Subject:
|
Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 18:24:29 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Steve Baker <sjbaker1@#Spamcake#airmail.net>
|
Viewed:
|
802 times
|
| |
|
|
John Barnes wrote:
> I recall that construction toys (like Meccano or Lego et al.) of some years
> ago were not based around specific models as they are today, but based
> around a certain collection of parts.
Yes - I always remember looking at the 'Number 1' Meccano set (AKA
'Erector set') that came in a massive wooden trunk with layers and
layers of felt-lined trays to hold the parts. It was more like a
piece of Victorian furniture than a kids toy. They always had
sets available up to truly insane sizes and prices. I get the
impression that the larger ones were just there to give kids something
to lust after! The sets were just numbered as a function of size -
there was no theme to them at all.
> Books were provided to encourage a
> certain level of initial building experience mainly to show what the
> different bits and pieces could be used for. The emphasis, however, was on
> viewing the toy as a collection of parts rather than a "model kit" with the
> intent that the users imagination and creativity could be let loose.
Yep.
> My opinion is that once companies like Meccano and Lego caved in to the
> model oriented sets rather than piece parts sets, the rot was started.
Yes - and it's getting worse. Movie-themed sets have such a short
lifetime as 'trendy toys'...at least castles and trains are here to
stay. Just when you thought they'd hit an all-time-low with
RoboRiders, we get Bionicles - and when we'd finished reeling from
that, the truly *USELESS* Galidor sets appear. (Since when did
unplugging one Lego brick and plugging another in it's place need to
be called "Glinching"?) Even my 11 year old kid finds these too
embarrasing to own - and he's right in their demographic.
> As noted in this thread and others, there seems to be a distinct lack of
> encouragment for creative use of Lego parts which is a shame, because what
> Lego has evolved into in recent years is a truely remarkable medium in which
> an amazingly diverse group of enthusiasts with interests ranging from
> castles to trains to robotics to ... can all use the same basic system to
> forge their creations. I think this flexibility is, so far, unparalled.
I think that the bottom line here is that parents don't spend enough
time playing with their kids - if they did then they'd soon realise
why Mindstorms is good and Galidor aint.
---------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------
HomeEmail: <sjbaker1@airmail.net> WorkEmail: <sjbaker@link.com>
HomePage : http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
Projects : http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net
http://tuxkart.sf.net http://prettypoly.sf.net
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ?
|
| (...) Not to nitpick, but remember that Meccano and Erector were two distinct and different companies. The latter being somewhat of a clone of the first. That said, and in the context of this thread, there are a number of lessons the LEGO company (...) (22 years ago, 15-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego Technic: R.I.P. ?
|
| I recall that construction toys (like Meccano or Lego et al.) of some years ago were not based around specific models as they are today, but based around a certain collection of parts. Books were provided to encourage a certain level of initial (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
18 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
|
|
|
|
