Subject:
|
Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:17:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1407 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.general, James Wilson writes:
>
> I'm not sold on this idea that there needs to be a transition between Duplo and
> System that uses POOPs. Who among us was seriously challenged by th 2x4 brick
> when we were 5 years old? When we were 4 years old? Heck, even 3-years-old?
> Nope.
This is an interesting point. When I was in the 3-4 range, I don't
think I even had wooden building blocks. I got my first LEGO Basic
set around 4 I guess. By 5/6 I was into the Legoland sets and never
looked back. I never had any kind of "starter" sets like Duplo. In
fact, I remember looking at the catalogues from the Legoland sets,
seeing the Duplo (and Fabuland) pages and saying, "that's baby
junk!" I don't recall having problems with the Legoland sets at all.
In fact I was more frustrated at not being able to build the
alternates on the box *exactly*. I dunno, maybe to my credit I
was just a bright kid. On the other hand an hour later I'd be
outside eating things off the ground. Small wonder I ended up an
engineer ;]
Before my parents figured out that LEGO was *the* toy to get this
kid, they tried a few other things as well which were "as complex"
as LEGO (or more so). LEGO was the one that stuck.
Trying to squeeze a toy line in between Duplo and Basic is too
much IMHO. It reminds me of today's car market with all of the
overlapping models and trim levels. It's just way too flooded.
A while back a lady here (I'm kicking myself that I can't remember
who it was) posted a message about these "intermediate" sets.
She offered her views on it in light of her experience with her
own kids. The bottom line is that kids evolve just way too darn
fast to have all these stepping stones. Factor in the fact that
the major toy influx (in North America) is only once per year
(at Xmas), and that members of the extended family never know what to
buy the kids anyhow so half get the "advanced" toys, and the kids have
evolved pretty darn fast. That and many parents can't afford to
follow a "roadmap" of child development with their toy purchases,
that requires buying completely new "systems" every 6 months.
I think TLC should stick with the tried and true Duplo, resurrect
the Basic line, and revamp the System sets. Restrict the "junior"
sets to a few town sets, but return the System sets to their
old glory. And then the new Technic, Mindstorms, etc., pave the
way to the future.
Too "old guard"?
Back onto the topic of composite pieces..., I think large
specialized pieces aren't inherently bad. It would be nicer to
have all the separate pieces that comprise a composite part
instead, IMHO. But there is probably some merit in forcing
kids to be creative with composite pieces even if they are
less than ideal. In the real world you rarely get every single
little exact thing you need to solve a problem. Sometimes you
have to make do with something less than ideal---perhaps the
composite pieces help teach that. But as kids, I'd prefer
they be given the opportunity to exercise maximum uncompromised
creativity by having individual pieces rather than composites.
Composite pieces that have bugged me since I first saw them
are the 2x2 L-shaped plates and bricks. For the majority of
building 1x2s and 1x1s can be used instead. Learning how to stack
them properly into solid structures is part of the learning,
and something that the Legoland sets taught very well.
I would prefer TLC spend its money on molds for new inventive
pieces or reviving ones long gone by, rather than gluing
together pieces that already exist. The 2x4x3 brick is one
of the worst examples.
KDJ
_______________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
