Subject:
|
Re: Millennium Falcon Opinion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 May 2000 16:30:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
790 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Mark Sandlin wrote:
> In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
>
> > 'scuse me? I thought kids were supposed to have *fun* with LEGO first, • not
> > suffer through character-building exercises.
>
> Scuse me? Since when was building things out of LEGO considered
> "suffering?" I sure wasn't "suffering" when I was a kid and got my 6980
> Galaxy Commander... I was thrilled! It was the biggest spaceship of the
> LEGO lineup at the time! And look, it's primarily made from blue and
> white! Even when I mistook a 2x2 slope for a 2x3 slope and had to go
> back a few steps to fix it, I still wasn't "suffering".
It all depends on your definitions. 'Suffering' to one person is
'enjoying' to another.[1] Some kids would be highly frustrated by having
to backtrack a couple of steps. Some won't.
In your earlier post, you said:
> IMO, if you
> have to learn to differentiate between parts, it only makes you a better
> builder.
(BTW, I generally agree with your opinion. Being better at
parts-differentiation is part of being a 'better' builder.)
You said "have to". That implies doing something whether one wants to or
not. Usually, being forced into something can be interpreted as involving
a certain amount of 'suffering'.
Also, you said (more-or-less) "having to do X makes you a better Y". To
me, that sounds like a rationalization for enforced character building.
Which goes back around to 'suffering', because character-building is
supposed to be unpleasant, not fun.
Building with LEGO is an *optional* activity. There's no way to *make*
someone play with LEGO. If LEGO sets are designed with a higher
requirement for learning to differentiate parts, then people who find that
activity unpleasant are less likely to enjoy building from LEGO sets. And
it's likely that they'll generalize from "I didn't like building that set"
to "I don't like playing with LEGO". And they'll play with LEGO less
often. Which could lead to them being a poorer builder, rather than a
better builder.
Steve
--
1) Hmm. Better not chase that one too far. This is a Family Newsgroup.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Millennium Falcon Opinion
|
| (...) So? Does that mean LEGO should pander to the lowest-common-denominator and the short-of-attention-span by making their sets build-by-color? Bah. I think long-time LEGO builders all possess a certain retentiveness that allows them to paw (...) (25 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
| | | Re: Millennium Falcon Opinion
|
| (...) Well, I don't think I agree with the 'supposed to' part. I think OFTEN, character building is unpleasant, but I think it can be fun as well... ESPECIALLY when you can see the results. As someone else pointed out (James S. I think) he was (...) (25 years ago, 24-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Millennium Falcon Opinion
|
| (...) not (...) a (...) Scuse me? Since when was building things out of LEGO considered "suffering?" I sure wasn't "suffering" when I was a kid and got my 6980 Galaxy Commander... I was thrilled! It was the biggest spaceship of the LEGO lineup at (...) (25 years ago, 19-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
88 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
|
|
|
|
