| |
In lugnet.general, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> writes:
>
> > Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The
> > models of 10, 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of
> > realism, details, and attractiveness.
>
> I think a lot of people have a too nostalgic view of yeasteryear's
> LEGO selection. Sure, the Town selection of the early 90's was better
> than today's. But then, it looks like Town has been made into the
> "entry point" for the youngest children, aka Town Jr. In the early
> 90's, the Town sets did not have this function.
>
> This set, from 1978, was my fav set as a child:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/673
>
> Ok, so it is slightly more than 20 years old, but I will still say
> that LEGO sets have evolved into being better and more realistic
> looking.
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
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/672
also from 1978 (that Margaret Keys indicates to contain 58 pieces)
with
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6407_1
that LUGNET identifies as a 24-piece set.
Is this an improvement? Some may disagree, but I think 6407 is among the
worst offerings in LEGO's history, especially at $.23 per piece! 6407 has
only the hose reel and the trans-blue slopes to recommended it. In contrast,
672 had two opening doors, a windshield, a trailer hitch, and an extending
ladder!
One (admittedly self-centered) rule I use in assessing the quality of a
new set is the MOC value of it. That is, if I had designed it, how would I
feel in presenting it to LUGNET as a MOC? If I'd created the 6407, LUGNET
would never have known about it, since I'd have dismantled that sorry model
in shame. For that matter, the alleged C-3PO and Stormtrooper kits are also
terrible, and I would never have felt proud to share them with the community.
You're correct to point out the bright points in an otherwise gloomy
downward spiral in the LEGO product lines, but the overall trend now is to
produce less interesting, less aesthetically pleasing, and less valuable
sets than in years past.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) 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"
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) 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)
|
81 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
|
|
|
|
