Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Jan 2002 01:15:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1162 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Dave! Nice to hear from you :-) See you next month....
"Dave Johann" <legomecha@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:GpLDLH.5BB@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> You said it yourself: 'a near-exact representation of the real thing.' How
> many people can actually draw 'a near-exact representation of the real
> thing' even with the help of a painting/drawing program. Very few, and of
> those that can even fewer of them are 12 years old or less.
But - does the Brickshelf viewership - at least those who do not like the
images - need to be subjected to them? Kevin's proposed content filters are
a Good Thing. This solves the problem for both groups. The avatars get to
be hosted somewhere, and the people who don't like them don't have to see
them.
Heck, I used to be a pixel pusher when I was that age. I spent hours
drawing airplanes from real pictures in Paintbrush. But, if I had the
opportunity to learn Photoshop back then, how much better would I be with
the real tools today? The resources available to kids online are tremendous
compared to me when I was their age in a pre-internet family.
I applaud a few kids I know who have run LEGO websites which would 'suck' to
the average surfer. I saw the same dedication in them and decided to help
them out and give advice. They constantly aimed higher.
Another debate alltogether is the EZboard-style communities and how they
naturally lack maturity and netiquette, and the users often refuse to learn
(this is an opinion I hold from experience).
> > If I decided to express my love of say, Futuron, with the same quality
> > images, not one, but say twenty or thirty, and a whole mess of friends of
> > mine decided to do the same, in effect replacing the meat content of
> > Brickshelf with our underpowered 'image editor' fantasies, wouldn't that
> > disrupt the flow of what Brickshelf has been known to showcase for the
> > viewership? (not asking if it would be wrong here, just asking if it • would
> > change the climate)
>
> Feel free to think this is what's happening if you'd like to, but that • isn't
> what's happening. The Lego community is growing and the ones complaining
> about it's growth are those who prefer the status quo of September 1999
> ratehr than January 2001. I'll take growth over the same stagnant • creations
> I've been viewing for the past 2 years.
Well, the 'status quo' MOCs have been constantly improving over the last few
years. The bar is constantly being raised. We're all growing, as a
community and as individuals.
I take a look at the spinoff forums as some sort of separatist outlet.
They're an audience to the core LEGO community, but they do their own thing.
No problem with them doing their own thing, but they're not really a part of
the core community because they separate themselves. They don't participate
to the same level as say a LUGNET user does.
Yup, its an elitist view of the community, but that's how I feel.
> Agreed, but the 'vast majority' keeps uploading the same old content over
> and over. Changing the head of a minifig doesn't make a castle MOC any • more
> exciting than it was before, but some folks do it anyway.
I've noticed this with one person and one MOC, but not with others. The one
who I'm talking about and the MOC annoy me considerably. Don't want to name
names, but if you're curious I'll tell ya in person at BricksWest or
something.
When I relate what you just said to this one person, I understand.
> > And yes, I am concerned about Brickshelf being misused. Just like I'm
> > concerned about LUGNET being on autopilot.
>
> Amen, brutha!
>
> Autopilot isn't about growth, its about stagnation.
Yup.
> > It would make it more visibly appealing, but it wouldn't change the
> nature of the image, the bandwidth it is taking up (if it is, hasn't been
> proven by stats by Kevin yet), etc.
>
> You really don't think that's true, do you? More parts for LDraw= more
> combinations. Recently Mladen Pejic asked me why I don't .DAT my • creations.
> I replied there were two reasons for this:
> 1) No Mac support
> 2) A lack of parts for things I build
>
> Believe me when I say there is a group of people who would use CAD • Bionicle
> parts if they were available.
I don't know how you picked up from my statement above that I didn't want to
see Bionicle LDraw parts? I do want to see them, I want to see [almost] [1]
all LEGO parts done in LDraw.
See my post in .general about MOCs and avatars being two different things.
This is what I was getting at.
See ya!
-Tim
[1] Well, I dont' want to see Jack Stone. 1) I don't think anyone will
model them. 2) If they were to, I would not interfere with their inclusion
at all, they're LEGO and they should be included in the library. Despite
them (subjectively) being a poor excuse for LEGO.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
122 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
