Subject:
|
Re: Mathematical proof that you can't build anything with LEGO bricks
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:38:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
19651 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
He’s got a (half baked) hypothesis. He wrote a paper 10 years ago and is
still milking it. Don’t confuse him with data.
|
I think he’s doing the same thing that virtually everyone does when they see
modern LEGO-- trying to figure out why they don’t like it as much.
Everyone that grew up with LEGO seems to go through that same stage of
curmudgeon-ity, where they think that the new LEGO sets are awful, and the old
stuff is WAY better.
One of the more defiant examples being one recently of someone who was born in
the early 90’s, who thought that roughly 1998-2005 was the “golden age” of LEGO,
despite the fact that it was probably the roughest time for LEGO when the sales
figures bear out the fact that it was pretty bad.
Anyway, he’s trying to wrap his brain around why he doesn’t like the new LEGO
sets that he’s seeing, and he latched onto the paper that he wrote years ago,
despite the fact that the paper doesn’t really prove anything about the
*quality* of a building toy-- it just proved certain tendencies for part
diversity in some cross-section of LEGO’s lineup (I’m not even sure if his
cross-section made any sense).
So, he’s mis-applying the conclusions that he came to 10 years ago-- which were
actually pretty interesting. But I don’t think they don’t serve as evidence to
validate his claim that modern LEGO is terrible. I think that reaction is due to
the specificity of modern parts, and the decreased focus on building that LEGO
has now. And that’s basically where much of the target market has taken LEGO--
quite successfully!
For the record, I’m not sure I’d call that particular trend “juniorization”, but
we (the community) probably ought to have some sort of other term for it. Things
like Exo-Force, Ninjago, Mars Mission, etc, aren’t really *juniorized* per se,
so much as they’re focused on non-rebuilding. They’re feature-rich, less focused
on exercising kids’ imaginations, and more “specific” rather than “iconic”.
By contrast, I think of “juniorized” as having fewer pieces that are simpler to
assemble for younger age groups. But these models often involve more complex
technic assemblies that are actually pretty difficult to build for young kids.
But they’re just intended to STAY built.
But maybe that’s just my concept of “juniorization”. Perhaps the term is meant
to encompass these other aspects as well, or has been sufficiently used to that
end in the community?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
34 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
|
|
|
|
