Subject:
|
Re: New vs. old (was Re: More 1999 Figs... ?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:38:35 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@^AvoidSpam^mattdm.org
|
Viewed:
|
1516 times
|
| |
|
|
Colin R Gutierrez <crg0194@nospam.ultra.ccp.com> wrote:
> I like the variety of newer faces for lego minifigs, but in some cases,
> I think TLG's gone too far*. I mean, printing a very intricate face on
> the standard yellow LEGO head seems a bit like putting a spoiler on a
> Model-T IMO. That's not to say that they should switch to realistic
> flesh-toned heads with noses and such, but a strict return to classic
> smiley faces is also a mistake, I think. Moderation is the key.
I agree -- and, they've opened the whole sexism can-o-worms by making only a
tiny percentage of the people female. Back when the faces were generic, that
was totally up to the person playing.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New vs. old (was Re: More 1999 Figs... ?)
|
| (...) The only fallacy in this line of reasoning is the quantity of female hair pieces that TLG made available in various town sets. I’ve always seemed to find that my biggest bang for my buck for specialized pieces was in the various themes that (...) (26 years ago, 27-Oct-98, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New vs. old (was Re: More 1999 Figs... ?)
|
| (...) I like the variety of newer faces for lego minifigs, but in some cases, I think TLG's gone too far*. I mean, printing a very intricate face on the standard yellow LEGO head seems a bit like putting a spoiler on a Model-T IMO. That's not to say (...) (26 years ago, 25-Oct-98, to lugnet.general)
|
25 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
|
|
|
|
