| |
Posting this again, I wrote it before but for some reason it didn't show up.
James, I agree 100% with what you said here. I think this is pretty sad. I
believe in the LEGO system of play strongly, I just wish LEGO believed in it
too.
-Tim
In lugnet.general, James Simpson writes:
> In lugnet.general, Jake McKee writes:
>
> > I remember them very well. I also remember that the models in the box and
> > showcased on the back of the box weren't as sophisticated as they are today.
> > Not only because of a wider range of pieces, but an improved sense of design
> > and realism has made the models more detailed, better looking and somewhat
> > more complicated. I was actually looking through an old idea book last night
> > and was chuckling about how far LEGO design has come. (But really, aren't
> > today's alternative images the same concept as far as that goes?)
>
> Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The models of 10,
> 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism, details, and
> attractiveness.
>
> Yesteryear: Garage Doors
> Today: No garage doors
>
> Yesteryear: Cars with doors and chasis you could build
> Today: No doors, and one-piece chasis pieces
>
> Yesteryear: Buildings made primarily from basic bricks
> Today: Buildigns made primarily from POOPs
>
> IMHO, by every parameter, Town, Castle, and Space sets of yesteryear were
> designed with greater detail, attractiveness, and *care*. I'd wager that almost
> every AFOL here would agree that set quality has dropped precipitously since the
> early 90's. There has not been any System model between 97-01 that can compare
> to the best sets of any year between 1978 and 1996. What has changed for the
> better in the past few years is that Lego is offering a more versatile range of
> elements, especially the old parts in new colors. However, the irony here is
> that Lego chooses not to enhance set design and playability with this great
> expanded range of parts; instead, however, models are dumbed down and diluted by
> careless set design and over-dependence of POOPs and BURPs.
>
> I'd also wager that kids are more sophisticated these days. Does Lego mean to
> suggest that, while I did just fine with un-seeded instructions back in the
> early 80's (I'm 26), kids these days just can't handle the same concept, the
> same task? Does Lego think that kids these days are less inteligent than the
> old guard?
>
> In regards to the old idea books, most of the models therein were great examples
> of construction possible with existing elements. I'm afraid to say that current
> System sets are for the most part uninspiring - they are the kind of slapdash
> nonsense that wouldn't suprise me from a lesser company. And the real irony,
> the real tragedy, is that Lego is eroding its future customer base. Lego of
> yesteryear captured the imagination - set design, alternate-model-box-designs,
> and Idea books captivated our imaginations; there really was a sense of wonder
> about it that made us fall in love with the Brick. Do curent System sets have
> that same effect today? I doubt it. Not because kids these days can't be
> inspired by non-media entertainment, but at least in this case, because Lego has
> lost its way.
>
> respectfully,
>
> james
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The models of 10, 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of realism, details, and attractiveness. Yesteryear: Garage Doors Today: No garage doors Yesteryear: Cars with doors (...) (24 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
|
81 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
