Subject:
|
Re: my biggest beef with the new product is...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:42:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
465 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> writes:
>
> > To be fair, I think what Jonathan alludes to is the infiltration of
> > elements from the Jack Stoned, Bionickle, LOM, and other
> > non-traditional element lines into the regular system themed lines
> > like Star Wars and Alpha Team.
>
> When did this become a bad thing? I thought that taking parts out of
> their natural context and using them in new ways was a sign of
> creativity.
If I may add to Richard's sentiment, I think the problem is that TLC often
includes a juniorized shortcut part instead of a series of more broadly
useful parts, and the apparent intent is to reduce production costs (NOT
retail price) at the expense of set. For comparison, how many recent System
sets, other than bulk tubs, included more than, say, six 2x4 bricks?
General utility is sacrificed in a supposed bid to appeal to
"outcome-oriented" play, rather than construction oriented play. A
competitor brand currently has about ten high-quality model kits that each
include dozens of these 2x4 bricks; obviously at least one brand of
construction toy sees the value and versatility in these parts, and when new
pieces are introduced, they complement basic bricks rather than replace them.
> Take the showels on the front of the UCS Tie Fighter, for example. I
> think it is a brilliant idea to take the showels out of the town line
> to use them here. OK, so you get a bunch of showels if you buy lots
> of Tie Fighters.
That's indeed a clever use, but there's a considerable difference between
a shovel for which one finds another role and these pieces, for instance:
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=30200
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=30299
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=30149
I can't think of many other ways in which these parts might be employed,
whereas a series of smaller, less specialized parts could be used in a
number of combinations.
> I can understand that you don't want these elements. That's fair
> enough. But keep in mind that the target for these sets is not people
> like you who buy lots of sets for parts. The target is kids who only
> get one copy of each set (if they are lucky). By putting "unexpected"
> elements into sets, LEGO are effectively promoting creativity by
> saying that it's OK to "break the rules" and use cross theme elements
> in models. I think this is a very good thing.
On paper, sure. But if the current market goal is to give kids a set that
allows immediate play without too much "bothersome" construction, then the
creative construction value of these unexpected bits is reduced.
I'm not really comfortable with the argument that "fewer parts improves
creativity," either. A 30-piece Jack Stone set devotes 12 of those pieces
to wheels and tires, and at least two to a very specific cockpit
configuration, and at least two as minifigs (do Stone figures count as one
part?). How is it preferable for a kid to net 14 or fewer useful parts, and
how can TLC claim to be promoting creativity by providing such a feeble
parts assortment? I know that some will assert the constraints on part
selection force the child to use each piece creatively, but does that really
happen? I can't imagine that it does, considering the parts available.
I don't even care that TLC is steadily reducing the piece counts and part
versatility of its sets, but it's just ridiculous to claim that they're
doing it expressly to promote creativity. Why not just say "Today's
sponge-brained kids have short attention spans, so we're not going to waste
a lot of money to make a bunch of parts. By the way, that 31-piece set
(4605) is a great value for $9.99."
Dave!
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: my biggest beef with the new product is...
|
| (...) Now *this* is the part I can't seem to get. Say you have 3 elements, and you want to reduce costs, so you create a new, juniorized piece that combines all three. Now say each of these bricks costs you .02 to produce. And then the new element (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: my biggest beef with the new product is...
|
| (...) Ok, how about these: (URL) curved track 9v straight track 9v points 9v crossing 12v points 12v crossing 12v conductor rails How many things can you build out of them? (note that I left out the 4.5v/12v straight rail since I have seen some good (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: my biggest beef with the new product is...
|
| (...) When did this become a bad thing? I thought that taking parts out of their natural context and using them in new ways was a sign of creativity. Take the showels on the front of the UCS Tie Fighter, for example. I think it is a brilliant idea (...) (23 years ago, 6-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
|
19 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
|
|
|
|
