| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Peter Root writes:
> > > In lugnet.mediawatch, Peter Root writes:
> > > And exactly what else do you do with all of this Jack Stoner stuff when
> > > you're tired of it?. Leave it on a shelf and play with something else
> > > entirely. And what did you do when you got tired of your new System set?
> > > Dismantled it and make something entirely different *from it*. The new lines
> > > are fad toys (as was already said), like collecting action man, stickers or
> > > top trumps - where's the creativity, imagination and choice in that?
>
> first of all, i didnt write what you quote me saying, i believe that was
> cris, but i agree with him.
No, I think you'll find I quoted Cris, and said so, but I neglected to
deleted the part of Cris's posting with your name on it (possibly in the
same way that you accidentally deleted the bit at the beginning of my post
which said "In lugnet.mediawatch, Chris Fenter writes:"). The '>' marks
correspond to a quote from Cris, not you. I apologise if I mislead or offended.
> > When you're tired of the Jack Stone stuff, you pull it apart and build
> > something else from it.... you probably combine some of your system stuff,
>
> you cant, it sucks. which is why i dont buy that crap.
So, if you don't buy it, have you built it? Or are you going by pics?
I own a couple of sets, I've built them, they're not great, but there's some
good stuff in them.
> > because there aren't that many pieces in the smaller JS sets.
>
> our point exactly!
>
> > The JS sets
> > contain some good parts, but some parts are larger (to make it easier for
> > the target market), so you get less parts in a set.
>
> and there you have it, "SOME".
Yep some. Some good parts, some average parts, some
not-useful-in-all-that-many contexts parts. Like a lot of sets.
> > ...and pieces are larger, so prices per piece are higher. Hardly suprising,
> > and hardly offensive.
>
> yes it is, cause instead of wasting mony making these parts, they could sell
> regular bricks cheaper like megabloks are doing.
They could? Maybe.
> > But why rant about JS and not about Duplo? Duplo sets tend to be less
> > flexible than similarly sized and priced JS sets, and Duplo is not nearly as
> > compatible with System.
>
> DUPLO was meant to introduce the little brick to babies, jack stone isnt
> doin that, there is no comparison, BESIDES DUPLO is still a proven basic
> building block
Wheres the basic building block in 2609, or 2636?
Jack Stone is introducing sets to kids a bit older than babies.
> > Look at the JS parts turning up in 2002 sets... there is plenty of good
> > stuff there.
>
> im looking, richie, but its scarce,
But, it *is* there.
> why you such a jackstoner fan anyways, dont you like the basic brick?
JS works fine with the basic brick. The basic brick works fine with JS. Try
it. See for yourself.
I like the basic brick, I like all the parts which work with it (varying
degrees of "like", admittedly, but nothing that I wouldn't keep...)
> i dont understand why they introduced a new
> line to go up against their own line, the minifig vs jackstone.
JS fits into the space between duplo and system. There's a bit of overlap
either way. As far as figures go, JS/creator figs are much easier for the
target market to manipulate (and harder to break).
> i just want
> cheaper sets, i work for a living and still cant afford to buy lego as much
> as i want too. yeah, i know "get a better job" have you tried lately, more
> layoffs than hirings, which is why i dont understand LEGO is introducing so
> many different lines.
No disagreement there. I don't think it follows that more lines equal higher
prices.
>
> cheers to you too
Cheers, and sorry again for the apparent misquote - it was not intentional.
Richie Dulin
FUT: off-topic.debate
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LEGO-Galidor Perspective In L.A. Times Article
|
| (...) first of all, i didnt write what you quote me saying, i believe that was cris, but i agree with him. (...) you cant, it sucks. which is why i dont buy that crap. (...) our point exactly! (...) and there you have it, "SOME". (...) yes it is, (...) (22 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
14 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
|
|
|
|
