To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 9800
9799  |  9801
Subject: 
Re: Ninja vs. "real" Castle (was: Re: More news on 2000 lineup!)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general, lugnet.castle
Date: 
Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:57:55 GMT
Viewed: 
754 times
  
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
Castle is back, and it's not very nice. I was hoping for another year
of Ninja, but I'm afraid it's back to "Knight's Kingdom". A few new

This is what I responded to.  It appears that this person refers
Ninja to more traditional Castle subthemes.

I still maintain the Ninja subtheme sucks.  I don't see how anyone
could prefer it to real Castle stuff.

<soapbox>
Mike, shame on you...

Maybe.

First of all, Thad only wrote that the new sets looked "very skimpy"
compared to the Ninja sets...that just means smaller or less substantive, it
doesn't necessarily mean that Thad likes Ninja sets better than "real"

I didn't respond to his calling them skimpy at all.

Castle sets.  (Of course he might, but you can't draw that conclusion just
from what he wrote.  And even if someone does, why does that make them a
"doofus"?)

Did you read what he wrote?  He said "I was hoping for another year
of Ninja, but I'm afraid it's back to Knight's Kingdom."  This comes
before any description of the sets as skimpy.  I don't know about
you, but if I say, "I was hoping for _____, but I'm afraid it's back
to _____" I generally think it should be understood that I prefer
the former.  Like this:

I was hoping to spend another day sleeping until 10am, but I'm
afraid it's back to getting up at 6:30am (since it is Monday).

That's how I felt this morning.  I'm sure if I said those words
everyone would understand that I would prefer to sleep until 10am,
wouldn't you?

Oh, and I don't know what you think about the word "doofus" but I
don't see it as in the same league as "moron", "idiot", or even
"cluebie".

Second, although Ninja hasn't seemed to appeal to as wide a variety of adult
builders as "real" Castle sets have, it's generally agreed that the Ninja
sets, especially the mid-range sets, represent a refreshing selection of
tasty pieces in tasty colors.  As a Space-head (not a Castle head), the

Yeah, some of the parts are cool.  The parts could have been
introduced without the subtheme shift, though.  Some of them.

Ninja play theme sets appeal to me personally more than any of the recent
"real" castle play themes like Dark Forest or Royal Knights, so I guess I'm
one of the "doofuses" who prefers the Ninja sets to other recent Castle
stuff -- at least for parts.

Ok, you said it, not me.  :)

Third, LEGO marketed the Ninja play theme heavily in Japan, releasing
several sets there which aren't available in the regular worldwide markets.
As I'm sure you can imagine, the Ninja sets are probably pretty popular with
children as well as adults in Japan.  It could hardly be a surprise if
Japanese LEGO fans prefered Ninja to "real" castle stuff, and could you call
them doofuses for that?  Gawd no.

I could call them doofuses for that, sure.  I wouldn't, but I could.

Fourth, if reading RTL is a waste of your time, you might thank Fredrik for
passing along the information he found, which did indeed contain previously
unknown tidbits of data.

Reading RTL IS a waste of my time.  Or rather, it used to be.  I
don't have time for it now.  Don't need it either.

Aside from the misguided (better word?) Castle comments, I didn't
get much out of that post, other than to marvel at another poor soul
who prefers cheesy Ninja stuff to Castle.  But yes, I do appreciate
the effort, especially if it results in the posting of a scan of the
mini-catalog so I can see for myself.

--
The parts you want and nothing else?
http://jaba.dtrh.com/ - Just Another Brick Auction
Why pay eBay? Run your own LEGO auctions for free!
http://www.guarded-inn.com/bricks/



Message has 3 Replies:
  Re: Ninja vs. "real" Castle (was: Re: More news on 2000 lineup!)
 
(...) It would appear that way, at least partially. He may also be comparing it only to the mid- to late-90's Castle sets and not to the glory days mid-80's sets...? (...) I don't see how anyone could prefer Pepsi to Coke. I don't see how anyone (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Ninja vs. "real" Castle (was: Re: More news on 2000 lineup!)
 
(...) <snip> (...) I never understood why Ninja was a Castle subtheme...to me the two series are unrelated and just because the sets represent the same era, they took place in different parts of the world and I don't see any thematic connection (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.castle)
  Re: Ninja vs. "real" Castle (was: Re: More news on 2000 lineup!)
 
(...) I will take 50 shoguns over 50 kings anyday. Heck even 50 batlords are better than 50 of those stupid kings. The new 6026 would have been the set i likely would have wanted 50 of. Not with that @#$%&* king though. Also why dose 6095 have (...) (25 years ago, 11-Nov-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.castle)

Message is in Reply To:
  Ninja vs. "real" Castle (was: Re: More news on 2000 lineup!)
 
(...) <soapbox> Mike, shame on you... First of all, Thad only wrote that the new sets looked "very skimpy" compared to the Ninja sets...that just means smaller or less substantive, it doesn't necessarily mean that Thad likes Ninja sets better than (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.castle)

49 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR