
Re: Radical statement!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:55:09 GMT
Viewed: 
1468 times
  
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Lawrence Wilkes writes:
> 
> > This will be the new lego town - but it will be very juniorized I guess.
> > Perhaps mybot type stuff applied to construction vehicles.
> > That would hit the spot
> 
> Juniorization is good.
> 
> There, I said it. Juniorization is good, *IF* it is part of a progression in
> the product line.
> 
> For example:
> 
> Primo - Primo vehicles - Duplo vehicles - Duplo trains - Town Jr 4561 -
> "craftsman" trains.
> 
> If the product line has solid progression, juniorized models serve a
> valuable role to gap between Duplo and more complex sets. But there need not
> to be gaps.

Agreed, but at what age are they appropriate...?
> 
> Right now Town peters out at the Town Jr level. There are no more complex
> town sets such as 6543 any more. Artic and Star Wars are not different kinds
> of town... *we* know how to build anything out of their parts but the 9 year
> old who has outgrown Town Jr may not. Yet. Give him the gateway sets and
> he'll soon be "doing the hard stuff"

Though I see its merits, I'm not completely sold on this argument.  What
separates Town from Town Jr.?  Take vehicles for instance: Car doors, headlights
and taillights on cars, perhaps a sunroof, etc., etc. - cosmetic touches and
details that make all the difference.  What about on houses and such?  Mainly
just more substantial construction - less POOP's, - as well as the subtle
details, such as fences, light-posts, shutters, and so forth.  When I was a kid,
none of said elements presented unsurmountable challenges to my abilities - in
fact, those were the details that I relished.  I was a Townie for most of my
pre-dark ages because of the details, not in spite of them.
> 
> The line is gappy. That's what needs fixing. Eliminating Town Jr isn't the
> answer, not by itself.

Yes, but I'd add that Town Jr. should probably be marketed to kids no older than
four.  Judging from what I remember as a boy, as well as what I've seen in a
five-year-old recently, when children reach the age of about five they are ready
for more sophisticated challenges.

james
> 



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Radical statement!
 
"James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message news:G5xArx.Bxn@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) the (...) Town Jr. has a place, but as Larry stated, there needs to be something after it. Young builders need to learn building concepts (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Radical statement!
 
(...) Juniorization is good. There, I said it. Juniorization is good, *IF* it is part of a progression in the product line. For example: Primo - Primo vehicles - Duplo vehicles - Duplo trains - Town Jr 4561 - "craftsman" trains. If the product line (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.general)

42 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
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR