 | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | (...) Are you sure about that? Since this thread goes on .starwars, lets take the X-Wing as an example. Could such a realistic looking X-Wing be constructed with the part selection as of 15 or 20 year ago? I would say probably not. The fairly new (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) In this discussion the Star Wars sets have been generally regarded as exceptions to the rule. Your 673 example is more on target but still overlooks the dreadful state of design in more recent Lego sets. Compare, for example, set (URL) from (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | (...) Ugh! I have been forced to buy them because I wanted to get the ball-and-socket joint where the ball has an axle hole instead of a throwbot/bionicle leg attached to it. I was complaining loudly about how foetid the sets were and how I felt bad (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | (...) I agree with your points here, but I would still say that the 6407, being a Town Jr set, is aimed at a different crowd than the 672. That makes them difficult to compare. It's a bit like comparing a Duplo set with a System set. Not quite, but (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Scott Sanburn
|
| | | | | | | (...) Indeed. Outside of the minifig, it it not that great. Both of them really lack the entusiasm as the 1980's early sets. (...) Town Junior has some good parts, which can make for better MOC's, Chris Leach does a good job, among others. I think (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'd say that comparing 6407 to 672 is comparing 2 sets that were marketed to the same demographic group a generation apart. All things being equal, the newer set is less satisfactory because it does not make good use of two-decades worth of (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I would be a fool to say I know this for sure, but I would say that Town Jr is marketed to kids younger than the 672 was, while some of the other playthemes (such as Req-Q and Ninjas and what not) are marketed towards roughly the same age (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well said. Let's review: Someone asked about seeding or using "spotter" parts, questioning the accuracy and or legitimacy of the explanation given by TLC (which explanation, I reiterate, I agree with as being accurate and legitimate. I have (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I for one have no problem getting spotter parts if they are tactfully concealed within the model and don't detract from the design. No bashing from these quarter. That said, Jake voiced opinions (that were not limited to spotting) which I (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Well spoken, James. Clearly I support LEGO in that I buy their product. If I *truly* wanted to bash TLC, I would simply cease to buy any modern LEGO set... an option that I would find frighteningly easy to excercise. My LEGO budget can easily (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) And so you should. As should we all, and as *do* we all, or most of us. I just don't see the value in Standard Product Rants like this particular Town Jr. one, at least not on the 99th repetition. (granted, the retail anecdotes are new (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) There will always be new users who have not participated in the rant before. Gived that it is something of an Accepted Truth that older models had better parts selection, better design qualities, etc- especially in the area of Town- its a rant (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) True, though part of his assertion was that the alternate models have become more sophisticated, which I take to mean that the designs have become more elaborate, which in general they have not. Your point about the broader palette is correct, (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" — Jake McKee
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Larry (et. al), sorry to take so long to get back to this thread. I have been in all day meetings. Yes, that was exactly my point. I truly apologize for kicking off Standard Rant #1 (Town Jr. discussion). I really would like to discuss this (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Since I was the one who leveled that accusation, I'll step up to the plate. The problem comes not from your expression of your own ideas, nor from your professional expression of TLC's ideas, but rather from an apparent inconsistency in (...) (24 years ago, 1-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes: <snipped well taken points> (...) Or for sticking up for it when it's unfairly maligned, for that matter. OK, here's a question to the audience, then... which group is a good one for discussing the theory of (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Let's duke it out in the .primo group--it doesn't see a lot of traffic. 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Good point, but the 602 would probably retail for $2.99, vs. $4.95 for the 6407. At the same time, using the "standard" of about a dime per piece, the 672 would come in at about six bucks, even with the ladder, and that's essentially the same (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) Granted, SW is a bird of a different feather. We're all well aware that it's by and large a return to old-school construction. Two points on this matter: 1) The X-Wing pretty much required new elements (engines, canopy, perhaps wings). Had it (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: TLG and "Seeding" —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) Er, make that it *would* have smacked of quality. (that's what I get for feverishly typing a message before my boss returns) james (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
