Subject:
|
Re: Expert Builder website - Great response results in first update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:29:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1248 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Richie Dulin writes:
> In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Richie Dulin writes:
> > > In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > Additionally, two more LEGO product reviews have been added. One is of a
> > > > vintage dream set, the other of a modern nightmare.
> > > > [snip]
> > >
> > > I realise the 'modern nightmare' you are referring to here is the "Final
> > > Dual [sic] II", but I would like to challenge you on one of your earlier
> > > reviews, the much hated Set #4611 - Jack Stone Police Headquarters.
> > >
> > > I'm curious whether you've conducted the review on the actual set, or if
> > > you're just going by photos. From the review, it seems the latter is the case. • [snip]
> > > The columns included with the Jack Stone sets are not simply replacements
> > > for stacks of 2x2 brick columns:
> > >
> > > - They have...
> >
> > (Misc snipped comments on the value of the Jack Stone columns)
> >
> > Which is well and good, but doesn't get away from the fact that they are
> > simply unLEGOlike pieces.
>
> UnLEGOlike pieces? They connect to standard studs in two directions, they
> connect to standard tubes in one, they connect to the standard slot system,
> they connect to technic axles (I think), and they connect to standard clips.
> And, yes, they can, more or less substitute for a stack of 2x2 bricks (in
> most cases). Get hold of some and have a look.
I really have no interest in them. I'm a traditional brick snob, I don't
hide that. They are a specialty piece intended to hide poor design. I'm
disappointed by the LEGO company's approach to their own product and a
review like that is my way of letting them know what one of their customers
thinks of their work.
> > The review is based entirely on opinion.
>
> But not on an actual viewing of the pieces/building of the set. Do you also
> do movie reviews based on trailers? And book reviews based on the back cover?
It is my hope that I can steer even one parent away from buying one Jack
Stone set (with that particular review, other reviews are much more
favorable). Based on the numbers of Jack Stone sets still on store shelves
today, I wonder if my review was even necessary. Looks like a lot of LEGO
shoppers made up their own minds already.
> > Expert Builder reviews are meant to be entertaining, in the case of good
> > sets, or to help raise awareness in the case of poor sets.
>
> But not based on fact? Your statement "the same effect could have been
> achieved with simple traditional 2x2 bricks" is just plain wrong.
Then my opinion is wrong, in your mind. That is o.k. with me. The comment
is intended to indicate that better use of traditional LEGO bricks could
have resulted in a better overall set design.
> Why don't you go and buy one of the sets
It's a personal boycott.
> Play fair.
I was playing entirely fair, according to the mandate of my site. Expert
Builder is not LUGNET, different rules apply.
The reviews on Expert Builder are *meant* to be provocative and not
necessarily kind. I take it from your comments that you're not comfortable
with these types of reviews, and that's o.k. That's why those comments were
posted there and not here. I had begun to feel in recent weeks that I was
posting too many negative comments to LUGNET and perhaps spoiling some
people's enjoyment of the hobby in this venue. That was the spark behind my
decision to recreate the Expert Builder site as an "alternative voice for
LEGO fans"
Regards,
Allan B.
- The Expert Builder website
- http://www.apotome.com/builder/index.htm
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
63 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
|
|
|
|
