Subject:
|
Re: Question: Does the market realy want junorization?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2001 12:37:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
733 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.general, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > But ignoring Mindstorms and Technic (what little exists) the sets are less
> > *sophisticated* from a design point of view. You may be right, the colors,
> > pieces and themes may be wide ranging, but the technical make-up of the sets
> > has dropped dramatically.
> >
> > This theory is utterly simple to prove.
> > The police headquarters I had when I was a kid:
> > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/370
> > The police headquarters kids must suffer with today:
> > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4611
> > One looks (at least reasonably) like a building. It has doors, a roof and
> > walls.
>
> One has 280 pieces, one has 137 pieces. Hardly a fair comparison.
You reinforced my point. One has lots of basic bricks with which to build
*other* things after you've built the main model.
With the Jack Stone pieces you can build.... um... I'm not sure what else
you can build.
The fact that today's sets contain so many fewer actual bricks is key to the
design problems of which I spoke.
> And "suffer with"? I have a mental image of a child screaming "No, no,
> please don't make me play with it!"
Sorry, I didn't mean 'suffer' literally. But in some ways kids are being
deprived of the joy of LEGO that I had as a kid.
> > The other looks (at least to my stupid old eyes) like an elevator shaft
> > that's missing some of it's walls. And for some reason the jail isn't even
> > attached. Poor, shoddy, crumby, juvenile design. That is my point.
> Producing a larger building, with more play possibilities (you can put the
> figs in the cars and in the buildings!), with fewer pieces.
But *why* use fewer pieces? Why aren't those white one-piece columns at
least made out of stacks of 2x2's?
I used to take the roof plates off my buildings and use them for mini-fig
occupancy all the time.
As for cars. Simple. If the mini touched the car... he was in it. I set
him aside and pretended that he was in the car, until he got out of it. Now
*that's* imagination.
> > My point was that kids today can handle (with ease) a vast array of
> > complicated electronics and information. They *can* handle putting together
> > simple building with walls and a roof. Take a look at those two police
> > headquarters noted above. Does that one from 1975 really look that hard to
> > build?
> No, it could probably be built without the instructions.
But then doesn't that help to tell us that juniorization isn't necessary?
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question: Does the market realy want junorization?
|
| (...) One has 280 pieces, one has 137 pieces. Hardly a fair comparison. And "suffer with"? I have a mental image of a child screaming "No, no, please don't make me play with it!" (...) Producing a larger building, with more play possibilities (you (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
|
60 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
